Efforts are continuing to ensure rights in Press photography at US basketball are not automatically handed over to the organisers of tournaments.

Major news photo agencies have refused to cover some Gazelle Group-run college basketball fixtures after objecting to credential access terms that would have given organisers free promotional use of images taken at the events.

The dispute centres on credential terms used by event organiser The Gazelle Group for some neutral-site college basketball fixtures. According to reports, the Associated Press, Getty Images and Imagn declined to send photographers to Duke’s 68-63 win over Michigan in Washington, DC, on 21 February because of objections to the access conditions attached to coverage. The game was described as ESPN’s highest-rated regular-season men’s college basketball broadcast in seven years, yet it was left without coverage from the main wire photo services.

The National Press Photographers Association has argued that the terms amount to a rights grab. Earlier versions of the agreement reportedly sought irrevocable, free use of all images taken by credentialed photographers. The language was later softened to cover up to three photographs per event, but that did not resolve the concerns of major agencies, which maintained that such conditions were incompatible with independent editorial coverage.

The Gazelle Group has said the policy followed copyright complaints from news agencies over their copyright images from its events that Gazelle had previously used without the necessary permission. But critics say the issue goes beyond copyright ownership and touches on editorial independence, arguing that organisers should not be able to secure free promotional use of press images as a condition of access to newsworthy events.

The case has become a prominent example of a wider concern for press photographers and publishers: that credential agreements can be used to pressure journalists into surrendering control over how their work is used. Photojournalism groups say the outcome will matter not only for sports coverage in the US, but also for broader debates around fair access, licensing and the independence of the press.