We are familiar with the presence of photographers at various events. This week’s article is about a conflict - some call it a feud – between journalists and the International Rugby Board over the use of online photographs. Go to the link below and read the article. Write a reflective comment that addresses the conflict and the questions that I ask below.
Why do you think that the restrictions are being imposed on the news groups? Why would the journalists object to the restrictions? Are the journalists right in what they are doing? Is the International Rugby Board right in what it is doing? How would you solve the problem? What should happen if the restrictions expand to other sports and events? Are the restrictions the same as censorship or is there a difference?
Photo Feud Article
12 comments:
I think the restrictions are being imposed so that the rugby lead can make the most money off of unique pictures. I think the journalists object to this rule because it limits there freedom. In America I believe that this law would be un-constitutional, because it takes away the freedom of the press.
I think the International Rugby Board has no right, in what they are doing, they are just being greedy. There can be two solutions one would to increase the journalists' amount of pictures that could be some sort of settlement. The other charging a fee too anyone who brings a camera. If these sorts of restrictions went on to other sports they would loose millions from sponsors because they would be getting less media attention defeating their whole point of sponsoring.
There is no difference between these restrictions and censorship because they are limiting the amount of pictures they can take, where in censorship it limits what they can say, therefore they both have the same affect.
I believe Restrictions are being posted so that Visa International would make more money. This in some ways could bring in more cash and in others reduce the amount of Cash. It could reduce the amount of money brought in because people aren’t as interested as they would be with more photos. If I look at photos of a movie, I might find it interesting and want to see it. The same in the tournament. If a person never heard or watched a game of rugby might see pictures of Rugby and become interested. Of course journalists object to the restrictions because they lose money in the end. They might not sell as many newspapers or magazines or whatever they are trying to. I believe having journalists spread pictures or a word about the idea the company is trying to promote helps the company. Without press a lot of ideas or photographs or important things in life would not go around.
I believe what the board is doing is not a good idea. They are going to lose more money than they expected to make from this restriction. The money they make from this restriction would be people wanting to know what happened in the game, so they would buy it on cable or satellite or similar things. To solve the problem I would lower the amount of press organizations, I would only allow the main ones like Reuters, or big newspaper companies. If this would go onto other sports like soccer or Football or Hockey, companies would not want to sponsor anymore. The point of sponsoring is to get the company attention from the media. I believe there is a slight difference in restrictions and censorship. The difference is that in censorship it reduces what they say or puts a restriction on their words, but in restrictions it limits the amount of pictures they take or so. I believe companies should pay the company to send their photographers so they would make more money.
I believe the restrictions that are being imposed on the news groups are being imposed so that more people will watch the game on television rather than watch photos of it on the internet. Journalists would object to the restriction because in my opinion they believe that it’s their right to take as many pictures as they want because taking pictures for online newspapers/newsagencies could be considered part of the freedom of press. It is also a business matter because with more pictures for an agency to post on their site, the more likely it is that people will come and visit their site. I believe the journalists are neither right nor wrong in what they’re doing, and if they wish to boycott the event, it is their choice. I believe the IRB is not right in what it’s doing because a photographer should be able to take as many pictures as s/he wants to. However if the IRB wishes to sell their photography rights the same way they sell their TV rights, there would be nothing wrong with that at all. My solution would be to either allow the journalists to take as many pictures as they want, or to sell the photography rights the same way the IRB would sell its T.V. rights. If the restrictions expanded to other sporting events I would say as I said in the last sentence, that sporting bodies should start selling their photography rights as they do with their T.V. rights. When we talk about whether this and censorship are the same, I believe there is a big difference. The thing is that in censorship, it’s usually done to cover up something that is critical of a body of power, while this on the other hand, is merely just a restriction of the amount of photos a journalist can take at a sporting event.
My opinion on all of this is that I hope it doesn’t turn out uglier than it already is. I really don’t see what the whole point of the photo restriction is all about. I believe for the whole problem to be cleared up, the IRB will have to relinquish its position to its former trouble-free position, when everybody could take pictures as they pleased. To me, I don’t think it’s the IRB who should be creating the restriction, but instead the companies that own the IRB’s T.V. rights because now some more people might shift to looking at photos on the net rather than watch a rugby match on T.V.
Well, I am on neither side because the rugby is owned by the rugby people so I think that they have a point and should do whatever they want, if they want to limit the press then thats their choice, eventhought it might not be a good choice.
It probably isn't a good choice because then the people who don't have time to go to rugby games, or enough money to buy tickets would probably just stop them from watching rugby which makes all the players mad and make them quit because no one is cheering them on.
I also think that the players would get mad if the press put too much stuff out like a player does one little mistake, the press makes it look like its a really big mistake. So then the player is too mad and too scared to play again. He would be too scared because people might do something to him for making the team loose last time.
I don't think there is a difference between restriction and censorship because when something is censored it is resticted for people to see.
All in all if i had to choose the best way would probably be for things to stay the way it is when the press were free.
I think that the restrictions are being imposed on the news groups because the International Rugby board does not want the press to capture unique pictures and post them on the internet or sell them to a magazine and let them get all the money. Also some people like to look at magazines or go online; maybe on Google and look at the pictures rather than watching the game on television, but the Rugby Board doesn't like that.
Of course the journalists are going to get mad about this situation and it is their choice if they want to boycott it or not, because they believe that the International Rugby Board is taking away their rights. If I were in the journalists' shoes, I would get frustrated since I am not getting the privileges to make any money and it's my job. So what the journalists are doing basically, they are making the players of the rugby game and the game itself more popular! But at the same time, they are making all of the money; so I don’t think any of the sides are right or wrong.
I would solve this problem by maybe making sure that both sides are compromising somehow and making a fair deal. I believe that restrictions and censorship are not the same. The thing is that in censorship, it’s usually done to cover up something serious of someone important or someone in power, while restrictions on the other hand is just a restriction of the amount of photos a journalist can take at a sporting event, like 20 photos during each half. If this restriction spreads and expands to other sports and events, a lot of people will get really mad and companies would stop sponsoring.
The restrictions are being imposed on the news groups because, they want more people to watch the games by person not TV, and them, rather than the news groups getting the money. I think this is a takeaway of the journalist freedom, it is not a right thing to do. Greediness is one of the most hated thing in the earth, that is what The vista international is getting from restricting journalist's freedom.
I think there are a couple of ways to solve this, other that giving the Vista international an anti-greedy shot. One of them is that, the Vista international, should approve all photos, before the camera is taken out of the stadium. The other one is that for Press, a fee must be given if you are going to attend the match, that way the share is split, between them.
In conclusion, i finally believe that every action the Vista-international takes, regarding the press's limitations, Is a bad move.
In my opinion, this article was very interesting and eye opening. It talked about the argument between international news organizations and the International Rugby Board. The conflict is based on the new restrictions that were imposed by the International Rugby Board. The restrictions were made to limit the use of match photographs, online, during the games. The International Rugby Board has agreed on letting photographers take forty photographs a game and put them online. But, the international news companies are boycotting and stating that they have the right to take as many photographs as they need. Moreover, they say this decision was a strategy to gain money, by giving privileges for sponsors to use information during the game.
I believe the media restrictions being imposed by the International Rugby Board are wrong and can prove to be harmful for news companies. In my opinion, the restrictions were placed as a way to gain money, by giving privileges to sponsors to use information, during the game. I agree with the journalists, that news photographers have the right to take as many photos as they want and put them on the World Wide Web during the game. Boycotting is a good way of showing their opinions and I urge them to keep going and keep trying to convince the board to cancel the restrictions. I hope the boycotts do not become violent, due to the fact that violence would ruin any chance of changing the board’s decision. If I was part of the news industry, I would not be boycotting, but I would try to convince the society that our opinion is the most logical. If the people are on the news company’s side, it would increase their chances of changing the International Rugby Board’s decision. Why do you need to restrict the amount of photos taken?
Hopefully, this problem will be solved peacefully and that the news companies and the International Rugby Board will get what they desire. Moreover, I hope other sport boards will not try to adopt the restrictions imposed on the media. This will cause an up rise in the news society. In my opinion, these rules being imposed are more of restrictions than censorship. Restrictions are basically limitations, while censorship is, in this case, taking away inappropriate pictures of the rugby players, coaches, or fans. Personally, I believe the International Rugby Board will cancel these restrictions, because of the media’s determination to cancel these limitations. Through the media, the news companies have shown the people the true intentions of the International Rugby Board’s decision. They imposed the restrictions to gain money, not for the greater good of the people.
I believe this article had many interesting different point of views on this topic. In my opinion the restriction from the International Rugby Board was imposed only so they can make more money. I think they saw that the online pictures or the pictures in the magazines are getting more attention that the actual game so they decided to minimize it and make it harder for journalists and photographers.
These restrictions are being imposed because I think the IRB was seeing more people interested in the photos whether they are online or in a magazine, so they decided to minimize the photos, so the actual game would get more attention! Of course the journalists would object to the restrictions because in the first place journalists have the right to take as many pictures as they want! They did not like the fact that people restricted or limited their rights of taking pictures; I mean that is their job after all. The journalists are right in what they are doing; they got to stand up for their rights. And always when people stand up for their rights and what they believe in, they would get what they stood up for at the end! I think the International Rugby Board has absolutely no right in limiting the journalists with taking 40 photos per game! It is like limiting their jobs, and they are not even the people that are supposed to do that! Journalists and photographers are going to be very mad if these restrictions keep on expanding. It is limiting their jobs and they have every right to take those photos anyways. I think censorship and these restrictions are kind of similar, censorship means the state of being forcefully restrained or held back. And those restrictions are holding the journalists from taking photos.
I think that the restrictions that are being imposed on the news groups are being imposed because of two main reasons. First of all, the International Rugby Board does not want people watching pictures online, but actually watching the game on television. Also, the International Rugby Board noticed that the photographers taking the pictures were making lots of money while the number of people watching the actual game decreased, which made the IRB lose money. This was bad for them financially so the first thing they thought of was to restrict photographers on how many pictures they can take during a game. The photographers would of course object the restrictions because it would make them lose a lot of money.
I strongly believe that the International Rugby Board had no right in what they are doing. It is the photographer’s choice to take as many pictures as he/she wants. It’s definitely not fair for the photographers, since it takes away from their rights! It is their job to take pictures, and when the Rugby Board took that away from them it’s like making people lose their job, just because you were losing a little bit of money!! Now that’s just being greedy! I would simply solve the problem by telling the International Rugby Board what they did is wrong, and that the photographers have all the right to take pictures if they want! Hopefully though, the IRB would understand and this would not become a bigger issue then it already is! It should definitely not expand to different sports or events, because then that would just create a huge problem and companies would just stop sponsoring!! If you ask me, I think that censorship and restrictions are very similar. This is because censorship means to limit people’s rights, hold them back, or restrain them from doing something. And Restrictions limit something or someone from doing things. In this case the IRB is holding them back from their job or limiting the photographers on how many pictures they can take.
In my opinion, this is all just nonsense!! I mean, the IRB just wanted to make a little bit more money, and instead of thinking of wise ways to do that without hurting anyone else, they just made photographers lose money, which they then gained. I think that what the IRB did only made problems occur and they truly made a big deal out of nothing! They should give back the photographers their right to take as many photos and just think of new ways on how people can watch their game on television rather than just watch pictures on the internet.
I think that there should be no restrictions on how many photos are alloowed to be taked during one game. I think it doesnt matter. If they can take only 20 pictures whats the differnece between that and 50? There might be some pictures that could be embarassing to the palyers but they could be one of those 20. Journalists are there to take pictures. This is their job they cant have restrictions on their job thats insane. I dont think it will change a lot if they have to take less pictures but let them take pictures if they want. There is already enough pictures of rugby players out there. The numbers will not change anything.
If i were a journalist i would boycott too. Ther cant be limits on someones job like i said before. i think the rugby board is not right with what they are doing because it will not make a differnece. Are they expecting they will make more money like this? As if a few less pictures would matter. There are enough online search engines where you can find lots of pictures of rugby players. I would have left everything the way it was if i was the boss there.
I hope that this does not expand to other sports and especially the ones i like. I dont think this will happen to other sports though because they have seen the consequences of this action and will know not to do the smae thing. I think there is a difference between restriction and censorship because there is certainly a difference between taking pictures and not taking picture.
Well I think that the restrictions are being imposed on the news group because, if they put pictures of the tournament for free then less people would come. So technically the rugby corporation would be losing money instead of gaining money which they could if the don’t allow media. Also if I had to pay like 500euros to go to a rugby game or the choice to get free media of the internet, I would go with the free media of the internet and rather not pay lot money. Why would journalist object the restriction the rugby corporation has set? Well they would reject this restriction because maybe taking pictures for them is like a hobby, something they like to do. Also maybe some sites pay the photographer to post there picture on only there site. Maybe they also they do it to show who takes better pictures to people, who is the best photographer. Probably half of the photographers that go to games like these are often paid by a magazine for there pictures.
I think the journalist have right to what they are doing, I mean if it is really that good as in the pictures they show maybe I would go to a game. And if they want to boycott let them do it is not wrong. I think it would be right and wrong, since most people don’t know rugby and they see the free pictures on the internet maybe they would like to go to the next game or something. These pictures could also be used for advertising rugby to the people who don’t know the sport. I think that the rugby corporation is fine what they’re a re doing, I mean no one wants to lose money. I would solve this problem by only allowing some media to come and take pictures. For example the first thirty can come and take pictures but then the rest would not be allowed with their cameras. Or I could charge media like a bit more then normal prices to enter the game. If the restrictions expand on other sports I would think that it is not fair. I it expands it means only the wealthy are allowed to enjoy the game. Not everybody in the world can afford cable. Well I think it is not the same as censorship because one picture can say thousands of words were in censorship you can’t say much but they’re both the same on the limiting part.
Post a Comment