Is the value of content going up or down or both?

Andy Dickinson's post Time to get your head round fair use is more than fairly useful. Read it. It summarises the English (and Welsh? or UK?) law.

And it has also set me off on something of a tangent.

While the laws relating to copyright and fair use have not changed substantially, "custom and practice" undoubtedly have.

Thanks to Creative Commons I could illustrate a story about protests over Wrexham's proposed incinerator without getting up from my desk, let alone paying any money over to a photographer. All I need to say is acknowledge "CC BY SA http://flickr.com/photos/vertigogen/58184067/"

In the blogosphere it is pretty much acceptable to quote the majority of another person's post providing you "pay" for it with Googlejuice (a link).

Most of our websites make their video embeddable which is implicitly an invitation to use it for free (in return for Googlejuice, natch) although I had an interesting conversation the other day with Debbie from "reprints & eprints". The roots of this department lies in our print history. Advertisers delighted to be written about in an article often purchase reprints which they send out to their clients. We charged for the privelege, of course.

Anyway, Debbie had a client which was featured in one of our videos and they wanted to put it on their own website. How much should she charge them?

My first instinct was to say "nothing" and then I wondered why that was? When did I stop thinking of content as having value? Has the value of content actually diminished? If so, how come? Perhaps I've been brain-washed by the social media free-for-all and have lost sight of it?

Of course, in some cases the value (or, anyway, the cost) of content has actually plummeted. Photography is the main loser here due to flickr, morguefile (from which the picture on the left is taken) and a thousand other sources.

Indeed, our purchasing department has just struck some incredible deals with image libraries and it's not surprising that Getty is trying to claw something back from the free image explosion.

Yet bizarrely many of the photographers we commission persist in clinging on to the copyright of what they produce for us. Freelance writers long ago recognised that the world was changing and that it was in their best interests to give us all rights to commissioned work, much to the NUJ's chagrin. But really: who would you rather buy a frying pan from? Someone who would only let you fry sausages in it once or someone who acknoweldged that you had paid for the frying pan and were entitled to do what you wanted with it?

Anyway, what was I talking about? Oh, yes. I'm wondering:

• Are we right to make all of our videos embeddable?
• Is the culture of "use it but give us a link in return" really good value?
• If the answers to these are "yes" and "yes", then where is the money going to come from?

Oh, by the way: my final, considered answer to Debbie in Reprints and Eprints regarding what she should charge the client was "whatever they're prepared to pay". I guess that's the truest value.

Free library pictures

What's with the picture of the senior gentleman adjusting his bow tie?

Well, I plucked it at random from PicApp.com.

PicApp.com lets publishers and bloggers use images from libraries such as Getty Images free of charge. The quid pro quo is that there are ads embedded in the pics in return.

I think it's a great idea - with the cost of photographic images in freefall (i.e. nothing if you use appropriate Creative Commons images through flickr), it's great a great win-win solution.

I think it should be really useful for people looking to pep up their blog posts.

I've got one or two whinges - I can't for the life of me find the place to tell it my full list of blogs (although it says there is one) and I really miss being able to order my search results by Most Recent or Most Popular.

But it's a great start.

Update: It's a bit overblown, isn't it? Quite frightening to a casual visitor to the site I would imagine. And the little avatar poking his head up is rather cheesy. And I'd like to easily be able to run text alongside the images. But, as I say, it's a great start.

Landslide victory for Farmers Weekly Interactive

It just goes to show that in the digital age a set of pictures paints several thousand words.

Farmers Weekly Interactive was sent some pictures (of which this is one) of an extraordinary landslide occurrence in Cheshire:


All the pictures are available in a slideshow on the site and the story is admirably succinct in deference to the majesty of the pictures:

Tractor Driver James Fletcher who works for Chester-based contractor Mike Harley, had a lucky esacpe when the field he was ploughing gave way beneath him. He was on the final run of a sloping field near Alvaney, Widnes, when the bank he was on collapsed, sending an estimated 15,000 tonnes of soil sliding down the slope.

Mr Fletcher's tractor and plough was carried a quarter of a mile, through 360 degrees, crossing two fields and ended up being half buried in soil. Amazingly, the tractor started again once dug out, but had to be taken away on a low-loader.

And the Internet is indeed a wondrous thing. Professor David Petley - an authority on landslides - picks up the story in his Landslide Blog and recognises the unusual nature of this event in the UK and pledges to investigate further. And so the story rolls on.

Fascinating.

I'm demonstrating using Flickr for photos in blogs

Max
Originally uploaded by Pixel Theif 

Well, I was earlier today, which is why I put up this lovely picture of a dog - to show a group of bloggers how easy it is to find a beautiful and relevant - and legally usable - picture on Flickr that will add visual impact to one's blog.

It's all about using Creative Commons licences of course. These seem to be elegant and simple, but in some ways they are a bit of a nightmare. The more you get into the detail of Creative Commons, the more pitfalls you see - or imagine.

I've been doing a project to look at how people in our organisation can use CC licensed photographs without fear of legal recriminations and with a clear conscience.

One of our directors came up with a fantastic suggestion on hearing me present the project - in return for pictures that we use from CC, we should submit photography from our archives under CC licence so that other people may use them freely.

I thought it was a very wise idea and a good solution to the problem that commercial use of (appropriately licensed) CC photographs may be legally OK, but somehow against the spirit of Creative Commons.

When is a video not a video?

When it's a collection of stills, apparently. No, it's probably not the gag to open your next presentation with, but it is an interesting idea.

The Indy Star has been getting round a video ban by putting lots of photographs together.

Apparently:

We wanted to do something special from our Indianapolis Colts football games with multimedia, but hit a wall with the NFL rules against newspapers shooting video on the field. Several of our photographers ... had experimented with time-lapse projects using a still camera and motor drive bursts, putting the images together with Quicktime to give people a video-like experience.

Cunning and it begs the question: "How many frames per second can you use before it becomes a video?".

Unfortunately, I can't find an example on the IndyStar website. Do let me know if you fare any better.

Crap user generated content

Is there nothing people won't share online?. Don't click if you're eating.

The changing shape of photography

A sizeable proportion of a traditional publisher's magazine content budget goes on photography - a combination of stock images and photographs commissioned from professional photographers. But it doesn't have to be this way.

The former are generally outrageously over-priced and the second are a lot of trouble as photographers are - in my experience - ridiculously precious over the rights they will assign. If you think publishers have been slow to get their heads round the new publishing landscape, spend half an hour on the phone to a photographer re-negotiating usage rights.

One of my hobby horses is that as a business we are missing major opportunities to lessen our images bill. Sites such as flickr are full of decent enough - sometimes excellent - images that are available for free if you go about it the right way. Many amateur photographers are flattered to have their photography recognised and will willingly consent to having their images used for no more of a consideration than a credit and a link. And I should know, because I'm one of them.

Even though I know it's cheap content for the publisher, I'm still proud that this picture I took at Helsinki's Linnanmäki fairground (I'm the one on the left, by the way) has been used used in the Schmapp!! online guide to the city.



along with this one.

The downside for a publisher is the amount of time it takes to find a suitable photograph and get permission from the photographer (if at all) but if time and resources permit, it's got to be cheaper than the alternatives.

Presumably what they do is identify a whole bunch of possibles to increase the chances of getting a "yes" because it's pitched as a shortlist.

Here is the first Flickr Mail I received...

:: Schmap: Helsinki Photo Shortlist


Hi Andrew,

I am writing to let you know that two of your photos have
been short-listed for inclusion in the third edition of our
Schmap Helsinki Guide, to be published early September 2007.

http://www.schmap.com/shortlist/p=48919690N00/c=SE18211664

Clicking this link will take you to a page where you can:
i) See which of your photos have been short-listed.
ii) Submit or withdraw your photos from our final selection
phase.
iii) Learn how we credit photos in our Schmap Guides.
iv) Browse online or download the second edition of our
Schmap Helsinki Guide.

While we offer no payment for publication, many
photographers are pleased to submit their photos, as Schmap
Guides give their work recognition and wide exposure, and
are free of charge to readers. Photos are published at a
maximum width of 150 pixels, are clearly attributed, and
link to high-resolution originals at Flickr.

Our submission deadline is Sunday, August 26. If you happen
to be reading this message after this date, please still
click on the link above (our Schmap Guides are updated
frequently - photos submitted after this deadline will be
considered for later releases).

Best regards,

Luke Ritchie,
Managing Editor, Schmap Guides

And here's the second. (I wonder what happened to Luke, by the way)?

:: Schmap Helsinki Third Edition: Photo Inclusion


Hi Andrew,

I am delighted to let you know that your two submitted
photos have been selected for inclusion in the newly
released third edition of our Schmap Helsinki Guide:

Linnanmäki
http://www.schmap.com/helsinki/activities_fun/p=57794/i=57794_11.jpg

Linnanmäki
http://www.schmap.com/helsinki/activities_fun/p=57794/i=57794_8.jpg

If you like the guide and have a website, blog or personal
page, then please also check out our schmapplets -
customizable widgetized versions of our Schmap Helsinki
Guide, complete with your published photos:

http://www.schmap.com/schmapplets/p=48919690N00/c=SE18211547

Thanks so much for letting us include your photos - please
enjoy the guide!

Best regards,

Emma Williams,
Managing Editor, Schmap Guides