Almost choked on my cocoa as I watched BBC News 24 last night and there was OUR JAMES holding forth on the evils of the BBC nicking stuff from our site! (And if you're interested, you can get it several times this weekend - it's a 15 minute slot called Newswatch). You are a real star James, but I was sad that you hid your light under a bushel and didnt say WHICH web site you run in South East London...would that have been unacceptable advertising? I kept waiting for Se1 to come up.
Your right Jackie, James should not hide his light under a bushel!
To pass work off as your own is it not called plagiarism ( sorry cant spell it probably!)
many years ago i wrote a letter to a newspaper about b.t. not giving you the ability to check your own call record, You could hire one from them and if it varied with their actual reading hard cheese..A day later I had a call from Mercury saying they wanted to use excerpts from my letter in an ad..due to the legal position of running down their competitors they were unable to, But I had a beautiful bouquet of flowers delivered and a very expensive bottle of brandy in a wooden box!
so where your James? the BBC should use our licence money on someone who we all admire for a change!
As someone who spent a good chunk of my working life negotiating copyright issues with the bbc on behalf of content creators/providers, I salute James for complaining in the first place, and for making the most pertinent point when he was interviewed. Choice is what matters. There are instances in which material may be used without payment or credit. It ought never to be used without permission.
The bbc's perfectly aware of that, notwithstanding any old flannel about time pressure, perceived news-value, the digital revolution or anything else.
Unless someone agrees to provide material for free, using it without paying for it is stealing. Unless someone's given you permission to use their material for nothing, you can't know whether or not you've stolen it. Ignorance is no defence.
Uncredited material has dubious provenance and using it on a news programme undercuts the bbc's journalistic reputation. Carelessness about other peoples' property rights raises serious questions about the bbc's moral values. Not a great image for a public service broadcaster.
Ok,before se1-ers descend on me in a bunch.... James and I must have been drafting simultaneously above, and he pipped me to the post. In the circumstances (bbc knows who, where, why etc. and could bill him if they had the nerve to)I think his posting is an elegant comment on what's happened in this instance.