A couple of posts ago, I mentioned that Scoopt appeared to be positioning itself for some sort of citizen journalism project. Ok, so I had a tip off about it weeks ago and was sworn to secrecy, but now that word seems to be on the street, I guess I’m safe to reveal a bit more. Only, I don’t know more. But this guy does …
He quotes Graham, the noodlepie guy:
ScooptWords, our blog content flogging service, is set for launch on 1st June. A few technicalities with the ScooptWords and Scoopt site to sort out and we’ll be ready to go… We’ll be launching in conjunction with NightCapSyndication, run by Tim Worstall. Nightcap is a conglomeration of quality bloggers and is looking rather smashing from the wee peek I’ve had. We’ve also teamed up the folks from Creative Commons who are handling the licensing end of things. They should keep the lawyers from blogger’s doors and bloggers from the lawyer’s doors. It’s all about easing the process of selling blog content… There’ll be plenty ‘Pete Tong’ for a good wee while as we get up and running, tweaking, seeing which way we should go and, of course, finding out whether there really is – as we believe – a market for quality blog content in print publications.
So it’s like blogburst. But the bloggers will get paid for content. Or maybe not – they’ve invited along the Creative Commons people. And lawyers. Oh dear, I am confused now!!! Someone please tell us what’s going on!!!!
Find out more here
Hi Robin, There’s still stuff to iron out. We may have to delay the June 1st date ‘for reasons beyond our control’. We’re launching with Tim Worstall’s new NightCapSyndication mob, which you picked up on, and yes CC are involved to a degree. The ScooptWords blog is a prototype, I haven’t made it public, but now Tim has :) No worries. The ScooptWords site and new Scoopt site are not public yet.
The service is nothing at all like BlogBurst, as you know from the emails we shared a while back :) Any blog can join up for free, there’s no fullfeed syndication going on, no rightsgrabs, no jam tomorrow, no hotlinking. You just join up and stick an html button on your blog saying your stuff is for sale through us.
If an editor wants to buy your stuff and print it in a mag or paper, he hits the buttons, buys it, sticks it in his publication and you get paid – we just handle the donkey work. Eventually, when we get enough sign ups, we’ll highlight the quality end of those sign ups in different sectors and we’ll promote them to editors through partners, on our own site and elsewhere.
Still lots to do. We honestly don’t know if there is a sizable paying market for buyers of high grade blog content. We think there is, or will be. Our service will give people the chance to see if there is.
Sounds to me like its blogburst but they use Creative Commons licenses to make everything seem warm and fuzzy…or maybe I am too cynical…
( Just wanted to note that Mathias posted in the night before I approved your post so his comment isn’t in reply to Graham.)
I’ve met Graham and he does indeed seem like a good bloke so I reckon things are all good with ScooptWords. I still reckon they’re missing a trick though – editors and media organisations aren’t, at least in my experience, desperate for content or very proactive about going out and finding it. What is missing is a feed, for lack of other words, of really good stuff that fits requirements. I guess what I mean is a sort of system where a media organisation goes into a private back end area, lists topics they want stories on, and then good quality blog content on those stories is handed back to them. That’s a good value add for ScooptWords – without it, I can’t see why anyone would click the badge on the blog rather than just email the person and offer to send a cheque directly.
Way too cynical, Mathias :) As Graham mentions above, ScooptWords is completely different to Blogburst. We’re not interested in grabbing copyright or providing publishers with free content. ScooptWords is simply a bridge between (potentially) any blogger and any commercial market. It’s similar to Scoopt.com, where we connect people who find themselves in the right place at the right time and happend to have a camera/phone in their pockets with the mainstream media. For money.
Will publishers pay for blog content? We think so. Will bloggers welcome the opportunity to get paid for their existing blog content and/or get commissioned to write original articles? We think so, too,particularly when we handle negotiation, pricing, billing, currency transactions etc etc.
The Creative Commons tie-in is important because we in no way want to inhibit the free flow of content. CC handles non-commercial licensing beautifully. But a CC license can’t handle a commercial transaction between a media buyer and a blogger. That’s where ScooptWords fits.
(in reply to Robin)
Thanks for your comments. Absolutely agree. What we need is an editorial/filtering/content-on-demand service to make the service valuable to both editors and bloggers. And that’s coming. Call it Phase 2. First, we have to get bloggers on board and establish market demand.
Of course there’s nothing in the world to stop a media buyer contacting a blogger directly… other than that it’s hard. You, the buyer, might have to negotiate with somebody who’s in a different time zone (while you’re on a deadline), who doesn’t understand the first thing about copyright or licensing, who doesn’t understand the value/price of words in your particular market sector, and who possibly uses a different currency. Can you be bothered brokering a deal in these circumstances? Will your accounts dept thank you for having to process innumerable one-off cross-currency payments with international suppliers? Or would you rather deal with a trusted third-party professional agency with which you need only one account to access the entire blogosphere?
You’re quite right about the media not being terribly pro-active about going out looking for content. (It’s the same with picture editors: there’s no point thinking that pic eds will browse your gallery on the web looking for hot pictures, cos they’re just not — what you have to do is get hot pics in front of them, which is what we do wtih Scoopt). A passive search service is certainly valuable, and we’ll build it, but so too (perhaps more so) is an active push service where we punt the right content to the right people at the right price in the right way.
Graham,
Apologies; the Nightcap announcement was my doing. I had no idea that it was supposed to be secret!
DK
I think you’re a nice bloke too Robin :) It was good to meet. Feeds and aggregation around topics and possibly location are planned. However, we can’t aggregate or feed anything until we know what there is to aggregate and feed. But, it’s a good point, well made and I hope we have an effective answer down the line.
About the continuing BlogBurst comparison of Mathias which Kyle nicely dissected. I see you’re a BlogBurst sign up Robin. I’d like to ask you if you’ve read the T&C’s you’ve agreed to?
http://www.medgadget.com/archives/2006/05/beware_blogburs_1.html
As a freelance journalist it’s not something I would sign up for in a million years. I have never accepted a total rights grab as they request. On a related point, I’m rather precious over my blog and I think most serious bloggers are of a like mind. If you’ve signed up to BlogBurst, be very careful because I’m not sure most bloggers would want anyone to have as much control and ownership over content as that contract states.
And Robin, get rid of the comment authentication thingamy… I think I get more comments than you and I never have much bother with trolls and spam. Trackbacks, yes – 3 or 4 bad ‘uns per day. It’d speed the debate and all that, no ;) Quite a few time zones to consider here ‘an all…
In a usual day I get maybe one real comment and 3 or 4 spam comments but you’re right, it doesn’t exactly look as transparent as it could and does slow down the debate – so comment now wide open.
As for blogburst, I did sign up for the trial of the service in the hopes of understanding a bit better how it was going to work. And no, I didn’t read the terms and conditions as carefully as I could have done. I’m of two minds about it still though. I don’t, of course, want them to own my content. But then again I do want my content to circulate freely and to reach new audiences. I definately need to find out more about what that megadget post describes though. I’m guessing that, in the UK at least, it’s a fairly meaningless agreement anyway (eg. not a binding contract) as there seems to be no consideration on the part of Blogburst but I could be wrong.
Anyway, as disturbing as the blurb from the post you highlighted is, I don’t see an enormous difference between it and some of the clauses in the scoopt terms and conditions: http://www.scoopt.com/tandc.asp
“During the first three months following submission you cannot seek to licence, display, sell, use or otherwise deal in the Works, nor must it be published or offered to any third party whether for consideration or otherwise.
Scoopt shall use reasonable endeavours to market the Works to potential licensees.”
[Robin’s note: I think the above IS understandable – Scoopt will have expended time and resources trying to sell content by this stage and it wouldn’t be fair if a content producer could, at the same time, approach the same people directly.]
and
“not directly or indirectly, provide services or works to, or accept any engagement with or for any third party (including without limitation competitors of Scoopt) in relation to works similar to the Works in style and appearance and subject matter”
[Robin’s note: What does this mean? A photograph, or blog post, *could* be considered “similar” in style and appearance and subject matter. ]
and
“Once the three month exclusive licence expires you hereby grant to Scoopt a perpetual irrevocable non exclusive licence of all intellectual property rights in the Works for Scoopt to include the Works in an online stock library and to permit Scoopt to grant non exclusive sublicences to third parties for use of the Works in whatever way as Scoopt shall see fit.”
So by giving stuff to scoopt, under the present T’s and C’s, I would have to (understandably) promise not to try to sell that stuff for 3 months, OR ANYTHING SIMILAR to anyone else AND I give Scoopt an IRREVOCABLE PERPETUAL non-exclusive license to sell my content, put it in a stock library, grant licenses to others, etc etc.
Let’s hope the T’s and C’s get a slight adjustment but, otherwise, it does sound pretty interesting – especially once blogger’s content can be packaged up in a way that makes it almost no effort for news/media sites to use.
(A small disclosure: my wife took a photo of the filming of a movie behind our house and we emailed it to scoopt who, unable to identify what film it was for (we think it was Harry Potter which was being filmed in the area at the time) Scoopt didn’t ask us to sign up. I thought that it was quite cool of them to expend time and energy on the snap without making us do anything. As I said before, these seem to be good people… ;-))
Robin, the specific Scoopt T&Cs that you’ve highlighted are long overdue an overhaul. In fact, I made a commitment to change them a few months back. The only reason for delay is waiting for the launch of ScooptWords and a complete redesign of Scoopt itself, where we’ll make several site-wide changes in one hit. In particular:
We will no longer seek a perpetual license. Anybody can leave Scoopt at any time and take their pictures with them. The only restriction — which is industry-wide and essential — is that we require a notice period.
We will only ask for exclusivity for (I think) one month, not three. And that only applies to original, unpublished pics and videos — with blog content, everything is already public so exclusivity is impossible.
It’s very helpful having your input on what is still a fledgling initiative!
Nothing to add to what Kyle said, but in all fairness – and because we really are nice blokes :) – BlogBurst look like they may have had a change of heart re: rights grabs:
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=251
Proof of the pudding and all that… Give them a chance.
Personally, I think the recent Sphere/TIME and Technorati/AP deals are far more interesting, and transparent, long term than BlogBurst. At the moment, or in a few moments or days, we will offer a transparent paid route to market.
I’ll reiterate, no bullshit, someone wants your stuff to print, you get paid. Simple. I’ll also reiterate, we don’t know whether or not anybody wants your stuff. We want to find out :)))
> I’ll reiterate, no bullshit, someone wants your stuff to print, you get paid. Simple. I’ll also reiterate, we don’t know whether or not anybody wants your stuff. We want to find out :)))
And what finer business model could there be than that! :)
If a story is worth blogging that needs selling, I’d say it’s better to leave it off the blog and go sell. Most of the stories I do for UK national newspapers don’t appear on my effort-of-a-blog or even under my own by-line. I just enjoy the cash. I find it hard to be patronized into thinking that just because a national journalist doesn’t know about my blog (as p**S poor as it is at the moment!) they won’t find what they want. Print journos are a lot more savvy about things internet-related than some would have you believe. Like I said – if it’s worth any money, get the story sold first before putting it on a blog. Or don’t. It’s up to any of you out there, and you don;t have to take my word for it. Proof is always in the pudding!
Zoloft side effects.
Zoloft. Zoloft withdrawl. Zoloft side effects.