Chalk one up for the small guy/girl/person (UPDATE)

Yay!

After my threat of legal action, the Telegraph have agreed to pay me the full £180 for the unauthorised use of my photograph.

I'm very confused about their attitude though. This is what Louisa Peacock, an editor at the Telegraph, emailed me:

I have spoken further to my editor and we will pay you the £180 you demand. This is out of goodwill but you must understand we obtained permission for this: the feminist society is where you should direct your issue to make sure it doesn't happen again.

We simply would not have used your image if we'd have known we did not have permission.

I hope you understand this was a genuine mistake.

Ok, this is fairly reasonable, but as I have always said, the Telegraph is partly at fault here. So I replied:

I understand you attempted to obtain permission, but I do not think it is right that you assume a third party is legally permitted to give permission for someone else's work to be used. In future you should be ascertaining if a licensing agreement has been made between the copyright holder and the third party.

And then she seemed to get a bit upset:

Ok - but the 'third party' in question is the university of which you are a member.

No, Louisa. I am a graduate of the University of Bristol, which is not affiliated with the Feminist Society. FemSoc is affiliated with the University of Bristol Students' Union, which I am not a member of. I emailed her back to let her know.

Anyway, this is all sorted now. Now I can carry on updating this blog with the odd photo and scribbles (:

Copyright laws protect content creators (UPDATE)

Hi everyone,

I just thought I'd make a final update so I have a record of what's happened with regards to the Telegraph's unauthorised use of my photograph.

As of right now, the image is still on the article. I have not formally requested it to be taken down, but I have heard of cases where rightsholders have attempted to deal with unauthorised use of an image and the image was simply removed, as if this solves the issue of it having been used in the first place. So, the image is still up and I still haven't been paid.

I've sent a final email to Louisa:

Hi Louisa,

To clarify, I expect the invoice of £180 to be paid in full by 04/02/2014, 30 days after I originally sent the invoice to you.

Should the amount still be unpaid after this date, I will make a court claim in Bristol to recover the money.

If there are any issues, I would like to correspond with your picture editor.

Regards,

Rajitha

So now I'll just sit tight and wait until February. If they haven't paid up by then, I will make a claim for the outstanding money. The Telegraph may say they do not owe me anything as they got permission from the Feminist Society, but I maintain that this permission was not authorised. I won't be updating in the meantime if I do begin negotiations with the picture editor, or anyone else at the Telegraph, unless something really ridiculous happens...but I'll let you all know how it goes if I am successful in asserting that I have the right to be paid a reasonable amount for the use of my work.

The real issue that I would like to see solved is the apparent complacency of editors when sourcing images for articles. There are other tales of publications not acquiring permission to use someone's work prior to publishing it. This is wrong.

It is also wrong that the Telegraph assumed a third party was licensed to distribute my content, without any proof whatsoever. They were given my name and a link to my Flickr page, but did not think it appropriate to get proof that I licensed the Feminist Society to distribute my work, or contact me before using it.

While the Telegraph eventually offered me £25 on discovering that this third party had no rights to the content, as the photographer, I was never given the opportunity to negotiate with the Telegraph on equal footing at the beginning of the process. I had my right to decide whether I wanted to license the use of my photograph taken away from me. I used these guidelines to come up with a price for the photo. As the notes on negotiating rates say:

The suggested rates are minima from which freelances negotiate upward according to the value of the work

I also used the figure for a 300x400px photo being used online for one month. In reality, this picture would probably have stayed online for longer than that.

I'll conclude this post by saying rightsholders need to be respected. A photograph is a piece of work governed by copyright laws - these imply that the work has intrinsic value and also prevent content creators from being exploited. Always contact the photographer before using an image that is all rights reserved. If you find your content has been used without your permission, get in touch with the infringer and let them know they should have contacted you first.

As an example, I personally wouldn't dream of charging a non-profit student society for using my work on their website, provided it was attributed to me and linked back to my Flickr page. However, when a national newspaper publishes my work without paying for it, I will complain, and I will get this sorted out.

Please, just accept you're wrong (UPDATE)

Hi ladies and gents,

I'm back in Bristol now and was able to keep up the correspondence while I was on the train. Massive thanks to Jamie, a fellow photographer, for the advice and support.

Read up on the background of the Telegraph using my photo without my permission.

First up, Raphael, Secretary of FemSoc replied to me, apologising:

We assumed you were happy with your photos to be used with reference to the Bust a Myth campaign, as well as that the Telegraph would double-check. We now realise that we were absolutely in the wrong to do so, and on behalf of the society I'd like to apologise unreservedly.

Note: they had the photos because someone (who I was unaware was affiliated with FemSoc) wanted to use a photo in a not-for-profit feminist journal. I never actually sent this guy any copies of the photos, assuming he would ask me for copies of the ones he wanted to use as they were not freely available anywhere (besides being viewable on Flickr, with anti-download protection turned on, as discussed previously), so this is all a bit of a mess. Me giving permission for the use of a photo in a single journal certainly does not constitute blanket permission to redistribute my photographs, so FemSoc are definitely in the wrong in that sense.

Right, so once I'd received that, I got back to Louisa at the Telegraph. Here's the full text of my email:

Hi Louisa,
I have had a response from the secretary of the Feminist Society stating that they passed my details on to Emma in the belief she would check with me before publishing the photograph, and they accept they had no right to give her permission to use the photo.

The fact is, you have published my photograph without my permission. What you have assumed is permission is not legally admissible, as the party who provided you with it had no rights to the works in question. You did not see any documentation indicating that I, as the copyright holder, licensed the Feminist Society to distribute my work in this way, so an error has been made.

I expect the Telegraph to fully honour the original invoice I sent to you.
Regards,
Rajitha

Bizarrely, she came back with this:

You can see from the email that the Society sent us that there was absolutely no indication that we should check with you; they gave us full permission. They may be changing their story now but that's not what happened at the time.

Plenty of organisations work on behalf of photographers and offer credit on their behalf, this is not unusual.

However I can see on this occasion a human error has been made - these things do happen.

Our standard picture rate for photos is £25 inc VAT for online usage, which this was. So if you want to resend an invoice for £25 I can get that processed for you as a matter of goodwill.

I am unsure that FemSoc are "changing their story"; I think they honestly thought that giving the Telegraph my details would result in the journalist contacting me - however there is the fact that Florence from FemSoc stated she was giving the Telegraph permission to use the photographs.

While I can see that the Telegraph may have given them the benefit of the doubt and assumed FemSoc commissioned me to take the photographs on the basis of Florence's email, that was absolutely not the case and they did not acquire any proof that I had licensed the photographs for FemSoc's use and distribution.

Therefore, the Telegraph are entirely culpable for the publication of an image which they did not have the correct permissions for. I don't think third party licensing of content being common in the media industry is a defence - the Telegraph had no written evidence, for example a licensing agreement, that FemSoc were authorised to give my photos to them.

Naturally, I replied saying that I'm sticking with my original figure, which was based on average rates, a document backed by the NUJ. To which Louisa swiftly came back with:

But we don't pay anyone that amount for online photos. I'm afraid our offer is £25.

I mean, that's great that you have set rates outlined, but this was not a normal business transaction. My work was used illegally, so the Telegraph can't really act like they acquired permission in the first place and offer me a standard sum. So...I've threatened legal action. I believe the Telegraph did not do everything necessary to acquire permission for the use of my copyrighted work. They had my full name and a link to my Flickr account, so contacting me would have been easy. Therefore, they're culpable.

I've submitted an application for student membership of the NUJ and I've emailed them a copy of my correspondence with Louisa in order to see if they can assist me with this. I'm hoping this can be resolved without a court case, but I'm willing to go ahead and deal with it that way if the Telegraph won't pay my invoice. Jamie has also advised me to get in touch with the BJP, which I may well do.

Edit: Quick update - just received this from FemSoc:

Although Florence did correspond with Emma Pearce via her personal account, the email in which permission was given to publish your photographs was drafted by the FemSoc committee as a whole. We, as a body, apologise for having made that crucial error. Our intentions were in no way malicious, only careless. We hope this statement helps you in your discussions with The Telegraph (I'm about to send an email to Emma so she has our statement as a society), although if they need something specifically from Florence she can absolutely provide this.

That picture (UPDATE)

Hello!

Another update on the Telegraph using my photo without permission.

Louisa at the Telegraph spoke to her picture editor and gave me contact details for the person at FemSoc who gave the newspaper my photos. Louisa said:

Let me know what she says and whether you can get this resolved through them.
Seeing as they gave us full permission in writing you need to speak to them first.

Now this is very strange. I maintain that FemSoc have no rights to my work, so the fact they have given permission to the Telegraph doesn't mean a thing. While I may have a dispute with FemSoc for having used my work in this way, the issue with the Telegraph is separate. Regardless of whether FemSoc 'resolve' this, the Telegraph have still used one of my photographs without permission from me, the copyright holder, so I will continue my discussion with them. I replied to Louisa:

I would like to reiterate that I am not affiliated with the Feminist Society and did not license my photographs to them, so they have no legal right to give you permission to use my work, whether in writing or otherwise.

Nevertheless, I've contacted Florence from FemSoc to find out how she got hold of my photos, and why she thought she could give permission for them to be published online. So I'll email the Telegraph again once I've heard something from her...or once my nerves get the best of me. It's really not fun suffering from anxiety and having to deal with something like this. Maybe I'll blog about that in future, who knows.

Right, I'm on trains today to get back to Bristol to hand in my coursework, so I'll be off now. Hopefully I'll hear something from FemSoc this evening!

The plot thickens (UPDATE)

Edit: Update!
Hello again everyone,

Just thought I'd update you all on what happened with the whole Telegraph situation.

I got in touch with the article's author on Twitter:

Hi @EmmaPearcee, are you aware you used my photograph without permission in your @Telegraph article? http://t.co/C0exn3GaCz
— Miss Jith (@missionverdana) January 4, 2014

She gave me her editor's email address and told me to contact her regarding my issue.

So I copied the email I sent to the general Telegraph letters page and sent it over to Louisa Peacock, who replied pretty swiftly, on a Sunday as well, so many thanks for that!

Now this is where it gets weird - Emma Pearce was under the impression that she had permission to use the photograph in question. She corresponded with the University of Bristol Feminist Society (FemSoc), who told her:

"I have attached some photographs from the Bust A Myth campaign spoken about earlier. The Bristol University Feminist Society give the Daily Telegraph permission to publish these photographs.

"Rajitha Ratnam took the pictures, and her Flickr id is missionverdana."

I can understand that Emma and Louisa may have believed FemSoc owned the rights to the image - which is evident as Louisa said:

So Emma is very surprised that you are saying we did not have permission - as she sought permission and believed she got it from the feminist society itself.

Well, I was fairly stunned. I have no affiliation whatsoever with FemSoc. I have not spoken to anyone at FemSoc about my photos, let alone provided them with copies of the images. FemSoc have no right whatsoever to give permission for my copyrighted work to be used anywhere. These photos were taken for my own personal use: a coursework assignment for the University of the West of England. It is my right to decide who can use these images and whether I require payment for them doing so.

This is a serious misunderstanding of copyright law. While I am sure Emma and Louisa acted in good faith and were assured they had permission to use a copyrighted image, the party providing them with this permission did not have the right to do so.

I have contacted FemSoc via email to find out how they got hold of my photographs. While I am not naive enough to believe Flickr's anti-download feature, which I have turned on, will present determined users with any difficulties in acquiring photos, I'd like to know if this is where they got them from, or whether someone else altogether acquired my photos and passed them on to FemSoc.

Anyway, Louisa has said she will get back to me tomorrow afternoon after seeking advice on how to proceed, so I hope this will get resolved soon. Now, back to coursework.

Edited to add: Just want to make it clear that I do expect the Telegraph to compensate me for the use of my work - they never got permission from me to use it, so their use of it was unauthorised. Also, I've finished my essay!
ETA2: Fixed some typos...wrote this in a rush and didn't check it over earlier.
ETA3: Just to clarify, turning on the anti-download feature on Flickr was not a result of this - I have had it turned on for years.

Unauthorised use of photograph

Edit: Update One
Edit: Update Two
Edit: Update Three
Edit: Update Four

Hello everyone,

Today a friend told me one of my photos was up on the Telegraph website. I was surpised, as I had never had any contact with the Telegraph regarding the use of any of my images. I checked out the article, and, yup, it was one of the photos I took at the UBU Bust a Myth event in November.

As an unemployed student, it's not particularly nice to find that someone is using your work for free. So, I'm taking a leaf out of Michael Gakuran's book and politely requesting they reimburse me for the use of the photos:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to you regarding the article published on the Telegraph website entitled:

Surge in student feminism: Meet the new generation of 'bold, hilarious feminists'

Link:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10548692/Student-feminist-societies-surge-Meet-the-new-generation-of-bold-hilarious-feminists.html

While I appreciate that you have given me credit for the image, I am disappointed that you published the image without first contacting me to ask permission and without paying me for use of my work.

Below is my invoice for the use of 1 image to which I own the copyright. The rate is as recommended by the National Union of Journalists.

Link: http://www.londonfreelance.org/feesguide/index.php?&section=Photography&subsect=Online+use+of+photos

Invoice:

300px size: £90 x 1 image = £90

Preliminary total: £90

Doubled for unauthorised usage:

Total: £180

Regards,

Miss Rajitha Ratnam

I have no idea where they got the image from. As far as I know, it is only online on Flickr and is clearly marked "All Rights Reserved".

They may well remove the photo or the article itself, so I've saved a copy, which you can view online. (I tried using Versionista, which Michael Gakuran used, but it just gave me a blank page so that was not entirely helpful.)

Even though I'm not a famous photographer or anything, I'd really like to get the word out that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable. Photography might be a hobby for me, but it's a career for many people, and if news outlets think it's ok to use students' photographs for free, that damages an entire industry of hard-working people.

Celebratory "yay coursework done" post!

Hello!

I've been rather silent on the blogging front for a while, since I've been busy with coursework. Today I handed in my work for the Journalism Writing module: some news stories, that profile about classmate Aaron I mentioned before and a feature. The feature had to show off the diversity of Bristol culture so I decided to speak to some comic artists about the comic/zine community in Bristol. Many thanks to Simon Moreton and Paula Knight for speaking to me, it was a really fun piece to write!

A couple of weeks ago I got my camera back from being repaired at Black on White and made good use of it by covering a rally held by the University of Bristol Students' Union (UBU) to challenge misconceptions about rape.



Mark with a placard.


Imogen Palmer of UBU talking to a student

I took more photos at the event, as well as attending a press launch for Bristol City Council's campaign to raise awareness of the fact that victims are not to blame. I'll be putting the audio and photos I got from the day into a package for radio/online as part of an assignment, so watch this space!

News/Current Affairs Blog 3: BBC Click

Another uni coursework piece! Actually found this a pretty interesting show.

BBC News: Click
24m 5s
First broadcast 1.30am Sat 16 November 2013

Click is the BBC’s flagship technology programme, presented by Spencer Kelly. It comprises current news features, as well as a section with tech headlines and Webscape, which features websites and smartphone apps that may be useful or entertaining.

In this episode, Kelly is on location in Tokyo. He begins the show with a feature about smart taxis.

The next feature is about technology that helps the elderly in Japan, reported on by Dan Simmons. First up is a robot suit that helps older people continue with agricultural work. As well as interviewing a Professor from the Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology to provide a sense of authority, the feature includes a more human angle. A 68-year old man is filmed using the suit and at home with his wife. I think this is really helpful in connecting viewers to technology. Without the personal angle it is easy to just think of a technological feature as something from the future that doesn’t have any practical applications.

The feature continues with more tech aimed at the elderly: a self-driving trolley and a seal robot. Another Professor of Technology is interviewed, as well as a care home resident. These interviewees provide authority and a human angle, as with the robot suit segment.

The show then cuts back to Kelly, who introduces the tech news. In a huge contrast to the feature about tech aimed at Japan’s ageing population, two of the stories are about social networks, while another is on a business venture of Justin Bieber’s. This seems strange to me, as I doubt people who are interested in hearing about Justin Bieber are going to want to watch a show that primarily concentrates on the elderly.

Next up is a feature about the launch of Sony’s Playstation 4, which I would say fits better with the interests of people who are interested in news related to social networks. Mark Cieslak appears in a studio set up to look like a living room to demonstrate some of the features of the console. For people who aren’t particularly enthusiastic about searching out technology news, this seems like quite a useful segment. Even as a tech enthusiast, I hadn’t had a chance to see what was new with the PS4, so I learnt a bit about the console by watching this feature.

We’re then back to Kelly, who shows off an underground bike storage system in Tokyo, which again fits with a younger audience who primarily cycle, as they may not be able to afford to drive.

Finally, Kate Russell presents Webscape, which includes information on some travel-related apps and a job hunting site.

Overall, this show seems very targeted at younger people who encounter technology in daily life but perhaps need to know a bit more about it, without feeling alienated by arcane details. Using a human angle in the most obscure section, which is about tech for elderly people, certainly helps to connect this demographic with the tech. The rest of the show features topics that are directly relevant to an audience of young professionals.

News/Current Affairs Blog 2: BBC Click

Next post for my Journalism Writing module - I don't think C4 had another First Cut on this week so I went with this instead.#

BBC News: Click
24m 43s
First broadcast 1.30am Sat 9 November 2013

Click is the BBC’s flagship technology programme, presented by Spencer Kelly. It comprises current news features, as well as a section with tech headlines and Webscape, which features websites and smartphone apps that may be useful or entertaining.

The first feature is about the rise of file-sharing site Bit Torrent, and how the company is trying to shed its reputation for being a piracy haven. The most interesting technique used here is superimposing diagrams and graphs onto footage of Kelly. This means he can use gestures to help explain how torrenting works, which makes it a lot clearer. I think it’s a great use of a visual medium.

Some interview clips of the Director of Analysis of NetNames, the creator of Breaking Bad and two actors from Game of Thrones are used to provide different views on piracy. The TV show interviewees are against backgrounds that feature a poster of their respective shows. David Price of NetNames first appears in front of a map of the world, which presumably shows piracy activity, although this is not made clear. The second time he is shown, a bright, messy background that quite frankly distracting is used. It really doesn’t add anything and just looks hideous.

The feature is concluded with a reporter interviewing Bit Torrent founder, Bram Cohen. The reporter is included in this interview, which could be for a few reasons. It seems more natural to feature this as a conversation, since it is an extended take, rather than short clips. The reporter also offers explanations in layman’s terms and adds extra context to the interview, which is important to avoid the audience feeling detached from a technical subject.

The technology news section is a voiceover with some relevant clips on the screen. The headline for each news item is displayed throughout.

Kelly then introduces a feature on Game City, a video game festival in Nottingham. It seems odd that the way he talks about it is like it is a new event, but the feature reporter says it is the 8th annual Game City event. I would guess that Click is aimed at people who don’t know much about technology, so it is reasonable to expect that they have never heard of the event before.

The feature is reported on by Mark Cieslak, who is filmed in Nottingham and at the event, as well as providing voiceover for clips of the event. Some developers are interviewed, with footage of their games appearing on screen.

Finally, the show returns to Kelly in the studio, where he introduces the Webscape segment. This is presented by Kate Russell. Clips of apps/websites are shown with a frame designed to look like a web browser. The address bar has the website/name of the app in, which is useful. Russell explains what the apps are for, and after screenshots are displayed, she is shown next to a screen in a studio. This stops the show from seeming too impersonal. I think it’s important to have the presenters and reporters on screen from time to time, to keep up engagement with the audience.

For such a short programme, they actually manage to fit a fair amount in. The Bit Torrent feature was around 10 minutes long, taking up just under half of the airtime. This seems like a reasonable amount of time to spend on a feature, especially as there was a range of interviewees included, as well as some technical information.

The Game City feature was also interesting, although as mentioned before, I take issue with the fact it was introduced as a brand new event. The tech headlines are good to include, but I feel that Webscape isn’t best suited to television. It would work a lot better online, with links to the content. However, it could be argued that showcasing features like Webscape on TV allows the BBC to reach a more diverse audience - people who watch Click aren't necessarily trying to seek out information on technology. I imagine people stumble across this show when watching BBC News and it has to be interesting and entertaining to hold their attention. This is evident from the opening, which is a visual joke in which Kelly has failed to load due to a bandwidth error.

News/Current Affairs Blog 1: C4 How to Find the Perfect Flatmate

For my Journalism Writing unit, I have to blog about a few current affairs/news programmes, so here's the first one!

Channel 4: How to Find the Perfect Flatmate
46m 29s
First broadcast 10.45pm Wed 23 October 2013

This programme comes from the First Cut strand of C4 factual programming, which aims to give new directors a visible slot on C4. The C4 commissioning advice for this strand states “At 11pm the subject, tone and title should demand to be seen and feel like a treat rather than homework to watch.” This is fairly evident within the first thirty seconds or so of the show, in which strong language is used. This sets an informal tone for the next 40 minutes.
The introduction, formed of clips from later on in the show, is narrated by an unseen reporter. This style continues throughout. The reporter is more of a narrator figure. She does not actually ask questions of the people featured; her exposition of the topic frames clips of the programme’s subjects.
The topic of this show is the rising numbers of people in their mid-20s and beyond who have to flatshare (termed ‘Generation Rent’). This has been reported on in the news recently, making it a good subject to expand upon in a feature. The show intends to give viewers advice on finding a flatmate, with the programme being broken up into sections concerning the “Rules of Finding the Perfect Flatmate”.

Filming took place in London, which is where the issue of people not being able to find somewhere to live is most common. This gives the producers plenty of fodder in terms of interviewees. The medium of television is appropriate as it allows people’s emotions and views to come across visually, engaging the audience more. Some statistics are provided sporadically throughout the programme. This means viewers aren’t overloaded with information that is difficult to digest.

There are five main people/groups of people that are featured in this programme. Only one of these is actually someone looking for a room, which may seem like the show is imbalanced, but there are plenty more interviewees included throughout. Around 20 people between the ages of 20 and 40 have been interviewed about their experiences flat-hunting. These people have been shot against a plain white background – presumably so we cannot make any judgments about them beyond their appearance. We don’t necessarily need any more context, such as their occupation, just the fact that they have experienced the issue covered by the documentary. In contrast, more details is given the main subjects of the show e.g. Naomi is filmed in the financial district of London when her search for a flatmate is introduced.

Soundbites from the unnamed interviewees are inserted into the programme, in the middle of segments about the main subjects of the show. This is a good way for the makers of the programme to inject alternative opinions into viewers’ minds. For example, comments about “weird” flatmates interject the sections about landlord Gerald. I personally feel that this seems like they are trying to cast him as a bit of an oddball, which may not be fair. This view is not explicitly expressed, but the juxtaposition of Gerald scenes and the rules for finding a flatmate definitely more than hint at painting him as the awkward landlord who is having trouble in his tenant search because of his “less professional” approach.

I quite enjoyed the show - it gave some insight into websites that help people find places to rent and the idea of speed-flatmating, as well as being fairly entertaining. However, I do feel a bit like the producers tried to select people who conformed to some sort of stereotype: Scott as the openly gay male, Gerald as an unusual loner and Max/Jay as lads on the prowl. This makes it more obvious that they have found a range of people to feature in the show, but it does make me feel somewhat uncomfortable as they may have played up these aspects of the subjects purely for some kind of entertainment purpose, by selecting clips that conform to these roles. In particular, I feel like the narrator is somewhat judgmental – not overtly offering a view, but making sardonic comments such as “wine at 11.15am” – seemingly leaving it up to the viewers to make a judgment while steering them in a particular direction.

Interestingly, the programme conclusion reveals that none of the people followed in the programme actually find a flatmate. This raises a question – if there is such a problem with people finding somewhere to live, why is it so hard for these people to fill their spare rooms?

Write Blog, Not Homework

Trying to make up a word limit is hard sometimes, especially when people you telephone are not forthcoming with information ): I keep being told to look online for answers to questions, when what I really want is a statement from a person of authority.

I've been busy busy with uni work and other things, so it's been a while since I last blogged. I also managed to sprain my ankle on Thursday - it just gave way while I was walking along the pavement, so I'm hobbling about and housebound (at least until lectures tomorrow) since stairs are very difficult to go down, and I live up three flights of them.

There was a 0 hour game jam on Sunday, because of the clocks going back an hour for Daylight Saving Time, so I thought I'd give it a go since I haven't coded anything for a while. It turns out it's not really enough time to do anything, especially given that I didn't have any idea what I was going to make when I started. I made a sort-of-but-not-really RPG, kindly hosted by Mark, who also took part in the jam. I spent far too long fiddling with pixels instead of checking everything worked as intended, so there's a fun "feature" if you try to take a particular action near the end.

It was mum's birthday last week, so I painted some leaves for her. First time I've got out the watercolours since I did the course earlier this year...

Leaves were what I really struggled with during the classes, so I might do some more practice at some point - if I get any free time! Journalism is about to get more full-on next week, as we'll be starting the project unit and doing newsdays on Fridays. I did manage to relax this weekend and play some games - I've got a 3DS XL now and Pokémon X, early Christmas present - so who knows, maybe I can sit around painting all weekend in the near future. I hope.

Drowning in Ill

Ughhhh I have some kind of hideous cold thing that I picked up from my flatmate. How rude of him to pass it on. This is making it very difficult to concentrate on anything, since my head is feeling all stuffy and pressured. Nevetherless, I just about managed to get through today's 9 - 4 multimedia marathon.

I'll go back to the start of this week, though. Nicole and I did more vox pops on Monday, actually on the streets of Bristol. It was interesting to note that middle-aged women seemed mostly likely to totally ignore us, while male uni students were intrigued by the microphone and willing to answer our questions about the new fertility clinic for single women at Southmead Hospital. We had to follow this up with an interview, and mistakenly thought the interview had to be on the same topic as the vox pops. This led to a panicked Thursday, not helped at all by Giffgaff refusing to actually send Nicole any of my texts, in which we wrangled with an uncooperative press officer to no avail. In the end we went to the University of Bristol Students' Union (UBU) and spoke to the lovely Imogen Palmer, Vice-President of Activities, about the alternative activities UBU offered to freshers. President Rob Griffiths wrote an article about the prevalence of drinking culture, so we thought talking to Imogen would be a good follow-up. Even though we just turned up without warning, she was willing to be interviewed, so we were quite lucky!

I haven't done much else apart from uni work this week, due to wanting to hide in bed 90% of the time. Went to the first COGS social last night, but it was far too warm and noisy for my poor ill brain to cope with. Pretty good turnout of new members though, so I'm looking forward to the LAN next week.

This week, we have to produce an audio package for Friday, so I need to get thinking. We're not supposed to do assignments alone for safety reasons, so these are all in pairs (except us this week - odd number in the class so Verity will be joining Nicole and me). I've worked out that I can actually have a nice break this weekend, so I'll just do some reading. Aside from that, I'm off to the Bristol Comic and Zine Fair with Sara and Mark tomorrow, so maybe I'll pick up some cool stuff.

Oh yeah, totally forgot to mention my poor camera last time. One of the pins in the CF card slot has snapped off, so, no camera for now. Until I can sort out a repair. Cleverly left my compact in London, so all I have now is my phone and a film camera. ):

Ok my brain is too blurry to anything right now so I am going to huddle in my duvet.