If you find some publisher boosting your content, invoice them!
Early this year Computerworld took an image off my website to illustrate an article. I sent them a polite note saying that my single-use fee for the image was $250. It took me a little while to find the right person, but they eventually apologized for the error and sent me a check. It was a pleasant moral victory.
I just made up a number that would be non-negligible, both for them and in relation to my time spent pursuing them. I have no idea what photographers actually charge for this sort of thing.
Awesome. Since the BBC is also "available to most people who have a computer," surely they would agree that "any content on it is not subject to the same copyright laws as it is already in the public domain".
Pardon me while I write a script to upload all their photos to a stock image site. Royalties, here I come!
Chris Hamilton - BBC News Social Media Editor says:
August 13, 2011 at 3:37 pm
We’re checking out the complaint response quoted above but, on the face of it, it’s wrong and isn’t the position of BBC News.
In fact, we make every effort to contact people, as copyright holders, who’ve taken photos we want to use in our coverage.
In exceptional situations, ie a major news story, where there is a strong public interest in making a photo available to a wide audience, we may seek clearance after we’ve first used it.
We want to do right by potential contributors and our audience – it’s not in our interests to annoy them – and this is a good opportunity to remind ourselves of that.
> In exceptional situations, ie a major news story, where there is a strong public interest in making a photo available to a wide audience, we may seek clearance after we’ve first used it.
We try to follow the law, but sometimes it's just too inconvenient for our needs.
I'm pretty sure there's fair-use exceptions for copyright law when there is no suitable alternative to a copyrighted work, and the work is necessary for some (possibly limited) use. See: news agencies historically using amateur photographs/video, every album cover/movie poster used on Wikipedia.
Yeah, that's a very valid point that I hadn't considered. I'm quite sure that a news organization like BBC News could make a convincing case for necessity of use in a lot of "breaking news" type situations.
Of course it's also possible they make the judgement call of being willing to eventually cough up an amount up to the statutory damages for copyright infringement in these "exceptional cases".
I wonder how high the punishment for using a picture could be? Maybe the damages will be estimated according to market rate, which the BBC would have been prepared to pay anyway?
I'm pretty sure if you or me infringe on copyright, the damages aren't estimated according to the market rate... but I'm curious how this works for the BBC.
If a news organization which is publicly funded has to make a choice between breaking important news or obeying the law, I would rather that they report the news.
I would rather they report the news while staying on the correct side of copyright law.
If the author of the original post was a professional photo journalist who happened to post some of his photos to twitter would it be fine for the BBC to use that photo?
Similarly, if you wrote a script which was then used verbatim in a commercial product outside of the any license you had granted because they had to get the product out the door would that be fine?
I am talking about a dilemma, where they must choose either to report news or obey the law. I would also rather that they do both, when possible, but sometimes there are situations where they must pick, and I would rather that they pick the choice that serves the public rather than the government. (Remember, copyright is established by the government, to protect artists and scientists, to promote cultural progress; it is not an innate right!)
Back when the BBC took complaints by phone, they were for a long time handled by the front desk. So you can imagine some semi-trained security guard answering the complaint and spouting some nonsense about copyright. Once this rises up to someone with real control and understanding, things get corrected. I'd say this is a case of "nothing to see here, move along".
When covering the riots late at night and into the early hours, the BBC often used footage from several hours earlier (still daylight) as background. I think any argument that "exceptional situations, ie a major news story" give a public interest justification for using material before getting permission is very weak. I'm not sure what fair dealing provision the BBC are appealing to in some of the other comments claiming to be from BBC staff (posting in a personal capacity), either.
Why the downvotes, please? Doesn't the very fact that the BBC's main coverage was using hours-old video despite having reporters and camera crews at the scene through the night rather negate any argument they might make that they need to use anyone's material before they have time to get permission because of some sort of urgency/public interest argument?
In the instances I've seen the BBC use Twitter/YouTube media, I would say it'd fall under fair use.
That's fine but the thing that's most concerning about the post is the complete nonsense inside the auto-generated reply. If there was any official dispute on the BBC's usage of media from the social networks, I doubt this will help them.
Early this year Computerworld took an image off my website to illustrate an article. I sent them a polite note saying that my single-use fee for the image was $250. It took me a little while to find the right person, but they eventually apologized for the error and sent me a check. It was a pleasant moral victory.
For the curious, their article:
https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9203159/Cubicle_wars...
And mine:
http://www.scissor.com/resources/teamroom/