From WAN to the IRB, 14 March 2007
Mr Mike Miller _ CEO/General Secretary
International Rugby Board
Huguenot House
35-38 St Stephen’s Green
Dublin 2
Ireland
Dear Mr Miller,
I acknowledge receipt of your letter, dated 27 February last, which rejects the entirety of our concerns about the wide range of restrictions that the IRB intends to place on media coverage of the 2007 Rugby World Cup.
On behalf of the World Association of Newspapers and a coalition of the world’s major news agencies (Agence France-Presse, The Asssociated Press, Reuters and Getty Images), which are joining this initiative, I wish to reiterate our conviction that the IRB’s actions are a serious breach of freedom of the press and to inform you that we reserve our rights with regard to our legal options. We also see it as our duty to bring to the attention of your sponsors the very clear loss of exposure from which they will suffer owing to these restrictions.
Your position reflects, frankly, a lack of understanding of the meaning of freedom of the press and the nature of the modern news enterprise. We would like once more to state that:
 Photography is an integral part of journalism and should not be subject to special rules.
Digital publishing, whether through the Internet or mobile telephony, plays a fundamental part in the news business and cannot be disassociated from the other activities of news companies.
The IRB’s attempts, in the name of commercial interest, to place obstacles and restrictions in the way of journalistic coverage of the World Cup, which is a public event engaging nations, is a clear violation of the right to the free flow of, and access to, information.
Restrictions imposed by the IRB on the manner in which photographs can be used, whether in print or electronically, as a condition of accreditation, constitute an unacceptable interference in the freedom and independence of the press.
Newspapers and news agencies have played an historic role in the promotion of rugby and are present 365 days a year to cover its more obscure features. Apart from anything else, it is immensely unfair that IRB should now seek to deprive them from continuing to serve their readers and clients by covering the World Cup finals in the full fashion that they would like to.
I would like to draw your attention to one factual error in your letter: FIFA did not impose any restrictions on the number of photographs on web sites as you are now proposing (5 stills per half and 2 per half of extra time). In its wisdom, FIFA admitted that such restrictions were an interference in editorial freedom and eliminated them entirely.
I must say, also, that we are astonished by the barely veiled threat in your letter to start charging newspapers for just attending major tournaments. This once again reflects a profound lack of knowledge of what constitutes media freedom and the free access to information.
Needless to say, we are ready to reopen discussions on the accreditation terms which cause us most concern if you are prepared to consider their removal or amendment.
Yours sincerely,
Timothy Balding
Chief Executive Officer
World Association of Newspapers
From the IRB to WAN, February 27, 2007
Mr Timothy Balding
Chief Executive Officer
World Association of Newspapers
7 rue Geoffrey St Hilaire
75005 Paris
France
Dear Mr Balding,
Thank you for your letter concerning the media accreditation Terms and Conditions for Rugby World Cup 2007.
Underpinning any terms and conditions is the fact that every tournament or event organiser incurs huge overhead costs that need to be underwritten. Furthermore, tournament owners like the IRB rely on the funds generated by their major events in order to ensure the maintenance and growth of their sport. The IRB funds 115 Unions throughout the world and is in the middle of a major strategic development programme which aims to increase the number and competitiveness of Unions at the top level.
Therefore, the IRB unashamedly protects its revenues and believes that these funds should be retained within the Game and not potentially lost or diminished by what in essence may amount to further forms of third party commercial exploitation whether under the guise of so called "news reporting" or otherwise. Many of our vital revenues are dependant on the exclusivity which IRB grants to its broadcasters and other licensees.
Your various concerns have been noted but we totally reject the accusation that there is a breach of freedom of the press.
The Terms and Conditions for Rugby World Cup 2007 are based on our previous five tournaments (which experienced no questioning of the Terms and Conditions) and other major world sports events such as the Olympic Games and FIFA World Cup. We believe there is nothing out of the ordinary contained within them. They allow media organisations to carry out their core business.
In the case of paper-based, fixed print publications such as newspapers we allow: free entry by journalists and photographers to the tournament (once accredited); access to our media extranet which contains tournament news, team media schedules, statistics, etc; access to training sessions and media conferences.
It is not really our concern if newspapers decide to expand into non-traditional news delivery mechanisms and businesses to bolster their reach and market share, and nor should we change our terms and conditions and jeopardise our sport’s valuable commercial revenues in order to facilitate their new business enterprises.
The use of the Internet is now widespread and the placing of text and still photographs mirrors exactly what is published in print. Newspapers are permitted to file articles and photographs to their news websites and we believe the Internet will carry comprehensive coverage of the tournament through such means as in the past.
However, the publication of audiovisual material from within official venues and functions cuts across commercial agreements and exclusivities that are in place. Allowing non-rights holding news websites to stream video and audio infringes the rights that have been purchased by rights holders.
In keeping with other major events Rugby World Cup has sold TV and broadband rights via various open tender processes throughout the world. These rights holders have various exclusive rights within their territories to screen live match footage and material from official functions and venues via TV and broadband. Many of the broadcasters also have “on demand” replay rights. The broadcasters have paid significant fees for these rights and the revenues they provide are central to the organisation and staging of the event and vital to the growth and development of Rugby. This should be respected.
If an organisation such as a newspaper group wants to provide “on demand” video and audio streaming from official venues and functions should it not enter the tender processes for these rights? Especially if such organisations intend charging for such information.
Within the industry the subject of charging newspapers to attend major tournament/events in the future just as TV and radio broadcasters pay rights fees to cover the tournament has been raised.
These are discussion points for the future. It is now too late to consider these issues for Rugby World Cup 2007.
In reply to the specific concerns you raised in your letter I tender the following responses (I have retained your exact wording as a heading for each point, even though I would not agree with your terminology or the sentiment behind it):
The limitation of digital publication to a maximum of 5 stills per half & 2 per half extra time
We believe that this affords more than adequate coverage of matches on news websites and as newspapers obviously don’t have this ability the updating of news during matches adds value to the newspaper coverage. This is the same number as stated by FIFA in its terms and conditions for Soccer World Cup 2006, although originally its terms and conditions prevented the publication of photographs until one hour after the match.
The ban on photo-sales
We have not banned photo-sales. The wording clearly states: “without the prior written permission of RWCL and subject to such conditions as RWCL shall determine”. We have obligations to protect player images and we reserve the right to licence such operations as they are outside the Terms and Conditions of editorial coverage.
The interference with press freedom in banning superimposition of text on photos & free reporting which might include criticism
This limiting of superimposing text on photos is standard across major sports events. That said we understand the design element of newspapers and will not be draconian in applying such limitations. An example would be a headline written along the top and inside of a photo that does not obscure any relevant detail. Again we have obligations to the participants as to how their images are used and we need to be able to respond to organisations who may manipulate images.
Not sure how you come to this conclusion. We welcome free reporting and are not immune to criticism. We welcome constructive criticism but would expect journalists to undertake due diligence before embarking on criticism that may be unfounded. We regularly hold media briefings around the world and the IRB will always have personnel available for comment during the tournament.
The ban on any audiovisual content by print journalists even if outside IRB rights deals
Not true. The Terms and Conditions state that non-rights holders are prohibited from publishing audio visual material (on websites) produced from match day venues and any tournament function (e.g. media conference, events at official venues, training sessions, etc) via the news access regulations as they constitute an “on demand” news service and are not scheduled news programmes. This is a standard position taken by event organisers to protect broadcast exclusivities.
However the Terms and Conditions do not stop media organisations from publishing audiovisual material that is produced outside of official venues and functions, e.g. audiovisual produced in a town or city outside of an official venue. Official venues are the match stadiums, training venues and any venue that is holding an official Tournament event. Journalist blogs are also allowable if done outside of official venues and functions. There should be no free speech concerns in this regard.
The ban on publisher content via telephony even if outside IRB rights deals
Again if it is material produced outside of official venues and functions this is not prohibited by the Terms and Conditions. However, any such mobile delivery cannot be labelled or dedicated as RWC 2007 news, etc and cannot be commercialised. No live updates (matchtracking) of tournament matches is allowed. Mobile phone users will obviously be allowed to access websites via handheld devices.
The severe limits on internet content duration & timing with differential limits for particular countries
We are not sure what you mean exactly here. In terms of editorial and photos published on websites there are no time or geographical limits. If you are talking about news access regulations then these are determined not by the IRB but broadcast protocols that exist worldwide for all major sports events including the Olympic Games.
Furthermore, as already stated, non-rights holding broadcasters cannot place audiovisual content on websites from official venues and functions as they are deemed “on demand”.
The ban on the traditional and well established process of syndication
Again, we are not sure what you mean by this statement. The terms and conditions do not prevent journalist’s copy being syndicated around the world, or indeed photographs, if they are to be used for editorial purposes within print media.
The arbitrary nature of possibility of withdrawal of accreditation
This is not arbitrary and again is consistent with Terms and Conditions of other major sports events. There are clearly defined reasons outlined on pages 3 and 4 of the Terms and Conditions that determine if accreditation should be revoked. There will also be a defined process in place to examine any breaches including an appeal process as stated in the Media Rules document.
· No reasonable handling fee by IRB of non-commercial use of publisher content (& absence of definition of ’non-commercial’)
Again, we are not sure what you mean by this statement. Non-commercial seems pretty self explanatory - a term widely used to describe the use of text and images for editorial purposes that includes the production of material (website articles, books, magazines, newsletters, etc.) that is not sold for profit and is deemed to be in-house promotional material.
To reconfirm our stance, the IRB is confident that the Terms and Conditions are fair and equitable and allow media organisations to carry out their core business. To state that the Terms and Conditions breach press freedoms is untrue.
The IRB recognises the need to adapt to new technology whilst respecting the overriding objective of balancing the needs of all stakeholders. We have an obligation to protect those who underwrite the event as this revenue drives the growth of the Game. Without a healthy and vibrant event there is nothing for news organisations to report.
Accreditation to a tournament such as Rugby World Cup is a privilege and allows access to controlled venues for specific news reporting purposes. It is not a licence to commercially exploit material gathered or generated from an event for use outside of core business practices which relate to news access.
We look forward to working with your members during Rugby World Cup 2007. We will do everything we can to ensure that they have top class working conditions and are able to carry out their core business efficiently and effectively.
Yours sincerely,
Mike Miller
CEO/Secretary General
From WAN to the IRB, 20 February 2007
Mr Mike Miller
CEO/General Secretary
International Rugby Board
Huguenot House
35-38 St Stephen’s Green
Dublin 2
Ireland
Dear Mr Miller,
I am writing to express the grave disappointment of the World Association of Newspapers about the IRB’s response to our serious concerns over the wide range of restrictions that you intend to place on media coverage of the 2007 Rugby World Cup.
In his mail dated 1 February, Greg Thomas essentially made it clear that the IRB has decided not to take account of any of the problems that we identified in our talks in Dublin in December and which place severe restrictions on publishers in the terms and conditions of accreditation.
Representatives of our 18,000 member publications in 102 countries world-wide have, quite rightly, decided that we cannot let the matter rest there and have asked me to approach you once again to try and make progress before we ’go public’ on these restrictions, which represent a clear breach of freedom of the press and the ability of news enterprises to cover a public event in satisfactory conditions.
We would very much like to avoid the kind of damaging and high profile conflict experienced with FIFA over the soccer World Cup. We shall therefore refrain from drawing attention to the IRB response to our claims for a week from the date of this letter. Within this time we urge the IRB to reconsider its stance and to agree that there should be flexibility and an acceptance that the terms and conditions need to be amended and clarified to accommodate newspaper concerns.
We both know that there is a mutual benefit to newspapers and the sport of rugby from press coverage; we are no less convinced that rugby needs the promotion which the world’s press can provide and, with it, very considerable financial value to sponsors.
We remain ready and willing to meet once again in order to try to find a solution to the serious disagreement between the IRB and the world’s press.
A summary of many of the elements in the terms with which we have serious problems is below:
the limitation of digital publication to a maximum of 5 stills per half & 2 per half extra time
the ban on photo-sales
the interference with press freedom in banning superimposition of text on photos & free reporting which might include criticism
the ban on any audiovisual content by print journalists even if outside IRB rights deals
the ban on publisher content via telephony even if outside IRB rights deals
the severe limits on internet content duration & timing with differential limits for particular countries
the ban on the traditional and well established process of syndication
the arbitrary nature of possibility of withdrawal of accreditation
no reasonable handling fee by IRB of non-commercial use of publisher content (& absence of definition of ’non-commercial’)
Although there are some other areas on which we seek clarification, the above list demonstrates the extent to which we have serious difficulty with the terms and conditions.
We hope that you are able to respond favourably to our request for much more flexibility and look forward to receiving your reply.
Yours sincerely,
Timothy Balding
Chief Executive Officer |
