BBC uses copyright image from Flickr for News 24

The BBC broadcasts thousands of hours of content every year, across analogue and digital platforms, and is ferocious in protecting its material from being used or copied without permission by third parties - licence fee payers, for example.

When members of a Google Group discussed ways to remove Digital Rights Management from BBC shows during early trials of the iPlayer, the BBC threatened Google with an injunction. Unofficial fan sites for BBC shows have been closed down in the past, even knitting patterns based on Doctor Who characters have been dealt with in an impersonal and non-nonsense manner:

It's crystal clear what the BBC's policy is concerning infringement of copyright, so it's slightly embarrassing when the corporation is then caught with its own hand in the cookie jar. In this instance, the cookie jar is Flickr, and the delicious cookie is an image of Birmingham's skyline, taken by Bitterwallet reader Michael Bailey:

The image was clearly marked All Rights Reserved on Flickr, requiring any usage to be agreed in advance. So Bailey wasn't best pleased to be watching News 24 one evening in December, and recognise the "live" backdrop of Birmingham city centre:

Bailey contacted the BBC to ask what the blithering hell they were playing at. With not even a stump to stand on, the BBC admitted the fault (all the time referring to some previously unknown website called Flikr), while offering to pay Bailey a nominal amount and insist he stop bad-mouthing the organisation:

I write in response to your recent email regarding an image used as a backdrop to BBC Birmingham's news studio.

My name is David xxxxxxx and I am the BBC Information Complaints Co-ordinator with responsibility for the BBC's English Regions therefore this matter has been escalated for my personal attention. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying over the Christmas and New Year period.

I have now had the opportunity to investigate this matter with the relevant senior personnel in Birmingham and have set out the circumstances below. The image to which you have referred on Flikr is indeed that which was visible behind the Birmingham interviewee on the BBC News channel on 18 December. It appears that this came about due to human error.

As you may know, studio images like this are achieved by a colour separation overlay process whereby a green or blue background is replaced electronically by a still image such as a city centre skyline, or a live camera shot such as Big Ben which can been seen showing the current time behind interviewees contributing live to news programmes from our Westminster studio.

The team in Birmingham recently installed new CSO equipment and before it was fully functional, the engineers had to test the cameras and screens and therefore needed an example image to use as a background.

An internet search for images of the Birmingham skyline brought up a photo of the city centre (via a website not connected with your Flikr page) and this was then loaded into the system just as an example backdrop to internally test and calibrate the new equipment.

It was never meant to be used in broadcasts but unfortunately due to an oversight, this internal test image was not deleted before the system was brought fully online.

This is obviously very unfortunate and we apologise most sincerely for this error. The image has been immediately removed from our system to prevent any future reuse.

I hope that by explaining the background to how this situation came about you will see that it certainly was not deliberate. I would note the website from which the image was sourced appeared to make no reference to copyright and had no facility for copyright to be enquired about or validated, although I understand that the image has now been removed from that website.

Nevertheless, we recognise that your image was used on air and would like to offer you a payment of £75 by way of a usage fee on the understanding that this represents final settlement of the matter. If you are agreeable, I would also ask that your image entitled "bbc news 24" on Flikr at[email protected]/3120642216 be removed along with the comment "why is the BBC using this copyrighted photo of mine on news items" attached to the "Birmingham Skyline" image at[email protected]/2649168967.

If our proposal is acceptable, perhaps you could contact me personally via [email protected] and I can arrange for matters to be progressed.

In conclusion, thank you once again for bringing this matter to our attention and allowing me to investigate. Please be assured that this matter has been taken seriously and alongside the immediate action taken to remove the image, senior management will be speaking to those involved to ensure that they have a full understanding of copyright issues for the future.

Yours sincerely

Complaints Co-ordinator
BBC Information

How odd that an unnamed search engine found the image on an unnamed website, which was then independently removed from the website within a month of the BBC investigating. Meanwhile searching Flickr for Birmingham skyline turns up Bailey's image on the second page. Bailey contacted the BBC once more and asked them to consider a more substantial payment for its use on national television. He was told to expect a reply last week, which has so far failed to materialised.

Update - 11th February

Since publishing the story yesterday, we're pleased to report our coverage of Mike's story forced the BBC into a re-think on the matter of copyright. A spokesperson has contacted Mike and offered an undisclosed amount, which he has accepted:

"Someone from the BBC called me and I feel happy with the explanation. I has previously felt I was being ignored by the BBC when my intellectual property had been infringed. I think the BBC will walk away with knowing they have to be careful with broadcast images and they will have to have tighter controls. The issue will continue to be a problem for copyright holders and publishers and I’m glad to have resolved it out of court. I can’t specify the details of our arrangement but I am happy with the outcome."

Good news!


  • -=Mike H.
    At least they used a correct image of Birmingham and not Birmingham Alabamma like Birmingham City Council used in a recent recycling promo, muppets! Just another case of "we can use what the feck we like but woe be tied if you try to use what you like!"
  • Chris H.
    "An internet search for images of the Birmingham skyline brought up a photo of the city centre (via a website not connected with your Flikr page)" I'd be interested to know exactly what website this is and if Michael has it hosted elsewhere - I believe Flickr images are excluded from most, if not all, major image search engines. Aunty lying again? surely not...
  • Chris H.
    @mike 'woe betide' HTH x
  • chrisg.
    Flickr theft is so common, I just changed all mine to non commercial no-derivs creative commons because I get less angry that way.
  • Martin
    Sell the story to ITV. Let them get the BBC back for all the coverage they gave about the ITV cockup when an advert played whilst Everton were busy scoring a goal last week.
  • Mark
    £75? Not bad.
  • Mike
    75 is ok for a stock photo but not for copyright theft
  • Megamart
    Mistakes do happen. Just like calling it "News 24" when it changed its name 10 months ago!
  • Mike
    Mistakes do happen, like pinching someones IP then refusing to pay for it.
  • Mike
    The bbc should not be deceiving the public into believing that a broadcast is "live" from Birmingham, suggesting the image in the background is live. They have been caught fair and square with their pants rounds their ankles.
  • Andy
    £75? Thats piss poor - not even half a license fee :P
  • Andy
    Ok.. its over half - I also made a mistake haha!
  • Mike
    here is a BBC article about copyright theft from Flickr. Kind of ironic really.
  • matthew
    £75 is pisspoor, and as a bribe to remove the comment about stealing the image, that's just laughable.
  • rr
    take the £75 or sue them the courts will only give you the fee you could have licenced the photo for, which judging from experience and considering the telpic rates would be something like £100. £25 for extra for a lot of hassle sounds like a stupid move to me
  • rr
    i've actually just checked the telpic rates for 1 Television TX....the average rate is £80.49. so yes, please keep on crying. the BBC have ripped you offer for a whole £5.49 with their offer instead of being a whinging prick why not be happy that : 1. you are getting paid for a photo you took as an amateur 2. you could get some positive attention 3. your photo is clearly deemed to be very good
  • Mike
    Stock photos for websites range from 25-100. if you intend to use photos for broadcast tv use then you have to pay a lot more. 500+ Also the photo was NOT FOR SALE. It was not available on any commercial web sites for sale. The bbc have Stolen intellectual property.
  • Mike
    1. you are getting paid for a photo you took as an amateur I Did not offer it for sale. It was stolen by the BBC. 2. you could get some positive attention. Not bothered about positive attention. 3. your photo is clearly deemed to be very good I know it's good, I don't need the bbc to tell me that.
  • phil m.
    Ask for £500. When I worked in the music industry, we would have to offer at least £1000 as a "token" to even ask for a track to be included on a compilation.... after which we had to pay out even more royalites. I think £500 is good.
  • Will
    I nearly pissed myself over £75 LOL. I wouldn't accept anything under £1000. The amount of bad publicity BBC have received lately I'm sure they'll pay through the teeth not to get a further stuffing. I'd like to know what a solicitor would have to say on this. My boss is being sued around £35k for using a couple of images off a similar image providing website.
  • Tristan
    I think most of your are overlooking the point. 1. Mike is entitled to argue for what ever he wants, at end of day BBC did a criminal action. 2. The BBC a big company making a lot of money every year, treats FANS of its sows, the people who actually cause them to generate money like absolute rubbish, hence pointe dout above about the legal cases againt the knitting patterns. People who have created fans site that contained images of their shows etc. (these things would spread the word about a TV Show and thus get more viewers) So surely this aint about the money its the principle. Why should Mike be treated like this by such a big company becaue he is a normal individual who wasn't even trying to make moeny out of his passion??? Especially when the BBC take peopel to court who are making NO money or making very little money (Being done as a hobby rather than a business - knitting patterns) for using their stuff. 3. The settlement means nothing further could be said about it. To be honest if it was me I'd rather refuse the £75 for he right to continue voicing the fact that the BBC stole interllectual property. Purely on principle, and furthermore if you did want actualy money for it, selling the story would generate more than £75. If Mike was to accept the £75 that woudl be it, he woudln;t be able to mention it anymore, as it would be deemed that the BBC had paid for it, even if it was retrosepctively. Best thing is, it wasn't forsale, the BBC can;t make a retrospective payment, they can;t say ooops here what you were charging. I wouldn't even accept £500 from the BBC for the image as I would hold onto my convictions that the image was NOT FOR SALE and the BBC stole it, and milk the publicity for all tis worth. Afterall if the BBC ca;t be nice to the people who pay for it to exist, why should anyone be nice to it. What goes around comes around BBC
  • matthew
    Tristan: 'Most of us?' Don't you mean 'The anonymous BBC shills/sockpuppets' posing as ordinary members of the public suggesting that £75 is a very generous hush money, and that he should be very happy that as a mere 'amateur' that the 'professionals' on the BBC stole his image, and he should take whatever scraps he is tossed. Some third-rate pawnbrokers offered a guy $3,000 to take down his embarrassing article: £75 is beyond a joke. I searched on Corbis for an image of Birmingham (UK), as follows: Category: Editorial Use - Mag, News, Web, TV Use Type: Editorial - News, Talk, Commentary or News Parody Programme Geography: Worldwide Exposure: All Media in perpetuity as cut Placement: Prop or Set Décor The price is 360 Euros. But that's a stock image that's on sale by a commercial agency and can be sold over and over again. Mr. Bailey's image was a one-off, and he could legitimately demand much more. 360 euros is a STARTING POINT. As in absolute minimum, don't patronise me with £75 you pathetic bastards. The BBC twat's explanation was ok, but he scored an epic FAIL when he offered £75, and turned this into a PR disaster by attempting to bribe this guy (with £75, I mean FFS) to take down the nasty comments. £75 = STUPID Bribe = Totally retarded.
  • RR
    trust me, £75 is pretty standard. you will not get more. either nothing or a big egg on your face once you consider court fees as for saying it is a criminal offence, you are very very very verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyy mistaken. the fact that the item wasn't for sale is irrelevant. look at the eddie irvine v talksport case for instance. Irvince services weren't for sale, yet the courts still only awarded him with the amount equal to a commercially negotiated licence fee (ie a licence to use his image on their ad sales advertisments). seeing as the BBC have negotiated a flat fee for one TX of around £80 with most major agencies representing professional photographers, the courts are unlikely to award some mammoth sum to SOME GUY who posts on flikr
  • RR
    saying it wasn't for sale is also rubbished by the fact that you uploaded the photo onto a public website im not surprised by your actions though....very typical of a tight wad HUKD / Bitterwallet user
  • Callum
    I am shocked someone at the BBC had the audacity to show a picture as a backdrop accidently. I feel for you Mike, you must be devastated. Hope you get through this ok.
  • Mike
    Just an update. I have been contacted by a copyright lawyer who is VERY intersted in my case. What motivates me is that the BBC have lied, they have used this image on more that one occasion. They have also lied about where they obtained the photo. The BBC maintains that they did not get the image from Flickr. If you look at the image you will see that it has been downloaded more than 350 times. What will be interesting is to have a look a the Flickr IP logs and see where the image has been downloaded. I will bet all that I have that a BBC IP address is logged as downloading the image on the dates that it was used. RR thanks for calling me a prick anonymously. I would like you to note that if I complain to this website about your conduct it could affect your job, don't think it can't happen. Everything is logged on the internet. I really hope you are not logging on from a work IP. Tristan and Callum, thank you both, I really appreciate your posts, thanks Mike.
  • matthew
    Ha ha ha ha. Tight wad, RR it was your employer, the BBC, who offered the measly £75. And as you still don't get it "BBC have negotiated a flat fee for one TX of around £80 " Indeed. NEGOTIATED. That's something you do BEFORE you use the image. After you use the image, it's too late. And btw, the court fees are minuscule: £30 for claims up to £300, £45 up to £500, £65 up to £1000, £75 up to £1500, and £85 up to £3000. Chump change - and the BBC would pay when they lose. The little man is the favourite in the small claims court, the BBC would have to send a lawyer on hundreds per day, whereas the claimant would represent himself. They wouldn't even attend court. BTW, in the Irvine case, he got much higher damages on appeal, it went from £2,000 to £25,000. Here's the judgement: The point "In my judgment, the unchallenged evidence leads ineluctably to the conclusion that TSL would in all probability have had to pay at least £25,000 in order to enable it to do lawfully that which it did unlawfully, that is to say represent by means of the image appearing on the front of the leaflet that Mr Irvine had endorsed Talk Radio." While it may be true that the BBC have negotiated lower fees with agencies, they have done so on the basis that they are a big organisation that will evidently purchase many pictures, and therefore such agencies would accept lower fees in return for higher volume. This does not apply here, because the OP is not running a picture agency, and does not expect to get repeat business, so as I say the MINIMUM is the unnegotiated figure of 360 euros that Corus ask for the use of one of their photos. This might go higher, if it could be shown that the photo is of special character and should command a higher fee, or if a one-off commission would be more expensive. But clearly £75 is utterly derisory. Anyway, I would figure the correct amount for a claim as follows: 1. the amount that would be awarded in court PLUS 2. the amount that it would cost the BBC to go to court and defend the case PLUS 3. the cost of bad publicity at abusing copyright and making a claim I would suggest making a claim for £2,000.
  • Alan
    This is exactly hy no one likes photographers. Kicking up a fuss over a simple mistake and demanding the world. £2000 for a photo of Birmingham. sheesh. what next £10,000 for for a picture of a London gutter?
  • Mike
    If you are a multi billion dollar corporation that should know better and you steal a photo of a london gutter then £10,000 should cover it.
  • Mike
    The BBC also appear to be let say economical with the truth. They say they have only used it once. Really. What are the chances of me turning on the TV, on the one and only occasion it has been used. They deny obtaining the photo from flickr. It's going to be interesting to see if I can get hold of the IP logs for my account at Flickr and see if a BBC IP address is being used.
  • Mike
    The issue has now been resolved and an agreement has been made between the bbc and myself.
  • matthew
    Cool, so how much did you agree to?
  • Mike
    I can't specify the details of our arrangement but I am happy with the outcome. Someone from the BBC called me and I feel happy with the explanation. I has previously felt I was being ignored by the BBC when my intellectual property had been infringed. I think the BBC will walk away with knowing they have to be careful with broadcast images and they will have to have tighter controls. The issue will continue to be a problem for copyright holders and publishers and I'm glad to have resolved it out of court. I didn't want to be greedy so I just accepted the figure proposed. The settlement will enable me to purchase a better SLR camera to continue my hobby. Thanks, Mike
  • -=Mike H.
    Yeah come on Mike, how much did you 'Deal' for?
  • Mark
    Glad you got it sorted Mike as it seemed like you were about to burst a blood vessel over it. Really not worth the stress you know.
  • Davey
    Reminds me of a small guy getting done over by McDonalds: in this case at least the BBC paid up and appologised, AFIK McD's have never done the same in this case
  • Callum
    I still think £75 is reasonable for a photo of Birmingham which anyone can take.
  • Small-time B.
    [...] our curious tale of how a Bitterwallet reader’s Flickr image ended up on the BBC without permission, reader Davey has commented on its similarity to another story from last year. You Thought We [...]
  • matthew
    Shame the BBC have insisted on gagging Mike. Doesn't sound like he got a very good deal. Never mind. Pity that shills like Callum are belittling the artistic endeavour of photography, and undermining the investment in equipment, time, skills, technique, and so on required to take a photograph, knowing when to get the light.
  • Mike
    Matthew, I quite happy with the result. I was never after mega bucks, just a fair price for the photo. I believe in kharma so I wouldn't want to rip anyone off. Im buying myself a Canon d50 so I will be able to take many more photos and I will in future make sure my IP is better protected. Thanks to everyone who supported me. Mike
  • Lol
    It's times like this when photographers need to stand up and be counted, unfortunately the BBC have shut you up, one minute you where screaming copyright theft, then you say "I feel happy with the explanation", err what explanation can there be apart from bullshit, most photographers know (if you didn't then you DO now) the BBC are the scum of the earth in the way they treat photographers, they also have their own commercial photo library, so why would they do "An internet search for images of the Birmingham skyline brought up a photo of the city centre (via a website not connected with your Flikr page) and this was then loaded into the system just as an example backdrop to internally test and calibrate the new equipment." when they have access to thousands of their own images. What web site was this ? was someone else using your images without a license? It's not got anything to do with the money, it's about the BBC taking the piss, you say you wouldn't want to 'rip anyone off' but it's OK for the BBC to rip your pics off? You'll never protect your IP in the future because you've already let one of worst known companies in the photographic industry to get away with it. You should have posted this all over then maybe they would have given you enough to buy a D5 to dampen your conscience. Another photographer bites the dust, sad.
  • Bitter B.
    [...] Full post at this link… [...]
  •   T.
    [...] BBC uses copyright image from Flickr for News 24 | BitterWallet - Oops. Maybe it’s creative commons rather than open source that the BBC need help with [...]
  • links D.
    [...] BBC uses copyright image from Flickr for News 24 | BitterWallet A lesson about using images downloaded from the internet (tags: images rights flickr bbc) addthis_url = ''; addthis_title = 'links+for+2009-02-12'; addthis_pub = ''; [...]
  • Mike B.
    Talk about easy money, Surely they could have got a pic like that anywhere. Bet he couldn't believe his luck, never mind all this so-called anger. Quick, anyone know how to register their face as a trademark ?!
  • The G.
    To prevent theft of my Flickr photos, I have chosen to license them all by creative commons, commercial usage okay. I see no reason to avoid sharing and I would like to see more people sharing too.
  • Jim W.
    @ The Giver - I'll let the BNP know that you're happy for them to use your photos on their fundraising material. Nice one.
  • Denni
    The BBC stole my photo of StevenMoffat (taken during Nippon 2007): 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.
  • Jenny
    The most embarrassing thing about it all is the pathetic and clearly fake excuse. If you need a test image, any will do. You don't need one of the specific subject you are working on. Furthermore, there must have been SOMETHING available, without having to do an internet search. In fact, a screenshot of their browsers homepage or saving the google logo, or even using an old image would have worked (haha! like they would dare use a google image! Can't steal from a big company! Must 'respect' their rights... for the bank account's sake...but never mind the common man, he probably won't notice, and can't afford a lawyer) 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.
  • Dennis
    I used to work for the BBC (News, TV graphics), and can well believe the explanation for this (test images floating around not intended for broadcast) - whether or not that's what actually happened here, well who knows. 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.
  • Help c.
    [...] A few interesting parallels in this case - although in your friend's case the people who are nicking his IP are making money from it so it's worse. BBC uses copyright image from Flickr for News 24 | BitterWallet [...]
  • Michael B.
    just for info.. The BBC paid me £600 for use of the image.Thanks BBC.
  • BBC B.
    [...] Flickr, requiring any usage to be agreed in advance. When Michael contacted them, the BBC provided a very long and slightly dubious account as to how events had unfolded, and initially offered to pay £75 for the unauthorised usage of the [...]
  • scott
    BBC fail! Shame they only offered a measley £75 quid the tight gits!
  • Taunya H.
    Wo die Suchmaschine mich den lieben Tag hinbringt :) Tolle Homepage, ich werde wieder vorbeischauen.
  • BBC F.
    [...] The BBC is an organisation with access to vast news-gathering and photography resources and a budget to furnish most News articles with a pricey-but-pointless Getty Images thumbnail. So, why then resort to basically stealing a photograph? It turns out that this is not an isolated occurrence. Fellow photographer Adam Foster reminded me of the time they used a copyrighted image of the skyline of Birmingham in broadcast. [...]
  • Petra M.
    Super Design hat dieser Infoblog. Woher hast du das Template ? Ist das ein kostenfreies Template oder kann man das irgendwo kaufen?
  • BW B.
    [...] reported in the past about the BBC disregarding its own procedures and using copyright photographs without permission. Time for round two, as another avid Bitterwallet reader steps forward with a similar tale of [...]
  • Alison
    Posted by Mike | February 10th, 2009 at 3:28 pm 3. your photo is clearly deemed to be very good I know it’s good, I don’t need the bbc to tell me that. Shut up whining Mike, it's not that good actually. I've done better myself. Amateur itdiot.
  • harsanik
    wow . hilarious to see a big news company like bbc looking like fools. great find
  • Harry
    That guy is really lucky nothing more than that.... and wants popularity in the name of bbc .....
  • Mr M.
    So if the reporters use this to pretend to be in Birmingham, what do they use to pretend to be in Iraq?
  • Bryan M.
    Hi there..Nice Page you have right here! Just wanna leave a short info for you about how you can blow the girl's mind in the up coming Bbq-Party!
  • Dionne G.
    A company proposal is created to reflect the professionalism of your organisation and is there to persuade a buyer that your goods or services are valuable to them. Along with any other collateral it's the proposition which you are giving to the client and what will hopefully win more function for the company.
  • Image P.
    [...] BBC uses copyright image from Flickr [...]
  • tv s.
    Shocking this really - at least you got a response
  • when l.
    I used to be suggested this blog by my cousin. I am not sure whether or not this put up is written through him as no one else understand such specified approximately my problem. You are amazing! Thanks!
  • SEO, I.
    hey there and thanks on your information ? I've certainly picked up something new from proper here. I did on the other hand expertise several technical points the use of this site, since I skilled to reload the site lots of instances prior to I may get it to load properly. I were considering in case your web host is OK? Not that I'm complaining, however slow loading circumstances occasions will sometimes affect your placement in google and could harm your quality rating if ads and marketing with Adwords. Well I am including this RSS to my email and could glance out for much more of your respective interesting content. Make sure you update this again soon..
  • Beeb A.
    [...] Register (first reported by BitterWallet) with the Beeb’s response, which admits to “human error” that it explains was [...]
  • photo a.
    Great paintings! This is the type of information that should be shared across the web. Disgrace on Google for not positioning this put up higher! Come on over and seek advice from my web site . Thanks =)
  • Image c.
    [...] BBC uses copyright image from Flickr [...]
  • Some U.
    [...] Even big players like the BBC have been caught using Flickr images without permission. [...]

What do you think?

Your comment