It's just not cricket
November 16, 2012 12:01 AM Subscribe
As accreditation to many photographic news agencies is declined by the BCCI (Board of Cricket Control for India), The Telegraph publishes its own images of action from the India vs England first test match, while the Guardian goes retro.
Coverage of the dispute in the India, Pakistan, South Africa and New Zealand media.
Coverage of the dispute in the India, Pakistan, South Africa and New Zealand media.
The Daily Mail has also, finally, shown its moral spine by boycotting all footage to highlight the absurdity of the BCCI's stance.
Oh wait, no it hasn't. It's lifted pictures from Sky Sports.
posted by MuffinMan at 1:07 AM on November 16, 2012
Oh wait, no it hasn't. It's lifted pictures from Sky Sports.
posted by MuffinMan at 1:07 AM on November 16, 2012
Here are the accreditation rules from the BCCI: PDF, Docs View.
The relevant clauses seem to be
The relevant clauses seem to be
The Accredited Party may, notwithstanding paragraph 1 above and provided that he/she is an accredited photographer, originate still photographic pictures of a Match for editorial use on or in print media, websites and within news services such as syndication services and in the case of a news agency for their clients/customers provided that:posted by Gyan at 1:26 AM on November 16, 2012
(a)...
(b)...
(c) The still images are used only for bona fide editorial purposes and are not used for any Commercial Purpose (as defined below).
English newspapers can't get accreditation to take their own photos - and I'm watching a live feed on my laptop in transit at an airport. Exactly who benefits from this deal?
posted by Hobo at 1:29 AM on November 16, 2012
posted by Hobo at 1:29 AM on November 16, 2012
English newspapers can't get accreditation to take their own photos
Where are you getting this from?
From the links above,
The Telegraph is publishing these drawings instead of live pictures from the first Test in protest at the Indian cricket board's (BCCI) refusal to give access to certain picture agencies which we view as a restriction on the freedom of the press. All other UK media groups are taking the same steps (although their captions might be funnier.)
and
Because the BCCI have refused to allow certain picture agencies access to the ground, the Guardian, along with other UK media groups, is not publishing live pictures from the first Test in protest.
So, the English newspapers can and do have accreditation.
The BCCI's beef seems to be with agencies which sell theirs photos to both news outlets as well as non-news customers. Those agencies have been refused permission.
posted by Gyan at 1:38 AM on November 16, 2012
Where are you getting this from?
From the links above,
The Telegraph is publishing these drawings instead of live pictures from the first Test in protest at the Indian cricket board's (BCCI) refusal to give access to certain picture agencies which we view as a restriction on the freedom of the press. All other UK media groups are taking the same steps (although their captions might be funnier.)
and
Because the BCCI have refused to allow certain picture agencies access to the ground, the Guardian, along with other UK media groups, is not publishing live pictures from the first Test in protest.
So, the English newspapers can and do have accreditation.
The BCCI's beef seems to be with agencies which sell theirs photos to both news outlets as well as non-news customers. Those agencies have been refused permission.
posted by Gyan at 1:38 AM on November 16, 2012
I was hoping for some nice engravings.
posted by He Is Only The Imposter at 3:26 AM on November 16, 2012 [1 favorite]
How is this any different than giving exclusive broadcast rights to certain TV networks? American sports leagues and the Olympics do this all the time. I'm asking this honestly - how do sports photojournalism and television differ?
posted by bluefly at 6:55 AM on November 16, 2012
posted by bluefly at 6:55 AM on November 16, 2012
American sports leagues provide exclusive broadcast rights, but usually open the press pool to accredited sports reporters and photogs from most media who are allowed to publicize what they got after the event, not during.
As avaricious as sports leagues are for the extra lucre that exclusive contracts provide, they know that if they cut off too much press access, fewer people will hear about their events, and they'll begin drawing fewer fans.
posted by ardgedee at 8:31 AM on November 16, 2012
As avaricious as sports leagues are for the extra lucre that exclusive contracts provide, they know that if they cut off too much press access, fewer people will hear about their events, and they'll begin drawing fewer fans.
posted by ardgedee at 8:31 AM on November 16, 2012
The Guardian have a terrible record on photographers copyrights - as well as embedding freely available youtube videos with their own adverts repurposed on top.
posted by sgt.serenity at 10:37 AM on November 16, 2012
posted by sgt.serenity at 10:37 AM on November 16, 2012
« Older No pony simply trots into Maredor | Cambodian Trees Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
An English batsman putting on sunscreen.
What do you call an English cricket player with 100 runs next to his name?
A bowler.
posted by Talez at 12:09 AM on November 16, 2012 [7 favorites]