|
Hi Mark,
First I'll say that I've always liked the gallery on BBC Scotland - it's a really nice feature. Secondly, if you ever need any of my photos, please consider my permission given (not that they're all that frequent).
I'd lastly like to suggest the possibility of using Creative Commons-licensed photos. There's a lot of people who have already given permission for others to use their photos in various ways via these licenses flickr.com/creativecommons gives a search on flickr for relevant content, and there's more background information here, if you haven't come across it before: creativecommons.org/
Obviously I'm not the Legal Department, but it would seem that all the licenses except for the no-derivatives versions would work with the current BBC T&C's for contributions.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Having had the one and only photo I submitted to the gallery chosen (was quite chuffed), and featured quite heavily on the Radio 1 Big Weekend pool, I've had quite a bit of coverage on the Beeb so far.....If you need to use any of mine then feel free to go ahead (just drop me a link, so I can see it). :-)
EDIT: I've changed my mind, and no longer give advanced permission for the use of my photos. Any request for use will be considered on an individual basis.
When the BBC allows me to watch TV for free (instead of £120 a year), then I will allow the use of my photos for free.
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
stonefaction edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
 |
spidrwegian_no_more [deleted] says:
Great. So now we pay a licence fee and get to give you free use of our pictures? No thanks.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
all the pics i've submitted have made it to the bbc gallery apart from the last one i sent about 2 weeks ago of Prince Charles...
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Fifebeachwalker [deleted] says:
You are welcome to pick up any photos of mine that you to use.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
lost4words [deleted] says:
I'm with Alan on this one - a bit cheeky I feel.....
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm with Alan here too. Nothing personal against Mark, but like many people, I have always had very strong reservations about the BBC's terms and conditions for ALL submissions, the relevant paragraphs are quoted below. Given the extent of the rights you giving away for FREE, I suggest at least giving away the smallest size required for the website, which seems to be 416 x 300 pixels.
Sorry if this post seems over the top, but I think people need to know what they are agreeing to, especially if they are giving carte blanche to all their pictures in advance. If it were a case of just giving permission for use in the readers gallery that would be fine, but it is not.
I don't think Flickr should become a free stock library for the BBC or anyone else. In the broader picture, giving away photographs damages the prospects of those photographers who are trying to earn a living.
Mark, if i've misunderstood you when you talk of using our pictures to illustrate news stories (my interpretation being that this is for free), and the BBC would in fact pay normal editorial rates, then could you clarify the position?
Terms:
"Where you are invited to submit any contribution to bbc.co.uk (including any text, photographs, graphics, video or audio) you agree, by submitting your contribution, to grant the BBC a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive, sub-licenseable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, play, make available to the public, and exercise all copyright and publicity rights with respect to your contribution worldwide and/or to incorporate your contribution in other works in any media now known or later developed for the full term of any rights that may exist in your contribution, and in accordance with privacy restrictions set out in the BBC's Privacy Policy. If you do not want to grant to the BBC the rights set out above, please do not submit your contribution to bbc.co.uk.
Further to paragraph 9, by submitting your contribution to bbc.co.uk, you:
* 10.1 warrant that your contribution;
* 10.1.1 is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to the BBC for all the purposes specified above;
* 10.1.2 is not defamatory; and
* 10.1.3 does not infringe any law; and
* 10.2 indemnify the BBC against all legal fees, damages and other expenses that may be incurred by the BBC as a result of your breach of the above warranty; and
* 10.3 waive any moral rights in your contribution for the purposes of its submission to and publication on bbc.co.uk and the purposes specified above.
"
Full Terms
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
tomgardner edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
mine are too cack ~L~
hello from day one of the engerland trip
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
pamelaadam (a group admin) edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
lost4words [deleted] says:
Yeah - nothing personal here too - I'm sure this will be a good thing for some folks :-)
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Just out of interest, why don't the BBC pay for photos that they use?
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Cheers Mark... I've been in contact with you before and had some pics used in both stories and the Week in Pictures feature.
I'm ex BBC myself... used to work out of BH in Glasgow and MHS/TVC/White City in London.
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
jim_moore edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
Money would be nice...I have to say! But then i may be a little biased on that subject right now!!
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
Equso edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
agree with Tom on this one!
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Stonefaction, perhaps it's because they can get enough folk to give them all they need for free, so why pay? They also get a good haul of free high quality images for their stock library through the competitions they run too. (The pros are pretty pissed off at this practice eg Pro Imaging on the Digital Picture of Britain Competition
If the BBC was a purely a non-profit that's one thing, but they have commercial subsidiaries (eg BBC Worldwide) and the Terms give them the right to sell your images on, without even a commitment to credit the photographer let alone pay them a royalty.
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
tomgardner edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
feel free to use any of mine....nearly all of them are sun rays.
www.flickr.com/photos/calum_donald
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If I don't like the terms and confitions of a site then don't submit my photos.
If an amateur submits a photo then they weren't, by definition, going to make any money from their photo anyway and if they decide to become professional later, the fact that their photographs have appeared on the BBC can only help them in the promotion of their work.
Most photographers are amateurs (like me) and the recognition of one of their photos by an organisaion like the BBC is more than enough compensation.
By the way, use any of my photos that I don't mark as creative commons non-commercial use.
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
Stooshie edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
All my photos are set up with a Creative Commons licence (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs), so anyone is free to use them as long as it's not for commercial purposes, you don't alter the image, and you atribute the photo to me.
I guess that rules out the Beeb, cos I don't want my photos sub-licenced to 3rd parties for commercial gain.
Having said that, BSkyB used one of my photos:
a few months back, and paid me £50, which seemed fair enough!
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Stooshie, There is a big grey area between being an 'amateur' and a 'professional'. Photography is not my profession but I do try to make a bit every now and then though stock libraries, print sales etc, to part-pay for an expensive hobby. So I personally object to giving away my work for commercial organisations to profit by. For others this is not a problem. I also have pros as friends and read the freelance press, and am morally bothered by the very real problem royalty -free and donated images is causing those who rely on stock income or freelance news images.
There are plenty of opportunities for getting pictures published with acceptable terms (even if for free) and the kudos is even greater if someone is willing to put up some cash for them :-)
I'll stop ranting now ;-)
@Embra, Congratulations! That's how it should be.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Looks like I started something here, which wasn't really the intention.
Everyone's point is absolutely valid and to answer tomgardner, yes, we do on occasion pay for photographs.
However, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Every penny we spend comes from the licence-fee and as a BBC editor, I have an obligation to seek the most cost-effective means (that doesn't mean cheap or low-quality) of producing our output.
The fact is that some people are willing to allow us access to their pictures for the purposes I originally set out. Others are unwilling to do so. I respect absolutely the latter point of view.
As far as the weekly picture gallery goes, Stooshie's point is bang on. I receive lots of positive feedback from people whose pictures we choose and who tell us they've had lots of reaction from friends and family after their picture has appeared there.
Where this occurs, I believe the BBC has fulfilled another of its objectives - to be accessible to all and given that public money has been used to create its web presence, it ensures that that investment provides a return to the licence-fee payer.
There, enough of the Reithian lectures.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I kind of thought that the BBC were offering this as a public service and they may not be sure what use they could be put to, or even concieve of uses not invented yet rather than some kind of content-trawl.
People are free to submit their work (or not) to any website. If you are worried, in any way, about the conditions then don't submit it.
By the way, the mere act of placing any image on any site makes it accessible to everyone and there is nothing anyone can do to stop others using it as, say, their desktop image or any other personal use.
If anyone is worried about their images on Flickr either make them private or attach a creative commons licence to them (you can set a default licence in your settings).
@tomgardner. Most royalty free images are royalty free because the photograpers have agreed an up-front price with the agency producing the royalty free stock. The photographer is therefore paid market price. As for donated images, If people weren't willing to donate them, the organiations wouldn't get them.
Personally I would be very happy if someone paid me for one of my photos, but my photos aren't quite that good. Perhaps if you are a pro, then things are different, but you have the freedom to change your licence/not submit your photos to those agencies and use your usual outlets that pay for your photos.
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
Stooshie edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
Mark-I'm with Tom here, and I'm certainly not going to give you carte blanche to use my pictures.
While it may be partially funded by the licence fee, the BBC is a commercial organisation. My brother has found himself competing with the BBC for commercial contracts!
Perhaps if you started a group "BBC Scotland Online Submissions", for which contributions made are deemed to agree to your T&Cs, that would at least be clear.
I'd need to be a lot clearer on what I get out of it...at the minimum a credit and a link back to the original flickr image.
Best regards
Duncan
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Duncan Smith said
... I'd need to be a lot clearer on what I get out of it...at the minimum a credit and a link back to the original flickr image. ...
That's the minimum conditions of using an image originating in Flickr anyway.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
lost4words [deleted] says:
Stooshie, i know that anyone can appropriate my images but that's entirely different from a large public corporation like the BBC rolling up to Flickr and saying;
' Hey guys - mind if we use your photos for free?'.
To my mind it's a wee bit cheeky.
I'm imagining what would happen if I said;
'Hi there, BBC, do you mind if I watch my images on your tv show without paying my licence fee?'
I think they'd say;
'Sorry Raker, you face a £2000 fine and 3 months in the slammer if you don't pay us for our product'
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
lost4words edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
I'm with the NOs on this one too. If anyone wants to use my pics, they can pay for them (not that anyone in their right mind is going to do so).
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Stooshie - 'the minimum conditions of using an image originating in Flickr anyway' surely only apply when someone's embedding ('hot-linking') an image hosted on the site, though? Unless I was paying less attention than I thought, I never signed up for every possible future use of any of my images to have a compulsory Flickr link! So the BBC's quite at liberty to copy one of my pictures to their server and use it everywhere without credit or link, if those are the terms under which I submit it.
Re 'protecting' your images by giving them CC licences - you've lost me. By default, we retain full copyright on all photos we submit here, subject to certain uses we agree to permit within Flickr when we sign up. CC licences can only weaken our level of protection, legally speaking. Which is okay with me, I'm strongly in favour, but I wouldn't want people to get the wrong idea about what they're doing when they go for Creative Commons licensing...
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Until I looked at the T&Cs I thought this wasn't too bad (and I'm attempting to make my living from photography). But those terms are pretty outrageous. Is it really necessary for the BBC to request a perpetual, royalty-free, sub-licensable license? Ultimately this means that the BBC doesn't pay for the photo, but can make money out of it in any number of ways.
So... why not a single-use license?
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Stooshie-
1. Why shouldn't amateurs receive some reward for their work if it's good enough to use commercially? I'm an amateur with an expensive taste in camera gear and no immediate prospect of a pay rise. I need to pay for the gear somehow.
2. That's correct...if the image is hosted on flickr. If they take a copy of it and host it themselves, there is no such restriction or requirement.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Why shouldn't amateurs receive some reward for their work if it's good enough to use commercially?
If it's an organisation like the BBC soliciting the image, then generally the photographer does get paid (or are at least in a position to ask for one and refuse permission if no payment is forthcoming).
I think expecting payment from an unsolicited submission is an odd position to take
why not a single-use license?
Because the BBC doesn't publish things once and leave them. They have one of the most open archives on the net, and are pretty constantly finding new ways to use it. Without a broad license, they would be very limited in pursuing such innovation. This isn't to say the license has to be the way it is, just that a single-use license would be too restrictive for the things they actually use photos for; and probably not worth the trouble of managing for unsolicited submissions.
' Hey guys - mind if we use your photos for free?'.
To my mind it's a wee bit cheeky.
I'm imagining what would happen if I said;
'Hi there, BBC, do you mind if I watch my images on your tv show without paying my licence fee?'
On the other hand, if you said:
"Hi there, BBC, do you mind if I use your website without paying my license fee?"
They would say:
"Sure! Go right ahead. In fact, if you're into that sort of thing, here are feeds and APIs so that you can use it any which way you like!"
Just something to consider.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"Sure! Go right ahead. In fact, if you're into that sort of thing, here are feeds and APIs so that you can use it any which way you like!"
Actually, that's not what they say - they say this:
"backstage.bbc.co.uk is the BBC's developer network to encourage innovation and support new talent. Content feeds are available for people to build with on a non-commercial basis."
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
lusobrandane edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
lost4words [deleted] says:
True enough, Matt.
I guess there's enough angles and viewpoints here to keep us all happy ;-)
I think people can and should do whatever they like.
Certainly, if by allowing the free use of your images, a person became well known enough to kick start a potential career or whatever then that's got to be a good thing.
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
lost4words edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
Cherriwink50 [deleted] says:
Poor Mark having to wade his way through all your replies. If you don't want the BBC to use your photos the just say so or stick a copyright on them. If you don't mind, then just tell him you want to be asked. Surely it is a simple as that.
Mark you won't wantt to, but anytime you like - my few amateur "snaps" are free of charge!
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I am happy for any of my pics to be used ... just ahobbyist so not exactly 'loosing' anything by them being used!
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
DaveSinclair edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
Although the perceived offender is in this case Auntie Beeb, this argument is endlessly played out all over flickr. For me, it's very simple.
If you don't want anyone (including the Beeb) to use your photos, with permission or without, with or without credit, or with or without paying for them, don't put them online. I don't just mean flickr - don't put them anywhere online. Full stop. Or, as a possible compromise on flickr, make them all Private not Public or set your privacy levels so that only Friends/Family see them.
The internet is a grown-up place, not your auntie's cosy sitting room, and we choose to take the risks we take, including sharing information about ourselves and placing our photos here.
There seems to be an awfully silly double standard goes on in flickr.
First comes this: Here, look at my lovely photos, I love them so much, I hope you like them too, please comment, it'll make me feel all warm and fuzzy
Then, sooner or later: hey you stole my photos... no I'm not giving you permission to do anything with them.. these are MINE ALL MINE, don't you dare touch them... and if you're a commercial concern, I'll sue the arse off you, see how you like it then
I'm not unsympathetic towards the changing climate in which professional photographers find themselves with the rise of micro-stock sites and photo-sharing sites like flickr. It must be a difficult time for them, but I believe the photography market is fluid in the way it always has been, and those pros who manage to hang on are the ones with good lateral thinking and flexibility. But if I were a savvy pro, I wouldn't put any of my photos on flickr.
For those of us who aren't pros, well c'mon chaps. Get real. We choose to do this expensive hobby because we love it, nobody makes us buy that mortgage-bending lens. And we choose to put our photos here. We're justly proud of what we learn and we want to share. But let's not get all puffed up and says 'well if they want my work, they should pay for it.. they can afford it...'
Will your house fall down, your children starve if somebody nicks your work? Or if they tell you they'd like to use it, and you don't want them to? Or if they quite simply don't massage your ego enough? No - unless you're making a living at it, none of those things will happen. The worst that will happen is slight bruising of said ego, the best that will happen is that thousands of strangers will admire your photo and who knows, it may even lead to greater things.
I'm sorry, I know this post reads as awfully critical, but please - as the Americans say 'let's get over ourselves here...' Look at the possible positives, not just the negatives.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
lost4words [deleted] says:
None of this is about the point I was making.
I know people can take my work.
I know the Beeb can take my work.
I think the Beeb are a bit cheeky for expecting us to offer it up freely - that's the difference.
It's a subtle point - don't worry about it - just because you don't understand something somebody says doesn't make that person stupid or 'need to get over themself'
My last lens cost £35 so don't worry about me :-)
Lastly - I come here for social reasons - my CPN thinks its a good part of my therapy / recovery so I'm not really seeing it as an ego thing either.
I feel like you've slagged me off in 10 different directions by making some very cartoonish stereotypical judgements about me in your angry post.
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
lost4words edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
|
.... incidentally can some kind soul post a link to the gallery mentioned in the parent post - had a quick look on the bbc site and couldnt find it. Thanks!
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
DaveSinclair edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
|
lost4words - at no point did I call anyone stupid and my post was not written in anger. Neither did I mention you or target you personally at any point.
If your reasons for posting your photos here are only therapeutic/social, why do you perceive the Beeb's approach as cheeky? Wouldn't you be flattered? Wouldn't you think 'hey lots of people will see my photo and that's great because I'm only a hobbyist'? And on a therapeutic level, 'it will make me feel good about myself and my talents that lots of people will enjoy my photo'? Because that's how I view it.
If you feel slagged off on all the levels you mention, then I'm sorry you do. That was not my intent in any way, nor do I believe I did so.
I'm only trying to appeal to reason here. All I'm saying is what is it about this whole thing that is such a big deal for folk? Why can't folk share without wanting something in return?
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
lost4words [deleted] says:
?You wrote that post about the people here and I'm one of the people here .
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
lost4words edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
|
@DaveSinclair: Here's a link to the Beeb's photo archive:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/5263052.stm
I really like it.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
thanks Embra!
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If anyone at the BBC can actually find a photograph of ours that is worth using, they would be very welcome! It would be an honour!
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Says curlsdiva, "Although the perceived offender is in this case Auntie Beeb, this argument is endlessly played out all over flickr."
Too true. In the interests of saving time, then, why don't we give the argument a number? We could call it "13," perhaps (or 6 or 42 -- let's not argue about that for the moment).
From now on, every time a Flickrite is victim of an Unauthorized Image Use Outrage, they can rush to their keyboards and type, "OMG -- I've been 13'd!"
Yes? No? Dust? Anyone... dust? ;-)
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
spidrwegian_no_more [deleted] says:
curlsdiva,
the reason I objected and still object is the original request
Sparks57 said I wondered if anyone would be willing to give me advance permission to use their pictures as and when the need arises? We'd still always send you a message telling you we'd used a picture and we'd credit you in the alt tag (and possibly the caption as well).
I don't mind submitting photographs to a special group for the purpose, or even agreeing to allow specific shots to be used at short notice, but to give away all my future photographs before I've even seen them? Not just from the Scotland pool but from my entire photostream? Isn't that going a bit too far?
I'm happy to be asked, by flickrmail since I check that most often, and will probably always agree but I'm not giving up the right to be approached first.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Spot on spiderwegian.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
lost4words [deleted] says:
Yeah - well put. I'm struggling to articulate how I feel about this issue but you've summed it up so neatly there.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hey Sparks, welcome to flickr.
I read this post with interest. I can see what you're trying to do and its a great idea, like some people have said they are amateurs and would be so proud to have a photo on bbc...
however there is the other side of the coin, some people are pros and see this sort of thing as threatening to their industry..why would someone pay them if someone else will snap it for free? Also, I agree with this, to be a good photographer takes lots of investment in time and skill and of course equipment, and if you cant make it pay for itself, there are some people who cannot do it for fun. (anyone want to drop 5k on camera equipment that will lose value 80% in 5 years for a hobby? me either :p) So it is detrimental to our art as a whole.. which is very bad for the entire world.
Myself, I'd be happy to let you use one of my photos, if you sponsored me for a year with a pro account, cause I cant afford one!
I think the reason some people are angry is because flickr is a community site to make friends and show private photos that make you happy with other private individuals.. but the bbc is a corporation, and actually one that spent £2 million last time you had your logo redesigned, and nobody really even noticed the difference, a few squares around letters, so perhaps asking for free photos is a bit cheap, even if I can see how also for those wishing to contribute its a great idea and an easy way to keep track of it all.
Can I suggest also www.sxc.hu - its a free stock libary, every photo on there is available for use for free. Its contributed to by people who use it and want to keep it going so they keep adding!
All the best.
Neil
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
swifty_mcvey edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
|
just to lighten the mood, www.togsblog.co.uk - does anyone read this here? been reading again some of the more er.. angry posts.. here, I can just imagine how calm they would look if burgy saw this post! haha
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Neil, that was very well put. And thanks for the togsblog link- very entertaining!
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
tomgardner edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
lost4words [deleted] says:
That's a funny blog - ta for the link :-)
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Thanks for the kind words regarding the blog. I have already vented my spleen elsewhere about the BBC and their "all rights" grabs and have historically sold images to them and rejected their standard contracts. The advantage is that they wanted my pictures, I didn't need to sell them so they paid and got a limited use licence.
Cheers
Paul Burgman
www.togsblog.co.uk
www.f8andbethere.com
www.press-photos.com
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
burgy_tog edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
Interestingly at the Go-Hi event last week in Inverness, organised through my team with the Channel4 Ideas Factory folk, flickr, creative commons and the BBC photo licence all got a fair hearing.
There was a bit of a consensus around the fact that :-
- The market for still photography is changing dramatically, and both photographers and traditional "consumers" of their product will need to change their market models - and quick.
- The current BBC contract/licence offered for "user offered" photos is just not tenable and can not last more than 24 months. Industry and peer pressure will force them to change. However they and many others will want to - and will be able to - use the huge amounts of "user solicited" material that they will get from Joe Public. Much of it very high quality. (There was an interesting observation on a wired blog a couple of weeks ago postulating that eventually sites like Flickr could pay folk to post there - as it will be such a rich seam of visual material and commercially valuable.....)
These comments are not aimed at Sparks57 who started the whole thread - he like many of us are just cogs in a machine, and in fact I've just given the Beeb permission to use a number of my photos for their Restoration programme - under the license noted above.
It's a strange old world.
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
ccgd (a group admin) edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
|
www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=217907374&size=m
time to eat my own words
above photo has gone through to the BBC countryfile weather competition and has been picked for the children in need calendar, ah well. it,s for charity.
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
Bruiach/ Colin Campbell edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
|
@ bruiach1: The photo appears to be private...
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Just the zoom size. The one we can see is Here, and a cracking photo it is too. Congratulations!
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
thanks tom...this ones up against the 11 others for an overall best so fingers crossed! and thanks for the tech help...i'll get the hang of it yet.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Folks, I've read with great interest the many and varied comments on this forum.
Each and every one makes a valid point.
Thanks for taking the time to express your views - they haven't gone unnoticed in our empire. I've drawn them to the attention of colleagues around the BBC.
All the best.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
lost4words [deleted] says:
I wish I had an empire :-( ***sulks***
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
feel free to use mine too!
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Monkey Images - do you mean lost4words can use your empire or that the bbc can use your pics :-p
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I despair. The BBC are being so stupid and short sighted and have got a rubbish record in recent years of being cheap when it comes to getting images to populate their websites. They aren't the only offenders who think a good photo should be free for them to use - but it really annoys me because I've got this naive notion that they should be better than this.
I wrote to the then news editor of BBC.co.uk back in 2005 about this and surprise, surprise - here we are again.
I'm an accountant not a professional photographer, although I do like to think I take a nifty shot on a good day. Nonetheless, I'm very uncomfortable with the thought of you cheerfully using the huge resource of readers available to you as an unpaid photo library. It sounds to me like a cynical way to get a few brownie points by promoting a visible cost-saving initiative within the new mean, lean BBC. Why stop there? Put journalists out of work by signing up readers to write copy? Unpaid amateur scripts for radio plays? If decision makers fail to value those who earn their crust serving the arts and media the skill pool that organisations like the BBC can draw on will wither. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4498629.stm
Please don't give it away folks - it may give you a warm glow and stroke your ego a bit but it damages photography a little bit more every time. We need the real pros to keep taking the very best pictures to keep the benchmark high and to go and get the truth from places and situations that we wouldn't want to go to.
If they can't earn a living doing it (and the general dumbing down of the media is already chipping away at their numbers) then perhaps one day work like this www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/TreeFtop_MAG.aspx?Stat=Menu_Fe... won't happen.
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
Hindolbittern edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
Good thread...
I was going to enter a Beeb Competition but when reading the t&cs I didnt bother..
Oh and BEEB.. go and stop your TV Licensing mates sending me letters. The amount of times I have told them I dont own a television yet they still send me threatning letters.
EDIT: Sparks.. Have any of yourr photos been used?
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
G-Me edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
I just read the whole thread here, and was getting increasingly angry... until Hindolbittern put her case better than I could. I have some images in the online stock agencies, and have made a couple of modest sales. I hope to make occasional pocket money from it in the future. The BBC's licensing conditions are nothing short of criminal. When the value of photography is reduced to zero, the world will be a sadder place for it.
Originally posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
StuartRobertson edited this topic 69 months ago.
|
|
Provided that the quality of photos used on the BBC website doesn't suffer then I'm all for the use of 'free' photos found through flickr or anywhere else; provided that the person offering the photo agrees to the terms on which it is used. If the BBC can get just as good photos for free then I'm happy that my licence fee will be going that bit further (provided that they don't use the spare money to make more episodes of Eastenders or send out millions of letters to people who don't exist/don't live at that address/already have a TV licence). The same goes for journalism, short films or whatever.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
RE: Stuart Robertson - Here, here!
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
my cousin works for STV so can't give nuffink to the competition
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Guys - think on. If you grant permission IN ADVANCE you could lose thousands of pounds in fees should you take a photograph that is extremely newsworthy.
Perhaps you don't mind if it's snap of this or that, but what if you were the lucky one who stumbled across something important and the BBC get to use your image as they see fit - no need for them to ask permission again - without a single penny coming your way?
Have a look at www.scoopt.com/ to see what I mean.
Frankly, this request is a scandal - the BBC of all institutions asking for people to submit their work for nothing? I can't help but wonder if Mr Coyle would object if we all called BBC news and offered to do the news website editing for nothing?
Or perhaps Mr Coyle would be delighted if his boss asked him to sign away his wages so he could enjoy the pleasure of doing it for the thrill rather than a fat, publicly funded salary?
Rhetorical of course - Mr Coyle wouldn't work for the BBC for £0.00 per hour/week/month but is quite happy to ask others to do just that.
Shameful. Really.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
strokr al [deleted] says:
Anyone rash enough to consider Mr Coyle's request should look very carefully at the BBC surreal terms and conditions.
You will be handing over Copyright to the BBC. They can do what they like, when they like, with your pictures.
You will continue to be legally responsible for those pictures. You might end up in big trouble.
You will not be paid or credited for your work. The BBC can sell it on if they so choose - possibly for a great deal of money.
Coyle's effrontery usefully highlights a growing trend amongst big media and competition outfits. It also shows utter contempt for photographers and treats their work like so much litter blowing around cyberspace.
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@ countryboy1000: You won't be handing over copyright - you get to keep that. You hand over a licence that allows the BBC to do pretty much what it likes. Although you also retain the copyright you can do the same (but who has more power - an organisation like the BBC, or an individual).
I'm happy if the BBC see one of my photos and come to me and ask, but I am not likely to give advanced permission given the T&Cs that I read.
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Just noticed this. I think it's highly telling that the Beeb sufficiently recognise the very questionable nature of their usual T&Cs to not apply them to the kiddies.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6055140.stm
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Hi guys - here's a recent email I sent to the BBC at the address provided by Mr Coyle in his opening message on this thread.
Dear Sirs,
Recently, a Mark Coyle of your employ, requested that Flickr members submit work to the BBC assigning many rights to your corporation and offering nothing in return by way of payment. I'd like to offer my services to edit this BBC Scotland news website for, well, pretty much nothing.
I'm sure you will agree this is a very generous offer and presumably Mr Coyle will be delighted to support this as it will save on licence fees. Indeed, in Mr Coyle's request thread on Flickr he said, "Every penny we spend comes from the licence-fee and as a BBC editor, I have an obligation to seek the most cost-effective means (that doesn't mean cheap or low-quality) of producing our output."
Well. I look forward to hearing from you with a positive reply shortly,
Best regards,
Anndra Dubhacan.
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I didn't realise witch hunts were still popular in Scotland
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
And you would be right. They aren't.
Asking not to be ripped off isn't a witch hunt.
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
but I bet Mark wishes he'd never opened this thread...lol!!
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
if you were asking not to be ripped off perhaps you should send the beeb a nice long winded letter explaining in detail your points and why you feel this organisation should not be using this policy, and while you're at it why not also send a copy to the regulatory authorities, and Mr T. Blair, and your local newspaper, and your MP, your MSP, your MEP
perhaps hunting and targeting a single cog in a very large machine is not the best way to change things, and if you don't want to change things then are you not just being malicious? why stoop so low to become what you claim to despise?
I’m not advocating the policy, I’m advocating the right of an individual to make a statement without being hounded for it
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Anndra, you're not being ripped off. No matter what you think of the terms for submission to the BBC, they're entirely voluntary, and the only way you could ever be "ripped off" is if you weren't bright enough to read the terms for yourself. If you don't agree, you're free not to submit photos.
Hounding someone's employers over statements they have made in good faith certainly comes close to harassment, and is definitely completely out of proportion as a response to the situation. If I were you, I'd take a close look at the community guidelines here and what they have to say about that sort of behaviour.
Originally posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
matt edited this topic 68 months ago.
|
|
|
Hear hear!
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
lost4words [deleted] says:
I'm with Anndra on this one - a company that makes millions from us anyway and yet offering photographers nothing for their work is a rip-off.
At the very least on a moral level.
I understand your point Matt and it's well made but it still doesn't stop this situation from feeling very shabby and exploitative and just a wee bit cheeky.
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
And here's this thread mentioned on the very wonderful EPUK:
www.epuk.org/Blogs/361/pimp-my-auntie
This also was awarded a Highly Commended in EPUKs awards in the category
"Best Rights Grab [sponsored by the BBC, Conde Nast, Haymarket Publishing, IPC, and every local rag, government department and tin-pot PR agency with a copy of Picture Viewer, a database and ambitions to run their own picture library]"
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Calum's point about standard models needing revised pronto pretty much sums it up. The 'little people' are no longer the silent masses at the mercy of corporate behemoths. The BBC would have a bunch of us on board if their T&Cs set appropriate web/news context limits on the use of our images. It is US who are doing THEM the favour by providing a ready pool of imagery to use on their news outlets so if their is no renumeration there should certainly be limitations.
As it stands we're handing over the rights for them to do whatever they like, and whenever, with our images which no pro photographer (and an increasing proportion of amateurs) would do in their right mind for no payment. Now would be a good time for the BBC to get 'Legal' out of their 20thC stock contract copy and into a discussion on something vaguely relevant to it's purpose.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Don't give away your pictures for free to any big commercial outfits.
If the BBC lift one if your pictures and use it without permission send them an invoice. If they don't pay, tell them you will take legal action.
If this has happened to you do let organisations like EPUK, the NUJ etc know what is going on.
News rates today are very poor, documentary photography is almost dying off and too often when payment is offered it is tied to selling your copyright.
By all means if you have a good picture try to sell it and try to get a decent payment, but please don't give away pictures to companies that can well afford to pay.
Frankly Sparks57 post really should be removed.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Is that Gareth in Largs? Long time no see :)
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Tis indeed. And Shooz is Laura?
How are you?
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@ Gareth Harper - Sparks57's post should not be removed because, you know, I'm kind of in favour of living in a democracy where there is free speech, I'm a bit funny like that
advocating free speech is not about fighting to say what you want to say, it's about fighting for the right to let someone at polar opposites from you have their say
this thread is pretty comprehensive about the pro's and con's of letting the BBC near your pictures, if someone is clever enough to take a good photograph, let them be clever enough to make up their own minds
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
trentretro,
Sparks is employed by a large commercial media business. He has used flickr to tout for business, which I understand is against the terms of the flickr service, and as such the post should be removed.
However as you say it has turned into an interesting debate, and nor is it my call to delete, but if I was the moderator (which clearly I am not) as soon as I saw it I would have deleted it.
The BBC is both exploiting the public, photographers and driving down the quality of news and documentary photography. That pisses me off.
It's interesting that while they save pennies on pictures, and remove a valuable source of income from struggling photographers, they have millions of pounds of our license money to splash on celebrity presenters. Shocking.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
It's interesting that while they save pennies on pictures, and remove a valuable source of income from struggling photographers, they have millions of pounds of our license money to splash on celebrity presenters. Shocking.
It's almost as if it reflects the fact that the British public places more value on celebrity than on professional documentary photography. I'd never have guessed it myself, though I suppose that there were some clues.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Feel free,
Yours
Miss Commonwealth Scotland
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm coming to this discussion a bit late, sorry for reviving a dead thread and all that...
I just discovered the BBC had used one of my photos in one of their news articles, without notifying me. I checked back, and I realised I'd sent it in for inclusion in their 'Your Pictures of Scotland' section, where photos are clearly attributed etc. I don't think they actually used that photo in the Your Pictures bit. However they did end up using it in a news article. Contrary to what Mark Coyle said at the start, I never got any notification of that. "We'd still always send you a message telling you we'd used a picture and we'd credit you in the alt tag (and possibly the caption as well)."
They did indeed credit me in the alt tag, but no caption.
I guess I just didn't read the T&C that Tomgardner highlighted above...
What's really strange is that there were several professional photographers there that day, and yet the BBC opted to use this snapshot for nothing rather than pay for a decent photo.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6071776.stm
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
it's watching the pennies they say.
Can i take this opportunity to remind folks to always read the BBC T&C's before adding a pic to their flickr groups.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Scotland /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Scotland discussion threads
