Southampton Football Club recently decided they wanted to control the source (and revenue therefrom) of images taken at club matches.

They hired a photographic agency to be the sole supplier. The agency declined to do the dirty deed. Which left Southampton without a means of getting images out to the world.

Meanwhile, sports reporters in the press have come up with more and more inventive means of covering matches without needing any actual photographs. Schemes have ranged from pulling archive photos from the 1980s through to drawing cartoons, Roy of the Rovers style.

The best, though, seems to be the Swindon Advertiser. Their sports editor has painstakingly recreated key moments in matches using Subbuteo.

http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/photo ... teo.shtml#

Utter class.

Shame about the broken image in the article.

Yeah. It seems to come and go. Try a refresh...

Nice idea - though I wonder how long it'll be before the owners of Subbuteo stick them with a bill for making commercial use of their IP? Just sayin'...

Pete

Yes but Subbuteo will probably be pleased. If pictures of their product are freely plastered in newspapers then they get free advertising. I am certain that they will not moan. They might ask for Subbuteo to be mentioned but that would be the limit. They are there to sell games and if people see the photos they might get their old sets out or buy new ones.


Also what about the players? If they want to get sponsors people will want to know what they look like. Having pictures of Subutteo players hardly helps them either.

Greedy sods!

I'm naturally biased against Southampton being a Pompey supporter but this decision is plain daft. I can see all the sponsors being very narked that they are no longer getting any exposure and this could lead to a mass exodus, unfortunatley the big premier league clubs will be looking to see if they can get away with it as well. Although the big newspapers have warned them they will reduce coverage if they try.

I am behind the papers on this. It is getting out of hand. Plus these "image rights" invariably held off shore where the players or clubs pay no tax.

I don't see the problem - it's a private event, held on private ground.

If the football club will only allow their own photographers then so be it, as far as I'm concerned. Whether it's good for the club, or the sport, I guess we won't know until somebody tries it. Now that Southampton *spit* have tried it, maybe we'll find out.

To which they've invited 20 or 30 thousand of their closest friends....

Jon

All of who paid a fortune to get in.

So??

The idea that any event which 20,000 people pay to attend is a 'private event' is an utterly spurious notion. Football matches are public events, admittedly held on private premises as you say. You don't have to be invited to get in, the people hosting the event don't have to know who you are before you walk in the door (or turnstile in this case) and the event itself is held in the open air, usually in an urban environment where, apart from at the biggest grounds, goings on are overlooked from other people's property.

Football matches are not the same as playing football in the park with your mates but by no logical means could they be described as 'private events'.

I still don't see your point. You are saying that because anyone can pay to attend the game, the club shouldn't be allowed control over who photographs the event they are hosting??

If we're offering photos for free can we have free broadcast rights too? Please?