
The BBC’s fundamental misunderstanding of copyright - iSimone
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk/bbc-fundamental-misunderstanding-copyright/
======
wpietri
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.

For the curious, their article:

[https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9203159/Cubicle_wars...](https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9203159/Cubicle_wars_Best_and_worst_office_setups_for_tech_workers)

And mine:

<http://www.scissor.com/resources/teamroom/>

~~~
kmm
Is your single-use fee always 250 USD or did you ask a higher number because
they took it without your permission?

~~~
wpietri
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.

------
pessimizer
last comment on page:

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.

~~~
AgentConundrum
> _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.

~~~
patrickyeon
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.

~~~
AgentConundrum
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.

~~~
phaker
I recall that fair use laws in some countries explicitly mention issue of
using copyrighted content in news stories / for public information.

Unfortunately quick googling didn't find anything useful, and the wikipedia
article is surprisingly worthless:

 _While many other countries recognize similar exceptions to copyright, only
the United States and Israel fully recognize the concept of fair use._

Seriously?

------
wpietri
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!

------
jwdunne
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.

