Scoopt Blog

Chinese Olympics: clampdown or CJ free-for-all?

Must admit I hadn't given a lot of thought until journo James Knight asked me what I thought about citizen journalism and the Beijing Olympics. You can read his article here on Journalism.co.uk.

The sheer number of citizen journalists that could descend on Beijing - and with MMS and SMS platforms providing an alternative avenue of publishing - has led some to believe that controlling them could be beyond the notoriously long arms of China's media authorities.

I think most of us in the West pretty much accept that the genie is out of the bottle now, where the genie is free expression and the bottle is content control. Today, it would be surprising if thousands of visitors (including athletes, for that matter) didn't want to live-blog and moblog from the Games. They'll certainly take the technology and the will to do so with them.

The point I made to James is that if the authorities manage to suppress or even limit professional press output, this will doubtless lead to greater international media demand for raw, unfiltered content -- which will surely be available in abundance on the ground. So can the Chinese authorities block or restrict the flow of information from Beijing to, well, to everywhere?

"I would be careful with the suggestion that they can't control it," Hidde Kross, of Dutch citizen journalism site Skoeps.com told Journalism.co.uk.

"Don't underestimate their brilliance in sorting out what's published on the internet. They have the finest brains in the world to work on content publishing, as well as filtering technologies."

Well, they might be able to control content published on websites hosted in China or access frm China to websites hosted elsewhere, but it's hard to see how they'll restrict the flow of content out of Beijing unless they lock down internet and mobile networks. Is this doable? Dunno. Will visitors respect any 'You Can Do This But You Can't Do That' code of practice? Doubt it. Maybe Big Media has more to lose than gain by getting on the wrong side of the Chinese authorities and will toe the line by refusing to publish amateur, unauthorised content. Hmmm... you think?

Anyone know how to say 'snap, send, sell!' in Cantonese?   

Slow news day?

So you've signed up with Scoopt and now you're waiting for something interesting to happen?

Well, according to this story on Journalism.co.uk, you could become a virtual reporter on Second Life. Apparently Sky News and SkyCast have teamed up to offer Second Lifers the chance to shoot video inside the virtual world, the best of which will be showcased and broadcast in the real world. If you decide to give it a go, let us know.

Papping children

What do you make of this?

JK Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books, took exception to a newspaper publishing a picture of her 20-month-old son as she pushed him along in his buggy on a public street. But her case was thrown out. According to the judge:

"The law does not in my judgment (as it stands) allow them to carve out a press-free zone for their children in respect of absolutely everything they choose to do."

As a picture agency, our natural reaction might be one of jubiliation. Freedom of the press and all that. But really it's not. Whether it's legal or not... whether you can justify publication because the article was about  motherhood... and leaving aside the issue of the long lens and surreptious methods used to take the photo... there is, in our view, simply something distasteful about publishing unsolicited pictures of celebrities' children.

Sure, there are grey areas but we took the decision from day one not to handle pics of kids. We haven't changed our position (see here). Your thoughts?

'Citizen Correspondent'? ITV wants you...

Today sees the launch of UK broadcaster ITV's new Uploaded feature, where you, the viewer, get to contribute to the news. The press release is here (PDF) and you can read more on the story here.

"For the first time, viewers’ contributions will not just be an add-on to coverage of the big stories – they will become an integral part of all three ITV News bulletins every day... A Citizen Exclusives section will give everyone a platform to contact the ITV News team directly if they have captured amazing exclusive footage."

Hurrah! And how exactly will ITV reward you for your "amazing exclusive footage"... footage that may be worth many thousands of pounds? Well, the devil is in the small print:

"By making a Submission to our Website, you grant us a worldwide, perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free and transferable licence (with the right to sub-license) to use, edit, reproduce, record, modify, translate, distribute, play, perform, make available to the other users of the Services, prepare derivative works of and to display your Submission by any medium or method whether now known or later developed to be exercised in our sole discretion throughout the world for the full term of copyright and other rights and all renewable and extension thereof including, for the avoidance of doubt, the right to register any design rights and/or trademarks. You agree to waive your moral rights in your Submission."

That's right -- you will receive no payment whatsoever... and ITV is free to sell on your contribution around the world to other media markets. You won't even get a credit, let alone cash.

It's amazing. When Scoopt launched two years ago, the mainstream media was all too willing to exploit 'user-generated content' and contributors were for the most part unaware that they could seek fair reward for newsworthy photos and videos. But times have changed, thanks in part to our efforts. If it's good enough to broadcast or publish, it's good enough to pay for. So send your newsworthy* content to Scoopt instead and we'll license it on your behalf to media buyers at the market rate -- and that includes ITV! And if your pic or video gets sub-licensed elsewhere, you'll get paid every time.

ITV Uploaded - Duff Deal of the Day.

* For more on newsworthy, see here.

CJs scoop terror attack

Watching the BBC News 24 rolling news channel last Saturday afternoon as it rightly fixated on the ballsed-up terror attack on Glasgow Airport, it was at once gratifying and, frankly, worrying to see the constant flow of eye-witness pictures and videos hit the screen.

Gratifying because here was citizen journalism once again proving the point we've banged on about for two years now which is that whenever anything happens anywhere on the planet, it's going to be members of the public with cameras/cameraphones who are first on (or caught up in) the scene, well before the professional press pack gets there. Indeed, it was amusing listening to the BBC's first correspondent to arrive at the airport reporting from behind police lines ("I can see, er, smoke in the distance") while near-live pics captured by airport passengers were displayed on our TV screens. It's a powerful thing, this citizen journalism -- and absolutely essential for any news organisation to embrace. As the BBC does so well.

Worryingly well. Because while News 24 scooped the story with punters' pics, the flow of content into Scoopt was somewhat lacking.

Hmm. Why was that? Is it just that people don't care about getting paid for content -- content which is, in this case and others like it, extremely valuable (£££)? Is that they just don't know that there's a commercial market for amateur photos of a genuine news story but would use that market if they could -- and by extension a broker like Scoopt? Or is there a more complicated trend here where people's primary motivation is to share experiences... and only later, if at all, do they care about the potential for making money?

Probably the last of these. And in my view, that's probably best for the greater good. But what's important here -- what's really, really important -- is that people who want a fair reward for content that gets published or broadcast get that reward, either in the heat of the moment or later when the dust has settled. Because what really bugs me is when Sunday papers produce 8-page features using viewers' pictures grabbed (illegally) from TV broadcasts without paying the photographers a penny.

Not that I'm saying that this is necessarily what happened last weekend... but you can see the problem. When you send a hot picture to a broadcaster, will they sell it to the papers -- and if so, will you get paid or exploited? Or will they not sell it on -- in which case, is it any wonder if a paper resorts to publishing TV screengrabs when that's all they have?