To be hurt and annoyed at being dropped by the BBC?

[Ladyof2025]

BBC contacted me asking me to speak on camera about an aspect of local history I happen to know a bit about. I agreed and spent the next few days brushing up on the facts and then writing and rewriting a script and reading it out loud again and again until I knew it by heart and could speak confidently to camera as though I'd never said it before.

I do not have a pretty face, and am in my 60s and rather podgy, but I went to the trouble of going through my wardrobe for the perfect outfit that flattered my podginess, and had my hair cut specially and put on some make up, so I could be the best possible version of me that I could.

The production team visited, took me to the site and filmed me speaking. I did it smoothly and confidently and was glad that I had put in all the rehearsal so I came across as knowledgeable, professional and confident of my material. They said my performance was perfect, thanked me profusely and left.

After about a week they rang me to say that due to time and space issues the section of the programme that featured my input had been dropped. I felt absolutely gutted, not because I want to see myself on TV but because I had used up a lot of my valuable free time for several days preparing and rehearsing for it (for no fee I should add).

A few months later the programme I was dropped from came on TV and to my utter astonishment an attractive, slim young lady appeared, at the same site I was filmed at, and she spoke the exact words I had written and rehearsed! I nearly fell off my chair - the absolute bloody cheek of dropping ME but stealing the script that I had written. Thinking about it, I realised that they wanted my expert input, but not my saggy face or ample figure.

AIBU to be hurt and angry?

many years ago I worked for a designer. Some TV programme asked him to come up with something to give away to all the losing contestants. Duly submitted the design and costings but then it never went ahead. A couple of days before the first show they came back and said they ran out of time and their prop department had to come up with something short notice. The thing the contestants were given looked exactly like our design.

Sounds like the deal was you were to do something on screen and they wouldn't pay you.

What happened was you didn't do anything on screen and they didn't pay you.

If you're going to sue them you'll have to quantify your loss.

They stole nothing- you gave it to them.

What a fucking nerve! I'd be billing them for my script. Cheeky fuckers.

Presenters can read scripts naturally - it’s their job. The good ones make it look easy but it is really hard.

Although, do we know woman 2 was a presenter?

That's plagiarism. They should pay you for your script. The BBC has form on this one, I think. Preferance for pretty presenters.

I would go to the press. Blow that shit up.

If it's bollocks that was plagiarism, it isn't bollocks, it is plagiarism if they used her script. Scriptwriters are supposed to be paid.

Hmmmmmm, as someone who's done a few of these as 'academic for hire' (although I do more radio than tele - I've got a great face for radio) I think you're both reasonable and unreasonable.

You are very reasonable to be FURIOUS about them using your material. Get straight back to the producer and say you've seen the show and you wondered why your words and research were illegally appropriated. Just ask the question, don't go into any feelings. Just ask why. Put the producer on the spot. And maybe do a bit of research online (gov.uk is good) about intellectual property etc.

But all the other stuff - make up hair etc - waste of time. You can't be annoyed with the BBC because of that.

And they rarely pay. Newspapers pay, but the BBC - rare. I do it as part of my job, basically. I've had travel expenses reimbursed.

But you have to understand a bit about programme making. Producers work at speed and they are really really good at talking with the tame academic and getting the juice out of the marrow, re-framing it for a generalist audience, then feeding it back to you as questions, or suggested bits to camera. For those of us used to long slow academic/book research, it's an impossibly simplifying thing. But a good producer is so so good at getting to the nub of a thing, very quickly, using the resources of other people's knowledge along the way.

Then they make decisions about sellability and watchability. They made a crap decision from your POV, and an unethical one - go for that angle.

But think about what you want out of it - a payment? an apology? Tele is even more than newsaper tomorrow's fish & chip wrapping.

That’s really horrible and he would have grounds for complaint. Since Queengate (someone edited a trail to make it seem like HM had stormed out when she hadn’t) the BBC have been really hot on not misrepresenting people through dodgy editing.

Everyone has to do training in BBC trust to make sure you understand the importance of editorial honesty.

I’m sorry that happened to your dad.

And I see a couple of producers have pretty much said what I understand (as one of the talking heads on these things). TV moves fast and furious.

This is copyright infringement.

The release form she signed would have included the right to use the material however they wanted to. There is no legal case - but there is a moral one for how she’s been treated, and the production company and/or BBC should take it seriously.

That's not true, they stole her words. If it really was identical then they can't do that regardless of money.

Outrageous. Send this to the newspapers!

It really isn’t

Anyone having to go back to get pickups for a local history VT shouldn’t be directing traffic, let alone TV.

So did they introduce the actress/presenter as you? Or did they claim that she was in the same expert capacity as you, when she was just some random person reading your script?

I'm trying to think how they could possibly have introduced her in any kind of true way. They don't normally go to a random person for a quote or interview without quantifying why they were chosen - even if it's just that you live in the area.

If she happened to be a similar expert, surely she wouldn't need to read another expert's script - and would have been offended to be asked to do so.

So you did all the work for those CFs to steal it?
I'd be bloody fuming.

From the OP it doesn't read like she was asked to write a script rather on her own initiative she wrote suitable words that she could learn and say in the piece.

That sounds a sensible thing to do if you aren't a natural off the cuff experienced TV person

Although believe me, it's almost impossible not to sound stilted & over-rehearsed if you do that. Far better to be confident enough & knowledgeable enough to be able to speak off the cuff.

Considering how much the BBC loves to blow its own trumpet about how scrupulously accurate it supposedly is and how much they fight against disinformation and fake news, it does often seem like they think that, when they do it, it's cute.

Well that may be true but it's not really relevant as the question isn't whether or not she sounded natural

I think everyone knows it's hard to simulate natural unrehearsed conversation when you have actually rehearsed it. That's not a valid reason to get someone else to say those words in a less stilted way without acknowledgement

This is so true.

Great producers can make any subject understandable - and they can also make almost anyone ‘work’ on camera.

Some people just can’t give good interviews - but they shouldn’t get to the filming stage.

@Ladyof2025 Another thing to add is that any decent producer would have googled you and known what you looked like ahead of time - and shared a briefing note, with photo, with anyone else involved in the decision to go ahead with the filming.

I think it’s very unlikely they saw you and decided you were too frumpy for their show.

But again, no excuse for not telling you the truth about your contribution. Unprofessional behaviour that makes us all look awful.

Isn't that theft of intellectual property?