The Torontoist blog has an interesting story about a man, a would-be burglar, and a series of remarkable photos. Plus, a little bit of copyright infringement.
In July of last year, Joel Charlebois, a Toronto resident, caught a man trying to break into his home. While trying to escape, the man fell from a second floor deck. He ended up breaking a leg and couldn’t complete his getaway. Charlebois called the police and then proceeded to take pictures of the man. Torontoist has the photos; Charlebois’ Flickr stream is here.
In a post on Flickr, Charlebois explains what happened next:
While waiting for the police and ambulance to arrive, I took photos of the burglar as he lay on the ground below. A newsman from Citytv also came to the scene. I refused his request for an interview. As he was poking around the property, I asked him to leave. We spoke briefly — he was nice enough; it’s the media that I find objectionable. I mentioned that I had taken pictures of the perpetrator and was looking forward to posting them on my Flickr site. He was interested in seeing them, so I provided him with a card. I left that afternoon for a weekend in Montreal. When I returned home, a friend showed me his recording of the news story which is when I discovered that Citytv had lifted my photos from my Flickr site for their broadcast.
The photos were aired on CablePulse24, a 24-hour local news station operated by CityTV. The station did not credit Charlebois as the photographer, and it did not contact him for permission prior to airing the photos. Charlebois registered a complaint with the station, writing:
The story that was broadcast on CityTV and CP24 (and presumably streamed on CP24.com, as well) included my photographs of the suspect as he lay on the ground below. The material was stolen from my Flickr site without my permission and without crediting me, for commercial use and your sole financial gain.
The station replied and said Charlebois had given verbal permission to use the photos by handing the reporter a business card and saying his photos would be on Flickr. Obviously, that doesn’t explain why the station didn’t credit Charlebois for the photos.
Unsatisfied with the reply, Charlebois filed a complaint with the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, a “non-governmental organization created by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) to administer standards established by its members, Canada’s private broadcasters.”
A CBSC panel found that the station violated “Article 11 regarding Intellectual Property of the RTNDA -The Association of Electronic Journalists of Canada RTNDA Code of (Journalistic) Ethics.” It reads:
Plagiarism is unacceptable. Broadcast journalists will strive to honour the intellectual property of others, including video and audio materials.
It’s interesting to see plagiarism mentioned in this example. The station downloaded (copied) Charlebois’ photos and then broadcast them without offering proper credit. That certainly seems like a form of plagiarism, though Charlebois avoided the p-word and simply called the station thieves. (For another, different example of visual plagiarism, see here and here.)
In its decision, the CBSC panel addressed the issue of “fair dealing” (known as “fair use” in the U.S.). This, in the words of the panel, offers “an exception … to the restrictive demands of copyright protection” for those engaged in news reporting. But one cornerstone of fair dealing is that news organizations must respect the copyright of others by offering credit to the copyright holder. That’s the “fair” part of the equation.
As a resolution, the CBSC has ordered CablePulse24 to air this statement twice during prime time:
The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has found that CablePulse 24 breached Article 11 of the Radio-Television News Directors Association – The Association of Electronic Journalists’ Code of Ethics in its broadcast of a news report of a bungled burglary on July 25, 2007. As a part of its coverage of the story, CP24 included three still photographs of the injured burglar without providing any credit to the photographer, whose identity was known to the broadcaster. By failing to provide that accreditation, the broadcaster has failed to honour the intellectual property rights of the photographer, contrary to the provisions of Article 11 of the RTNDA Code of (Journalistic) Ethics.
Note that the statement does not mention Charlebois by name, nor does it require an apology by the station. Torontoist spoke to Charlebois to get his reaction:
Charlebois is ambivalent about the decision: he told Torontoist that he’s most concerned over credit—all that he wanted—because the statement that City must read makes no mention of his name. “This announcement mentions where [City] wronged,” he told us, “but it does not set things right if they continue to withhold credit for the work.” Even if they don’t say his name, however, Charlebois does find one thing particularly rewarding: that this was the first time the CBSC has called on a panel to resolve an issue of plagiarism under the Code of Ethics, and the resulting decision sets a precedent for news organizations around the country. “These matters,” Charlebois told us, “require discussion as traditional media wrestle with the worthy opponent it is finding in alternative/online media.”
It’s remarkable that Charlebois still won’t receive credit for his photographs.
