Is journalist-created UGC really UGC?

I've just been watching an exchange on Twitter with baited breath. A journalist is asking another journalist for permission to use their video (for free) on their website:

Adam works for Business Insider and Kate for the Evening Standard. This won't end well, surely? Why would a journalist surrender such a piece for free - even if it's pretty trivial? And it's so short, there's no way an extract from it could be considered fair dealing for reporting purposes.

And then the response came back:

Well, that was an anti-climax. It's almost like journalists are actually decent, thoughtful people much of the time…

It's amusing to see the standard "UGC" sourcing approach being applied to a fellow journalist, though, rather than a random member of the public. I was quite genuinely expecting some form of negative reply, so kudos to Adam Bienkov for being more classy than I usually expect of journalists…

I do like the little "permission" graphic the Evening Standard are using:

That's a nice idea.