Riot-shots dilemma

This was the secondary reason I didn't go out to shoot during the riots. After not wanting to get my brains bashed in.

Metadata

It would help if those upload sites stopped stripping metadata from files. All my pics are labelled, captioned, copyright established, and traceable when I upload them. So where does this part of the file go? It's not separate.

See Babies?

The Beeb are doing us all a big favour. It's education, education time. When will photographers learn NOT to post any photographs on websites?

How Hard can it be?

How long will it be that just as rioters standards are appalling, all mediavolk standards are equally appalling, and if yopu post ANYTHING online it will get nicked and published elsewhere and nicked and put in various libraries owned by various people who write operating systems and publish books and magazines, and broadcast stuff internationally, such that right now someone is wrapping chipatis and noodles somewhere in a piece of paper with your pics printed on it.

Because half the planet is NOT subject and has NOT signed up to the Copyright Convention.

Big countries, billions of people, and what the NUJ NUJ, wink wink, say no more should be doing is actually publicizing these facts rather than continue blindly to encourage such thefts by NOT telling everyone that only a few people on the planet are in fact subject to copyright.

However until sources are identified traced and paid (and in these cases, as rioters perhaps, possibly arrested, what are the Beeb at? Are they really so desperate to obtain yet more scary images of violence, when they already provide enough kids with enough bad examples by showing Eastenders, Dr Who and Torchwood??

Not really...

I am inclined to be more lenient with the BBC's position. In a time of major crisis and the surprised, crowd-sourcing aspect of the riots as well as the destruction and danger to human life does qualify in my eyes as a crisis, I rather be able to see what is happening around my street. They reported what was being reported on Twitter. If the photo had no copyright metadata, a legal alternative is to cite the media outlet that provided the photo. I am not too bothered about the fact that my picture of a chap running while carrying a 40" flat screen got shown across the nation an hour late (hypothetical example, it did not) it is citizen reportage, all of us contributing, in time of crisis, to inform those around us. There are times to be protective and times to be part of a larger stream of people, all reporting, informing for the greater good of those around us. To identify the individuals, to tell a story, to highlight someone's suffering during the riots, to make sure it does not go unnoticed. Just my view on this.

The Author Decides

I went into a car hire place yesterday and hired a nice car to do a job. Today they called me to ask why I hadn't brought the car back and settled my bill. I simply replied "I am using it I didn't know I had to give it back or pay for it" I'm with John Toner on this. Having had similar use by the BBC where they procured my pictures from the group I took pictures of without my authorization and then simply aid 'oh we got the pictures from so and so and we don't' have a budget to use pictures on our web site'. So I canceled my TV license. Then I had many threatening letters informing me that a 'doorstep advisor' would come to visit me. What's good for ths goose?

would it be any different if it were writing?

I have a writer friend who posts stories to her blog. If she sent out a link to one of her pieces via Twitter would this give a media organization the right to republish the story without attribution or permission? Of course not, people would outraged if the BBC started stealing stories like this.

What's different about photographs? Answer: nothing.

would it be any different if it were writing?

I have a writer friend who posts stories to her blog. If she sent out a link to one of her pieces via Twitter would this give a media organization the right to republish the story without attribution or permission? Of course not, people would outraged if the BBC started stealing stories like this.

What's different about photographs? Answer: nothing.

Is 24hr news really 'public interest'?

The only way to cure the BBC of this corporate arrogance is to start nicking the content of their programs and re-distribute them in the name of 'public interest'. Surely, broadcast content is in the public domain and payment of the license fee implies some kind of ownership? How can the BBC flout all the rules just because they decide it's in the public interest, images posted to micro-blogging websites are done as a personal statement, and should remain so. Mind you, it's a great opportunity for self promotion, strip all the metadata (why should other people know the details of your work?) and stamp your images with your website url, it won't take that long and will identify you to millions of viewers!
It's also about time the BBC was forced to use generic terms when referring to the web, such as, 'search engine', 'micro-blogging' instead of the trendy 'Twitter' and Google' they keep coming out with, I thought advertising was banned on the BBC, these are commercial organizations, they should not get free airtime on a state-run network.

Did they think this through?

If everything on the web is public domain, presumably this would apply to BBC's content on their own web site as well.

I think they may have just given the world a licence to re-publish LOL