Screen Shot 2016-04-06 at 12.12.35

‘User-generated content’ and the Irish media.

A short documentary.

Derek Bowler, of Storyful, writes:

RTÉ TV3, 3E, INM, 98FM,, FYI and many other media organisations and outlets have used User Generated Content in broadcasts, online and across their social media platforms without permissions from the content owners, and without attribution or courtesy to them.

There have also been repeated instances of misattribution and the re-use of unauthorised copies of the original content.

The aim of this piece is highlight the unethical practices of Irish media organisations and how they are knowingly operating outside of both Irish and international copyright law…


Derek Bowler

25 thoughts on “Users

  1. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

    This is ridiculous.
    It’s just student-journalists complaining about how the way Journalism has changed faster than they can.

    You took the wrong course.
    It isn’t what you thought it was going to be.
    Get over it. Do another course.
    Nobody owes you a living. Get out and earn it.

    Kids these days!!!!!

  2. Manta Rae

    Oh, look at the media firm that is owned by Rupert Murdoch whose newspapers hacked a dead schoolgirl’s mobile phone getting on their high-horse about ‘stealing’. Hypocritical nonsense.

    1. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

      You’re not allowed say that. These kids are trying to suppress that thought.
      They work for NYAHHH-Nyahhhh…nahhhh. I can’t hear you, I’m not listening anymore…

      They want to work for NYAHHH-Nyahhhh…nahhhh…I’m not listening to you…

      I give up.

  3. Birneybau2

    Disappointing lack of MaximumMedia, that stalwart organisation behind Joe, Her etc…

  4. rotide

    This is a global issue at the moment , not an irish one.

    This just looks like storyful having a dig at benchwarmers for some obscure reason. (I’m not sure benchwarmers are quite the new media entertainment megahub that this piece makes them out to be anyway)

    1. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

      I don’t feel well.
      I agree with rotide and that doesn’t agree with me.
      …then I read that first ‘sentence’ again and my breathing goes back to normal.

      This is a global issue at the moment , not an irish one.
      -Classic ritoad. Makes no sense, isn’t worth tuppence, etc.

  5. ForFecksSake

    I wonder which Irish company this might have been that pestered a witness to the Brussels airport attack and his clients.

    ” Amongst of all this, an Irish company (which, notably, had also contacted my clients) is particularly insistent.”

    “He goes nuts in an Irish accent — the video was five times longer than he thought. He asked me — forcefully — to send the agreement that I had reached with CNN so he could “check with his legal team how to get around the limits of the agreement”. I tell him clearly that this was making me want to vomit, and ask him to leave me alone. A request which didn’t stop him sending me more emails to check that I hadn’t changed my mind.”

  6. Supercrazyprices

    I’m sure the Irish Independent would make every effort to contact any dead pedestrians who may feature in a Chinese road accident CCTV footage.

    “The shocking moment a truck loses control and….”

    That’s not journalism. That’s just porn.

    1. ForFecksSake

      That’s not actually relevant. If a video is in a public place the person in it doesn’t need to be contacted. It is the person who shot the video.

      1. Supercrazyprices

        That’s not my point.

        My point is the posting of that kind of footage at all.

  7. ForFecksSake

    The audio isn’t properly synced. Also they basically want to break the internet (not in the Kardashian way).

    1. Joe Bloggs

      I noticed that too. Kinda ironic when they are taking about media content being their business?

  8. kingo

    I have the odd time stories that end up on various websites not much point trying to get paid for them. the papers will pay.

  9. Bruncvik

    I’m having two main issues with the people interviewed in this story:

    1. The Press Ombudsman is talking about reimbursement of the content owner. Reimbursement happens after content is being taken without permission, and the content owner demands payment. What the ombudsman should focus on is obtaining permission prior to taking the content. That permission may be free to give, or in exchange for payment. If this was commonplace, reimbursement wouldn’t even be an issue. If the ombudsman wants to focus on anything, it’s obtaining permissions, and not seeking back pay.

    2. The lad from Benchwarmers making the excuse that some owners cannot be tracked down. That’s irrelevant. Copyright law is unambiguous, and the rights are still owned by someone other than Benchwarmers. If they can’t track down the owners, they are out of luck, won’t get permission and cannot show the content, unless they can prove that the content is so old that copyright on it expired. I ran into the same issue years ago when I was trying to document early video games, whose copyright ownership passed through various entities, until it was lost. The sad fact is that many of these games were lost forever, because their physical media deteriorated beyond repair, and in the absence of permission from the copyright owner they could not be legally copied in time. However, the law stands as it is, and unless it’s changed, people (and Benchwarmers) should abide by it.

Comments are closed.