|
Post by MarkRowley on Feb 26, 2006 18:37:46 GMT 1
Cheers Ian , you learn something new every day
|
|
|
Post by downy on Feb 26, 2006 18:48:19 GMT 1
ban em all
|
|
|
Post by mattsnapper2 on Feb 26, 2006 19:13:59 GMT 1
I want to make something quite clear... im not acting like a hooker saying this is my patch - get off ... but im trying to protect all parties... B+A, Whits and other bona-fide snappers who go to the meadow. re the fifa thing... World Cup coverage talks break down Julia Day Thursday February 23, 2006 Fifa has pulled out of talks with the World Association of Newspapers about lifting restrictions on the publication of World Cup photographs. World football's governing body ended its discussions with Paris-based WAN, which represents 18,000 newspapers and news agencies worldwide, after the two sides continued to disagree about the rules controlling press coverage of the World Cup. Fifa has banned the publication of World Cup photos on the internet, including on thousands of newspaper websites, during matches and has severely limited the number that can be published elsewhere. WAN expressed " dismay" and " deep regret" at Fifa's decision to abandon talks about the coverage of this summer's tournament and is now looking at legal options. Fifa's restrictions "constitute both an interference in editorial freedom and independence and a clear breach of the right to freedom of information", said the chief executive of WAN, Timothy Balding, in a letter to the Fifa president, Sepp Blatter. The letter continued: "Your restrictions on our journalistic coverage of the 2006 World Cup not only deprive our readers and clients of access to important information on a public event, but constitute both an interference in editorial freedom and independence and a clear breach of the right to information as protected by numerous international conventions." WAN also intends to inform World Cup sponsors, including Coca-Cola, Adidas and Gillette, of "the very clear loss of exposure from which they will suffer owing to FIFA's publishing restrictions". It also intends to alert German and European political leaders about what it considers to be a violation of conventions on the free flow of information. The publication of digital images from games has been banned until one hour after the final whistle. This means newspaper websites and other online publications will not be able to show pictures during a game or in its immediate aftermath, when interest will be at its strongest. And there is a limit of five photos per half of each match and two photos during each half of extra time, including any subsequent penalty shootout. Fifa has also introduced editorial restrictions on how photos can be used in the print media. "We defend the freedom of the press to report events without any restrictions. This is our fundamental right to report news as it happens - be it football, politics or war - and to disseminate it on all platforms, without any distinction", said Monique Villa, the managing director of Reuters Media. The WAN letter was signed jointly by Mr Balding and Pierre Louette, the president and chief executive of Agence France-Presse, acting for Reuters, Associated Press, the Getty photographic news agency, the German national news agency DPA and the European photographic agency EPA. the people who run the license scheme are not popular with the professionals - lots of my friends got turned back for no reason for the carling cup final - conspiracy theray is because man u have 3 snappers working for them and they dont like the competition cause they run their own agency in www.manutdpics.com/I re-itterate - im only trying to protect Whitters, STFC and B+A x
|
|
|
Post by CuyBlue nli on Feb 26, 2006 19:33:33 GMT 1
Quote from Matts post; "..conspiracy theray is because man u have 3 snappers working for them and they dont like the competition cause they run their own agency.." Which gets back to Marks point about money and sport. It's an interesting discussion on what constitutes "personal use" - me showing some blurred snapshots taken on a cheap 35mm to mates in a pub as opposed to showing some mates semi-decent digital images on a website. Camera technology has improved the images and IT has clearly changed what is personal. In years past I've taken photos of players, sent them into the club asking for players to sign them - somewhere I have a blurred signed Dungworth photo I agree with Matt that B&A/Whitters and STFC need to be protected - it's a sad state of affairs though imho
|
|
|
Post by Bilbo on Feb 26, 2006 19:35:47 GMT 1
Is there actually signs around Gay Meadow that states A, No Cameras B, No Publishing of photograpghs on Websites/Messege Boards. Though there might be strict rules for both a+b, there certainly seems to be a lack of instructions for the supporters. I saved one of geoffs pictures and made it a desktop background....... Sorry Geoff should have asked Is that illegal too!! Serious Questions!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2006 19:39:26 GMT 1
I post up pictures so B&A members can use/save them if they wish. It appears as though I shall have to stop.
|
|
|
Post by Bilbo on Feb 26, 2006 19:43:18 GMT 1
I post up pictures so B&A members can use/save them if they wish. It appears as though I shall have to stop. PM them all to selected members...... The higherarchy will never know ;D
|
|
|
Post by CuyahogaBlue on Feb 26, 2006 19:49:17 GMT 1
From what I get from this thread (and reading the ShrewsWorld terms and conditions), taking the photo's is a definate no-no, therefore they shouldn't be made available to anyone in any form. However, if the photos were taken legally, what you do with them is your business - the same would apply for video.
|
|
|
Post by mysticmurray on Feb 26, 2006 19:55:48 GMT 1
Last time I went to Gay Meadow, I had to gouge my eyes out with a spoon at the final whistle as images of the players were still etched onto my retina...
|
|
|
Post by harmerhillshrew on Feb 26, 2006 21:48:02 GMT 1
Just a couple of points, mainly directed at Matt and Ian. Just watched the highlights of the Carling Cup Final and the Liverpool/Man City game. Everytime a player took a corner half the crowd were taking pictures with digital cameras or phones. Are you saying this is totally illegal? If so why is nothing done? Lee Trundle last week re-signed for Swansea, it was stated on talkSPORT he is the only player out side the Premiership with an image rights. is that about?
|
|
|
Post by mattsnapper2 on Feb 26, 2006 21:54:07 GMT 1
by rights its illegal to snap but if used for personal use only with no reproduction most angry people will back down
look at the terms and conditions the Daily Telegraph have when they want citizen journalists to provide images for them.. !
|
|
|
Post by telfordSHREWS on Feb 26, 2006 23:06:11 GMT 1
Wouldn't catch me taking pictures or producing them on a web site
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Feb 27, 2006 3:15:34 GMT 1
fao stfc my view is b&a attracts fans down to the gay meadow they alert fans of events supporting stfc they advertise stfc stfc get free adverts and links on b&a b&a make no money out of stfc if we set www.shrewsburytown.premiumtv.co.uk/page/Home as a censored word to block the link then i'm sure stfc etc might stop jumping up and down when we post 'illegal' stuff when we start putting 'fanzine' profits in our pocket then moan, until then maybe stop using the only fanzne member that did put money into his own pocket
|
|
|
Post by mattsnapper2 on Feb 27, 2006 3:31:11 GMT 1
so true pilch... but we are dealing with the powers that be who have control over premier league and football league rights bootlegs help up and coming bands become established by promoting their music and making them popular to the masses... my 'rant' is only a rant as the powers that be are far more powerful than individuals and I just want to protect geoff, whits and ultimatley STFC I know B+A dont make any money from STFC but Rivals do in the ads they have on each page and that counts for lots. I know of people whose livlihoods have been crucified by people coming down on them when they have for example sold images of Arsenal on the streets and Arsenal or the PL have not had an income from them. Im not against anyone taking pics of Shrewsbury Town. Its how I started and now its my career. Im only warning people and pointing out what will happen as most people are blissfully unaware on the significance of rocking the boat.
Its like suddenly broadcasting reports from an illegal radio station or making a magazine about the goings on at GM and the club or football league NOT having their cut... it could be said its sorry times but its the way it is Im afriad. Id love B+A to have its own live commentary, 7 reporters and snappers covering games but the powers that be would close B+A down in no time as they dont have the rights. Those who DO have the rights are so controlled they can hardly do anything. Money talks in football now-a-days.. agents.. TV... broadcasting rights... all so different to 15 years ago. People have access to more technology now and are more switched on.
|
|
|
Post by harmerhillshrew on Feb 27, 2006 9:46:15 GMT 1
where is your football league license..? Again aimed at Ian and Matt. How do you get one of these licenses? Is it one of these who you are and who you know situations?
|
|
|
Post by ianwhit on Feb 27, 2006 12:31:51 GMT 1
It appears as though I shall have to stop. geoff, you do what you want mate, you've be advised of the legal implications but what you do with them is entirely your decision, suppose it's all part of growing up.
|
|
|
Post by ianwhit on Feb 27, 2006 12:38:32 GMT 1
Is there actually signs around Gay Meadow that states A, No Cameras B, No Publishing of photograpghs on Websites/Messege Boards. it should beon the groudn regulations that are posted around the ground.
|
|
|
Post by ianwhit on Feb 27, 2006 12:43:26 GMT 1
fao stfc my view is b&a attracts fans down to the gay meadow they alert fans of events supporting stfc they advertise stfc stfc get free adverts and links on b&a b&a make no money out of stfc if we set www.shrewsburytown.premiumtv.co.uk/page/Home as a censored word to block the link then i'm sure stfc etc might stop jumping up and down when we post 'illegal' stuff when we start putting 'fanzine' profits in our pocket then moan, until then maybe stop using the only fanzne member that did put money into his own pocket pilchy, you more than entitled to block shrewsweb with your filters, please do it if that's what b&a want to do i have no problem what so ever with it... i'm reading the last point as a dig at me for using fagin to write for the website and programme, is that correct? persoanlly i don't give a monkeys what a fanzine does with it's money..i'd have thought giving the money to the something like shrewstrust would be better as fanzines are meant to be subversive and away from the club? in all the posts i've never asked for anything to be taken down, all i've done is point out the legal points. if geoff,yourself and whoever wants to regualrarly put up several pages of match action pictures onto the board then do it, i'm not going to report you.
|
|
|
Post by ianwhit on Feb 27, 2006 12:47:44 GMT 1
where is your football league license..? Again aimed at Ian and Matt. How do you get one of these licenses? Is it one of these who you are and who you know situations? you have to approach dataco and fullfil certain requirements, matt k nows these better but it's about getting a certain number of images published in publications, papers, programmes etc, once you do that you have alicence to do football league, to get a premiership licence you need to do it all again with a higher number of images published in all forms of media..
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Feb 27, 2006 12:53:11 GMT 1
Let's not let this thread descend into a farce
The bottom line is people will always do what they want, and some people have power, others don't.
Geoff doesn't have the power to use the photos so he can't which is a shame for us.
I don't blame Mattsnapper for holding his own because it is his livelihood. The same with Whitters.
On the other hand, Geoff is a kid with a camera so I would like to see anyone try and take him to court, is he even old enough to have an injuction against him?
|
|
|
Post by ianwhit on Feb 27, 2006 12:55:26 GMT 1
Let's not let this thread descend into a farce wouldn't say it was a farce at all, seemed quite an interesting discussion about media rights and football?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2006 13:10:35 GMT 1
For what its worth here are a few ground regs that deal with behaviour, and when you buy a ticket, in buying that ticket you agree to abide by these ground regulations.........some are total arse, but hey thats what you agree to.......... Ground Reg 15 15 - With the exception of persons authorised by the Club management and press representatives, the taking of photographs or the use of video equipment inside the ground is prohibited. In addition, no recording for radio, television or for private purpose, whether for transmission or otherwise, is permitted save without special authorisation in writing by the Club management Ground Reg 19 19- PERSONS ARE ADMITTED TO THIS GROUND SUBJECT TO THEIR ACCEPTANCE OF THESE GROUND REGULATIONS AND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION AND THE FOOTBALL CONFERENCE. ENTRY TO THE GROUND SHALL CONSTITUTE UNQUALIFIED ACCEPTANCE. THE CLUB MANAGEMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT FOR ITS STEWARDS, SERVANTS, AGENTS AND POLICE TO REMOVE FROM THIS GROUND ANY PERSON WHO DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ALL THESE RULES AND REGULATIONS, OR WHOSE PRESENCE WITHIN THE GROUND IS, OR COULD REASONABLY BE CONSTITUTING A SOURCE OF DANGER, NUISANCE OR ANNOYANCE TO ANY OTHER PERSON. THIS COULD LEAD TO FURTHER ACTION BY THE CLUB INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE WITHDRAWL OF ANY SEASON – TICKET AND OTHER BENEFITS
|
|
garlicbreaditsthefuture
Guest
|
Post by garlicbreaditsthefuture on Feb 27, 2006 14:06:18 GMT 1
"On the other hand, Geoff is a kid with a camera so I would like to see anyone try and take him to court, is he even old enough to have an injuction against him?"
In August last year, a mum had to pay £2500 because her 14 year old daughter was illegally downloading music from the net, and she got sued by the British Phonographic Industry. So, yes, these types of people do take their intellectual property rights seriously, and will have no problems enforcing them against a kid with a camera.
|
|
|
Post by El Huracán!!!! on Feb 27, 2006 14:08:50 GMT 1
For what its worth here are a few ground regs that deal with behaviour, and when you buy a ticket, in buying that ticket you agree to abide by these ground regulations.........some are total arse, but hey thats what you agree to.......... Ground Reg 15 15 - With the exception of persons authorised by the Club management and press representatives, the taking of photographs or the use of video equipment inside the ground is prohibited. In addition, no recording for radio, television or for private purpose, whether for transmission or otherwise, is permitted save without special authorisation in writing by the Club management Ground Reg 19 19- PERSONS ARE ADMITTED TO THIS GROUND SUBJECT TO THEIR ACCEPTANCE OF THESE GROUND REGULATIONS AND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION AND THE FOOTBALL CONFERENCE. ENTRY TO THE GROUND SHALL CONSTITUTE UNQUALIFIED ACCEPTANCE. THE CLUB MANAGEMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT FOR ITS STEWARDS, SERVANTS, AGENTS AND POLICE TO REMOVE FROM THIS GROUND ANY PERSON WHO DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ALL THESE RULES AND REGULATIONS, OR WHOSE PRESENCE WITHIN THE GROUND IS, OR COULD REASONABLY BE CONSTITUTING A SOURCE OF DANGER, NUISANCE OR ANNOYANCE TO ANY OTHER PERSON. THIS COULD LEAD TO FURTHER ACTION BY THE CLUB INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE WITHDRAWL OF ANY SEASON – TICKET AND OTHER BENEFITS Opens up a whole new debate about camera phones that take high quality digital photos and vidios, there must be some many photos taken on them nowadays that its not serprising a few "illegal" pics find there way around on the internet.
|
|
garlicbreaditsthefuture
Guest
|
Post by garlicbreaditsthefuture on Feb 27, 2006 14:15:25 GMT 1
Sorry - but if you paid good money to get into the cinema, and there was someone sat next to you with a camera phone taking pictures or recording a bit of the film, you'd think it was wrong, wouldn't you, because they didn't have any rights to do that?
What's so different about a football ground?
(Having said that, whenever you go to a gig, there are loads of people in the audience with their camera phones in the air - not sure whether they should be doing that either?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2006 14:19:20 GMT 1
So what about if you climbed the trees behind the Wakeman End and took photos from there? You wouldn't be taking them from within the ground...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2006 14:26:53 GMT 1
Then you would be fine, same as if you got a helicopter to hover above, etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Duffield on Feb 27, 2006 14:29:29 GMT 1
So what about if you climbed the trees behind the Wakeman End and took photos from there? You wouldn't be taking them from within the ground... I like the idea of Geoff being stuck up the top of a tree.
|
|
|
Post by ianwhit on Feb 27, 2006 14:38:15 GMT 1
"On the other hand, Geoff is a kid with a camera so I would like to see anyone try and take him to court, is he even old enough to have an injuction against him?" . his dad took them and he's an adult
|
|
|
Post by TheBAEgo on Feb 27, 2006 15:02:10 GMT 1
I know that it will show up my age but the Rules/Regulations use to always be printed in the programmes. (Late 70's)
Again individuals who like to think they are so grown up will still spit their dummies out when they are shown to be wrong.
The attitude to have from my point of view is let people do what they want and when the S**t hits the fan and they are prosecuted - tough luck.
|
|