Beau Bo D'Or

Journalism.co.uk has published a story on the fight between EMAP’s Zoo magazine and viral creators. Link

Zoo assistant editor Steve Nash, claims, amongst many things :
“Unfortunately there have been occasions in the past where people have claimed that an image was theirs and have demanded substantial payments but have failed to produce anything sufficient to back up their claims.”

Well, there’s a long story attached to this which is partially covered by previous EMAP posts.
Link to previous posts.

But let’s go back in history on this.
When I first approached Zoo magazine about using images I created, I was asking only this :
THAT ZOO REWARD THE CREATOR OF THE VIRAL OF THE WEEK WITH THE SAME PRIZE THAT THE PERSON WHO SENT IN THE IMAGE RECEIVED.

Zoo agreed to this and then went back on its word (No use denying Zoo – I have it recorded.)
It was only after this that I sought payment for my images.
So, to reiterate Steve Nash’s selective point that “Unfortunately … have demanded substantial payments… claims.” omits a very important bit of history.
And as for substantial – Well I suppose it could be – but not for each image – FOR THE TOTAL OF FIFTEEN (that I know of) it could add up to a reasonable amount.

Then it went to their solicitors. (Wiggin)

I had yet another promise from EMAP that they would not use my images and I confirmed my website so they could check against the images they claimed were ’sent in’. They promised that they would avoid using the images that corresponded to those on my website.
You can hear it here :

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

This was on the 14th August 2006.
THEN, ABOUT 3 WEEKS LATER, IN EDITION 134 OF ZOO (8 to 14 September 2006) 2 MORE OF MY IMAGES WERE PUBLISHED BY EMAP.

A few months later, I blocked EMAP’s IP address on my image server. They didn’t seem to be using my site to prevent publishing my images – quite the reverse in my opinion.

Then, the attitude of Zoo and its agents hardened.

We advised Zoo’s agents of the proof I was going to supply to show I had created the ‘virals’. They did not state then that this was unacceptable. After 2 weeks of collating the information, the proof was dismissed almost immediately.

Funnily enough, others providing a similar amount of proof to Zoo directly have seen the mag dispatch prizes, sometimes up to the value of £450 to some blokes who make a phone call.

Why beat about the bush eh ?

Animal House and anonymous publisher who’ve been running so many of my pictures are the ailing (circulation-wise) Zoo Magazine and media monolith EMAP, owners of Heat, FHM, Loaded, Mojo, Q Magazine and numerous radio stations.

Well, this week’s edition of Zoo Magazine (Publisher EMAP) has come out and the changes promised by Associate Editor (Entertainment) Ben Wilson have not been made.

I accepted a goodwill gesture of the same prize they were sending to someone who sent in an image a couple of weeks ago (because I was being sooooo nice about things) on condition that it’s acceptance did not nullify the problem or affect my legal rights in any way.

Interestingly, the prize was a (I think discontinued) DVD player you can buy on Amazon for about £19 and a few DVDs.
For a magazine with a young age profile, (ABC1C2 16-30) I wonder if they check the ages of the prize recipients as among the DVDs were a couple of 18 certificate movies.
I’m sure the sponsors of the page who sometimes provide the prizes have a duty of care just as EMAP does to ensure that adult material doesn’t fall into the hands of under 18s. This week, the prize provider is Sony Pictures Home Entertainment.

Importantly, I was asking for changes to be made that acknowledged the viral creators as well as those who sent them in, not just a resolution for my current problem.

I called today to find out why the promises weren’t kept and was assured that I would be called back when Ben made it back from lunch.

Well, at the time of writing it’s obvious he’s having a pretty good lunch as he has failed to call back.

I suppose the ‘flash’ at the top of this week’s magazine’s cover gives it all away.
“50 BEST NEW JOKES – STOLEN FROM THE UK’S FUNNIEST STAND-UPS” and inside states that they are all from The Edinburgh Festival.
Whether or not it is true that they stole them, the magazine seems to revel in declaring they misappropriate material (I assume to save on it’s editorial budget.)

Funnily enough, The Edinburgh festival ran a course for comedians this year on how to ’stop their jokes being stolen by rivals’

Click here for full story from The Scotsman

I’ll add to this post a little later with a summary of what happened which I was asked to prepare for a National Newspaper and for a well known blog.

A couple of talented viral creators have been having the same problem – pictures appearing with tags removed and no attempt to discover who created them.
I think they’re also going to contact Ben soon.