What makes a good citizen journalism website? I believe its one where the CJs are offered a very good price for the content and opportunities for the widest possible audience. That's why I stated NoozDesk.com

NoozDesk - For the new generation of citizen journalists

NoozDesk doesn't broadcast your content. We sell it to established global news outlets like the BBC and Russia Today. Because we don't broadcast, we are seen as a resource for broadcasters - not a threat, so we have good working relationships with them. Because we get a good price and exposure for citizen journalists, we get the best citizen journalists in world. 

We believe NoozDesk is the way forward for citizen journalism and the future of news gathering and broadcasting. We think you will, too. If you don't, feel free to say how we can improve.

Gari Sullivan
 

As a former contributor to the agency "Citizen Image" which went defunct and wasted my time, I can honestly point to two "citizen journalism" websites that I like and contribute to regularly...Alamy live news being one such site...the other will remain nameless.

Why?  Because it isn't JUST about getting the "best" price for an image...it's also protecting that photographer's rights.

I will not contribute newsworthy images unless I know the license offered is a RM license.  I cannot pursue image infringements on RF licenses that dilute what my images are worth.  I will not contribute to a newsworthy agent unless I know that agent will work with me to recover usages from newspapers and media outlets who pull the work and publish it (and wait three months or more to pay), or even ignore contributors who try to follow up on usages that aren't reported.

With relation to photographer's rights - I have three images that ran in the Daily Mail in July on different days...I currently have 58 websites that have copied and pasted the images on their websites...and under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, there isn't a thing I can do about it even though I have registered those images as being copyrighted.

I have an image that was licensed in August...and it has been pirated by two other websites, again, because of protections afforded to "opinion based" websites under the DMCA, there isn't a thing I can do about it.

Editorial image licensing is very different than creative image licensing.  It's easy to go after a creative image infringement...it is much more difficult, and much more expensive to pursue infringements of editorial images.

As a new website, with no heavy backers in the industry (i.e., Alamy, Getty, Corbis, Reuters, AP, etc.) , quite frankly, there is nothing there to motivate me to contribute...and I see another waste of time similar to my experience with Citizen Image.  It's already difficult to get images licensed when they are pushed through the wire and you're competing with all the big players.

The point raised about copyright is a good one.  We have two types of sales: Open and Exclusive.
'Open' the citizen journalist retains all IP ownership of their content. We make that perfectly clear to broadcasters. When you offer your content in an 'open' sale, you are offering it to all our registered broadcasters.
'Exclusive' You sell your copyright to a single broadcaster.

I cannot emphasis enough how much we actively project the content of the citizen journalists. Yes, broadcasters try to get round it and we will come down heavy with the option on legal action, if we have to. To date, no broadcaster has infringed our IP policy.

@ShadySue, I never said we sold photos to the BBC. We sell content that includes photos, but also  copy, audio and video. You won't find any of our content by doing a 'NoozDesk' '{broadcaster name}' search, We don't operate that way.

We are a brokerage platform - mainly a server. Think of it as a warehouse of privately owned news content that can be accessed by registered broadcasters.

Remember, the IP is owned by the content provider; as we work with citizen journalists in sensitive parts of the world; not least, Syria and the US and - recently, Albania - we have to be very careful about giving people details of our sources.

Not everyone can submit content to NoozDesk. We verify ALL of our citizen journalists, so broadcasters can have some peace of mind. However, we have to strike a balance between security and accountability.

Just to sum up: We are not like citizen journalism websites you have seen in the past. Our business model is something very different and has had two-years in research development.

@ShadySue, I never said we sold photos to the BBC. We sell content that includes photos, but also  copy, audio and video. You won't find any of our content by doing a 'NoozDesk' '{broadcaster name}' search, We don't operate that way.

Although many posters here are skilled across several media, this site is "a meeting place for microstock photographers" so it was natural to think that by posting here you were particularly referring to the photo side of the business, and targetting photographers. There was nothing in your OP to indicate anything different.

Remember, the IP is owned by the content provider; as we work with citizen journalists in sensitive parts of the world; not least, Syria and the US and - recently, Albania - we have to be very careful about giving people details of our sources.

That's where /Noozdesk provides the layer of protection. It works perfectly well for AP/Reuters/AFP etc.

CNN iReport and The Third Report are good examples of citizen journalism sites. I have also heard of NoozDesk with people saying that it is for the new generation of citizen journalists.


best journalists ever

Welcome, great first post and not suspect at all 

I wish there was one that took sports and paid. I'd be happy. Otherwise Hobostocker covered the answer, for print media. People can deny that film photography is dead. Magazines are dropping like flies. Newspapers can't hold out and stay afloat without digital outlets and subscriptions.

The bottom line of print media is advertising. No subscribers, no numbers of people reached, no advertising = No Magazine or Newspaper.

Has one of these upstarts ever produced anything of value for contributors? I'd like to know which one.

I wish there was one that took sports and paid. I'd be happy. Otherwise Hobostocker covered the answer, for print media. People can deny that film photography is dead. Magazines are dropping like flies. Newspapers can't hold out and stay afloat without digital outlets and subscriptions.

The bottom line of print media is advertising. No subscribers, no numbers of people reached, no advertising = No Magazine or Newspaper.

Has one of these upstarts ever produced anything of value for contributors? I'd like to know which one.

print media is dead as a medium for News.
news now are in real time, and mostly free.

it like when TV killed the Radio in the past century, radio is still alive but only for some specific market niches, no more all purpose and mainstream like before.

we can't blame advertisers either, they just go where they get more bangs for their bucks, i would do the same.

value for contributors ? yes, travel magazines still sell but you also see tons of photos from thinkstock and SS subs, they're all slashing budgets to the bone and even using iphone snapshots for free, quality is down the drain but if that matters 99% of these mags were total trash even in the 80s as far as i'm concerned, i don't buy a magazine or a newspaper since maybe 2 yrs and feel great at the idea i'm not feeding these crooks.

they way they use our photos to sell their sh-it is disgusting to say the least and it's a shame our pics will help boost the tourism of such places.

even the travel guides have never been so bad as today, i won't miss them if they all go bankrupt and people are left with online sh-it like Tripadvisor.

national geographic ? * it .. they're just resting on their laurels but it won't last forever, the most arrogant magazine in the world, full of sh-it to abysmal levels, unseen in the entire history of publishing.

so, what we're seeing now in general is that many old professions are just going to disappear and will not be replaced in the future as there's simply no money on the table and you know what, it's a good thing and the world will be a better place without all that sh-it sold in newsstands.

all we can do is to accept it and move on with our life.

What makes a good citizen journalism website? I believe its one where the CJs are offered a very good price for the content and opportunities for the widest possible audience. That's why I stated NoozDesk.com

NoozDesk - For the new generation of citizen journalists

NoozDesk doesn't broadcast your content. We sell it to established global news outlets like the BBC and Russia Today. Because we don't broadcast, we are seen as a resource for broadcasters - not a threat, so we have good working relationships with them. Because we get a good price and exposure for citizen journalists, we get the best citizen journalists in world. 

We believe NoozDesk is the way forward for citizen journalism and the future of news gathering and broadcasting. We think you will, too. If you don't, feel free to say how we can improve.

Gari Sullivan

What am I looking at?  Did you get your site hacked?

OLD THREAD ALERT!

Indeed. That being said: With Demotix now completely gone, are there any outlets for news images (besides Alamy) left?

P5 made an effort to enhance(?) citizen journalism last year.
Not sure how this compete with Reuters media they also sell though.

https://contributor.pond5.com/2019/10/25/creative-brief-citizen-journalism/