arrogance
Photo: Cameron Quinten, an Age reader
The Murdoch press wants people to send in photos of the fires. This is their idea of asking politely in an attractive manner:
WE want you to send us your photos of the bushfires in Victoria and New South Wales.
Email your pictures to photos@news.com.au
Requirements:
All files should not exceen 1Mb in file size. Images should preferably be in jpeg format.”
After more of this, the emboldened reader finds the IP requirements:
“5. You acknowledge that News may use all intellectual property rights in your content throughout the world, in perpetuity, without restriction and without making payment to you, including publication of that material in hard copy publications or in electronic media, using your content in advertising and promotional material for News and permitting others to do any of these, including when News and others receive payment for this.
6. You waive all moral rights in your content and consent to anything which News (or any person permitted to do so by News) may do in relation to your content which would otherwise be in breach of your moral rights. This includes that News may use your content without attributing you as the source of your content…”
Do they think we want to put: “Once News Ltd put my picture on their website” on our tombstones?
December 11th, 2006 at 11:48 pm
It’s a disgraceful practice that is seeping into all newspapers. Isn’t it nice to be able to cut costs by making your paying customers do all the journalism for you.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:19 am
Wow. I used to think it was arrogant of the Red Cross to send me letters beginning ‘Dear Pav, you are now due to give a donation of blood’ — but I think the Age “invitation” is worse. (Besides, the Red Cross has now wised up and started sending me letters beginning ‘Dear Pav, you are a very special person.’)
December 12th, 2006 at 1:20 am
Oops. Not the Age at all, got confused by the caption. Abject apologies to Fairfax.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:09 am
This kind of “all-rights” contract has been standard in the US since Tasini launched his suit against the New York Times in 1991. It’s the kind of grab Yahoo! made when it bought GeoCities in 1999.
The send-us-your-amateur-content thing has been getting bigger for the last 3 years at least. I notice it in the In Pictures section of the BBC – and it’s established itself via blogs as a popular ‘net practice.
I agree with you in principle, of course. I’m just surprised at your surprise, especially considering Rupert’s moves these last 50 years.
December 12th, 2006 at 9:21 am
I had a similar experience a few years ago when I offered The Age some photos of the Yarra in flood (hard to believe it ever happened given how dry it is now). I was thanked and it was put on their website (though not in the paper) but there was no permission sought nor any agreement, all-embracing or otherwise.
December 12th, 2006 at 10:11 am
I really like this bit:
“2. These terms and conditions are subject to change at the sole discretion of News. ”
I suppose it’s a bit better that Rupe admitting that News retains the right to break into your house, kill the dog, steal the kids, and burn the place down.
December 12th, 2006 at 10:57 am
Kinda beside the point, but have you seen this blog about crowdsourcing (the use of consumer-generated material)?
Crowdsourcing (“tracking the rise of the amateur”
December 12th, 2006 at 10:58 am
)
Excuse me. That missing bracket would’ve bugged me until the end of time
December 12th, 2006 at 11:04 am
Whilst there are vain, attention seeking, vacuous people out there with image capturing devices such as the latest camera/ phone/ toaster form LG, there will always be a steady supply of ‘free’ photography for the papers and television networks.
Unfortunately these folk do not care much for morals or encroaching on the domain of professional news photographers or even payment, as long as they get their 15 megapixels of fame.
December 12th, 2006 at 11:52 am
Deirdre, thanks for posting the missing bracket. As a coder I find non matching braces anathema.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
This practise pegs these bastards for the lazy, thieving, tightarse, pigs, that they are.
Great photo by Cameron Quinten, who it appears has given up all rights to make buck out of it ever. Although I strongly suspect this would be succesfully challenged in court if he had the lucre to mount one. Many of these so -called ‘conditions’ are not worth the paper they’re written on and are more huff and bluff than anything.
December 12th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
[...] Barista has more. [...]
December 12th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
I really like the connection between what Chris and Link have to say – they are both right. What happens when cameras become ubiquitous, and the media work out how to harvest the daily news from phone cameras and stickybeaks at accidents?
Journalists are supposed to work to a standard of quality, and at the same time, have some ethics. But then, a lot of snappers are making money from the trash mags with intrusive and deliberately ugly photos of public celebrities. Make Rudd look like a moron, and the Murdoch press will pay you – and the contract will not be the all rights in perpetuity number they visit on survivors of bushfires.
So the professional role is pretty tainted. Then, from the other side, comes our blog friend Ms Link, who is working on a farm and is a terrific photographer, much beyond the way most of us become good at it with a digital camera, some proper sun and a rudimentary sense of balanced composition.
This media thing has become really spongy. Chris is right to insist on quality; Link shows us day by day that quality is do with eye and passion, and not professional connections.
Like documentary, the ultimate questions of quality in photography are to do with ethics.
Sheesh.. that turned into a sermon. You can tell I am trying to think about it.
December 13th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
[...] Arrogance – David Tiley highlights the Murdoch Empire’s harsh and onerous (unconscionable bargain?) copyright conditions governing reader-submited photos (essentially they own them and can do whatever they like, and the submitting reader has no rights whatever). [...]
December 13th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Hey, they don’t always ask that you agree to these terms. Sometimes they just rip ‘em off! This photo appeared in both the print and online versions of the Daily Telegraph:
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20837271-5006009,00.html
Original source, who did NOT provide permission:
http://www.bikesarefun.org/photos/2006-11-gabe/p1000472.php
December 13th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
I don’t see the problem. If you don’t care about keeping IP rights, send the photo. If you do, don’t send it. No one’s forcing anyone to hand over their photos.
December 13th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
It is part of a generic fight about unreasonable rights grabs. Often these claims are based on a demand for consistency, but the paper has very limited rights over any image they buy from a commercial source, so they are creating an inconsistency.
December 14th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Something of a contrast…
===”If you submit an image, you do so in accordance with the BBC’s Terms and Conditions.
In contributing to BBC News you agree to grant us a royalty-free, non-exclusive licence to publish and otherwise use the material in any way that we want, and in any media worldwide. This may include the transmission of the material by our overseas partners; these are all reputable foreign news broadcasters who are prohibited from altering the material in any way or making it available to other UK broadcasters or to the print media. (See the Terms and Conditions for the full terms of our rights.)
It’s important to note, however, that you still own the copyright to everything you contribute to BBC News and that if your image and/or video is accepted, we will endeavour to publish your name alongside it on the BBC News website. Please note that due to operational reasons this accreditation will probably not be possible with video. The BBC cannot guarantee that all pictures and/or video will be used and we reserve the right to edit your comments.
At no time should you endanger yourself or others, take any unnecessary risks or infringe any laws.” ===
December 14th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
[...] I noticed I was not the only one who thought, they were lacking in manners. Over at Barista they ask: Do they think we want to put: “Once News Ltd put my picture on their website” on our tombstones? [...]
December 28th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
I thought you’d be interested in this old flickr article – http://blog.flickr.com/flickrblog/2006/03/eyes_of_the_wor.html . Scroll down to the bit about French and newspapers and photos.
January 5th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Much far the way most of us become good at it with a digital camera, some proper sun and a rudimentary sense of balanced composition.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:40 am
CNN does the same thing with their “I Reporter”.
March 9th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Actually Chris, this photo was sent in by Cams sister who lives in the area where the fires swept through the noth east in December 06 and not by Cam. The Age made made an error with the name. There was no thought of monentary gain when the photo was emailed. The photos taken over that period were amazing and were shared with the public. Its a sensational shot and many others sent their photos in at the same time. The Australian bush ravaged by bushfires is a part of our amazing history and always will be and why not share this history with all Australians.
March 14th, 2008 at 12:14 am
True James- I didn’t write that with any thought of criticism about that photo.