Mobile image taking devices for the everyday person, already ubiquitous, have added eye-witness value to newspaper content over the past year, especially during the Asian tsunami, the London bombings and Hurricane Katrina. But the legalities behind use of citizen material have yet to be defined which is causing a stir at some papers.

In an opinion piece, editor-in-chief of Media Guardian, Emily Bell talks of the Telegraph's new citizen photography feature, "Snap and Send." It raises two problems:

1. A clause in the paper's terms and conditions gives the Telegraph exclusive rights to any contributor content.
2. The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) feels threatened because the Telegraph may only choose photos from citizens for which they don't have to pay.

Ms. Bell investigated her own paper's terms and found that the Guardian claims the right to use contributor material but that contributors maintain copyright privileges.

The Telegraph's position is precarious and perhaps unfeasible because of the nature of file-sharing, linking and simple copy-pasting on the Internet that is hurting more than the newspaper industry:

• The music industry loses billions yearly from file sharing programs, pirated copies and tapes of recordings released online before albums even come out.
• Book publishers stand to lose millions if Google's plans to scan and place old books online for free succeed.
• Museums and art book publishers stand to lose, as Ms. Bell points out, if people take pictures of art work and post them online for all to browse for free.

Another example that shows it will be hard for newspapers to keep watch over their online content is the New York Times. Although some of the Gray Lady's online articles are now behind a paid wall, it is not at all difficult to find these articles for free. Once one person has copy-pasted an article, it can be posted verbatim for others to link to and for all to read free of charge.

The most prevalent example today of the problem with citizen photographs is FIFA.

The soccer organization is bound to have copyright woes because of camera phones and digital cameras come next year's World Cup. FIFA has banned Internet postings of photos of matches until one hour after the clock runs out. This has already understandably caused an uproar in the media industry which will lose traffic and money on their websites.

On the other hand, although it will technically be illegal, fans with a mobile phone or capable camera can send images of the match while still in the stadium for others to post immediately online. The money that FIFA would spend suing these fans far outweighs the costs of eliminating the ban. Either way, newspapers still lose.

When taking all of this into consideration, The Telegraph still has every right to claim exclusivity of citizen journalists. But they have gone about it in an improper manner.

With blogs and photo sharing websites such as Flickr, people want to share their experiences with their family and friends immediately. Newsworthy photos and accounts are sometimes posted on these sites. The Telegraph's current rules don't allow people to contribute a photo to the paper and also use it on their blog which will surely deter them from using the new "Snap and Send."

Instead, if they maintain copyright, The Telegraph should compensate citizen photographers for their content. For many, a small amount of money would justify giving up sharing their photos with others.

At the same time, such a stipulation would please the NUJ. If citizen journalists had to be paid, newspapers would be more inclined to choose to pay for professional content which offer more value for the paper and for the reader.