I still don't get it
Consider the following scenario: I am an amateur photographer. I have an excellent legal i.e. innocent, non-offending picture taken of a e.g. a landmark/landscape/cityscape/skyscape or an animal or of _myself_ walking down the street with my dog.
I want desperately to show off my work on TV and brag to my friends about it in the pub. I proceed to send the picture to the BBC, together with a check for £10, and an a signed permission to use the pic as they wish (provided they notify me when they do).
Multiple choice test: What do you expect will happen?
A. They deny my offer, suggesting they need much more to publish my picture, especially since I'm not a member of a journalist union.
B. They decline, saying that "it is illegal to use a picture without having talked with the owner's lawyer".
C. They accept, pay me £500 and tell me "keep 'em coming".
D. They decline, saying that my image's worth is in the thousands and that it is Illegal/morally incorrect to accept it for only £10.
E. They keep the money and broadcast my picture because they think at £10 it's a steal.
Please advise me whether I am correct in betting £1000 on answer A.
PS 1. I sincerely cannot grasp why this guy is complaining. Flickr is not an Art Gallery or Sotheby's, where you sell your pictures and give due percentage to the agent. In addition, the BBC to my knowledge is non-profit, so they did not make a penny out of his picture (however, in the US he could sue CBS/ABC/CNN for $thousands).
PS 2. Personally, I'd kill to have my picture shown on the tele - I'd become instantly famous. Who wouldn't?
Paris, cause her pictures get posted everywhere and she never asks a penny for them.