NTS....hopefully this will explain it a little.
There is a term used by journalists and media...."checkbook journalism". It refers to media paying people to tell a story. While there are some limitations (depending on State) to what is an acceptable fee, it is not so much a matter of legality but of ethics. Now the ethical issue is not my term...it is the concern of all media. Concerns are raised by independent organizations that demand a level playing field in News reporting.
Here is a snip to illustrate my statement.....
The Society of Professional Journalists is scolding NBC News for buying its "exclusive" interview with David Goldman—the father of that Brazilian kid—by chartering a jet to fly father, son, and NBC reporter back to the U.S. Shocking, indeed. http://gawker.com/5436360/checkbook-journalism-a-users-guide
Media, journalists, networks, etc.... publicly oppose "paying for a story, or an interview, or an exclusive". It is considered by their own, to be unethical. However, efforts to get the "story" or the "exclusive" or the "first right of refusal" often require an incentive.
It has become a common practice for media to pay licensing fees" for photos / videos and other tangible supporting documentation used in reporting the story. That way, they can show that the money paid was for a legitimate purpose and not for the story itself.
Now........the issue with photo and image licensing in and of itself should be a non-issue. A photographer licenses his photos to others for use in print and video. A company can't just google an image and use it in their ad......they have to pay for it. There are fees that are high based upon use, there are fees that are small.....but photo licensing is a common practice.
As an example .....a photo that I take (while good, not professional grade) will only be marketable if connected to an extraordinary event. A photo by a professional photographer will garner MUCH more in terms of fees because it is....professional.
There is a huge discrepancy in what media is paying for photos under the guise of "licensing" when that same photo uploaded to Corbis (as an example) would fetch FAR less.
My point is......the licensing fees themselves are not really the issue IMO.
The real issue is the media's willingness to pay far above market value for a photo that ordinarily would garner little or no $ if sold independently.
The licensing fees have become, in essence, the cover for checkbook journalism......I do not hold ABC in this case any more liable than NBC in the Goldman case. BUT....IMO both are demonstrating the same thing.
Does that make sense???
Now....the fact that JB brokered the deal IS an issue because by virtue of HIM brokering the money......he has no incentive to work beyond the point where the money runs out. THAT does NOT serve his client's best interests. You are very supportive of her best interests from your posts. His actions do not demonstrate his support to anything more than the paycheck.
