5 ms·

The BBC’s fundamental misunderstanding of copyright

76 points by iSimone 15y ago

pessimizer 15y ago
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.
- Silhouette 15y ago
  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.
  - Silhouette 15y ago
    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?
- AgentConundrum 15y ago
  > 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.
  - seabee 15y ago
    "It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission"
  - heyimfromreddit 15y ago
    If there was a "strong public interest" it would be within the bounds of UK law, I believe.
  - patrickyeon 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      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 15y ago
        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?
  - Tichy 15y ago
    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?
    - 15y ago
- rwmj 15y ago
  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".
wpietri 15y ago
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!
wpietri 15y ago
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_Best_and_worst_office_setups_for_tech_workers https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9203159/Cubicle_wars... And mine: http://www.scissor.com/resources/teamroom/ http://www.scissor.com/resources/teamroom/
- kmm 15y ago
  Is your single-use fee always 250 USD or did you ask a higher number because they took it without your permission?
  - wpietri 15y ago
    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.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
jwdunne 15y ago
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.

76 points by iSimone 15y ago

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.

Silhouette 15y ago
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.
- Silhouette 15y ago
  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?
AgentConundrum 15y ago
> 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.
- seabee 15y ago
  "It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission"
- heyimfromreddit 15y ago
  If there was a "strong public interest" it would be within the bounds of UK law, I believe.
- patrickyeon 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      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?
- Tichy 15y ago
  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?
  - 15y ago
rwmj 15y ago
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".

wpietri 15y ago

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!

wpietri 15y ago

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_Best_and_worst_office_setups_for_tech_workers https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9203159/Cubicle_wars... And mine: http://www.scissor.com/resources/teamroom/ http://www.scissor.com/resources/teamroom/

kmm 15y ago
Is your single-use fee always 250 USD or did you ask a higher number because they took it without your permission?
- wpietri 15y ago
  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.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

jwdunne 15y ago

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.