Comments on: When will we stop saying “Pictures from Twitter” and “Video from YouTube”?

By: Tools or Tales? | Online Journalism Blog

Tools or Tales? | Online Journalism Blog — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 14:46:37 +0000

[...] Give users critical information about the source of particular information – beyond “Pictures from YouTube” [...]

By: Media law mop up: Social media copyright wars; riot reporting; PCC’s future | Media law and ethics

Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:11:39 +0000

[...] OJB>> When will we stop saying “Pictures from Twitter” and “Video from YouTube”? [...]

By: Media law mop up: Social media copyright wars; riot reporting; PCC’s future | media law & ethics

Fri, 19 Aug 2011 09:32:34 +0000

[...] OJB>> When will we stop saying “Pictures from Twitter” and “Video from YouTube”? [...]

By: Silvia

Silvia — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 11:55:51 +0000

Last week I took a picture of the riots aftermath in Ealing and then tweeted it. That evening I saw the same picture on BBC news and I thought it was mere coincidence. I would never have thought that BBC would use a picture without permission. But now after reading this I’m starting to realize it was actually mine.

By: James Crawford

James Crawford — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 20:46:40 +0000

At least they try to contact you if they use your content. The Daily Fail wouldn’t bother.

By: It’s from Bob, Not Twitter | OhmyNews International

It’s from Bob, Not Twitter | OhmyNews International — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 20:40:10 +0000

[...] Online Journalism Blog looks into this issue in detail. [...]

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:08:19 +0000

Isn’t the issue just a legacy one? I think it just boils down to the simple fact that many writers, journalists and media organizations still operate under outdated guidelines. Before social media, it was pretty easy: you quoted the source (i.e. the brand) where you found the item. The issue of rights/licensing was already taken care of on that end. I hate to pile on media folks for not being cutting edge (there’s more than enough of that already), but this seems to me to be a lack of understanding of how a site like YouTube works.

The analysis of YouTube’s T&C’s is helpful here but for anyone who has spent a significant of time online during the growth of social networks should already understand the difference between YouTube and something like NBC News.

By: Emily

Emily — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:50:02 +0000

I’m an archive producer for tv and advertising and have had occasion several times to licence clips from YouTube and Flickr. I always deal with the original uploader and never with the companies themselves.

By: David Hopkins

David Hopkins — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:02:42 +0000

And on this story about the honeymooner who died in a shark attack – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14552788 – it looks like the photo might have been pulled from Facebook or some photo-sharing website, and there is no attribution there … surely if they can’t get the permission before then they should:

(1) say no permission given but are chasing,
(2) acknowledge source website and source user
(3) if permission is given say that too!

It’s not rocket science .. is it?

By: Gary Hudson

Gary Hudson — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:05:45 +0000

Thanks, Sarah and Paul, for putting me right and Alison for good sense(I was basing my observation on an experience where our copyright material was re-used on YouTube: ‘You retain all of your ownership rights in your Content, but you are required to grant limited licence rights to YouTube and other users of the Service’). The key part of the YouTube licence appears to be :’You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content.’