´óÏó´«Ã½

bbc.co.uk Navigation

Bryn Palmer

Picture row mars Cup opening (20)

Paris - It was all smiles on Thursday night as Bernard Lapasset, the president of the French Rugby Federation, Bernard Delanoe, the mayor of Paris, and Syd Millar, the chairman of the International Rugby Board, flicked the ceremonial switch on this sixth Rugby World Cup.

Their stage-managed act, captured live on French television, illuminated a giant rugby ball, suspended between the lower columns of the .

The official World Cup logo was also lit up, while the steel frames of Gustave’s iconic 324m-high creation also dazzled onlookers with a shimmering array of lights.

The Eiffel Tower

But behind the ceremonial bonhomie, all was not sweetness and light, at least in the corridors of the . In fact all the talk was of a blackout.

Frantic last-minute negotiations were due to take place on Friday to resolve a row that saw photographers and journalists from the world’s leading news agencies down tools on Thursday, boycotting any World Cup-related events.

An Australian team press conference was apparently notable for its lack of journalists, while the one I attended featuring some of the game’s biggest legends did not have the numbers attending that the organisers might have expected.

, , , plus and the have continued their "strike" into the tournament’s opening day, suspending all their text, photo and TV services.

There is now a 40-strong ‘media coalition’ which has joined forces to fight what they see as an infringement of their rights over ownership of material.

Photographers ignore New Zealand training

So what’s it all about? Well, the IRB wants to restrict pictures on websites during games, as well as non-game video footage.

The governing body wants to limit the number of images photographers can transmit to clients during games, fearing that too many could constitute video-streaming, and threaten the live TV coverage of the tournaments’ rights holders.

The agencies want the IRB to remove a disclaimer enabling the governing body to change the terms and conditions of accreditated journalists at any time without consultation, but in the hours before the tournament kicks off, the IRB is standing firm.

The boycott has already had an impact on British newspapers as well as international publications across the world.

The England squad were visiting World War One war graves in northern France on Thursday, en route to Lens where they play their opening game against the on Saturday.

But apart from pictures supplied to the own website, most British newspapers did not carry pictures of the visit, or any other tournament-related activity, from Thursday.

One leading photographer from a British national newspaper was on his way to cover the event when he was told to turn round and return to his hotel.

As things stand, some journalists and photographers are still unsure whether they should head off to the Stade de France or not for the opening match.

On the one hand, the IRB wants to extend rugby’s global reach as far as possible, and maximise the huge income streams it receives every four years from a World Cup.

But any continuation of the boycott by the main suppliers of the tournament’s coverage abroad is a threat to that ambition of reaching a wider audience beyond the already established nations.

The French authorities also understandably want their tournament to benefit from international coverage across the board, and are none too impressed with the current impasse so close to kick-off.

So while I will be heading to the Stade de France later to give you a flavour of opening night, apologies in advance if the pictures on our live coverage are not doing it justice.

Bryn Palmer is the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Sport website’s rugby union editor.


Comments  Post your comment

  • 1.
  • At 03:36 PM on 07 Sep 2007,
  • David Smith wrote:

It is a shame that some of the media is not fully content with being allowed to cover the RWC but instead wishes to have the rights to the whole thing. I believe the IRB is correct to keep the clause that allows them to control the extent of the coverage.

They need to be shown and reminded that the RWC is for rugby and the people - not for them to make money!

  • 2.
  • At 03:45 PM on 07 Sep 2007,
  • Mark Hertzog wrote:

Ridiculous. As it has infected all other major sports, big money is now infecting rugby and leading to disgraceful displays of this kind. I don't choose sides between the media contingent and the IRB; boiled down, they're both large, well-funded institutions fighting with each other over money. A pox on both your houses! (As for me, living in the USA where rugby isn't a money maker, I'm confined to watching on 24- to 48-hour delay, thank you very much.)

Hi Bryn,

Maybe you and your team could recreate the tries in the car park after the game (ala Phoenix from the Flames) and use those instead.

Tom Fordyce could easily pass for Chabal.

Peace out,

The Mooj

  • 4.
  • At 04:21 PM on 07 Sep 2007,
  • Greg Wright wrote:

The agencies want the IRB to remove a disclaimer enabling the governing body to change the terms and conditions of accreditated journalists at any time without consultation. This sounds reasonable to me. Would you sign a contract when the terms could be changed without you being consulted. Own goal by the IRB.

  • 5.
  • At 04:25 PM on 07 Sep 2007,
  • Monsieur Norman wrote:

The Media have proved time and time again TOO powerful.
Bravo for IRB because it is Rugby that gains not Share Holders or overpaid Media executives.
Ex Treasurer of a Rugby club

  • 6.
  • At 04:31 PM on 07 Sep 2007,
  • Glasgow Steve wrote:

No other sport seems to have suffered from this - why are the IRB seemingly acting like idiots.

Every four years rugby has the chance to boost itself as a world sport and the blazers are doing their best to make sure football stays on the back pages.

  • 7.
  • At 04:41 PM on 07 Sep 2007,
  • Shaun Rimmer wrote:

Disagree. It’s the big media presence and attention that gives the games the advertising leading up to tournament. Had it not been for the increased coverage over the years, the RWC would still be a relatively small event watched only by rugby people. Strikes me, that now the IRB has got its massive tournament and the pre event advertising that goes with it, they want to now keep everything for themselves. Greedy. Open it up to everyone.

  • 8.
  • At 05:29 PM on 07 Sep 2007,
  • Nick Gostick wrote:

I was a mad keen rugby player and couldn't wait for my sons to take up the sport. But they are not interested at all. Why not? because the game is hardly ever on the tele. The lack of England games and Lions games means that they don't get "grabbed" by the game. Even took them to live games but that didn't work. It is the big live games on the tele that snare the young now the game isn't played much at school.
Short term - BIG MONEY
Long term - DEATH OF GAME
Restricting coverage of anny sort is BAD
And I don't buy the argument that the money trickles down, I used to run a junior club and saw didley squat from the fat cats at the RFU and they wouldn't even let me sell international tickets to buy a set of shirts.

  • 9.
  • At 06:26 PM on 07 Sep 2007,
  • Mark Orlovac wrote:

Just a little update on this for you. The media "coalition" and the IRB have reportedly patched up their differences just before the start of the World Cup opener between France and Argentina.

This was always going to be case right?

The media boycott is now off and hopefully we will be able to see pictures of the opening game!

  • 10.
  • At 08:14 PM on 07 Sep 2007,
  • wrote:

I live in Italy and up to now LA7 (not a mainstreamTV station) has been the only TV station to show Rugby and hence help make it more popular.

Now that rugby in Italy has become a little more popular, bigger broadcasters (in this case a Satellite Sports Channel) have won the rights to transmit the world cup.

Hence 90 percent of Italians are not able to watch the Nation Squad in the 2007 world cup.

So basically even if Italy was to win the 2007 World Cup most Italians wouldn't even know about it.

  • 11.
  • At 08:53 PM on 07 Sep 2007,
  • Markymark wrote:

It is always incredible to me when organisers of competitions do something like this. It seems fairly fundamental to a competition like the RWC to get as much publicity as possible, so whats the point in restricting non-match media? Other than financial reasons, and its not like they RWC isn't making enough sponsorship money.

PLain crazy

  • 12.
  • At 09:00 PM on 07 Sep 2007,
  • wrote:

As an avid amateur photographer, who covers sports amongst the many things I do, I can sympathise with the stance that the agencies have taken.

This is really tantamount to a severe restriction of trade, and as such, may threaten the livelyhood of those photographers who are covering the tournament. The majority of sports photographers nowadays are sending copy off for the early editions of the respective paper and as such, need to be in constant contact with their editors in order to do so.

The IRB will realise their mistakes soon, and hopefully will rescind their daft restrictions and common sense will prevail.

R

  • 13.
  • At 09:38 PM on 07 Sep 2007,
  • dave wrote:

Actually Bryn,

The IRB wanted more draconian controls than your piece suggests.

They attempted to claim copyright on any photos taken during any IRB event, that meant they wold be able to control where and how any and all images could be used, and for no payment.

They event went so far as to try and outlaw the use of text over any images, so no full page use in an newspapers. The publication I work for intends to use a picture fully on the broadsheet front page of our sport section, if we want to do that we have to overlay a headline & our masthead. This would have been banned under the IRB's ridiculous rules.

Dave

  • 14.
  • At 11:12 PM on 07 Sep 2007,
  • Dave wrote:

Why shouldnt photographers reep the benefits of there own work and not be forced to relinquesh their copyright to a bullying organization, who wants to make money through others efforts.

  • 15.
  • At 01:14 AM on 08 Sep 2007,
  • quizman wrote:

I totally agree with comments 8 and 9 - there's more to this than money it's about interest in the game and publicity (last World Cup - England kids getting into it). IRB and RFU totally paranoid about money which the punters pay for. And now tonight, whats gonna happen Argies for an 8 nations tournament, not if the RFU have anything to do with it, so bugger their supporters. Would the Argies play in Spain? Nope Spanish TV wouldn't entertain them.

  • 16.
  • At 05:51 AM on 08 Sep 2007,
  • JimG wrote:

What's new here? Nothing. North American soccer fans could have told you long ago that if a sport doesn't commit unnatural acts for the media, the media won't provide any airtime or ink.
I'm all in favor of the internet media providing graphic coverage of the breaking stories, but if they're going to compete with or emulate video media, they ought to pay the same price that other businesses pay for the video rights.
Ah, but then, fair play is no concept in business, as we all know. And never mind what the public wants, the media will tell us what we're to want.

  • 17.
  • At 07:31 AM on 08 Sep 2007,
  • richard spray wrote:

As a rugby fan went to the first three RWC then watched all games on TSN in Canada now RWC is so big Sentanta buys rights and so minnow Candians have to pay extra to see our team play. On top of Satellite costs now there is a subscription required
just another way that IRB and money stifles the expansion of the game if kids do not see it on tv they will not want to play it.
No the money does not trickle down
KalCan

  • 18.
  • At 09:02 AM on 08 Sep 2007,
  • James wrote:

As an accredited photographer for the World Cup, I'd like to point out that we were initially asked to relinquish all our rights to our own work and agree to supply images for free to the organisers. No photographer would normally submit to this clause. However, it now appears that the IRB and RWCL have removed a number of these clauses. Good. Without the copyright I wouldn't have any form of income from this tournament (as I would no longer own my work), for what is an enormous expenditure for me to get there anyway. With that, I shall see you in Nantes!

  • 19.
  • At 09:43 AM on 08 Sep 2007,
  • A Senior wrote:

Big time TV rights in some countries mean that fewer people see the sport than if it was free time or if on national TV.
Media folk interested only in their own participation are a pain.
Fully agree with comments 8 10 and 15

  • 20.
  • At 10:42 AM on 08 Sep 2007,
  • A Senior wrote:

Big time TV rights in some countries mean that fewer people see the sport than if it was free time or if on national TV.
Media folk interested only in their own participation are a pain.
Fully agree with comments 8 10 and 15

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not responsible for the content of external internet sites