Sauce for the goose....

Remember this

For example, photographers applying for IPL accreditation will have to ensure that their clicked photos:

* appear as still images (and not as moving images or rapid-sequence streaming or refreshed images) and cannot be used to support a so-called on-line match-tracking report, audio or text based commentary service;

* are published in the relevant print media for editorial reporting purposes only;

* images are not used in association with any marks, names or logos of any third party (commercial or otherwise); no online use or publication or syndication of any such still photographic images is allowed without the express prior written consent of IPL.

These rules have already drawn flak from international media agencies like the Agence France Presse (AFP).

Then there was this

The Associated Press (AP) will not be covering this year's Indian Premier League (IPL) cricket tournament in South Africa because organizers have imposed unacceptable conditions on media outlets covering the event.

The AP and major international news organizations Reuters and Agence France-Presse sought to persuade IPL organizers to change their minds about terms and conditions imposed on media.

The News Media Coalition, an association that represents a worldwide collection of news organizations, has also tried without success to resolve the dispute.

IPL Chief Executive Lalit Modi refused to amend conditions, including one that bars media groups from supplying news and photos about IPL events to Web sites that specialize in cricket. The IPL has signed an exclusive agreement to supply news and photos about the Twenty20 tournament to one Web site.

Now, square that with this

© AFP . This image may not be reproduced without specific consent from AFP

If media outlets desire complete access to events that are technically the property of the event holders, why don't the same rules apply to disseminating the content that is copyrighted by the very same media outlets?

What does"specific consent" mean? And how different is it from the argument Modi and CA and other had forwarded when barring media outlets from freely distributing content from their events?