Pete Clifton responds to some who think it's very unethical for the news media to use the photos and video being captured by technologically-enabled citizens without paying them.

Meanwhile, the Chartered Institute of Journalists in the UK has come out guns blazing against the practice of soliciting citizen witness photos, calling it a rights grab.

First some excerpts from the Beeb piece:

A bumper post bag this week about the merits of the content from readers we used following the London attacks in July. The overwhelming majority supported the move to embrace what "citizen journalists" have to offer, but plenty also asked - "Why aren't you paying for it?"

Andro Linklater of Kent, said: "What is utterly objectionable is that by following the BBC's policy of acquiring potentially valuable images royalty-free for perpetual use, you are cheating the very people you purport to serve."

And Anthony Singer, from Brussels added: "I think the real issue here is that, given that this material has proved to be such a mainstay of coverage of recent major events, why aren't these people being paid for them?" Helen Lowe from London felt the BBC was "using people's goodwill", and pointed out: "People taking these photographs could indeed sell them to a picture agency which could then sell them to the BBC for the going rate."

As I said last week, using people as eye witnesses on TV, radio and online is nothing new, but the technology available now means they are also taking a volume of still and moving pictures we have never experienced before.

Does the best of this material have a market value? Of course. This site, Scoopt certainly thinks so (and you can read more about the site in this story). And you can be sure that the person who shot the video of the balcony arrests of two suspects in London recently has rather more in the bank than previously.  ...

We were also besieged by calls from national newspapers asking to use the images. We got in touch with the amateur photographers and asked if they wanted to speak to the newspapers. If they did, we gave them the paper's details and they were free to get on with it. As a public service organisation we do not syndicate for commercial gain - it was not a money-making exercise for us.  ...

I may be misreading the spirit of all this, but so far it seems that our readers are keen to be involved and to contribute to our newsgathering if they can, and money is not the driver. I don't intend to set up a fund from licence fee payers' money to turn this into a commercial exercise. That's my position; we will see how the market develops.

Now this from the Press-Gazette:

The use of amateur mobile phone images by the media in the aftermath of the London bombings has been condemned as "totally unacceptable" and "bordering on the irresponsible".

 

The Chartered Insititute of Journalists has particularly singled out London News Tonight which has regularly made appeals to viewers with mobile phone cameras.

 

The broadcaster has said: "Register with us, so we can contact you when a news story breaks in your area, because we want you, the viewer, to feel a part of the exciting world of newsgathering".

 

But in a letter to Press Gazette this week the CIoJ said: "What happens if a viewer is seriously injured whilst taking part in ITV’s ‘Exciting world of newsgathering?’. Will ITV be there to pick up the pieces and pay the medical bills?

 

"To add insult to injury, on its website appeal for pictures, ITV states: ‘By sending us your video footage/photographs/audio, you agree we can broadcast, publish and edit the material and pass it onto others for similar use in any media world-wide, WITHOUT ANY PAYMENT BEING DUE TO YOU'."

 

The CIoJ has also slammed the BBC for "grabbing" the rights of pictures and footage sent in by amateurs.

 

The CIoJ said: "In each of these cases, the broadcasters seek the right, which could be extremely lucrative, to license, syndicate or otherwise make the material available to other broadcast and publishing organisations around the world, keeping all profits for themselves and without even guaranteeing the contributor that they will see their name credited in print, or hear it broadcast.