Rachel_Sandford
News Hound
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 198
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
British broadcaster, BBC, is currently facing the backlash of en email they sent to blogger and amateur photographer, Andy Mabbett.
On August 6, Mabbett sent a complaint to the BBC, saying that the photos they published from Tottenham riots and some photos from the Oslo attacks were credited with “from Twitter.” Despite the fact that none of his own photos were used, Mabbett expressed his disappointment in the company, believing that each photographer should have been given proper credit.
“You may have found them via Twitter, but they would have been hosted elsewhere and taken by other photographers, whom you did not name and whose copyright you may have breached,” read the complaint.
The BBC replied seven days later, and Mabbett posted the reply onto his blog. The broadcaster said “I understand you were unhappy that pictures from Twitter are used on BBC programmes as you feel it may be a breach of copyright... Twitter is a social network platform which is available to most people who have a computer and therefore any content on it is not subject to the same copyright laws as it is already in the public domain.”
Essentially, the broadcaster is saying that if something is in public view, it can be considered public property and is free for use. This, of course, is a violation of basic human rights.
This response has received significant backlash as many angry photographers began giving their opinions on the matter. The outcry towards BBC's statements have prompted them to retract the statement, claiming that what was said is definitely not BBC Policy. In a statement by Chris Hamilton, BBC's social media editor, the company announced that it was “checking out the complaint response quoted above but, on the face of it, it's wrong and isn't the position of BBC News... 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,” Hamilton said.
In the company's official statement, BBC announced that “In terms of permission and attribution, we make every effort to contact people who've taken photos we want to use in our coverage and ask for their permission before doing so. However, in exceptional situations, where there is a strong public interest and often time constraints, such as a major news story like the recent Norway attacks or rioting in England, we may use a photo before we've cleared it... a senior editor has to judge that there is indeed a strong public interest in making a photo available to a wide audience. But sometimes, in the exceptional circumstances just outlined, it's just not possible to make contact with the person who took the picture, or they don't want to be contacted, or we might consider it too dangerous to try and make contact—a significant issue in our coverage of the recent Arab uprising.”
The broadcaster continued on to say that some photo owners ask not to be named, saying “When we can't credit the copyright holder, our practice has been to label the photo to indicate where it was obtained, such as 'from Twitter,' as part of our normal procedure for sourcing content used in our output. We do want to acknowledge the value our audience adds to our output, and hope this sheds light on our editorial decision process made during exceptional circumstances.”
In response to this statement, Mabbett still said “I want them to attribute photographers and cite their sources.” The blogger also commented that BBC's first response to him “wasn't particularly swift, wasn't good at being personal, and was clearly far from expert.” He has written back to the company inquiring after what policies they plan to set in place in order to make sure that erroneous advice (such as the initial response they gave him) isn't issued again. The broadcaster is yet to reply to his second letter.
While the spotlight is currently trained onto the BBC, the truth is that they are not alone. Many large news corporations use online images for their reports. For example, the Daily Mail just recently received backlash for attributing a photograph to “the Internet.” In the United States, freelance photographer, Daniel Morel, is suing Agence France Presse and Getty Images for using his Twitter photos from the Haiti earthquake without his permission and without remuneration.
But just because many companies do it, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. In fact, it's absolutely wrong. It breaches several international conventions and the Copyright Designs and Patents Act. Simply stated, you can't just use a photo. You need to obtain the permission of the photographer, and you have to wait for that permission to be given.
Yes. The Internet is a public platform, but that doesn't mean everything on it is public property. Creations put online are private property. Amateur photographers and other creators need to know their rights, and understand that the law is going to be on their side.
In response to the issue, a spokeswoman from Twitter announced that they do not support the belief that photos posted on their site are public property. The spokeswoman said that though the site requires a non-exclusive license to host the images, the photographers remain the owners. On the other hand, Twitter just signed a deal with the WENN photo agency to sell user images without remuneration for copyright owners.
On August 6, Mabbett sent a complaint to the BBC, saying that the photos they published from Tottenham riots and some photos from the Oslo attacks were credited with “from Twitter.” Despite the fact that none of his own photos were used, Mabbett expressed his disappointment in the company, believing that each photographer should have been given proper credit.
“You may have found them via Twitter, but they would have been hosted elsewhere and taken by other photographers, whom you did not name and whose copyright you may have breached,” read the complaint.
The BBC replied seven days later, and Mabbett posted the reply onto his blog. The broadcaster said “I understand you were unhappy that pictures from Twitter are used on BBC programmes as you feel it may be a breach of copyright... Twitter is a social network platform which is available to most people who have a computer and therefore any content on it is not subject to the same copyright laws as it is already in the public domain.”
Essentially, the broadcaster is saying that if something is in public view, it can be considered public property and is free for use. This, of course, is a violation of basic human rights.
This response has received significant backlash as many angry photographers began giving their opinions on the matter. The outcry towards BBC's statements have prompted them to retract the statement, claiming that what was said is definitely not BBC Policy. In a statement by Chris Hamilton, BBC's social media editor, the company announced that it was “checking out the complaint response quoted above but, on the face of it, it's wrong and isn't the position of BBC News... 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,” Hamilton said.
In the company's official statement, BBC announced that “In terms of permission and attribution, we make every effort to contact people who've taken photos we want to use in our coverage and ask for their permission before doing so. However, in exceptional situations, where there is a strong public interest and often time constraints, such as a major news story like the recent Norway attacks or rioting in England, we may use a photo before we've cleared it... a senior editor has to judge that there is indeed a strong public interest in making a photo available to a wide audience. But sometimes, in the exceptional circumstances just outlined, it's just not possible to make contact with the person who took the picture, or they don't want to be contacted, or we might consider it too dangerous to try and make contact—a significant issue in our coverage of the recent Arab uprising.”
The broadcaster continued on to say that some photo owners ask not to be named, saying “When we can't credit the copyright holder, our practice has been to label the photo to indicate where it was obtained, such as 'from Twitter,' as part of our normal procedure for sourcing content used in our output. We do want to acknowledge the value our audience adds to our output, and hope this sheds light on our editorial decision process made during exceptional circumstances.”
In response to this statement, Mabbett still said “I want them to attribute photographers and cite their sources.” The blogger also commented that BBC's first response to him “wasn't particularly swift, wasn't good at being personal, and was clearly far from expert.” He has written back to the company inquiring after what policies they plan to set in place in order to make sure that erroneous advice (such as the initial response they gave him) isn't issued again. The broadcaster is yet to reply to his second letter.
While the spotlight is currently trained onto the BBC, the truth is that they are not alone. Many large news corporations use online images for their reports. For example, the Daily Mail just recently received backlash for attributing a photograph to “the Internet.” In the United States, freelance photographer, Daniel Morel, is suing Agence France Presse and Getty Images for using his Twitter photos from the Haiti earthquake without his permission and without remuneration.
But just because many companies do it, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. In fact, it's absolutely wrong. It breaches several international conventions and the Copyright Designs and Patents Act. Simply stated, you can't just use a photo. You need to obtain the permission of the photographer, and you have to wait for that permission to be given.
Yes. The Internet is a public platform, but that doesn't mean everything on it is public property. Creations put online are private property. Amateur photographers and other creators need to know their rights, and understand that the law is going to be on their side.
In response to the issue, a spokeswoman from Twitter announced that they do not support the belief that photos posted on their site are public property. The spokeswoman said that though the site requires a non-exclusive license to host the images, the photographers remain the owners. On the other hand, Twitter just signed a deal with the WENN photo agency to sell user images without remuneration for copyright owners.
