Anyone who puts a video on YouTube direct that is subsequently used by a news organization, whether it is broadcast on the air or used on their site, gets absolutely no renumeration for their content. These news organizations frequently bleed out thousands of dollars to “professional” photographers and video crews for the rights to use their content.

So the distinction here is what exactly? The quality of the product? I think fundamentally if the content is interesting enough to publish, that right there gives it its value. So why is it that amateurs or citizen journalists shouldn’t be given the recognition and reward they deserve for their interesting and newsworthy uploads?

Well, that’s perhaps a bit of a no-brainer…it’s not in news publishers’ best interest to pay YouTube users (thus breaking a hideous precedent set in the infancy of YouTube itself).

The moral of the story is, if you have newsworthy footage (or pictures) and don’t wish to be exploited by media outlets, find an alternative to YouTube direct, and YouTube altogether. There are only a few agencies out there at the moment who deal specifically with user-generated news images that offer payment if the image is used, my favorite being Citizenside.com.

They are like brokers between amateurs and news publishers, working for a fair price and protecting the rights of their members. Plus, they are part-owned by the AFP (3rd largest news agency in the world) and have access to all the AFP’s thousands of clients around the globe, meaning maximum exposure for your news-related content.

It’s time amateurs got some recognition for their efforts, and stopped playing into this exploitative maneuver by YouTube and the media moguls.