Fairfax answers video criticism
Fairfax Digital has undertaken a review of videos carried on its websites and removed a number that did not meet its “fair dealing” requirements following an item by Mumbrella over its appropriation of YouTube content.
Ricky Sutton, Head of Video at Fairfax, told Mumbrella that staff have been reminded of the company’s policy on fair dealing, which defines when it is acceptable to use content that has originated from elsewhere.
He said:
“Since your piece on Fairfax content theft on Mumbrella on Monday we have taken the following action to clarify our position on the issue you raised. As a result we have since;
i think you cut out his last line
“we will, of course, continue to play you videos when you don’t press play. cream – get the money – pageviews, pageviews, pageviews y’all
Nice one Mumbrella. It really was complete hypocrisy for Fairfax to be using content like YouTube videos etc while all Publishers continue to cry foul over their own measly links and article descriptions being used on content aggregators. A bit out of whack.
Mitch P- It’s not cool for Fairfax to pass off content it didn’t produce as its own. But I always thought that News Ltd didn’t like content aggregators, like Google, stealing their work; not Fairfax. I could be wrong…
Content theft? This is how the big boys play: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06.....?ref=media
Why does every news article need a sketchily produced video with a half arsed voiceover to go along with it?
And one that auto plays to boot!
As Ouchie said, pageviews, pageviews, pageviews.
The good news is that you can go to a TV channels web site and read the news free of pesky videos… How funny is that!
Fairfax: I am beginning to swerve your online newspapers, because you keep slowing down your pages and depleting my experience by showing crap videos.
If I want to watch video news I will go to Reuters, CNN, Youtube etc (where you get yours from…)
When I am reading your articles how about put the video (if you have to) at the bottom of the page and let me choose if I want to watch it.
– Oh, sorry or are you fooling your ‘video’ advertisers into thinking their ad’s are actually being watched when they are probably harming their brand because their ad’s are inconveniencing me!!!!!!!!!!!
Sort it out!!! Is there so much red tape at Fairfax that you cant see this annoyance?? Or do you not use your own news sites? have a try – click on a news article and see how your videos get on your nerves!!!
Nice work Tim on the initial post. A bit of a ‘Media Watch’ style success!!
How does this use of a film trailer fit Fairfax’s ‘fair dealing’ requirement.
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyl.....utostart=1
No genuine context, no comments….just ripping content to drive clicks and therefore ad revenue.
And I note this video was posted after Mr Sutton’s response to Mumbrella.
has anyone noticed that Fairfax Dig will run irrelevant videos next to stories – in a desperate grab for revenue at any cost.
The difference between their print and digital products is ridiculous. Digital product is right at the low end of Demand Media/ehow clicks at any cost approach … print product still has some pride.
Ouchie and Anon-Coward- would you rather pay to read the SMH online or put up with a few annoying ads?
I for one would rather read it for free.
It’s a pity that websites like Crikey didn’t try other avenues before going to pay for content format.
Pay! Think of it this way – Advertising only funded online news sites will be the MX of news, while subscription based ones will be like newspapers with a cover-price. Personally, I would pay to get quality reporting and clarity of what is editorial and what is advertorial. And free from Youtube journalism! Really, c’mon!
Sure have, Value Guy. Sometimes videos from days earlier are ending up ‘autoplaying’ on new stories. Guess that policy will continue until Tim decides to write a criticism of it – then Fairfax will suddenly realise that readers hate it and change their policy, like they didn’t already know.