Highlight from the original MyDigimedia Blog, published November 16, 2006:

So the BBC announced that it will begin paying for some user-generated content.  The Guardian reports this morning on the company's new policy, which says:

"Material is submitted to the BBC under published terms and conditions. These give us a free, non-exclusive licence to publish on any platform, and the person who took the footage/pictures retains copyright.

"However, on very rare occasions where material is particularly editorially important or unique and depicts something of great significance, we may consider making an appropriate payment.

"In newsgathering, journalists should consult their senior editor, before entering any negotiations on payments; in English regions referral should be made to [heads of regional and local programmes] and through heads of news and current affairs in the nations.

"Audiences should not be encouraged to think that payment is the norm, or in any way encouraged to take risks, put themselves in danger or break any laws in order to secure what they perceive to be material of high monetary value."

"In return for payment we may negotiate an assignment of copyright or exclusive rights - but bear in mind that material other than photographs may be copied and used by other news organisations under 'fair dealing'.

"Bear in mind also that under the standard terms the person sending in material generally retains the copyright, so they are free to give or sell their material to others. They may go on to agree an exclusive deal with another outlet, which would in effect terminate their licence to the BBC, and we would not be able to reuse the image, video or audio. We would not have to delete the archive though."

Appears as though BBC is angling to secure exclusive rights to content in exchange for cash.

This is an interesting proposition for two reasons.  First, it would intimate that the content citizens are able to get on the ground is potentially as good or better than what trained journalists might get in the course of their daily work.  If not, why enforce an exclusivity clause?  

Second, it calls into question the entire idea of what we're calling "citizen journalism."  Paying people for their "reporting" makes them freelancers, no?  And it suddenly gives them a financial incentive.  I get the feeling that many citizen jurnos were originally motivated by a sense of civic duty, to uncover information that the mainstream missed (or wouldn't report on).  To now pay folks for information now would change the impetus -- and in my opinion, the outcome of that kind of news-gathering.