| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/07/2005 03:44:46 PM · #1 |
Story of a man vs. America's team... but did he really win? The money is a fair amount (maybe) but I'm not sure I agree with the settlement the photographer agreed to. Read and discuss. ;o)
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 03:48:52 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Story of a man vs. America's team... but did he really win? The money is a fair amount (maybe) but I'm not sure I agree with the settlement the photographer agreed to. Read and discuss. ;o) |
Ok payout, I guess, but to never work there again? I'm sure that would be worth more than the settlement in the long run. That is, of course, he IS a sports photographer in the DFW area. |
|
|
|
06/07/2005 03:56:15 PM · #3 |
Given the attitude usually projected by the the Dallas organization, that just doesn't surprise me. America's Team?? I don't think so. How about bestowing that title on a team with some ethics in the front office... I submit Green Bay for consideration. Not that I'm biased or anything...
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 03:56:29 PM · #4 |
It seems to me that barring the photographer from the games wasnt anything but a retailation manouver(sp?) i think the money was maybe a fair settlement but never being allowed to go to a game seems a bit harsch to me.espically since they stole his photo to begin with.they obviously thought the photo and photographer was great enough to steal his photo and make thousands off of it. i would not have agreed to the ban at all.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 04:08:04 PM · #5 |
Take the money and run dude! There are plenty of other stadiums to take photos but there are not many photos that can make you $275,000!
One more reason to hate the Cowboys...
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 04:12:59 PM · #6 |
Look at the polls on that page - 20% thinks that he should be barred from the stadium. Nice crowd...
how about this: Company B steals an IP from company A, gets caught, and gets ordered to pay Company A patent licensing fee, and as a part of the settlement, company A must cease to produce that product?
Some things in this legal system never cease to amaze me. I am yet to find a case where smaller being wins over a bigger corporation.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 04:15:02 PM · #7 |
Since Jerry Jones bought the franchise years ago that whole organization has operated for max profits with little or no moral considerations. Jones likes to through his weight around and let everyone know who's boss. Yet when his star players get into ethical and legal trouble he is more than willing to turn a blid eye, we wouldn't want to loss that talent. I'm not suprised about the banning but I believe they are wrong. They stole Walter Smith's work, plain and simple. If anyone should be punished it sure as h**l should be Mr. Smith, it should be the Cowboys organization and ultimately Jerry Jones. I am glad he got a reasonable level of compensation for his work but I think the over all conclusion of this case stinks.
Mike |
|
|
|
06/07/2005 04:21:58 PM · #8 |
| Their original offer when caught using the photo without a license to do so is also insulting. Not cash, but $1000 in merchandise that is so marked up that the company was probably offering less than $200 out of their own pocket. |
|
|
|
06/07/2005 04:25:21 PM · #9 |
| I'd wager way less than $200. And who are the 20%? Are they all from the Cowboy organization? I find it hard to believe that 20% of a semi-random sample would think it would be appropriate to ban him. |
|
|
|
06/07/2005 04:38:25 PM · #10 |
I wished he had taken it to court. I think he'd have gotten a much better deal at trial by a judge!
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 05:06:21 PM · #11 |
From the information they presented it surely does seem unfair to ban the photographer when all he was doing was protecting his rights against an organisation that abused them.
There is a lot of information that is not covered in that article though. The shot does not appear to be one from row 578b so one wonders how he was able to get the shot and whether that means he had a press pass. Also no mention of how they acquired the image in the first place. |
|
|
|
06/07/2005 05:20:30 PM · #12 |
moody's right. I am curious as to the details of how the shot was taken and how they got a copy of it? Proofs that were never bought, perhaps?
Originally posted by moodville:
From the information they presented it surely does seem unfair to ban the photographer when all he was doing was protecting his rights against an organisation that abused them.
There is a lot of information that is not covered in that article though. The shot does not appear to be one from row 578b so one wonders how he was able to get the shot and whether that means he had a press pass. Also no mention of how they acquired the image in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 05:23:10 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Given the attitude usually projected by the the Dallas organization, that just doesn't surprise me. America's Team?? I don't think so. How about bestowing that title on a team with some ethics in the front office... I submit Green Bay for consideration. Not that I'm biased or anything... |
I second that nomination. And I am not biased in any way, except my 3 yo son says he is going to play for GB when he grows up. :) |
|
|
|
06/07/2005 05:29:06 PM · #14 |
The particular Walter Smith does not show up immediately on a Google search, leading me to believe he's not a full-time sports photographer. He obviously had a sideline pass, so somebody gave him credentials. There are, of course, lots of ways to get credentials; for example, a local paper could have hired him and got him the credentials.
These credentials are always at the sufferance of the team, though; they can cut them off any time they want to, and back in the days when I photographed the Fouts/Coryell Chargers teams for the local city magazine in San Diego, several photographers I met had their credentials lifted for various abuses of the guidelines. So that's not uncommon, or didn't used to be anyway. And the team does have the right to choose who it wants down there on the field.
I*s this a vindictive move by Jerry Jones? Sounds like it is, but I can imagine scenarios where it's not, really. For example, suppose the guy is a friend of a friend of Jerry's, and Jerry gave him a credential, and the guy gave Jerry some prints as a thank-you, and this image was one of them... Jerry might be feeling a little put-out by all this, and have zero desire to see the guy on "his" sidelines again... Hell, I guess that's still vindictive, yeah, LOL...
Face it, Jerry's a jerk, always has been.... But I suspect that quarter of a million bucks is more than the shooter's used to making off his camera. I could be wrong, of course. I just don't see the scenario playing out like this if the man were a seasoned, high-visibility pro. Not excusing Jerry, just remarking the shooter may well be VERY happy with the settlement. Probably is, in fact, or why accept it?
Robt.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 06:00:57 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Given the attitude usually projected by the the Dallas organization, that just doesn't surprise me. America's Team?? I don't think so. How about bestowing that title on a team with some ethics in the front office... I submit Green Bay for consideration. Not that I'm biased or anything... |
I second the nomination.
I wish I could offer up our local team, or the one down the road that we adopted while we didn't have one of our own, but the headlines about both of them in the last week have been about jailbird players. One of the Ravens just got out of jail and one of the Redskins is charged with "aggravated assault with a firearm".
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 06:03:27 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
America's Team?? I don't think so. How about bestowing that title on a team with some ethics in the front office... |
Go Bengals!
Aww... |
|
|
|
06/07/2005 06:10:28 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Story of a man vs. America's team... but did he really win? The money is a fair amount (maybe) but I'm not sure I agree with the settlement the photographer agreed to. Read and discuss. ;o) |
The photographer and the Dallas Cowboys agreed to the settlement, therefore, it is fair.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 06:28:02 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Story of a man vs. America's team... but did he really win? The money is a fair amount (maybe) but I'm not sure I agree with the settlement the photographer agreed to. Read and discuss. ;o) |
The photographer and the Dallas Cowboys agreed to the settlement, therefore, it is fair.
-Terry |
A guy with a gun at his head is given the option of being killed first or being killed second and watching his wife die. Doesnt matter which one he agrees to it can still be considered and unfair decision.
He could have agreed to it because the other option was be allowed in the stadium and get no money or any other number of options. Agreeing to the lesser of two evils because the one has more benefit to you than the other doesnt always make it fair. |
|
|
|
06/07/2005 06:37:31 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
but did he really win? |
He stood up against someone stealing what was legally his, considering the opposition I don't think you can ask much more than that.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 07:13:21 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by moodville:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Story of a man vs. America's team... but did he really win? The money is a fair amount (maybe) but I'm not sure I agree with the settlement the photographer agreed to. Read and discuss. ;o) |
The photographer and the Dallas Cowboys agreed to the settlement, therefore, it is fair.
-Terry |
A guy with a gun at his head is given the option of being killed first or being killed second and watching his wife die. Doesnt matter which one he agrees to it can still be considered and unfair decision.
He could have agreed to it because the other option was be allowed in the stadium and get no money or any other number of options. Agreeing to the lesser of two evils because the one has more benefit to you than the other doesnt always make it fair. |
The other option was to allow the suit to go to trial and take what the court deemed fair.
No one took away his right to sue. He felt this was the best deal he could get, and settled of his own free will.
-Terry
Message edited by author 2005-06-07 19:17:25.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 07:16:52 PM · #21 |
I wonder how you would submit stuff to a pro team and try to get small amounts of money for them? Anybody know if this is possible?
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 07:34:46 PM · #22 |
|
|
|
06/07/2005 07:37:28 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
...No one took away his right to sue. He felt this was the best deal he could get, and settled of his own free will.
-Terry |
True. In one respect, though, the team did have quite an advantage. If he takes it to court and loses, he pays his own legal fees, which would be substantial. For him, this is a terrible risk. For the team, a very small one. He is therefore at somewhat of a disadvantage, and is much more likely to take a settlement.
Message edited by author 2005-06-07 19:37:48.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 07:38:19 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
...No one took away his right to sue. He felt this was the best deal he could get, and settled of his own free will.
-Terry |
True. In one respect, though, the team did have quite an advantage. If he takes it to court and loses, he pays his own legal fees, which would be substantial. For him, this is a terrible risk. For the team, a very small one. He is therefore at somewhat of a disadvantage, and is much more likely to take a settlement. |
...unless he had an attorney who had taken the case on contingency.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 07:42:07 PM · #25 |
I didn't see anything about how the team "acquired" the picture in the first place. Does anyone know?
Message edited by author 2005-06-07 19:42:28. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/17/2025 02:57:21 PM EDT.
