For the last few years, I've been pondering getting a telescope. Like many of my plans, it sat in the back of my head waiting for me to get off my lazy arse and do something about it. I halfheartedly researched telescopes online, glanced at them occaisionally in the shops, and thought "soon".

Then, while stocking up on catering sized tins of beans at Costco, I spotted this beauty.

The Celestron NexStar 102 GT Computerized Telescope. The price was good according to Google Shopper, the reviews seemed reasonable, and - more importantly - the box had a QR code on it!

I lugged it to the checkout, drove home as fast as I could, and tore through the packaging pausing only to briefly consult the instruction manual.

Assembled in all its glory - I couldn't wait to take it out and let myself wander the skies.

The British weather, on the other hand, had made plans which were clearly designed to vex me. Arse. So, I moped about for a few days, glancing up at the clouds every evening and blowing as hard as I could to make them shift.

Last night, however, the weather seemed perfect. A few clouds - but not too many - the street lamps far enough away not to cause too much light pollution. I set the 'scope up outside, levelled it off, aligned it, plugged in our longitude and latitude to the little onboard computer, and watched it whir into action.

I peaked through the eyepiece, twiddled the knobs, and - suddenly - there was the moon. The half moon filling up my eye. I could see craters! Suck beautiful clarify. I was breathless.

Of course, the only way modern man can experience anything these days, is via an electronic screen. I flipped out my camera phone and held it against the lens. After several shaky and blurred photos, I managed to grab this stunner. (Click for bigger)

It may not be the best photo of the Moon - but it's mine. What's remarkable is that I didn't fiddle with any of the myriad image settings on my Android - I just snapped. I'm going to get an accessory which will let me hook the phone up and take better, more stable photos. Long exposure photos of galaxies. Photos of far off planets.

But, for now, there's something so raw and primitive about sticking my eye in a lens. The photons explode from the Sun, collide with the Moon, scream their way to Earth, where they are gathered up by some glass and mirrors, then focused to impact on my retina.

Science rocks.

I have reached a settlement with Sky.

Update: 16 March, 2011. They have finally paid up!

tl;dr

Sky News stole my copyrighted work and distributed it without credit or payment.

I asked them to pay £1,500.

They refused.

Full Story

During the recent O2 brouhaha I recorded a video showing how the issue could affect people. I deliberately gave it the standard YouTube licence rather than the Creative Commons licence.

Later that evening, I was alerted to the fact that Sky News had broadcast my video without first seeking permission.

Graham Cluley

@gcluley

Just did Sky News spot about the @O2 controversy. From sound of what came down my earpiece they also used @edent's vid youtube.com/watch?v=67b4GT…None

---

I grumbled a bit on Twitter and was contacted by a representative of Sky News. He was very quick in ascertaining that my video was used without my permission and arranged to prevent it being shown again.

I was not happy about this state of affairs. BSkyB and News International have been very vocal about digital piracy and copyright infringement. They have relentlessly pursued a copyright maximalist agenda which - I believe - is damaging to the creative industries. Not to mention rampantly hypocritical.

Sky News accept user generated videos, with this stern warning:

Copyright protects the interests of the people and companies who create these products. If the content or product or marks in your video are owned by someone else, you are infringing copyright and run the risk being prosecuted.

It is important that you understand that you cannot take other people's creations and use them as you see fit.

Uploading somebody else's video is no different to taking something from a shop without paying. Copyright infringement damages the music, film and television businesses and the future development of music, film and TV programmes.

From Sky News' Frequently Asked Questions about user videos. Emphasis added.

Sky News have a history of ignoring copyright and infringing the moral rights of authors.

Unfortunately, the Digital Economy Act doesn't allow me to sue Sky News for distributing my content for free without my permission. An individual can lose their Internet access for sharing a movie, however there don't seem to be any sanctions against a large company for sharing my copyrighted work without permission.

I don't have the resources to fight a legal battle against Sky. So I decided to settle for cold, hard cash.

Originally, Sky made the following offer:

For a short youtube video like that we would normally pay around £50 & would be more than willing to pay an extra £25 for the fact you weren't asked in the inconvenience it has caused you.

The NUJ publish a freelance rate card. The rate for freelance video should be around £300 per minute.

I farted in Sky's general direction. I wanted £300 for the broadcast of the video, plus £1,200. I calculated that as £400 for them failing to ask permission, another £400 for them infringing my copyright, and then £400 for them violating my moral rights.

Even if they didn't agree with the above reasoning, it is usual to charge four times time standard licence rate when a copyright owner is asked to assign all rights away. Effectively, Sky News had unilaterally assigned all my rights to them - so I felt justified asking for this sum.

Overall, I thought £1,500 was reasonable - especially when you consider that the Daily Mail paid £2,000 for using photographs without permission.

Sky came back with an offer of £300.

I pointed out that s107 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 had provisions for fines of up to £50,000, or a six month prison sentence. In comparison £1,500 seems modest.

Sky replied:

As I indicated, we do not yet agree on a sensible figure for this use.

Bearing in mind you are now invoking the Copyright Designs and Patents Act I have placed this matter in the hands of our lawyers.

This does not represent an unwillingness to come to an agreement between us but, unfortunately, it is likely to slow the progress slightly.

Now I'm waiting to hear back from their lawyers. I wonder what their hourly rate is?

I'll update this post when I know more...

A Settlement🔗

I have accepted an offer of £300. A few minutes ago, I received this email from Sky:

After consulting with our Sky lawyers our position is that we believe a £300 settlement is a fair and appropriate sum. Our position is:

• The £300 is in respect of what you describes as "infringement of copyright" rather than any "union rate";
• Contrary to what you claim, we did not act as if you had assigned us all rights. Specifically, we did not claim ownership nor seek to profit from it by licensing to others;
• Criminal liability will not attach in relation to an inadvertent use of footage;
• English law does not recognise violation of moral rights;
• There is no authority that an infringement in these circumstances attracts four times the usual licence fee. To the contrary, the usual measure is what the reasonable cost of licensing would have been.
• Our offer is generous for the reasons above and we will not increase it.

May I also stress that when you are relating this issue to third parties on whatever platform I would consider it unfair if you did not relay the fact that we immediately acknowledged your copyright and sought to bring redress. I stress, once again, that we take copyright and its infringement very seriously at Sky News.

I'm not a copyright lawyer, so am in no position to argue against their formidable legal might. I have invoiced them for £300. I must point out that - once I contacted them - Sky were very quick to take down the infringing content and have been unfailingly polite in their dealings with me.

I will be donating £100 to both The Open Rights Group and MySociety. And drinking the rest.

Thank you for all your comments, tweets, and messages of support.

Footnote

I'm currently on holiday - so comment moderation and updates may be delayed.

Why Almost?

I'm a nit-picker - but here are a few suggestions to make the campaign better.

• Make the code bigger. When dealing with newsprint and its fuzzy images, it's always better to make the QR as large as possible - or as large as your advertising team will allows. Larger images are easier to scan.
• 
• A little more whitespace around the code would improve its readability.
• The text instructions are great - either SMS or type the URL in directly - but the text is fuzzy and indistinct.
• The video is presented in 4:3 aspect ratio.
• 
• I appreciate that you don't want people watching a stuttering 720p video over EDGE - but I feel that making the video widescreen to suit the majority of phones would have made the video more impressive. As it is, 240 x 192 the image looks a little blurred which perhaps isn't the best advert for HD.
• Finally, I noticed the campaign appearing in other papers.
• 
• As far as I can see, it's the same code. It would be a good idea to use a different code in each paper so you can see if, for example, Times readers are more likely to scan than Metro readers.

As I said - very minor complaints. Overall, an impressive use of QR codes from Sky. Well done to those involved.