I’d be inclined to believe the BBC’s explanation (and not just ‘cos they used to employ me) because the alternative (that someone just pulled a photo off the internet, stuck it on telly, and thought no-one would notice) seems to me even more unlikely.

Not sure if it’s the case in Birmingham, butwhere I was based we were having copyright issues drummed into us constantly – when we’d get our images everything was coded so we’d know if it was BBC copyright, or an agency pic or whatever – basically, was it free to use, or would it cost (the programme, i.e. ultimately the licence payer) some cash. I’d be very surprised if a search on the BBC’s stills library for ‘Birmingham skyline’ didn’t turn up dozens of (BBC owned) pics, and I don’t know, I just can’t imagine anyone going ‘yep, these are OK, but not quite what I’m looking for – I know, I’ll nick one off Flickr.’ It just doesn’t ring true.

But an engineer (maybe without a login to the proper stills system?) grabbing an image for testing and leaving it floating around to get used later by mistake is a bit daft, but at least feasible. It’s also feasible that the ‘test’ image was precisely the kind of image needed for testing Birmingham’s little CSO set-up – namely a Birmingham skyline. Sorry Jenny, but I don’t think a ‘Google’ logo would have cut it – or ‘a shot with all colours in it’. Not what you’d want at all.

Personally, I love to see the little guy getting one over on the big corporation. But the BBC is a big public-funded corporation.

At best, the BBC will put some systems in place to ensure this kind of thing doesn’t happen again. At worst, a mass email will go round saying ‘don’t nick stuff off the internet you big eejits’. Either way, the time it’s taken the BBC to investigate this has probably cost the licence fees of at everyone who’s commented on this post. Shame really. It was probably just a genuine old-fashioned cock-up, but now it’s a genuine, old-fashioned, and expensive, cock-up. And we’re all paying for it.

The whole point of test images should be that they LOOK like a test image so can’t be used by mistake. And the test should be a shot with all colours in it so you can see if the equipment /lighting etc is right. Not a dull photo of clouds. (no offense, dull meaning not a bright colour)

No offense again but I have to be honest, imo It’s HIGHLY suspicious why this has gone away so fast. I reckon the guy either got a lot of money (that he was somehow happy with), or more likely; was offered a job for them in some way.

No-one who truly respects the law or photography should have folded and allowed them to get away with this. It would also be extremely embarrassing when the BBC went to court and had to change their story and/or were caught lying about how it happened to get used “by accident”.

The other ridiculous thing about this is that the BBC is using still images which IMO are supposed to look like live shots. This I don’t agree with. To be honest I wouldn’t have noticed the photo was the same. That was a VERY lucky catch. THAT also is the reason why the guy should have blew this story up, because they nearly got away with it, and they have probably done it in the past. It should have been ALL over the papers. NO amount of money (unless we are talking like £40,000 – which he would not get as a bribe) is worth the satisfaction of seeing a company who blatantly broke the law getting done for it. Breaking a law in fact, which is extremely important for their company. It actually revolves around upholding copyright laws and fees for media being released to them.

Things like this sicken me to be honest. If there’s one thing I hate more than a liar, it’s someone telling BAD lies and expecting people to fall for it.

PS – Alan I think the word you’re looking for is jealousy. If photos are really not such a big deal, the person should go out and take a measly photo themselves and use that. Someone making a piece of art has the right to decide how, when, for what, or even IF it should be used.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7411177.stm

A non-commercial, share-alike attribution CC license means that they are not permitted to post the image in question on a commercial site without permission, that they have to give due attribution and that the derivative work must be posted under the same license terms.

Creative Commons is not a free-for-all!

Mike, at least you got recognition and compensation.