|
Yeah I had tought about submitting an image to the "weather" part of their website once, until I read the T&Cs... Thats extortionate.
They are also very keen on "send us your picture of this event" -- at that rate they could resell the images to other news agency and /the photographer/ would be liable !
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Keep in mind the BBC proper (as opposed to BBC Worldwide, which is a separate entity) is a not-for-profit, non-commercial enterprise. Working as I do with the BBC on occasion, I know that everything they do is watched very closely by both their board of governors and the government itself. They are very particular about doing things by the book. If there was a mistake, well, keep in mind that it's a massive organisation. The terms and conditions on their website are not unlike many I've read from news organisations and others. As they say in their T&C, if you don't like the terms and conditions, don't submit to them.
The BBC is the world's greatest public service in my opinion and to be without them would be a tragedy of the highest order.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
*scare-mongers furiously*
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Worth pointing out to the non-locals that the license fee is pretty paltry - £10 a month for no adverts ever and some of the best television in the world. Along with a charter that requires them to use external companies wherever possible. It's safe to say that my company wouldn't exist if it weren't for our BBC contract. I guess that makes me partial, but so be it.
heh at shhexycorin. :-)
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I noticed today that the Guardian newspaper is trying to do something similarly insidious. I've just posted the following to Utata, the Guardian Talk flickr group and the Guardian's own talk website. Apologies for repeating here, but I think this needs to be publicised:
There is a new weekly photo competition in the Guardian Weekend magazine which at first glance looked quite interesting. However, on reading the terms & conditions, I spotted this:
IN CONSIDERATION OF GNL AGREEING TO CONSIDER THE ENTRY, EACH ENTRANT ASSIGNS TO GNL THE COMPLETE COPYRIGHT AND ALL OTHER RIGHTS IN ANY ENTRY WHICH SHALL BE FOR THE FULL PERIOD OF COPYRIGHT. GNL SHALL BE FREE TO ASSIGN SUCH RIGHTS TO THIRD PARTIES.
I've seen people get heated up over terms on other photo competitions, but this one seems to take the biscuit. Basically they are saying that once you hit the "send" button, the picture which was formerly yours now belongs to Guardian Newspapers in perpetuity, to do as they see fit. Even if they never publish your photo, they still own it and can publish it whenever they want, and can also sue you if you try to use it again yourself.
The subtext, it seems, is that GNL is trying to build up its own extensive image library without having to pay anyone for the images. Whenever they publish a story which relates in some way or other to "water" (the topic in this week's magazine), rather than shelling out for a stock photo or asking one of their own photographers to go out and shoot something, they merely dip into the stack of probably hundreds, if not thousands, of pictures which the public have generously sent in. If another newspaper or magazine is running a story on water, they can just call the Guardian and get one of these photos "on the cheap", as no royalties ever need to be passed back to the original photographer.
The long-term implication is that there will be less use of stock image libraries, newspapers will need less photographers on their staff, and anyone who does this kind of thing for a living is likely to find themselves out of a job or scraping by on even less income than at present.
For a newspaper which has publicly declared itself a champion of photography, this seems a very cynical move to say the least.
Far more normal in a photo competition of this sort is a clause which allows unlimited use (rather than full copyright) of any winning photos (rather than all entries) for reproduction only in materials related to the competition (rather than anywhere and everywhere).
NB This is more serious than the recent fuss over the BBC's One Show photo competition - they only wanted rights to use your image wherever they see fit, the Guardian actually want *copyright* to your image.
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
Dan Sumption edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
Agreed Yolise. I love the BBC dearly, Radio 4 is my constant companion. But I don't think that as an organisation they can have carte blanche without risk of criticism.
The T&Cs may be typical - but that doesn't make them good or fair.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Why does their public service excuse draconian Ts & Cs? I would have thought that the reverse should be true - good corporate citizen and all.
The eqiivalent Australian organisation - the ABC - has a couple of my images floating around and their terms were exemplary.
Dan Sumption That clause is typical of the Ts & Cs of almost every photo competition I have seen. I don't enter them.
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
iansand edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
|
Dan - the Guardian???
*dodges to avoid falling pedestal*
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The T&Cs may be typical - but that doesn't make them good or fair
It doesn't, Hindolbittern and I don't think they shouldn't be criticised, but these things tend to snowball and I felt the need to stick another perspective in there. There is a sizeable contingent that wants to do away with the BBC altogether and this sort of thing is food for their fire. We'd be left essentially with re-runs and US syndications and I would hate that.
I think the real point here (and I recognise that it's the one you are making) is that amatuer photographers simply need to be aware that (perhaps all, with the apparent exception of the Australian ABC) news organisations have rather onerous Terms and Conditions and no matter who you are submitting a photo to, be it a competition, a publication or even a website like Flickr, it's in your interest to carefully read the T&Cs. YouTube, for example, although not quite as bad as the Guardian's competition terms, does retain the right to sublicense your videos as they see fit.
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
Yolise edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
|
Agreed, the BBC needs protecting and I'll be out there giving what for if anyone tries to do away with it.
But I'm passionate about the best of photography (see Dan's point "The long-term implication is that there will be less use of stock image libraries, newspapers will need less photographers on their staff, and anyone who does this kind of thing for a living is likely to find themselves out of a job or scraping by on even less income than at present.") and will fight for that too.
Although seeing what's been going on at The Telegraph recently (also on the EPUK site) I'm not holding out a lot of hope.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
iansand: "typical of the Ts & Cs of almost every photo competition" - I've looked at a few, and not seen anything this restrictive before. Sure, most require that you allow unlimited reproduction rights, but I've not seen one before which actually requires you to sign away copyright to your work. That's a whole different ball game.
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
Dan Sumption edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
I would make the suggestion that if photographers would form "Guilds", and market their photos only through their guild, that much of the exploitation would stop.
The Guild is not a new concept, but a historically old concept that worked very well from even the Dark Ages. The Guild is a group of skilled craftsmen who are united under a single banner, and operate under a single set of rules. You want to learn a trade, you joined the Guild, and became an apprentise under a master... what you sold, you sold through the guild.
Makes sense to me. Now if this were the norm, it would be the Guild who are setting the terms, and not the photo stock companies, and the networks, and so on.
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
GStrader edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
Guilds? Can I be a chaotic halfling druid assassin?
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
mojolicious edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
|
I think that's a given, moj.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
And the BBC would not survive as a private entity?
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Not in its present form, because private entities must cater to advertisers, and thereafter, the lowest common denominator. There is no way that the great unwashed would choose Life on Earth over Friends, so Friends is what you get and Life on Earth is what you don't get. Elitest, no doubt, but true, nevertheless.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The guild idea is nice, but these things seem to be designed specifically to exploit the talent of amateurs; not sure a guild (or, almost equivalently, a union) could help in this context? Not saying it necessarily couldn't - all members could conceivably boycott the Guardian or whoever until they stop pulling stuff like this - but it's not simple...
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
the BBC did a profile on my photography with about 8 of my images and I let them use them for free. It was pretty good exposure for my work. Their Technology Editor Darren Waters is a pretty nice guy and is on Flickr himself.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
the bbe was sniffing about the scotland group recently as well
www.flickr.com/groups/scots/discuss/72157594242303065/
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Umm - that was my original point Pamela ;¬)
www.epuk.org/Blogs/361/pimp-my-auntie
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
doh! it's the dementia
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
pamelaadam edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
|
It just seems a bit out of place for a non-profit entity such as the BBC to have such totalitarian requirements when wanting one of our photographs.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
the days of non profit beeb are long gone
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
There is a whole world of difference between 'not making profit' and 'not making money'. In the first, you just have to re-invest everything, which can only make the company better.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Background (albeit out of date) info:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1422177.stm
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
Brock (a group admin) edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
|
One thing they don't mention in that article is that BBC and BBC Worldwide are slightly different entities with different rules. BBC Worldwide is the arm that is allowed to be commercial and publishes software as well as licenses content abroad. It's the bit that makes the most money for the Beeb, if I recall.
A couple of interesting links from there:
2004/2005 Annual Report
The Royal Charter
The Future of the BBC
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The Beeb rules the UNIVERSE! And they ooawl tawk fahny on the beeb tyooo.
...And the best news in The U.S. of A. If my local public radio station - KALW - didn't carry the BBC I would be sad.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Oh, so the BBC makes money and then reinvests it all back into the company. Is that kind of like a charity organization that keeps 80% for itself and pays its executives millions of dollars? It also allows them to sell all of their communications towers, facilities and studios to a company like Crown Castle International for millions and millions of dollars, right? And this all keeps them immune from outside influence, right?
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
It isn't a charity. It is a public funded entity that has to report under massive scrutiny to the board of directors and the government. All the time.
Hardly the same thing. It is expected to make commercially sensible decisions to ensure the integrity of the service - its funding is dependent upon that service.
Re-investing all the money back into the company is just sensible. Partiularly if you don't have shareholders clamouring for their cut of the profit. Nothing at all like a charity keeping all the money.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Is that kind of like a charity organization that keeps 80% for itself and pays its executives millions of dollars?
No, because executive compensation isn't re-investment.
I'd think that anyone down on how the BBC operates would only need to look at Fox to immediately realise what precisely is the alternative to a well-funded public broadcaster.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Not millions, no - hundreds of thousands, certainly, but then they need to compete with commercial entities for high-level executives. I don't know anything about what they have and haven't sold or why, but I know that they are constantly being pressured to privitise a lot of their operations, mainly by the opposition conservatives and the commercial stations who consider them unfair competition.
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
Yolise edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
Brock makes an excellent point. (Did I just say that? Apparently...) There is a huge difference between being a non-profit and not making money, except that it doesn't appear that different from a charity, except that the BBC apparently is heavily government regulated.
From what it sounds like, the BBC makes a ton of money and then re-invests that money back into their programming in order to keep the funding going. A charity has to do the same thing, but their "programming" is their charitable effort, but they both make money. They just don't make a profit.
As an example, the president of the American Red Cross was paid a little over $650,000 USD as salary in 2004. Granted, that's nothing compared to the salary of a president in a comparable for-profit corporation, but they make money, and not a paltry sum.
According to the BBC's own annual report (and it sounds like this is BBC proper not worldwide?) as reported by BBC News, BBC executives are now paid 4.5% above the market average. I watch the BBC, too, and I love it as well, but again, that's no excuse for their T&Cs, and their non-profit status does not mean they do not make a significant amount of money.
According to the annual report linked to above, their income was 4,234.5 million British Pounds for that fiscal year.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
Cath B almost gone [deleted] says:
The local BBC featured the work some of us are doing in the River Tees from Source to Sea group group on their website.
It was good publicity for our flickr group but we didn't have to sign away the rights to anything. They just featured some of our pictures on their site www.bbc.co.uk/tees/content/articles/2006/03/03/mouth_of_t... and we were happy with that.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I don't know. The T&Cs are what they are. If people don't like them, it is their choice not to submit images to them. I probably wouldn't, for example, but I don't think their choice of conditions are any reflection on the company.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I moved... [deleted] says:
Does anyone know if the BBC charge for any of its web content to those accessing it from abroad (i.e. not the uk)?
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
I moved... edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
|
Not currently, but they did announce plans to do so in March: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4857222.stm
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have had three approaches recently to use my pics from flickr, but only one of these was willing to pay and he was another 'one man band' like me. Of the others one was a major consultancy and one was a production company from whom I heard nothing once I mentioned money.
Am I naive to expect payment? I don't think so but who knows...
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I moved... [deleted] says:
Thanks Yolise.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
monaxle, they do charge for access to certain video news content. they call it the BBC News Ticker and it's about $30-40 a year. It's much more video than they have available on their international site.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The T&Cs are what they are. If people don't like them, it is their choice not to submit images to them.
Yes, I agree, but I do feel that people do not really understand the ramifications of what they're signing away. It feels like a lot less than informed consent. Most average joes don't know what sublicensing of images means let alone simple licensing of images. As an example, a lot of people think that the Creative Commons offers more control against people reproducing images than simply stating ARR and/or that CC somehow is an alternative to copyright law. [edit: neither of which is true.]
I don't think it would hurt the BBC's submission numbers at all to change their terms to be more equitable, and you have to ask why they want blanket sublicensing rights. If they only wanted rights to reproduce with any of their sister companies or under some sort of umbrella, etc., it's easy enough to state that explicitly as a limitation, but they don't.
I don't think their choice of conditions are any reflection on the company.
I don't either, as a whole. Lots of good companies and good people do things that are wrong, unethical, an example of poor judgement etc. take your pick. But coming from a major media organization, these terms are pretty wild, and it's good that it's been brought to people's attention.
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
purplezebra edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
I moved... [deleted] says:
Thanks to you as well neonlike. I'm happy to hear that they do and have plans to charge for more.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
BBC's "The ONE Show" recently went so far as to set up it's own group on Flickr here
Images uploaded to the group are entered into a competition.
The comp is now closed (as the show has finished it's run) but the group is still open, with 838 members and 3173 images.
Is this a case of the BBC creating a stock library of images for themselves without having to dip into their purse?
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
Mark & The Zebra edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
|
purplezebra, I'm only speculating, but my gut intuition is that the sublicensing part might have something to do with the fact that, like the Associated Press, they are a news service that licenses content to other news broadcasters all over the world. They could, of course, keep certain submissions separate, but it's such a huge organisation that some content is likely to be mis-filed from time to time and this protects them from infringement claims should that occur.
What I suspect they aren't intending to do is sell someone's image to a design firm for a Dan Brown book cover. :-)
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The T&Cs are what they are. If people don't like them, it is their choice not to submit images to them.
Yes, I agree, but I do feel that people do not really understand the ramifications of what they're signing away. It feels like a lot less than informed consent. Most average joes don't know what sublicensing of images means let alone simple licensing of images.
Perhaps most average joes don't care and have more ego than... well, recall this thread: Would you let CNN use your photos for free?
Just sayin' is all. ;-)
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
As an outsider (to the UK), I've been reading this thread with interest. It's always puzzled me (well, maybe not always, but for a few years at least) that the BBC managed to make outstanding programs, particularly documentaries, compared to the present French TV organisation.
Comparatively speaking, the ORTF (that was the organisation until the 70s in France) had better productions than its successors.
With that said, I agree that it does not absolve them from well-founded critics.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
If I understand correctly, the BBC is supposed to "contain comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the United Kingdom and throughout the world."
Let's be honest. They aren't any more authoritative and impartial than Fox News in the United States. The difference is that one is tax free and has to pay taxes...the other does not.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think they are as impartial as they can be, being a collection of human beings. They certainly do not take direction from the UK government, regardless of who is in power.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"They aren't any more authoritative and impartial than Fox News" (?? - chokes with helpless spasms of laughter). Setting aside 'impartiality' what about 'authoritative', compare the number of overseas reporters each of these organizations have - approx several thousand for the Beeb and approx 3 for Fox. And you outside the UK are getting it all for free.
I know that there's a lot of BBC staff who post in various flickr groups who are conspicuously absent from this one - wonder why.
But if they are ripping off photographers then they should be censured and stopped.
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
Glyn1 edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
|
We don't get the BBC for free. We pay for television in the United States...one way or another.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'll admit to showing my ignorance about US TV. Anyway, if Brits are still awake at 1 am, the BBC repeats that evening's broadcast of ABC News program World Tonight, which is good.
The BBC should still pay for any photos they use.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
BBC? bad boys and auntie indeed....
www.flickr.com/photos/shadowplay/36333636/in/set-27197/
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm happy to pay the licence fee and not have my eyeballs and brain insulted by endless adverts for crap that I don't want.
Although I rarely watch the idiot box nowadays. Radio 3 is what makes the Beeb the wondrous thing that it is (plus the gargantuan website). And they're free.
As for T&Cs, you don't have to press "I accept" if you don't like them.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Uncool. Can't say I'm surprised shadowplay. Thanks for the reality check. Hope you got satisfaction.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I get so tired of listening to Americans rabbit on about how wonderful the BBC is, especially when compared to those vampire thugs at Fox.
1) The BBC isn't free television. Everyone in the UK who owns a television pays a compulsory fee towards funding the BBC, whether they watch the BBC or not. If you don't pay the fee you can go to jail. Just try telling the average freedom-loving American that they will be obliged to pay the US government $ 240 a year for the right to watch their own television.
2) Why should the BBC have its own website ? Its mission is to provide quality television to the Britons who pay for it. What has a website got to do with that ? Would the US government consider subsidising Flickr ?
3) Say what you like about the trash on Fox, but it wouldn't exist if people didn't watch its programmes. The BBC has no such concerns. That's why a lot of its programmes are unwatchable.
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
Tampen edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
|
Thanks for declaring my interest, Mixatal. As an employee of News Corporation I am of course incapable of original thought and should have mentioned that the remarks above were written for me by R. Murdoch.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
They (U.K.) have to pay to watch TV? No wonder they have better programming that we (U.S.) do.......or else nobody would watch. We do have to pay for cable, though.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Thanks for declaring my interest, Mixatal. As an employee of News Corporation I am of course incapable of original thought and should have mentioned that the remarks above were written for me by R. Murdoch.
Not to rouse any rabble, but those Fox internal memos concerning each day's news theme were a revealing peek into how the Murdoch "journalism" empire operates. And Murdoch does wish to bring down the BBC in order to fatten his own already bulging wallet.
That is not a commentary on you, Tampen, just a random synaptic spark in my otherwise broken brain. :)
As for the BBC - when I was a kid living in Germany, it was nice to wake up to Big Ben every morning. "This is BBC Worldservice. The time is seven a.m."
Bong...bong...bong...bong...bong...bong...bong....
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I do believe I pointed out that we pay a license fee of a massive £10 a month. And Tampen illustrated my other point rather well, too. Cheers.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
like the Associated Press, they are a news service that licenses content to other news broadcasters all over the world.
Yes, but if they are like the AP, then they will make money off the images long after they have lost their newsworthiness and not solely for the purpose of licensing news content to other news broadcasters.
I was speaking with a former UPI wire photographer, and he was telling me that several years back, the wire services changed their terms with their photographers. The new terms gave the wire services all rights to the photographers work product, though the photographer retained copyright. It was either sign or don't work again.
And now, the wire services regularly make residual licensing income from the photos taken by photographers via print and stock sales, so it is possible for a commercial design group to purchase some of the photos, especially those that are more soft news related (travel, scenics, etc.), and use them in a book cover, product design, etc. The wire, BBC, etc. reaps all the profits and the photographer gets nothing, not even a credit in some cases, so you can say that I'm skeptical.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"Thanks for declaring my interest, Mixatal. As an employee of News Corporation I am of course incapable of original thought and should have mentioned that the remarks above were written for me by R. Murdoch."
Pretty much how I view Murdoch press, really.
Tampen: In your original comment, you said why have a BBC website, as they're all about quality telly. They're about broadcasting, and to my mind, that should also include t'Interweb. I wouldn't be surprised if end up watching telly over the web as part of normal life at some point in the not too distant future, anyway.
"That's why a lot of its programmes are unwatchable".
As opposed to the rather unedifying offerings from the main commercial rival, ITV, I suppose. Celebrity Love Island, anyone? The X Factor?
Some programmes will be unwatchable to you. Other people will like them. Different people like different things. Niche interests will not appear in the dystopian advertising-driven national broadcasting service advocated by free market uber-capitalists.
£10ish a month is not expensive (especially compared with the price of Murdoch's Sky offering).
Ooops. Thread gone off topic. Sorry.
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
Jez edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
Well this has really been one of the more interesting threads on Central! Learned alot from it, so I appreciate all the participation.
As an American who is a night owl (it's freakin' 3 am right now) I find that I find out news of interest about the US on the BBC radio and in the Guardian Online at least 8 to 12 hours ahead of mainstream US media sources, on many occasions. I want all the UK media to live long and prosper!
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
In France we have to pay licence too whether we watch TV or not.
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
Ghene Snowdon (Mushroom & Gadgets) edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
well, another American for the BBC here.
And I find most American television unwatchable. "Survivor" and "American Idol" come to mind...
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I really ought to let Dan Sumption post this (see 6 posts down this thread) but his stirling efforts have paid off. The Guardian have done a rapid U-turn on their terms and conditions.
www.epuk.org/News/372/guardian-left-red-faced-over-compet...
Well done Dan!!!
As a friend has just said to me...
There's a lesson there for Flickr's punters who say "if you don't
like the rules the only thing to do is not enter":
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do
nothing" - Edmund Burke
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Thank you Hindolbittern
*blushes*
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
*Applauds Jez*
BBC producing unwatchable shows eh Tampen? Unlike Murdoch's wonderful Sky empire with endless:
"100 best drunken fights, 100 worst hair styles, 100 ugliest celebrities, 100 fattest celebrity pets, Britains Hardest Pubs " - type shows. I am just waiting for Sky One to show "100 best 100 best of shows" :)
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
By the way - the fact that I rate the BBC as a very good broadcaster doesn't mean that I agree with the policy of trying to grab free content from Flickr or via competition submissions etc...
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
And I find most American television unwatchable. "Survivor" and "American Idol" come to mind...
weren't both those shows based on initially british concepts?
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
ah, survivor was initially swedish.
love the swedes.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
All T.V is rubbish. Save your mind from becoming mush by reading books instead.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Stri: American Idol was based on Pop Idol - an ITV programme. Nothing at all to do with the BBC...
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Nothing at all to do with the BBC...
i know.
but the fact that the two programs listed as the most "unwatchable" by MHelminski were british shows before they were american shows is interesting. Survivor was initially conceived by a british producer, for example.
british television has a tremendous impact on american television, even the "unwatchable" stuff.
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
striatic (a group admin) edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
|
Fortunately the impact is a one-way thing!
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
True, Stri, but most (I cite 'The Office' as a classic example) are shadows of their former selves when remade for the US market. It may have an impact, but most parts of life try and copy quality, and invariably fail.
Unless it's the Japanese, who invariably make it smaller, cheaper and twice as efficient, damn them!
But a copy of a British programme being unwatchable should be no reflection on the original, surely? Look at the Pink Panther remake, for instance. Utter shite (despite Steve Martin's best efforts), but that doesn't make the original any worse.
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
Brock (a group admin) edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
I'm wondering if the photographic competition to be published in JPG magazine is similarly eggregious in overreaching their level of ownership and use of the image. From reading the primary text on the site, it appears that they have limited the use to publishing it once in their magazine and to having it posted to their website if it is published.
I can't stand reading all the fine print on every one of these sites. Am I missing something or is it okay to submit to the jpgmag.com/ competition?
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Why do people always cite the absolute crap shows when criticizing US television? It's as though shows like Weeds, The Daily Show or The Colbert Report (pick your poison ;-) and the brilliantly remade Battlestar Gallactica don't exist.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
If it's us in the UK, it's possibly because we've never heard of those?
Well, I've not, but I only watch terrestrial.
I do like 'My Name is Earl' though. :-)
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
Yolise edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
|
I'm sure that one was our idea... ;)
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Grrlscout: The examples given were examples of 'bad US TV', so naturally the worst one were given. No-one compared bad US TV to good UK TV as a direct equivalent.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Brock, I was thinking of this comment from MHelminski... And I find most American television unwatchable. "Survivor" and "American Idol" come to mind... prefaced by their appreciation for the BBC, which here in the states would be BBC America...right? It's like an indictment so if I misinterpreted, sorry. ;-)
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
grrlscout edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
|
grrlscout - I was simply voicing my support for the BBC in general. Plus, I'm in Japan now, so I don't get any of my TV from American cable or satellite networks.
And remember, I said most American TV was unwatchable. Not all. I never said the Simpsons or the Daily Show were crap. I liked Six Feet Under as well. Deadwood was good, too, but I guess they've cancelled it already.
The fact that Survivor and American Idol copied British shows and are among the worst of American TV is interesting though. But I'll admit that the American version of The Office is pretty good.
On the other hand, I gave up on American TV news years ago.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
More on the Guardian thing: although they have changed the terms, and they're ever so slightly less outrageous, they still allow the Guardian to use and re-sell any and all photos submitted however they please. It seems it's still a ruse aimed at building up a valuable stock photo library without having to pay anyone for their work.
The only real difference between the new terms and the old ones is that now you can continue to re-use your own photos without the Guardian sueing you, although if you want to try to sell them to anybody then you will be in competition with the Guardian's image library.
The EPUK site explains all the ins and outs of the new terms far better than I could:
www.epuk.org/News/377/fury-as-guardian-reinstates-rights-...
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yup - they've really worked hard to redeem themselves, and their position as a champion of photography, here haven't they? How disappointing. It would have been so easy for them to take a "decent" stand over this and earn some brownie points. Stupid lot.
Rehashing the other rip-off T&C's being touted around (i.e. the BBC's) just looks unimaginative and cheap. Unless, of course, the sole motivation is to make money out of amateurs' entries.
I'm surprised that Canon, as sponsors, are going along with this. it doesn't make their brand smell especially sweet.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
On the other hand, I gave up on American TV news years ago.
Mhelminski, you and me both! Oh that we can agree. ;-D
Television is one of these funny things, most all criticize it yet most everyone watches something.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I adore Bill O'Reilly. I think I might have a crush on him. At least, when I do not feel like strangling him.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Why do the two impulses have to be separate? What's wrong with a little homoerotic asphyxiation?
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
matt edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
FlickrCentral /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to FlickrCentral discussion threads