NZRU and the Media
-
Interesting..
News boycott puts a boot into Bledisloe coverage
Media organisations appear to be sidestepping the All Blacks after heavy-handed rules were passed on from NZ Rugby.
News boycott puts a boot into Bledisloe coverage
There has been a serious battle, if not a full-scale war, going on between the media and New Zealand Rugby.
Readers of Stuff.co.nz must be wondering why there is currently almost no rugby coverage on the country’s biggest online news site or in the Fairfax-owned newspapers like The Press in Christchurch and the Dominion Post in Wellington.
Stuff and the papers did not cover the naming of the recent All Black team to play in the Investec series between New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Argentina that starts on August 26.
Nor did they report the big news that All Black fullback Jordie Barrett needs an operation on his shoulder and is unlikely to take part in the series.
The “boycotting” is a pressure tactic in a fight that has been long running, but blew into a major conflict when New Zealand rugby sent the media its “terms and conditions of accreditation” for the Investec series to the media a few weeks ago.
Fairfax, in particular, found those terms unacceptable.
They included a clause that allowed NZR to revoke accreditation if they felt a media outlet breached copyright by running video highlight packages of Sky TV’s footage of the test matches including the Bledisloe Cup matches against Australia.
Accreditation allows reporters to attend All Black training sessions, post-match conferences and other media events. Without accreditation, it is almost impossible for rugby reporters to do their job.
Copyright of the footage belongs to Sky TV and NZR, and it is likely that NZR is under significant pressure from Sky to “get heavy” on the other media it sees as competition.
It has been normal practice for years for the news media to run highlights of matches, including all the tries, on their websites immediately after the games are finished.
The media organisations have long argued that this is a legitimate part of sports news coverage. Sky accepts that a small amount of the footage can be shown, but feels that some media outlets overdo it and infringe on the rights it pays a large sum of money for.
Sky is already in the process of taking TVNZ, Fairfax and NZME to the High Court, claiming they have breached copyright by their use of rugby footage.
The case follows Sky’s unsuccessful attempt last year to get an interim injunction to limit Stuff’s use of Olympic footage,
Media companies rely on section 42 of the Copyright Act which allows them to use footage under a “fair dealing" provision.
It was the NZR’s decision not to consider section 42 in deciding if a media company had breached copyright that riled the media in this latest flare up.
Essentially, the NZR wanted to be the sole arbitrator, judge and jury if you like, of whether the media had breached copyright.
On Monday, the Media Freedom Committee (Most media organisations are members of the MFC) joined the battle and wrote to NZR. MFC chairperson Joanne Norris told Newsroom that significant progress had been made in the last two days.
“It was really a matter of getting both around the table and discussing the issues with a view to finding a way through this. We are very pleased with the speed to which the NZR has responded to our concerns”
Asked if the “boycott” of rugby news had strengthened the MFC’s hand in negotiations, Norris came up with a diplomatic response.
“Each media organisation has made different decisions in terms of its rugby coverage. Fairfax’s [level of coverage] has indicated the seriousness with which they are taking the issue."
Norris said NZR had now agreed to make some changes in the accreditation terms and conditions, including removal of the clause that said they would not take into account “fair dealing” when deciding if someone had breached copyright.
The new document had now gone back to media organisations and Norris was hopeful the issue would be solved in the next few days.
However, Newsroom understands the following phrase remains:
“Any presentation of match footage in the form of extended match highlights shall entitle NZR to suspend, withdraw, revoke or cancel Accreditation.”
And this might still be a bridge too far for some media. If the likes of Fairfax refuse to sign, the coverage of the Investec series will be significantly reduced.
-
Sounds a fair enough clause to me. The NZRU aren't saying they can't show a short clip of tries or major incidents to support their story just that they can't provide an extended highlights package that they don't pay for.
News media website are grabbing whatever content they can for free to bulk out the paucity of product they make or pay for themselves.
I'm sure that in the future, should the NZRU retain ownership of the product for broadcasing, this will be imposed with them having to buy highlights to put on their sites.
News should be freely gathered but I can't see how that should extend to freely taking something that others have paid for and own. -
-
@Tim Sky are fluffybunnies, but I expect the Stuff people are fluffybunnies too...
-
-
@taniwharugby Fairfax are complete fluffybunnies. Them taking the moral high ground on anything is laughable. But we've always known Sky are fluffybunnies.
I don't envy NZR.
-
@Tim said in NZRU and the Media:
The other side of this is that newspapers have narrow margins, and anyone can get extended highlights in five seconds by visiting youtube.
How is that Sky’s problem? If they can’t afford to use someone else content, bad luck.
There is a provision that allows them to use highlights for free.
-
-
@Tim said in NZRU and the Media:
@Kirwan If you negotiate with partners you have to take their ability to pay and their situation into account. Saying "too bad get fucked" is juvenile and does nothing for your business.
They aren’t partners, they are competitors to the entity that bought their broadcast rights. If they want partners to continue to give them a good price for those rights they have to help protect them.
Otherwise they get less cash and we start losing players.
-
@Kirwan They are their media partners. They promote Sky's content by covering it, whether they explicitly pay for highlights access or not. This is a clear relationship.
If Sky tell media organisations that their conditions are not important in determining access and prices then that is fine. It's pretty unlikely that they will get the most beneficial relationship with their media partners by doing this though.
It seems clear to me that Sky is used to doing what it wants. Increasingly they are not the only game in town, and neither is rugby. Being petty when dealing with authorised channels, when pirates and scoff-laws are free to profit, seems rather short-sighted.
The NZRU aren't the only ones with a moral case or stake. Acting like it won't help anyone.
-
@Kirwan said in NZRU and the Media:
@Tim said in NZRU and the Media:
The other side of this is that newspapers have narrow margins, and anyone can get extended highlights in five seconds by visiting youtube.
How is that Sky’s problem? If they can’t afford to use someone else content, bad luck.
There is a provision that allows them to use highlights for free.
@Kirwan said in NZRU and the Media:
@Tim said in NZRU and the Media:
The other side of this is that newspapers have narrow margins, and anyone can get extended highlights in five seconds by visiting youtube.
How is that Sky’s problem? If they can’t afford to use someone else content, bad luck.
There is a provision that allows them to use highlights for free.
I think that is the point.
I read that article as saying that the original document presented to Fairfax said that by accepting the accreditation the media outlets are giving up any claim to any highlights/footage whatsover under the fair dealing provision of the copyright act.
That was a bridge too far for Fairfax. By signing the document they would have been giving up something that they are entitled to do under copyright law. Why would they sign it in that case?
The amended wording seems better, but still sounds vague. A simple definition of x minutes of highlights per game would be in everyone's interests I think.
