Again, beware the false prophet.
This morning I noticed two articles this morning related to a new business based in Scotland - an agency for cellphone photos called Scoopt. Like any agency, it is a middleman and like any good agency it requires certain exclusivity. Not mentioned in the Boing article is that you can't post the photo to your blog if you have signed up for Scoopt - see this Broadcasting & Cable article linked to from Boing.
All that is, however, to be expected and a matter of buyer beware. What is really odd is that this business which is all of a couple of weeks old is now being quoted by the BBC as a expert source of ethical issues surrounding cellphone photos - with the result that ethically we really ought to sign up for Scoopt:
Budding amateur photographers and citizen journalists should not be tempted to become star stalkers says the founder of an amateur photo agency. Kyle MacRae, whose agency Scoopt represents mobile snappers so they get paid for their work, said there are serious ethical issues at stake...Although Mr MacRae is passionate about the potential impact witness or citizen journalists can have in changing what becomes newsworthy, he said that should not mean people go out deliberately searching for that elusive scoop. This week, the Chartered Institute of Journalists also warned news organisations against actively encouraging people to do that, adding that people should be paid for their contributions too. "The real issue here is an ethical issue if a bomb goes off and someone stops and takes a picture instead of helping," Mr MacRae told the BBC News website.The Beeb has provided Scoopt with a fine bit of free advertising...but why? My reaction is that the "professionalization" of the amateur witness according to instant ethics is odd and smacks soundly of someone having an interest - consultantly...guruifically. You can understand Boing having an interest in promoting that the vacuuity of the guru as that, really, is all they do - but why the BBC?
Comments
Kyle MacRae - August 10, 2005 4:49 AM
Hi Alan
Thanks for your interest in Scoopt.
Just one comment: when a member submits a photo or video to Scoopt, we do indeed require that the photo or video is not published elsewhere for three months, including on a blog. This is simple to ensure that we can offer a media buyer a genuine first-publication exclusive, which is manifestly in the member's own interest (better money that way). HOWEVER, we editorially vet each image as soon as it is submitted, and we waive our exclusivity requirement in every case UNLESS we feel we have a hot photo on our hands that really demands exclusivity (e.g. it could be tomorrow's front page). This means that we are generally happy to work on a non-exclusive basis, which frees the member up to publish the work elsewhere. So the bottom line is that you can usually blog your photos even when you send them to Scoopt.
I'm afraid I don't understand what "smacks soundly of someone having an interest - consultantly...guruifically" means!
Cheers
Kyle
(definitely not a guru)
Alan - August 10, 2005 7:42 AM
Thanks for writing, Kyle. <p>With respect - what is not to understand from the BBC article? Your firm is being presented as experts without your qualifications or experience (which you very well may have) being discussed. The allocation (including self-allocation) of expertise in areas without history of expertise is exactly what gurufication is. <p>To be very clear, this is not your fault but the Beebs and Boings as they have not provided any indication of the basis, for example, for taking your word on "celebrity stalking" or what the article otherwise discusses what might be called "extreme news stalking" where you are quoted on the point about people talking pictures rather than helping. It is not that your word is less worthy on these points...but why is it more worthy, worth quotes on the BBC? You are also doing your job of pursuing your chosen commercial venture which is fine, important and good - especially as it is innovative entrepreneurship. But there is that issue of commoditizing amateur citizen journalism which is at the heart of what you propose as your core business. It appears to be up against all the open source-ness of what we are all doing with these blogs and photos. There is an ethical issue there which is not canvassed by Boing or the Beeb. I would have liked something on that, too.<p>I am not hot under the collar about any of this and am glad to make very clear that it is the only presentation of this information to me that I am discussing but if a representative of a new venture is being immediately quoted as an ethical guide in relation to the subject matter of that venture, I sure like to know why or I am inclined, as I have indicated, to dismiss it and ask myself why this was presented to me as it was. Again, it is not about your firm or you business plan...other than wondering why you got access to what appears to be a free ad on BBC news.<p>There is simply more I would have liked to have been told. When I am not told there is the smackery of gurufication consultant-wise. Thanks for writing.
Alan - August 10, 2005 8:43 AM
<p>Interesting referral on the logs this morning half an hour after the last comment above:<center><img src="images/2005e/bbc.JPG" vspace="20" border="1"></center>