Stop Press: Peter 'Joli' Wilson on the ASP's new media deal
It's in the fine print. It always is. A fortnight ago the ASP sent out emails for media accreditation to the Quiksilver Pro, the first event run under the auspices of ZoSea. And there it was, in 8 point font buried within the terms and conditions, cold manifestation of the ASP's new media deal:
“I hereby assign in full the rights to all audio, visual, still image or moving content I generate at the Event to ASP. By selecting 'I agree' you agree to the aforementioned terms and conditions.”
There was much more detail in the fine print but the gist of it was this: the ASP are claiming ownership of any content created or captured at an ASP event, at least while that person has an ASP-accredited lanyard around their neck.
One person who doesn't 'agree' with the new terms and conditions is Peter 'Joli' Wilson. Joli has followed the ASP World Tour for over twenty years and has built the largest archival library of competitive surfing imagery in the world.
In October Joli was approached by the ASP to work full time for them. He had a meeting, where he conveyed an interest but sought further information about the role. Joli never heard back from the ASP. Craig Braithwaite recently spoke to Joli about the ASP's new media deal.
Swellnet: What is your understanding of the new media accreditation rules?
Joli: Basically by obtaining a media pass for all ASP events, you are signing over ownership of all audio interviews, video and stills imagery to the ASP for no monetary compensation.
Why is the ASP doing this?
They told me they are basing their media model on American sports leagues. Which doesn’t sound right. I’m not familiar with their [America’s] laws but I’ve covered International Rugby Union and cricket tests in the past, and they make sure you are who you say you are and they approve who you’re working for. But once that’s done they do not ask for your copyright. You still own all of your images and are free to do what you like with them.
The speculation is the ASP are attempting to protect their intellectual property rights. I was told the ASP no longer is going to allow anyone, people or companies, to make money from the ASP brand.
Sure, that affects the bigger companies. Like those RedBull 21-day productions. They will no longer be able to use ASP competitive imagery in their productions. But also freelance photographers and videographers will get caught up in the new media accreditation rules.
What they have told me could technically happen is this kind of scenario: I can shoot a whole day for 10 hours on the beach. At the end of the day an ASP representative can approach me and ask for all of my memory cards. At that point I would no longer own the photos, and we would enter, to use the ASP’s catchphrase, a ‘content share’ of those images.
I’m not even sure content share is a legal term, is it? Whatever. I would then have to ask the ASP for permission to use my own images. They can simply say no, if they do not like the way in which I will use them.
It now makes no sense for me to shoot all day, because I don’t own my images at the end of it.
So you do all of this for a cooked lunch then?
Well, yeah basically. Even then that has its perils. You have to sign a new waiver where you will absolve ASP from all damages caused if you were to suffer food poisoning or get a bone stuck in your throat. That’s new too. We’ve always signed waivers with Billabong to enter into a boat in the Teahupo’o channel and whatnot. But now we have to sign one to eat at an event.
Do you think the ASP have thought this through entirely?
I’m not sure what they’ve done. There is no major sport in Australia with a similar working model to the ASP’s new media one. Not the NRL, the AFL or the ARU or Cricket. Once you're approved with your media accreditation in those sports, you own all of your images. You can and do with them whatever you please.
You might recall the Indian Cricket Board (ICB) a while back tried to seize strict control over their cricketing images and film. The Australian press boycotted the Sub Continent tour. Didn’t cover any of it at all, out of protest to the ICB’s ridiculous demands.
On the news here, you’d watch the sport and they’d simply just read the scores. No comment on achievements or highlights, no video, no highlights. Just nothing. The same with the newspapers. Just the scores in a tiny corner of the back pages.
The only losers in that little skirmish were cricket and the fans who love the game. No thought was given to any of that. I can’t help but feel this is a little the same with what the ASP is attempting to do. Sport is nothing without its fans.
What happens now for you?
I’m not sure. Perhaps of more importance and concern than the short term, where magazines and whatnot buy my images, is my archival library. I’ve been building it since 1972. I’ve followed the tour for the last 20 plus years and eked out nothing more than a meagre living. Now that doesn’t even seem likely anymore.
Suddenly it's hard for me to justify spending money when I’m not getting any archival footage for my library. I’ve got the largest competitive surfing library in the sport. People come to me for those images sometimes five or ten years after I’ve taken the shot.
I dunno where to now. Maybe I’ll turn my attention to pet portraits. There’s actually more money in that (laughs).
What impact will this have on surfing?
Well it's my understanding of Australian law where I can take a photo of anyone I like while I am in a public place. So it now makes more sense to me to not get a media pass, therefore I get to keep all of my images, as long as they were taken while standing on public land. I can exercise my right to stand in a public place and snap photos.
The problem with committing to this as a new business plan is; who is to say I will be able to get anywhere near the surfers to get the images I need? There’s a lot of time and expense being put into a maybe.
No other sport I’m familiar with does this, so it will be interesting to see how it all pans out at Snapper. It will be a trial of sorts, and until we see it [the new media plan] in action, we won’t know how successful it will be. I know a lot of photographers who aren’t bothering with media passes, and a few who are taking a wait and see approach.
How does all of this make you feel?
Well I read a Nick Carroll article over at Surfline just now, and he talked to Kelly and got some direct quotes from him. Kelly said, “Some people are getting left out under the new arrangements and deals,” So Kelly, to me, is endorsing ZoSea and the new direction they’re taking. I’ve covered the Tour since ’89 when Kelly first entered professional surfing. There is not a photographer out there with a bigger or better catalogue of Kelly’s competitive career than myself. And I’m one of the ones now getting left out. I wonder what Kelly would say to that?
Swellnet attempted to contact Kelly for this story, but he chose not to answer our request for an interview. //CRAIG BRAITHWAITE
Joli mentions the Red Bull '21 Days' series and how they profited off the back of the ASP. It's worth noting other examples for how this new media deal may play out.
Ford sponsors Mick Fanning but they don't sponsor the ASP (they recently pulled out, no more bucks for Bells). Under the new fine print Ford would be unlikely to get access to footage of Mick winning contests, or Mick holding the trophy aloft, all the imagery that makes sponsoring Mick Fanning worthwhile. Potentially, Mick Fanning is now worth less to Ford.
With surf company sponsorship dwindling, WT surfers are increasingly turning to non-endemic sponsorships. They're selling themselves as the world's best competitive surfers, but what use are they to a sponsor if the sponsor can't use footage of the surfer competing?
You're so on it. Some genius at the ASP didn't think it through. Arrogance and stupidity are often favored bedfellows.
Only problem with a potential boycott by the media is that the ASP won't give a rat's arse. It's a loss to them. Imagine someone potentially missing Joli's frames of that wave at Fiji during the Volcom Pro
And right there, that encapsulates the situation. The surfing fans and the sport itself are the big casualties in the Americanisation of the ASP, if that scenario ever happens just once!
Trying to monetise something like surfing that perhaps should not be a business to begin with, is a minefield.
Hypothetically. What happens after a couple of years of not making money, being a business now, that's unacceptable failure that cannot continue.
Do Zosea drop the ASP and go their separate way? The ASP in the meantime, has burnt many of its old and existing bridges, maybe enough for the Tour to collapse completely.
Can't help but feel they're playing with fire here and they're all dressed in firelighters.
Is there anyway the surf community can complain to Zosea? Maybe some sort of petition? It sounds like it is heading toward a secret society. What the Yanks fail to realise is that we aren't all citizens of the USA. I wonder how this exclusivity sits within Australian law? The Australian leg could be claimed to be important Australian cultural events and if so, are far more open than something happening overseas. Doesn't cricket have something which ensures it has to be broadcast free to air? Maybe we should get the pollies involved? I doubt Kelly really cares that much about what happens here, he is a citizen of the world. I know the pro's want to make plenty of money out of their pursuit however who ever got into surfing to make money?
Can I ask why Peter thinks that Kelly is siding with ZoSea after his comment of “Some people are getting left out under the new arrangements and deals,” ?
Sure. Just the ambivalent nature of Kelly's comments stuck with Joli and hurt (the entire interview sheds more light on the situation).
Thanks Braithy... I will have to head over to surfline and check the whole interview!
Kim Jong Un working for ASP?
Just cross that section out, initial the change, sign the doc and roll on. Maybe they won't even notice~!
The media accreditation form is complete and utter bullshit. Pete's dead right. Don't get a press pass, buy your own lunch at the Snapper Surfie (great value) and shoot and sell whatever you like on a public beach. It's called democracy, but apparently not as they know it in the land of the free.
Yep dead right public space. Stuff them.
Dead right, Phil!
and good on you, Peter... the images you take are yours and yours alone. That's what copyright is all about... The AFL tried to stop all the enthusiasts; in the end they had to hire hundreds of journos, photogs and other media people to source and control their own AFL images etc in a bid to regulate what the public saw. It upset a lot of people to the point where former enthusiasts suddenly went over to the 'dark side' and looked for dirt. Up til now, photogs have been pretty friendly towards ASP and occasionally turned a blind eye to some of the silly stuff... The ASP has withdrawn goodwill... so what do they expect will happen? It won't be nice.
I think there's a point where ASP won't be serving the consumer (fans) but start serving their own self image (ASP brand)
Yes there is… it was passed a long time ago!
"Because we fight for democracy, doesn't mean we practice it". Unknown American.
Right on, Phil. I wonder if this crap can prevent the "free" shooter at any of the world's venues? The Goldie event should be an interesting test.
This may not be new?
Just had a glance at the MR Pro media accreditation form from last year
"All broadcast rights, photographic rights, video rights and Internet rights remain the property of theDrug Aware Pro Margaret River and ASP Australasia."
There was also some stuff on there about Fair Dealings (s103B of the Copyright Act) which means you can use the official ASP footage, up to a point.
If you don't sign the accreditation form, the law would appear to be on your side and actually protect your own copyright to the images you take. The ASP can prevent you from entering or eject you from the event site, but they can't keep you off a public beach.
Good find re: Margaret River. However the fact that this flew under the radar is probably testament to the amount of third party media who attended the event.
If you have any doubts about that, I believe the organisers have to tell you what the designated competition area actually is... and it has to be a fairly designated competition area (too big and they may have some serious insurance issues).
In the case of a surf competition, I dare say the designated competition area would be below the water line....
So: don't sign anything, keep your toes out of the water; and try to disguise your 800mm as a drinks container....
Maybe I am wrong but I thought Cricket was run by people who are fans of cricket, footy the same ect but now surfing or the ASP seems to be run by people who are not surfers, have no passion or consideration with people who have been a part of it for many years. Zosea will and seems to be screwing this up before the first comp has even started.Going to be a long year.
The quiksilver connections with ZoSea reek.
Bit of a grey area, who owns or is in control of the area between high and low water mark ? always assumed it was no mans land ?
Whaaat whats your call on this ?
' Up til now, photogs have been pretty friendly towards ASP and occasionally turned a blind eye to some of the silly stuff... The ASP has withdrawn goodwill... so what do they expect will happen? It won't be nice'
Very good point Andy Berry. Will it be a matter of time before some Paparazzo types decide to publish images of our so called squeaky clean pros snorting lines, then head deep in a bucket bong after feeling up some under age surf groupie?
Those pictures are worth money and not just to surf fans.
"The ASP can prevent you from entering or eject you from the event site, but they can't keep you off a public beach."
The event site is a public beach isn't it? Under what circumstances can they eject someone?
You can see where this is going when wave pools appear and become more prolific. You will be searched for cameras etc before you are allowed to enter the wave pool area to watch the surfing competitions that will inevitably be held there.
Inside their fences and scaffolding, Steve. As per their licence agreement.
Restricting physical access to the best vantage point is their only option. The law is on your side with regards to content and ownership.
There is a great photo somewhere of a photographers strike. A line down each side of the French PM as he walked out of a conference and not one photographer taking a pic. Not saying you do that....but you know...something needs to be said. If no-one takes pics or vid, well what have the ASP got. Big nought, nothing, zilch. Some phone footage that a kid swaps for a T-shirt
The Drug Aware Pro form isn't an assignment of IP rights (although I can't see the attached disclaimer and release etc. to check). This Zosea approach is the stadium event type of assignment from the US, where access is fully controlled. Would be good to see what it says about the moral rights of the photographer (e.g. rights of attribution) - which are held by the individual photog - as opposed to copyright itself which might be held by their employer (if any). Expect it says moral rights are waived (US law) or photog consents to acts which otherwise would infringe their rights. That would take away the right to have their name attributed to the images.
I would suggest that Joli's back catalogue & image library maybe more valuable now than ever before if the images are harder to obtain? If he has not physically signed the copyright over to anyone he is the sole owner of the work as of 1997.
However these are commercial event's and I doubt Joli has been given signed consent to use the images of the surfers for commercial gain in the past. Unless that's part of the surfer's agreement? The handing over of memory card files is pretty sketchy but stopping on selling of their images is surely a no-brainer???
Sad but it seems in keeping with their brave new world approach. It also opens the gap between the "elite" and the rest of us even further. I imagine they will hire a few photographers on a daily rate plus bonuses and parcel the images out selectively. This theoretically gives them more leverage over magazine and web site editorial; negative comment equalling no photos. But I'm still hoping those wax wings are going to melt and they all come crashing down to Earth.
The ASP has no problem with commandeering open public space for their own exclusive financial benefit. Who gives them the right to kick out a sea of local surfers for their annual circus only to then turn around and do this to their own media contingent. The accountants are waxing up their walters on this decision.Bring back the hippy ,peace and love and Rabbit surfing granites in the Nude.....Oh! Wait ....maybe not Rabbit?
why doesn't someone ask Joli if any of the many surfers he has photo'd over the years have ever shared in the money he has earned using their image... who's using who?
Photographers and pro-surfers have a symbiotic relationship. It benefits the pro-surfer to have their picture taken as it pleases their sponsors. I would have thought that was pretty simple to understand.
What about the surfers that Joili's images have propelled? What value do they have?
Eric the reality of surf photography is that the overheads are high and the returns are pathetic. Anyone who sticks with it in the longer term must really love what they do. The traditional arrangement has always been that the surfers were glad to have their images appear without payment as it increased their marketability. The situation now is that the ASP wants to unilaterally change a long standing arrangement with freelance photographers. Given that sports administrators have been genetically modified to be absolute worst nightmare control freaks, this is probably more about controlling their media image than scamming the pathetic incomes of the photographers.
Best summary. Let's face surf photography is a piss poor career choice. But then again there are many that see some kind of 'celeb' in it.
No matter how many restrictions are locked in, the power of the pen will prevail. The truth will be told. As for the rest of the media, that do comply, some people will do anything to just belong. I'm all stocked up on this BS.
ZoSea surprise me with their profound ignorance of Australian law.
This can only end poorly, if you are reading this you corporate muppets, I suggest you issue an immediate retraction. Kelly Slater would be worth 3/5 of fuck all without photography.
It seems you are already out of your depth ZoSea, hardly confidence inspiring. Kooks.
Of course the surfers will have to sign one that starts,
I hereby assign in full the rights to my soul to the aforesaid Satan......
Two points I would like to raise;
First, I work for News Ltd in Perth and we have declined to cover international music acts when they demand ownership of our images.
Second, is a quote from Justice Dowd of the NSW Supreme Court (2001); "A person in our society, does not have the right not to be photographed."
So if you are standing on public land you can photograph anyone you like.
Hope this helps, good luck,
Cheers for that information Stewart. Much appreciated.
I feel like there will be people covering the world tour this year ready to exercise Justice Dowd's advice.
Great info Stewart, thanks!
Thanks for pointing that out, Stewart!!
I can hardly wait for the drone cam fights!
Might employ a pro pigeon shooter to net them!
Interesting comment from Facebook today:
I have had this conversation before, normally their [ASP} permit ends at the high tide mark, however the GCCC have issued permits to include the "bathing reserve" which extends from the start of the site right through to about 100m seaward. They own the area.....and legally can refuse admission or have someone removed from the area as they see fit. Welcome to the new era of pro surfing.
So, I rang the GCCC late this afternoon, and although the girl I spoke to, didn't know the exact permit structure, she did confirm this year the GCCC did extend the permit's limitations.
So it would seem the ASP at public beaches like Snapper, Bells, Margs, Trestles etc have taken the "standing on public land you can photograph anyone you like" law and counteracted this with their own solution.
Basically what the ASP are attempting to do here, is turn the beach into a stadium for the duration of any event. A stadium, is a controlled environment.
Garnering legal advice from Facebook posts and from the council receptionist can hardly be counted on as fact.
I for one hope that Marty Tullemans goes down to shoot some pictures on day 1.
Are Swellnet planning on having their own photographer/ journalist there to cover the event? I miss Steve Shearers take on the circus personally.
I think The Shearers got him and he's all shoren up! :P
Nah I'm sure he'll hunt "old baldy" out again.
Might I just add that you guys are only considering the legal aspects of USA and AUS (how obviously boring), let's not forget the comps are held at several different countries in the world with different laws on public space to which the ASP rules have to submit… So, sorry USA lawyers, despite what you've been accustomed to, USA does not rule the whole world...
Thats the crux of the matter Braithy.
Given the variety and quality of the equipment available today they could find they have some problems. Presumably they are not going to try and stop everyone taking photos as it would be impossible. The issue then becomes who do you stop? If I am shooting through a hand held 200mm on a good quality body I would think it would be easy to get commercial quality images at Snapper and there are likely to be large numbers with that kind of gear or similar high end amateur stuff. Or I could pack a longer lens and a monopod and shoot unobtrusively amongst the crowd.........even if they ask me to stop there is no way they can demand my images. I haven't signed anything so I am home free I would think. There is also a clear issue of equity if they start targeting known photographers while ignoring others. Then there is the difficulty of getting people to stop. Presumably they would not want a long series of unpleasant shouting matches with surrounding spectators expressing their views and ending up with bouncers forcibly ejecting people. Very tricky stuff really. Easy to make rules.....not so easy to make rules work! So if you have any gear and are in the area get down there and see how you go!
I'm surprised nobody has commented on the special case of Bells. Rip Curl close off the contest site and charge a fee for a ticketed entry, and have done for years. This entitled them to place terms and conditions on any member of the viewing public. Much in the same way that the MCG, SCG or the Gabba do. If someone violates the fine print, they can be ejected, etc. In this sense, Bells is not a 'public beach' during the RC Pro and by entering the site any member of the public will be agreeing to the terms and conditions imposed by the organiser. ZoSea must know that at the public contest sites like Snapper, Pipe etc they actually don't have a right to do this, unless they close the beach off and have a regulated entry to the site. They are using the media accreditation system to try to get halfway there, at least in relation to professional standard content, which I'm sure is the content they care about.
How about ZoSea/ASP?
I see they didn't respond to Stu for his article about Lewis Samuels...
Of course. They haven't returned calls or emails since last year.
They are pretty much a lost cause at this point in time.
I'm devoed!! Whats going to happen to the Rip Curl Media night???? No ones gunna turn up?? So over how the ZoSea are going to revolutionize the professional sport of surfing.
Whats next?? I cant shoot my big wave spots cause the ASP Big Wave Tour is happening?
Like Stewart Allen I also work for mainstream daily media. I can say from arguing and obtaining access for everything from club footy to the Olympics, the sports bodies can try it on but only the IOC could do you over because of their draconian rights agreed by governments. And there are ways ... Fact is the ASP and WCT is still considered "discretionary" content in today's very tight sports pages and TV bulletins. ZoSea needs media more than media needs ZoSea and they would be wise to back off. Big media will go to extraordinary lengths to circumvent unfair accreditation conditions because they love a fight and consider themselves top dogs. For Joli et al its a lot tougher but he has the quality snaps, the archive, the contacts and the moral right. I suggest ZoSea gets a warms Aussie welcome, with message, from freelance snappers crossing out that clause, as suggested, if they really want to be inside the tent. Dumpy foresaw a squadron of drones - there's always the freelance navy and rock hopping snipers. Aggro marshals on jet skis is not a good look, especially if they're hassling kids with GoPros and it gets past a busy vision mixer on a live global webcast. If this is PR 101, epic fail by ZoSea.
Anyone can take pictures... but when you try and sell or profit from an image of a person without his or her consent you are violating many laws.
If you are going to make statements like that check your facts Eric. Disseminating misinformation does not help anybody.
Gotta make the distinction between the press and marketing. Any publication can run a photo of a surfer in the course of a story, but using a photos of a surfer to endorse a company (i.e marketing) is a whole different kettle of fish.
I believe Joli derives most of his income from the former.
The act of being under the influence of cannabis.
A truncated form of pizo (peezo), slang for a glass pipe used to smoke methamphetamine.
Not true Eric. Sport has no copyright. Snapping pictures of sportspeople and selling the images as photo/journalists is perfectly legal.
As long as there is no defamatory imputation or they are not being used to endorse any product without their consent.
It's news mate and it's how a free press works.
So these days the gap is closing between the tech/quality of pros equipment and every day good quality SLR with a good zoom.
So if they kick out known photographers like Joli doesn't that just mean any surf media especially the smaller ones online or ever print are going to just get pics from the less professional surf photographers?
"I miss Steve Shearers take on the circus personally."
This isn't my real estate but I'll be there. Easy to find me.
I wonder where the "public area" and the "contest site" start? As far as I am aware the sand is public, ie. owned by the local govt. Get a permission to shoot commercially from them and you can side step the contest site rules.
There have been a few comments saying surf photography is a pathetic career choice etc. I guess it comes down to priorities though. If your main objective in life is to earn money then there are certainly better ways to achieve that.
I for one would rather be at the beach working than:
- Commuting though rush-hour traffic
- Trapped in an office in front of a computer
- On a building site forced to listen to MMM all day surrounded by morons
- In some hell hole in WA pulling 12 hour shifts to make Gina Reinhart and co rich
When you look at it surf photographers are doing alright I reckon.
Personally, I prefer the break from all the glare and the heat that my commute and office job provides. Not to mention all that stingy salt spray.
Does anyone know if the surfers are required to sign anything with the ASP regarding photo's, audio and video content taken during contests?
From the article it seems that anything branded with ASP is controlled by them.
So i wonder if that means that a shot of a surfer with the ASP brand visible on the jersey cannot be sold by the photographer even if it's non-commercial?
Say for example if you wanted to buy a screensaver or print from Joli's archive? Could the ASP now say that he cannot sell that image because it has ASP branding in the image even if he took the photo outside of the contest area at Snapper this year?
Maybe that will be the catch 22 of not getting an accreditation pass you get nothing either way.
Surely this is not legal in Australia as others have said you can on sell sports images as long as it's not endorsing a product (then you need release forms)
Not really surprised the council has extended the contest area beyond the tide line.
They probably have applied for restricted airspace to keep the non ASP drones away.
I am wondering if the council really have jurisdiction over the area they claim.
Yeah, the athletes do have sign documentation with the ASP (no great susprise, as they're essentially an employer to 'em) and my understanding is that there is a section regarding self-created content.
However as for your other point - about a non-accredited photog selling an image that happens to bear an ASP logo, or other brand - they have no jurisdiction over this.
Maybe surfing Australia could hold a mini prestigious tour? Snapper, bells, margies, north Narra. Get a good sponsor, decent prize money, show it live on fox...
You had me right up until, north narra ...
Sorry braithy, terrigal Bend will replace north Narra. Ha
That's more like it. Can't have a triple crown without the bend.
I'm on the understanding that they've already tried this - an Australian 'Triple Crown', essentially - but it didn't get off the ground.
Unless they could piggyback on the existing ASP events (which is what I believe their approach was), it'd be very hard for each local council to justify another major professional surfing contest at these venues.
sounds suss to me....how about taking photos with those new Heli-cams......what are the Air space rights over a comp??
I believe you will very soon/or already do, need a modified pilots licence that incorporates safety and knowledge tests to fly a camera mounted drone. The number of drones and their vicinity to people and buildings has initiated another ridiculous regulation. Love the dronepics, but you can see what a shitfight its going to be.
Already covered to a degree in this article:
"Like the FAA and CASA, the ASP are quickly writing the rules to adopt the new technology. At present UAVs aren't mentioned anywhere in the ASP Rulebook but by the time the 2014 season commences they will be."
Some very indepth comments by ride-for-life at the bottom of the article go into more detail on this.. well worth a read.
I also work in mainstream media - no staffer would sign the waiver/agreement. So in the case of Bells, better to get standard entry with no accreditation, and stand amongst the crowd. However I can't see anyone going down to Bells - the newspaper/web will run the handout image given free by the ASP, and run it - maybe. The photogs would then cover a mainstream sport somewhere else. Apparently Roller Derby has no such media restriction. No point wasting a resource on restricted media access.
Good luck to the ASP's designated shooter - exclusive images but mainstream media won't give a hoot. They won't buy any pictures.
The picture and story won't be about surfing and Bells - I can see backpage sport being a pic of security attempting to manhandle a genuine press photog out of the event site, whilst hundreds of camera holding punters look on. In recent years one of the best sports photogs in the country had gear stolen in the media zone at Bells.
Better off rolling the dice with your average citizen amongst the crowd at the event.
Better off not attending at all.
i think some of the comments are a bit over the top. My question is ARE the accredited photographers being paid by the ASP ?
I think the ASP is just protecting it's brand. i.e: if your being paid by the ASP for taking pics, then you don't go and shaft them on the side/sly (sell the same copy of the pic to another publication). The ASP isn't trying to stop everybody taking photos of an event, that would just be ridiculous and impossible.
No, the ASP have a couple of staff photogs on site but this doesn't relate to them. This article is centred around the ASP's single-event media accreditation form, which is for freelance photogs who are either working for themselves, or working for another media entity other than the ASP (ie surf website, surf mag, newspaper etc).
Whatever. The fact is, this rights clause restricts free trade and impinges on a photographer's moral right. It is also impossible to police and very aggravating. Snapper is no Superbowl, and anyone who works as a professional freelance lensman should be canny enough to work around it. It's just bad, dumb PR.
I just saw a picture of the printed T&C's being handed out by security to people with photography gear at Snapper. It mentions you cannot sell any image you take commercially.
So i guess you could sell your images from a personal site or to the magazines like Joli does?
Wow.. They were handing out printed Ts and Cs to the general public? That is a big development. I wonder what the threshold is? Any lens over 100mm? Any DSLR?
were they handing out complimentary ASP CF storage media to be collected at end of day? quite the collectable!
.......genetically modified control freaks! I warned you.
Strange feeling on site today. First day of a waiting period is usually exciting, and this day wasn't without that emotion, but there was also a distinct feeling of curiousity, inquiry. A real what's-gonna-happen mood permeating the contest site. The T&C sign's are up and they're worded strongly. I spoke to the ASP staff and they explained the reasoning, plus the justification for some other changes. There's been no heavy-handedness (that I know of) and a lot of snappers appeared to carry on business as usual, yet many others don't quite know what they're allowed to do and what they aren't.
I'd like to see this tested Stu legally. We are fortunate that Australia's legal system is quite different to that of the USA where the T&C's may well have been drafted (and dreamt). Is there a QC/SC out there with a view?
So has ZoSea tried to regulate the Swellnet Snapper webcam?
and where is the Board? The ASP fail to comprehend the market as the punter walks and follows Rasta, Machado, etc...
Indeed the Chairman of the ASP can be found most mornings fronting just north of North Steyne. A beach interview would be appropriate, you'd probably catch the PM at the same time.
OK, here's the latest on the situation. The ASP has changed the wording of T&Cs from:
"I hereby assign in full the rights to all audio, visual, still image or moving content I generate at the Event to ASP."
"While I retain ownership and copyright in any audio-visual, visual, still image or moving content I create during the Event, I hereby warrant that I, and/or the media organization listed above, will not use any Content for any purpose other than editorial non-commercial use without ASP's express permission in writing."
In effect, the photographers retain copyright but are limited in what they can do with the images. Although it's a seemingly minor change it makes a big difference. It's becoming more clear what the photogs can and can't do, but more importantly they retain ownership of their images.
And lastly, Joli is still banned from media access to the Quik Pro. No changes there.
Hi Stu,spoke to a mate of mine yesterday who's a photog up at Snapper and he said that Joli decided 2 days before the comp to sign the T+C....but because he went onto the forums and criticized Zosea...he has been officially banned......
any news on this??
Not too sure if he signed it Brutus, but according to the ABC Joli is still banned from the site. It seems the ASP were unhappy with Joli speaking to us, but that's a tough justification as the ASP have been VERY hard to contact lately. Phone calls and emails go unreplied. Sure, they're busy but people need to know what has changed and what's taken it's place - they need to know the facts.
Well that all leaves a rather sour taste. Good to see the changed agreement but banning the legend who went public to help make it happen is weak. I guess this is what happens when you turn your sport over to be run for a profit. It almost looks like the NRL model (asp today) vs the afl model (asp up to last year). Nine decides who plays when in the NRL (not the draw but the schedule) including the GF. But down south, the AFL decides it all I think. They've maintained control of the game themselves.
I think he tried to sign it 2 days before the comp....but was already person Non grata....
Freedom of speech??
No such thing now zosea is here. It seems.
Good on Peter for sticking to his guns.
Sounds like Peter is getting treated like a naughty school boy who has to stand in the remembering corner at the back of the class. ASP and Zosea FFS.
With a big lense like that I'm sure Mr PJW will capture the best photos of the event no matter where he stands.
Any other phothogs out there that can shed light, Tony Harro you there mate..!
Too true Welly.
Next time the ASP are chasing shots for their archives and approach Pete, he can tell them in the nicest way to go fuck themselves.
How is all this going????? Is the rage still alive???
whaaaat has been off the radar a bit udo, re you asking for his opinion in the OC Otis Carey article. It's a shame.