February 23, 2006 1:24 PM   Subscribe

Should the LPGA control photos taken at its events to this extent? It seems like they are shooting themselves in the foot. Don't they want to be featured in the press? Are they infringing on the photographer's "rights"? More info here.
posted by tcobretti (27 comments total)
Is this all because of the that one bad trophy-kissing photo from a few years back?
posted by mathowie at 1:26 PM on February 23, 2006

You mean the infamous "glasscock" of b3ta fame?
posted by jenovus at 1:29 PM on February 23, 2006

Wow. I'm amazed how most sports don't live in reality in terms of their sport's appeal. If you're not the NFL or Nascar right now, you have no leverage. MLB is getting some back after their strike, but jeez, LPGA?
posted by dig_duggler at 1:31 PM on February 23, 2006

I really don't understand what they could possibly mean by "non-commercial promotion". It seems like a glaring contradiction in terms, but obviously the LPGA must want to have those rights for a reason.
posted by clevershark at 1:31 PM on February 23, 2006

Photographers "must refrain from taking photos until after a player has made her swing or stroke."

I assume this is a reaction to complaints by golfers about distracting camera noise, but WTF? You can photograph a golf event, but not when the golfers are actually playing golf?

I guess the media can just recycle old photos. No one would be able to tell the difference anyway.
posted by brain_drain at 1:40 PM on February 23, 2006

They're demanding rights on all pro photos taken at an LPGA event? That's crazy.

Do any other professional sports leagues do this?
posted by bshort at 1:42 PM on February 23, 2006

I get it, this is that new inverse marketing, they are going to reduce their market exposure to increase profits!

Ummm, good luck with that.
posted by fenriq at 1:54 PM on February 23, 2006

A photographer or news organization must promptly supply the LPGA with any photo or digital file it requests at no cost.

Surprisingly, the original draft of this requirement was even more stringent:

A photographer or news organization must promptly supply the LPGA with any photo, digital file, or pony it requests at no cost.
posted by mhum at 1:55 PM on February 23, 2006

clevershark - That was exactly my thought. What is "non-commerical promotion" within the context of a pro sport?
posted by davebush at 1:55 PM on February 23, 2006

Is this why?
posted by chaz at 1:57 PM on February 23, 2006

I just got so turned on.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:02 PM on February 23, 2006

I doubt this is related Chaz, since that photo wouldn't be prevented by the new rule requirements. I'm pretty sure this is all about greed, on both parties parts. LPGA wanted free promo pictures, AP wanted to be paid for them.

LPGA does have a charitable wing (sports for the poor/etc); non-commercial promotions could be under that umbrella somewhere...
posted by nomisxid at 2:04 PM on February 23, 2006

I didn't even know what the LGPA was until I hit comment number 5. They perhaps need a bit more publicity.
posted by davejay at 2:06 PM on February 23, 2006

A discussion by the pros themselves.

Also, the local papers in Hawaii aren't covering it either.
posted by smackfu at 2:12 PM on February 23, 2006

Um, er why doesn't the LPGA hire their own damn photographers? Then they would chowned all the rights. However I think they are a bit over the top demanding photos at no cost. The AP et al are not non-profit organizations.
posted by Gungho at 2:12 PM on February 23, 2006

(And it's surprising how often this kind of thing comes up. They figure they have leverage to change the agreement, but usually the press bands together and refuses to comply and the sport backs down.)
posted by smackfu at 2:13 PM on February 23, 2006

I gotta start watching the LPGA if chaz's photo is any indication of what they've got going on! Hot damn!
posted by fenriq at 2:13 PM on February 23, 2006

Their sponsors must be ecstatic.
posted by srboisvert at 2:24 PM on February 23, 2006

The AP et al are not non-profit organizations.

Actually, the AP is a non-profit cooperative. But its member companies are mostly for-profit businesses, so your general point remains valid.
posted by brain_drain at 2:28 PM on February 23, 2006

golf right? is there anything more boring than a golf match...

oh, wait, that would be pictures of a golf match..?

posted by HuronBob at 2:28 PM on February 23, 2006

HuronBob please see chaz's photo above.
posted by caddis at 2:33 PM on February 23, 2006

Actualy, they are not restricting anything, just demanding rights to use the photos that are taken at their events, from what I can tell.
posted by delmoi at 2:59 PM on February 23, 2006

Also, yes, these restrictions won't stop anyone from using any photos (other then the ones that can't be taken). It wouldn't have stopped the glasscock.
posted by delmoi at 3:02 PM on February 23, 2006

I'm confused. Under this new rule ("must refrain from taking photos until after a player has made her swing or stroke"), has the player, in the photo Chaz posted, made her stroke yet or not? I'm thinking she hasn't.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 3:30 PM on February 23, 2006

You know on a much smaller scale I'm running into this locally a lot.

I freelance for a local paper and get a lot of greif from local performers, even after I think I've cleared it with people in charge.

I really have a hard time understanding why anyone out to make a buck, a name or something else for themselves wouldn't want a crap load of photos taken during an event or performance.
posted by FlamingBore at 6:53 PM on February 23, 2006

The LPGA seems to want to get free/reduced price photography. I posted this story on a photography forum here to see what other photographers think about it.
posted by TedW at 7:56 PM on February 23, 2006


A review of the LPGA site shows images with photo credits which read either LPGA.com or "Getty Images".

A search of Getty's site reveals that they've covered a number of events, including Tour Schools, and numerous tournaments, since about 2002 - 92 events are returned when a search for "LPGA" is done in editorial/sports.

While there is no immediate information which reveals whether or not Getty is under contract, and would have a fiduciary interest in keeping out AP (since Getty regularily licenses images to AP member papers nationwide) and further, would want to keep images out of AP WIDE WORLD photo archives all LPGA images, thus increasing the revenues from their archives, all the while precluding others to resell images down the line, it certainly seems to be similar to other Getty deals.

A few excerpts from a March 2004 PDN article:

"Getty Locks Up Major League Baseball Partnership"

"Getty Images has strengthened its already tight grip on the sports picture business by extending its existing alliance with Major League Baseball...MLB will continue to pay contributors to cover games, and their pictures will then be sent to Getty. All commercial sales will be filtered through Getty and/or approved by the league. Orlowsky says Getty will not hire additional sports staffers, but will continue to offer freelancers day rates and contributor agreements...

"Since it bought Allsport in the late '90s, Getty has become the most successful--and aggressive--sports agency in the industry. Getty currently has at least 16 revenue-sharing deals with sports leagues, including the National Basketball Association (NBA) and National Hockey League (NHL). (Getty was close to finalizing a pact with the National Football League late last year, but protests from photographers put that deal on hold)."

(That NHL deal ultimately went to Wire Image).

In November of 2004, PDN also reported:

"...The problems stem from what Getty officials call "post-editorial relationships," which are revenue-sharing deals with major sports leagues such as the NBA, NHL and MLB....Getty currently has at least 16 such agreements with various leagues and governing bodies, most recently signing on to become the exclusive distributor of images owned by British Premier League soccer team Manchester United....Getty pays League ABC X dollars a year for Y years, and agrees to split all commercial sales with League ABC, in return for unfettered access to games and broad rights to license game images."

So, there could be another agency/service who is causing this uproar and trying to force the AP to restrict resales, but given that Getty is trying more and more to take over the news business, that they have deals with SIXTEEN sports leagues, this could be just one more salvo against the AP to increase the numbers in their play reports to attempt to marginalize AP and increase their value to the newspapers.

I just found this on a thread linked on the thread TedW posted. I thought it put an interesting spin on the situation.
posted by tcobretti at 7:15 AM on February 24, 2006

« Older Veedub representing deutschland   |   JIHAD COLA: For the Warrior Within! Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments