social networks | Editors Blog | Journalism.co.uk

The launch of a new blog to help journalists find case studies has been questioned by student journalist and blogger Dave Lee, who says such projects provide case studies representing too narrow a field.

While not directly attacking the Getting Ink Requests blog, Lee is concerned that such groups are set-up and perpetuated by journalists, and as such will only provide case studies representing a narrow section of society.

Lee goes on to criticise what he describes as the ‘”think of story, find case study” process’ saying it leads to ‘[F]eatures to order… There will always be an element of “you’ll do” about it.’

But as Lee offers no practical alternatives for journalists (as one commenter puts it) who are told to find ‘three case studies in 24 hours’ his post has met with some critical reactions.

Lee adds that his gripe is not with the individual journo under pressure, but with the introspective nature of the process, e.g. using personal contacts, particularly those within the industry, to find case studies.

Fair enough, but this is what journalists have always done and that’s not going to change. Regardless of who sets them up, using social networks and blogs to make case study requests will inevitably give journalists access to new sources, increase participation and ultimately give a wider representation of society.

The use of pictures from social networking sites to illustrate news stories seems to be a growing practice among news providers across the media.

Yet an internal memo from the BBC, quoted by Media Guardian, raises the ethical and legal implications of using these images:

1) context: these images are published by users for the intended audience of friends and others within their network and not for the wider world to scrutinize.

2) copyright: who owns the copyright to these images – the user or the host site? Not likely the news provider.

While Steve Herrman on the BBC’s Editors’ blog has been posting for a while on the ongoing ethical debate around this issue, many social network users may not be aware of what happens to their copyright when they submit photos to networks like Facebook and MySpace.

Facebook’s terms and conditions on user submitted content are initially rights-grabbing (the emphasis below is mine):

By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.

Yet the terms go on to state:

Facebook does not assert any ownership over your User Content; rather, as between us and you, subject to the rights granted to us in these Terms, you retain full ownership of all of your User Content and any intellectual property rights or other proprietary rights associated with your User Content.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this means while the user still ‘owns’ content, such as the photos they submit, Facebook can license these images out. As such news organisations would do well to steer clear of using these images without a licence and tempting Facebook into a legal battle.

For the user, however, it comes down to trust: trust that their content won’t be licensed in this way by the social network. Shouldn’t Facebook be doing more to ensure that this doesn’t happen with or without licence, for the ethical reason stated above?