Other ways of making money > Citizen Journalism Forum

The Best Citizen Journalism website - ever(?)

(1/5) > >>

Gari Sullivan:
What makes a good citizen journalism website? I believe its one where the CJs are offered a very good price for the content and opportunities for the widest possible audience. That's why I stated NoozDesk.com

NoozDesk - For the new generation of citizen journalists

NoozDesk doesn't broadcast your content. We sell it to established global news outlets like the BBC and Russia Today. Because we don't broadcast, we are seen as a resource for broadcasters - not a threat, so we have good working relationships with them. Because we get a good price and exposure for citizen journalists, we get the best citizen journalists in world. 

We believe NoozDesk is the way forward for citizen journalism and the future of news gathering and broadcasting. We think you will, too. If you don't, feel free to say how we can improve.

Gari Sullivan


--- Quote from: Gari Sullivan on October 24, 2012, 16:49 ---NoozDesk doesn't broadcast your content. We sell it to established global news outlets like the BBC and Russia Today.
Gari Sullivan

--- End quote ---
Can you show some examples of images you sold to the Beeb?
I can find plenty of hits of photos on the BBC's website when I google BBC Alamy; BBC Getty; BBC Thinkstock; BBC iStockphoto; but all I get when I Google BBC Noozdesk are your posts, many similar to the one you have made here.

As a former contributor to the agency "Citizen Image" which went defunct and wasted my time, I can honestly point to two "citizen journalism" websites that I like and contribute to regularly...Alamy live news being one such site...the other will remain nameless.

Why?  Because it isn't JUST about getting the "best" price for an image...it's also protecting that photographer's rights.

I will not contribute newsworthy images unless I know the license offered is a RM license.  I cannot pursue image infringements on RF licenses that dilute what my images are worth.  I will not contribute to a newsworthy agent unless I know that agent will work with me to recover usages from newspapers and media outlets who pull the work and publish it (and wait three months or more to pay), or even ignore contributors who try to follow up on usages that aren't reported.

With relation to photographer's rights - I have three images that ran in the Daily Mail in July on different days...I currently have 58 websites that have copied and pasted the images on their websites...and under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, there isn't a thing I can do about it even though I have registered those images as being copyrighted.

I have an image that was licensed in August...and it has been pirated by two other websites, again, because of protections afforded to "opinion based" websites under the DMCA, there isn't a thing I can do about it.

Editorial image licensing is very different than creative image licensing.  It's easy to go after a creative image infringement...it is much more difficult, and much more expensive to pursue infringements of editorial images.

As a new website, with no heavy backers in the industry (i.e., Alamy, Getty, Corbis, Reuters, AP, etc.) , quite frankly, there is nothing there to motivate me to contribute...and I see another waste of time similar to my experience with Citizen Image.  It's already difficult to get images licensed when they are pushed through the wire and you're competing with all the big players.


--- Quote from: Ed on October 24, 2012, 21:46 ---... I cannot pursue image infringements on RF licenses that dilute what my images are worth. ...
--- End quote ---

For the sake of derailing this thread:

I've had instances with Alamy where RM images were licensed once but popped up on several different news web sites.

Member Services assured me that the license is in order and that the buyer purchased it for its own network of affiliates  :o

It's really funky to figure this one out regarding who belongs to this network etc.

No fun.

Gari Sullivan:
The point raised about copyright is a good one.  We have two types of sales: Open and Exclusive.
'Open' the citizen journalist retains all IP ownership of their content. We make that perfectly clear to broadcasters. When you offer your content in an 'open' sale, you are offering it to all our registered broadcasters.
'Exclusive' You sell your copyright to a single broadcaster.

I cannot emphasis enough how much we actively project the content of the citizen journalists. Yes, broadcasters try to get round it and we will come down heavy with the option on legal action, if we have to. To date, no broadcaster has infringed our IP policy.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version