Nike confiscates tapes

[musicaleCA]

Whhaaaaa? That's really weird. I didn't claim that Canada is without it's own brand of law-enforcement farces. That's what we have 22 Minutes and the Rick Mercer Report for though.

That said, I can say that I haven't had any problems yet with the Vancouver PD and my photography; not so much as being approached by cops, even when I shot them making an arrest (and a rather large one that that; lots of cruisers, and armoured truck, and tons of officers). The police here have been pretty good about photography in general. (Then again, with all the pot and drugs, they probably have better things to worry about.)

And yes, I am aware of the recent event where a photojournalist was assaulted by the VPD and had his camera confiscated, for shooting the VPD when they had shot someone, on public property no less.

 

[Yemme]

Are you saying Lebron James hasn't earned his sponsor? Err...

I'm saying endorsement deals are handed out too easily. You had to prove yourself before you got offered a sneaker deal especially. Now they just hope a kid will be able to go as far a Michael Jordan did. He earned all his endorsement.

 

[Josh66]

i can't believe people have gone so soft . . . the photographer gave it up without it coming to physical blows

WTF, man...

Why would you expect a situation like this to be resolved by beating the sh!t out of someone?

Try that next time you get confronted on an issue like this. You may win the battle, but you will lose the war.

the real point is we don't know the details and i think its wrong to jump from "nike is being a bad sport about one of their sponsored players getting wrecked" to "nike broke the law"

The details don't really matter. Nike DID break the law. You may not like the law, but it is the law.
The videographer's comments after the fact make it clear that they did not wish to hand over the tapes.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

the real point is we don't know the details and i think its wrong to jump from "nike is being a bad sport about one of their sponsored players getting wrecked" to "nike broke the law"

The details don't really matter. Nike DID break the law. You may not like the law, but it is the law.
The videographer's comments after the fact make it clear that they did not wish to hand over the tapes.

The details DO matter! And there's enough of them missing from the article to be sure of what happened.

The videographer is described as a "freelancer." That makes me think he used a camera that was big enough not to fit in his pocket when he walked in and in this case it would mean that their excuse that no filming is allowed at such event was only enforced later on when something happened that they don't want seen by the public.

But what is really meant by a "freelancer"? If the camera was small enough to fit in the guy's pocket and was not seen until he started shooting, Nike may be able to say that they stopped him as soon as they could and be within their rights.

I am not a lawyer so I sure can't tell for sure but I 've owrked with enough of them that I know a lawyer would want to know more details before giving his opinions.


To newrmdmike: Since you don't seem to know, we have very stupid laws here too.

 

[Josh66]

It seems to me that video/photography was OK during the regular training session. It was only during the 'after-hours' pick-up games that it was forbidden (when this incident took place).

The two guys didn't stop filming when they were supposed to, and got their tapes confiscated for it.

I think it was inappropiate (and illegal) of Nike to confiscate the tapes. Maybe they weren't clear enough about when filming has to stop (I don't think that would matter - I'm sure it's in the fine print somewhere), or maybe they 'let it slide' for most people.

To me, it sounds like a case of "Crappy gear=OK, Pro gear=Bad".

 

[newrmdmike]

i can't believe people have gone so soft . . . the photographer gave it up without it coming to physical blows

WTF, man...

Why would you expect a situation like this to be resolved by beating the sh!t out of someone?

Try that next time you get confronted on an issue like this. You may win the battle, but you will lose the war.

the real point is we don't know the details and i think its wrong to jump from "nike is being a bad sport about one of their sponsored players getting wrecked" to "nike broke the law"

The details don't really matter. Nike DID break the law. You may not like the law, but it is the law.
The videographer's comments after the fact make it clear that they did not wish to hand over the tapes.

...i mean that they gave it up without any struggle, from what i heard in the interview it might as well have been me asking you for something and you giving it to me. they could have just said "no" or feigned deleting the video or whatever, pulled the switcharoo. . . or whatever his choice may have been, but he chose to hand it over. Regardless of what someone asked, if i believed they were in the wrong i wouldn't have done what they wanted. thats what i meant by their being soft and not coming to blows.

i'm done with this thread the fact that the details don't really matter to you is going to take the validity out of the argument. you want to argue law without acknowledging details . . .
and it appears our good 'ole op dropped out also.

its not like a cop confiscated film of something heinous . . . there was no crime against the public. this was in a private setting, the whole thing seems kind of silly.

 

[PhotoXopher]

If he wasn't supposed to be doing it in the first place, more power to Nike for taking it.

If it wasn't against any policies, then I can see the argument.

(I'm going to quietly exit this conversation now because I forgot my flame suit at home.)

 

[KmH]

Nike Returns the tapes

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Sure, now that there is a video on the net :lmao: