Crowdmedia idea shows a worrying future.

[Paulstw]

I was sad to read of a story on petapixel about a new startup called crowd media.

 

It relies on social media to provide news and media pictures and paying out at pretty small rates. I suspect the vast use of smartphones and Huffington post has been quite excited about it.

 

http://petapixel.com/2013/07/18/crowdmedia-vows-to-upend-photojournalism-via-twitter/

 

I wouldn't dare put myself in that pro bracket but I felt quite worried about reading this.

 

Paul

[Ray]

I agree Paul that it is concerning for any skilled photographers trying to make some form of income from their images. After reading your post I looked at the terms and conditions my local newspaper places on crowd media (amateur public) contributors.

These include granting all rights to the photographs or video indefinitely to that paper, its parent company & international affiliates as well as anyone else it chooses to share them with for whatever purpose they please. Furthermore the contributor (who doesn't get paid) indemnifies the paper and all aforementioned organisations against any claims arising against them by people who may not want those photos/videos published. The contributor also must assure the publishers that they have the permission of the people in the photographs/videos to use in them whenever they wish in any context that they wish, and to give the same assurances to the people/organisations the newspaper shares them with. But they don't ask for release forms. So all the responsibility is placed on the amateur contributor who could in an extreme case lose their house in a lawsuit because they provided a phone picture for free to the local paper which then ended up being used without their knowledge for commercial or political purposes on the other side of the world.

This is not only totally unfair on the contributor who just gets a kick out of being an amateur newshound it robs a skilled/professional photographer of a chance at some income. A professional or regular contributor would be more skilled and hopefully aware of the legalities involved and have appropriate insurance protection.  

But the whole purpose of crowd media (unpaid public contributors not the organisation) is for multinational news media organisations to get content free and be protected from any financial or legal backlash. 

A friend of mine foolishly contributed one of his best photos to the local paper which used it as a full page feature/infomercial type insert and gave him nothing, not even a free subscription. They also have the right to give it away or use it for any purpose they choose and he has no say over it. I asked him why and he said just for the kick of being published. 

 

edited to distinguish 'CrowdMedia' organisation from generic term 'crowd media' meaning amateur public or social media contributors.

[kensplace]

I agree Paul that it is concerning for any skilled photographers trying to make some form of income from their images. After reading your post I looked at the terms and conditions my local newspaper places on crowdmedia contributors.

These include granting all rights to the photographs or video indefinitely to that paper, its parent company & international affiliates as well as anyone else it chooses to share them with for whatever purpose they please. Furthermore the contributor (who doesn't get paid) indemnifies the paper and all aforementioned organisations against any claims arising against them by people who may not want those photos/videos published. The contributor also must assure the publishers that they have the permission of the people in the photographs/videos to use in them whenever they wish in any context that they wish and for the people/organisations the newspaper shares them with to have those same rights and protections. But they don't ask for release forms. So all the responsibility is placed on the amateur contributor who could in an extreme case lose their house in a lawsuit because they provided a phone picture for free to the local paper which then ended up being used without their knowledge for commercial or political purposes on the other side of the world.

This is not only totally unfair on the contributor who just gets a kick out of being an amateur newshound it robs a skilled/professional photographer of a chance at some income. A professional or regular contributor would be more skilled and hopefully aware of the legalities involved and have appropriate insurance protection.  

But the whole purpose of crowd media is for multinational news media organisations to get content free and be protected from any financial or legal backlash. 

A friend of mine foolishly contributed one of his best photos to the local paper which used it as a full page feature/infomercial type insert and gave him nothing, not even a free subscription. They also have the right to give it away or use it for any purpose they choose and he has no say over it. I asked him why and he said just for the kick of being published. 

 

Not a lawyer, but would your back not be covered by this clause

 

 

2.3 - The Buyer must also agree to the following :

1. CrowdMedia shall supply the Buyer the Photo for editorial purpose only, at the Price approved by the Buyer and with the Basic licensing terms, no matter the media or the number of prints.

 

 

As their contract limits the buyers use of the photo to editorial use, would the original photographer not be covered?

 

 

also

 

 

5.3 - Liability of the Buyer

1. The Buyer shall be liable for any damage caused to other Parties by any use of the Photo that conflicts with legislation or this Agreement.
2. For the purpose of clarity it should be stated that CrowdMedia shall not be liable for damage caused to the User or a third party by taking or using the Photo. The User shall be liable for damages relating to the Photo.
3. The Buyer agrees that in using any Photo, it shall comply with all applicable law, and further that a Photo of a person will not be published in a way injurious to his/her personal reputation or privacy or so that it violates any applicable legislation. The Buyer shall ensure (and for the avoidance of doubt shall be liable for any loss in relation to not ensuring), that the use of the Photo complies with all applicable legislation and that the publishing of the Photo complies with general journalistic practice and good practice. The Buyer acknowledges and agrees that publishing the Photo may, in some instances, require obtaining a Release, and that the Photographer/Seller has not necessarily acquired such Release. The Buyer is responsible for obtaining all Releases and it agrees that its publication of a Photo is conditional on obtaining all Releases. Should the Buyer have reason to believe that permission or consent for publishing is required under any applicable law, the Buyer shall not publish the Photo.

[kensplace]

 

5.2 - Liability of the Seller

1. The Seller is liable for ensuring that he/she owns all copyrights to the Photo as specified in the Copyright Act and/or in other copyright related legislation in the Seller´s country and that the Seller has the right to transfer the rights specified in this Agreement to CrowdMedia and the Buyer.
2. The Seller shall be liable for any direct damage caused to other Parties by contractual use of the Photo. In no event shall the Seller be liable for any indirect or incidental damage or loss unless the damage has been caused wilfully of gross negligently.
3. For the sake of clarity it should also be stated that the Buyer has the journalistic responsibility. The Buyer shall be responsible that the use of the Photo complies with all applicable legislation and that the publishing of the Photo complies with general journalistic practice and good practice.

 

 

looks like seller is only liable for damage caused wilfully of gross negligently?

[Ray]

 

I agree Paul that it is concerning for any skilled photographers trying to make some form of income from their images. After reading your post I looked at the terms and conditions my local newspaper places on crowdmedia contributors.

These include granting all rights to the photographs or video indefinitely to that paper, its parent company & international affiliates as well as anyone else it chooses to share them with for whatever purpose they please. Furthermore the contributor (who doesn't get paid) indemnifies the paper and all aforementioned organisations against any claims arising against them by people who may not want those photos/videos published. The contributor also must assure the publishers that they have the permission of the people in the photographs/videos to use in them whenever they wish in any context that they wish and for the people/organisations the newspaper shares them with to have those same rights and protections. But they don't ask for release forms. So all the responsibility is placed on the amateur contributor who could in an extreme case lose their house in a lawsuit because they provided a phone picture for free to the local paper which then ended up being used without their knowledge for commercial or political purposes on the other side of the world.

This is not only totally unfair on the contributor who just gets a kick out of being an amateur newshound it robs a skilled/professional photographer of a chance at some income. A professional or regular contributor would be more skilled and hopefully aware of the legalities involved and have appropriate insurance protection.  

But the whole purpose of crowd media is for multinational news media organisations to get content free and be protected from any financial or legal backlash. 

A friend of mine foolishly contributed one of his best photos to the local paper which used it as a full page feature/infomercial type insert and gave him nothing, not even a free subscription. They also have the right to give it away or use it for any purpose they choose and he has no say over it. I asked him why and he said just for the kick of being published. 

 

Not a lawyer, but would your back not be covered by this clause

 

>>>> 

2.3 - The Buyer must also agree to the following :

1. CrowdMedia shall supply the Buyer the Photo for editorial purpose only, at the Price approved by the Buyer and with the Basic licensing terms, no matter the media or the number of prints.

 

 

As their contract limits the buyers use of the photo to editorial use, would the original photographer not be covered?

 

 

also

 

 

5.3 - Liability of the Buyer

1. The Buyer shall be liable for any damage caused to other Parties by any use of the Photo that conflicts with legislation or this Agreement.
2. For the purpose of clarity it should be stated that CrowdMedia shall not be liable for damage caused to the User or a third party by taking or using the Photo. The User shall be liable for damages relating to the Photo.
3. The Buyer agrees that in using any Photo, it shall comply with all applicable law, and further that a Photo of a person will not be published in a way injurious to his/her personal reputation or privacy or so that it violates any applicable legislation. The Buyer shall ensure (and for the avoidance of doubt shall be liable for any loss in relation to not ensuring), that the use of the Photo complies with all applicable legislation and that the publishing of the Photo complies with general journalistic practice and good practice. The Buyer acknowledges and agrees that publishing the Photo may, in some instances, require obtaining a Release, and that the Photographer/Seller has not necessarily acquired such Release. The Buyer is responsible for obtaining all Releases and it agrees that its publication of a Photo is conditional on obtaining all Releases. Should the Buyer have reason to believe that permission or consent for publishing is required under any applicable law, the Buyer shall not publish the Photo.

 

Hi  the example of terms I was referring  was for the local News Corporation newspaper in my town which does not limit use or liability. I gave that example because in my opinion the ubiquitous local newspapers pose a worse threat for all involved than the CrowdMedia startup which is part of this trend.

As you rightly point out the CrowdMedia terms appear to limit liability and offer more protection to the contributor but I am not a legal professional and I am not qualified to be more specific.

But having worked in television newsrooms for more than 20 years I can tell you that situations are not always as they seem (or have legal issues the contributor couldn't possibly know about). For example: filming the evacuation of a burning apartment building quite legally from a public road and accidentally identifying or revealing the location of protected persons. In the example I gave of my local newspaper with their terms, a paid photographer (unless they were knowingly breaking the law) would be legally covered for liability to some degree but a free contributor is being asked to agree to take on that liability themselves and cover the publisher for damages if any arise. Sometimes an apology is all that's needed but things can get more serious. 

The contributors have to be aware of the codes of conduct, like the ones you quoted, and if they are just members of the public that is unlikely. Increasingly online newspapers, radio stations and tv news outlets are encouraging members of the public to contribute pictures and videos of incidents and that's where I see the problem lurking. They need to be made more aware of the perils they face.

The real issue for us is that it robs us of an opportunity to make some income because public contributions are mostly unpaid or poorly paid and often their lesser quality photos or videos are sufficient to suit daily news gathering needs.

 

ps I should also point out that in my first post I used 'crowd media' as a generic term for unpaid pubic contributors and social media sources. "CrowdMedia" is the organisation referred to by Paul. I have edited the first post to make that clearer.

[Paulstw]

Either way. Some bright spark has came up with the idea of muscling into a market and totally under cutting the competition. 

 

We're entering into an era of what is acceptable viewing media. News rooms, editors and the like would probably prefer any footage/picture over not having anything at all because they couldn't get a photog there in time. 

 

For instance, when the plane crashed into Hudson Bay there was more pictures on Twitter of the events from all angles than the official news pictures, and unfortunately people with smartphones got there first. 

 

I'm finding this whole "turning your back on the pro" quite distasteful and sooner or later something needs to give.

 

Some would say that the pro photog needs to change in an evolving market, however, I'd say to them, You go buy a 'real' camera, and see if you don't evolve in the lifetime of owning it.  

[Ray]

Again I have to agree with Paul. I know a couple of very fine pro photographers who have to supplement their income with other work because they are being undercut or ignored because there is a cheaper option. Quality doesn't seem to matter and that is sad.

[Richard Baker]

I made a search using the word police. You can do so too here.

 

Just above the thumbs there's a choice to either source those ready for sale on Crowdmedia or hoover up possibilities direct from Twitter ('Request photos from Twitter') which is probably one method used by TV channels etc. wanting instant material for rolling news, come the day when something catastrophic happens - such as the killing of the Woolwich soldier. 

 

Or I suspect that some would bypass that by simply locating the picture on their site, tweet the author direct and splash it across screens within a minute. Way faster than searching by hashtag. 

 

 

Richard. 

[Paulstw]

I made a search using the word police. You can do so too here.

 

Just above the thumbs there's a choice to either source those ready for sale on Crowdmedia or hoover up possibilities direct from Twitter ('Request photos from Twitter') which is probably one method used by TV channels etc. wanting instant material for rolling news, come the day when something catastrophic happens - such as the killing of the Woolwich soldier. 

 

Or I suspect that some would bypass that by simply locating the picture on their site, tweet the author direct and splash it across screens within a minute. Way faster than searching by hashtag. 

 

 

Richard. 

 

I have been doing some promotion for HTC over the last year, and it involves the heavy use of hashtags. I popped in a few hashtags to the search it it pulls up every tweet with a picture that used that hashtag. Quite a powerful system. 

 

Basically that means that if for talking sake I was at an event and I tweeted a pic using a trending tag that the media were interested in. I could possibly be asked to use my picture for this site. I think i'll be reviewing what I post on twitter. 

 

However, it also posts some quite interesting images lol. I'd be questioning some peoples use of twitter - oh dear. 

[Lionel]

Based on a very quick review of CrowdMedia's terms, I think they are trying to do the same thing as ScoopShot.  It's noteworthy that both CrowdMedia and ScoopShot want to be able to sell/buy the copyright as opposed to usage; so, they think there's value in holding the copyright, and they'd like to buy/trade it for little compensation to the photographer.  Rough times ahead for photojournalists.

 

Regards

Lionel

 

eta: ironically, ScoopShot apparently has some funding from Yuro Arcurs....