The news that the BBC is to pay for selected, quality user-generated content brings to the fore an issue that many media owners looking to capitalise on the web 2.0 phenomenon have to face up to.
In the case of the BBC it raises more complex issues depending on what type of content it intends to pay for.
In addition, it appears to be somewhat of a volte face with the BBC previously stating that it would not pay for user content.
BBC News Interactive head Pete Clifton reiterated this view earlier this month at the News Xchange conference in Istanbul.
As a public service broadcaster there are bound to be ethical concerns over using licence fee money to pay contributors in regard to, say, mobile or video footage of explicit news events - even if the BBC has outlined strict parameters on acceptable content.
Clips under the banner of entertainment - if that is perhaps one interpretation that can be made of the term 'unique' content - is perhaps more understandable and, in a way, might work as a rewards system for the best content producers in a way ratings work on websites like eBay, Amazon or even Digg.com for quality users.
Furthermore in a world where on the spot 'citizen journalism' often beats broadcaster's own attempts at initial coverage there is perhaps good sense in establishing careful guidelines for the future.
In a wider internet context the underlying question of the value of the consumer as a publisher, a content-creator, has so far been capitalised on with little in the way of remuneration going to some of the most popular downloaded clips.
There is, of course, the likes of Revver.com that which splits revenues with the creator of the video from ads run at the end of a clip each time it is played.
Fritz Grobe and Stephen Voltz, the people behind the popular viral video called the "Diet Coke and Mentos Experiments" reportedly earned around $30,000 from posting the video on Revver, but claim they lost tens of thousands more in the number of views the video got when it was put on the likes of YouTube and watched for free. http://blogs.zdnet.com/micro-markets/?p=299
Which raises the matter of YouTube itself.
It has built an entire business out of video-sharing - even if it is yet to make any money out of the enterprise - based on either copyrighted material 'mashed' by users and uploaded or genuine new creations from consumers.
As new owner Google rushes around trying to plug all YouTube's potential legal holes over copyright infringement, the question of what value the 'normal people' should expect from their work remains to be fully answered by many brands looking to capitalise on the web 2.0 world.
