Photo competition conditions

[blissful]

I know this subject has been discussed a couple of years ago but I think AP members might benefit from a re-visit.

Kings Park in Perth are having a festival, including a photo competition called "Wildflowers in Focus".

See: http://www.bgpa.wa.gov.au/festival/competitions

I was very tempted to enter, considering it has a nice 3 night holiday prize, until I read through the terms and conditions. Here are some relevant parts to those:


You agree not to use, or permit the use of, any images taken of or from Kings Park and Botanic Garden sites for any commercial or promotional purpose other than entering this competition or your own personal use.

You expressly agree not to use such images for commercial purposes such as sale or license to third parties.

On completion of this competition, all photographs received as entries will become the property of The Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority. The Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority has the right to use images for the promotion of Kings Park. The photographer will be appropriately credited if/when their image is used.

The winner agrees to grant the Promoter a perpetual and exclusive license to use the photographs in all media worldwide and the winner will not be entitled to any fee for such use. The winner agrees they will not, and will ensure that their companions do not, sell or otherwise provide their story and/or photographs to any media or other organisation who are not associated with this promotion.

I may be wrong but what I read into this is that as soon as I enter my photos I give up any right to using them ever for commercial purposes, and I won't get anything for them if they are used by Kings Park for any reason (unless I happen to win the competition).

[Wayno]

Geez, they always want to take the fun out of it.
I was going to throw a pic or two into this comp as well....

[ricktas]

Not unusual, but also not very fair either. Often the organisers of these competitions have probably never run a photography competition before and they just get a heap of clauses off the net, from someone elses competition rules and amend the relevant name etc to use. They often do not realise the implications of the rules they have.

But like any contract, people should read it before signing in the dotted line.

[Xenedis]

Yet another 'competition' I'd avoid like the plague.

Don't you just love the fact that some companies harvest images under the guise of a 'competition', and then have the temerity to dictate what the copyright holder can and cannot do with his/her own photos?

My advice is the same as always: read the terms and conditions, and decide whether or not they're acceptable.

In this case, for me, those terms and conditions are utterly unacceptable.

[MissionMan]

I think these are more aimed at Amateurs who are unlikely to ever use their photos for commercial purposes anyway.

[fillum]

...what I read into this is that as soon as I enter my photos I give up any right to using them ever for commercial purposesOnly if they were taken in Kings Park and Botanic Garden sites (or if you win). It is actually a condition (http://www.bgpa.wa.gov.au/bookings/film-and-photography/conditions-of-use)of the park:

Part 5: Section 28 of the Botanic Gardens and Parks Regulations 1999 states;

'A person must not, without permission, take still or motion pictures on the designated land by photographic or electronic means for:
a) The purpose of public display, broadcast or transmission; or
b) Use in the promotion or sale of goods or services.'

Your written confirmation, together with your receipt, must be held by you for the entire duration that you are present in Kings Park and Botanic Garden or in Bold Park.So strictly speaking, unless you have a permit you can't even post a photo from King's Park on your Facebook page. I bet there aren't too many people aware of this (or the potential $1500 fine).



Cheers.

[Mathy]

I bet there aren't too many people aware of this (or the potential $1500 fine). :eek: !!!!!!

[ricktas]

Only if they were taken in Kings Park and Botanic Garden sites (or if you win). It is actually a condition (http://www.bgpa.wa.gov.au/bookings/film-and-photography/conditions-of-use)of the park:
So strictly speaking, unless you have a permit you can't even post a photo from King's Park on your Facebook page. I bet there aren't too many people aware of this (or the potential $1500 fine).


Cheers.

I think you are right on the money. Most councils have parks that if you look into it, you require a permit to take photos within those parks. Here in Hobart there are several, but the council itself seems to ignore most photographers unless you are there with a wedding, group of people and taking portraits with the garden as a back-drop. If you are there taking photos of the flowers etc, they seem to ignore you.

Certainly these rules in competitions are becoming more prevalent, and people need to read the rules carefully.

[blkmcs]

Only if they were taken in Kings Park and Botanic Garden sites (or if you win). It is actually a condition (http://www.bgpa.wa.gov.au/bookings/film-and-photography/conditions-of-use)of the park:
So strictly speaking, unless you have a permit you can't even post a photo from King's Park on your Facebook page. I bet there aren't too many people aware of this (or the potential $1500 fine).



Cheers.
That part relates only to commercial photography.

[ricktas]

That part relates only to commercial photography.

As facebook as been deemed as an 'advertising site' by the Australian Advertising Standards Bureau, posting them to FB could be deemed as advertising, and thus commercial, especially if posted on a 'photographers' page on FB.

[Longshots]

Ah but the competition organisers want the images for use in commercial situations :) Hysterical and hypocritical. Classic case of the council not reading its own T&Cs

OK as PhotoWatchDog (my organisation) I've been reviewing T&Cs of competitions for about 15 years - and on average I see about 300 a year - thats a lot of competitions and a lot of T&Cs.

Some competition organisers are quite open to advice and some do produce honest competitions.

Unfortunately many competitions are organised to gain images for free - or worse to simply make money on the entry fee and to also gain images for free.

By the way, I couldnt care less if the competitions are aimed at amateurs - do you think if you're an amateur that you have less rights ? Of course you dont. So be very wary of entering comps with these type of T&Cs as they are a legal minefield and the only people that gain from them are the cheapskates who put zero value on your photography.


Reading this competitions T&Cs I'd avoid like the plague. They're dreadful.

[geoffsta]

taking portraits with the garden as a back-drop.
Perfectly ok if using a point and shoot or mobile phone. But a DSLR would be a no no.:(

[Longshots]

well actually Geoff - it wouldnt matter - but I think I understand your point that a DSLR would gain more attention.

For the record, regardless of what the image is shot on, if its going to entered into a competition, then it ultimately can be used for commercial use.

Which you would think "well that might be debatable" or "well its only be used for the purpose of the competition"

But the real catch is that :

A) many competitions have a term which holds you the entrant liable if the subject "doesnt like" how the image is used
for example:

"b) You agree to indemnify, and hold Sponsor, its officers, directors, employees, contractors, agents and representatives (“Indemnitees”) harmless from and against any third party claim (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs) arising from any use of the Content. You waive (i) any right to publicity, privacy or moral rights relating to the Content or your participation in this Contest, and (ii) any right to inspect or approve uses of the Content or to be compensated for any such uses. To the extent these rights may not be waived legally, you agree not to assert them."

And the clincher is that

B) your entered image is often not restricted to the use by the competition, but is often extended to the sponsors, and affliate companies, or worse they then sell the copyright (which of course you may have also given away within in the T&Cs) to a third party/image library - which of course you agreed to an unlimited time to indemnify those who use your image.

Think thats a joke ? Or that I'm kidding ? This I'm afraid is norma. The joke is that even high profile photographers either dont care or cant be bothered - an example of what not to enter :
http://www.creativelive.com/content/creativelive-hair-makeup-flickr-contest

[Eberbachl]

*snip*...
Think thats a joke ? Or that I'm kidding ? This I'm afraid is norma. The joke is that even high profile photographers either dont care or cant be bothered - an example of what not to enter :
http://www.creativelive.com/content/creativelive-hair-makeup-flickr-contest

......


(ii) You agree that Content shall be, to the maximum extent eligible, a "work made for hire," under the U.S. Copyright Act, as amended, with all rights therein, including without limitation the exclusive copyright, being the property of Sponsor. Otherwise, if your entry or any element thereof is considered not to be a "work made for hire," you hereby unconditionally and irrevocably transfer to Sponsor all right, title, and interest in the Content (including, without limitation, the copyright) in any and all media whether now known or hereafter devised, in perpetuity, wherever produced or located, including without limitation the right to use, copy, distribute, perform, display and to create derivative works of the Content for advertising, trade, other commercial purposes or any other purpose.

(c) By submitting an entry, you grant Sponsor and its affiliated companies for a period of three (3) years from the end of the Contest Period, the right (except in the state of Tennessee and where otherwise prohibited by law), to use your name, likeness, picture, address (city and state), e-mail address, voice, biographical information, submission/entry and written or oral statements, for advertising and promotional purposes in promoting or publicizing the Contest, Sponsor and its goods and services, without compensation unless required by law. You shall have no right of approval, no claim to compensation, and no claim (including, without limitation, claims based on invasion of privacy, defamation, rights of integrity or attribution, or right of publicity) arising out of any use, blurring, alteration, or use in composite form of your name, image, picture, likeness, voice, address (city and state), e-mail address, biographical information, or entry. The rights granted under this paragraph shall extend to Sponsor and its affiliated companies and agents for all entrants in the Contest, including entrants who are selected as prize winners and those entrants who are not selected. Sponsor shall have no obligation to use the winning entries or any other entry for any purpose.

Whoa!

:eek:

Who would actually enter that 'competition'?!?!

[Xenedis]

Think thats a joke ? Or that I'm kidding ? This I'm afraid is norma.

While I have no interest in competitions, seeing the sorts of absurd T&Cs really irritates me, as these companies require photographers to sign away their rights, and I personally am sick and tired of photographers' rides being insidiously eroded.

As far as I'm concerned, if a company considers my image of sufficient standard for use in advertising and promotions, than it can pay me a sum commensurate with the worth of that image.

[Mark L]

......



Whoa!

:eek:

Who would actually enter that 'competition'?!?!

Ah, possibly the problem is, who would actually read the terms and conditions of that (or any) competition? :(

[Longshots]

And thats the crux of the matter - READ the terms and conditions - do not trust people to act ethically or morally - because its my experience that the majority of them dont.

[livio]

This has been a fantastic discussion and it really opens up your eyes. I just had a comment for Longshots. Your comments above are so true and well stated. Trust in this day and age is no longer a commodity and should be used sparingly unless you know who you are dealing with.

Kind Regards
Livio

[MissionMan]

I have to say, in their defence (because photo competitions aren't all bad), I've had a bit of luck with photo competitions.

As what I consider an amateur photographer, I've successfully won the following in photo comps over the last year:

1. Sports package worth $5K
2. $100 voucher
3. $1000 in coles vouchers
4. $400 visa card

I've given away rights to couple of photos but none of them were of spectacular commercial value and I've entered about 10 comps in total so my average rate on comps so far is about $650/photo which isn't far off commercial rates. Some have been suitable photos I've had in my library so work required was zero, other's I've created for the occasion, each of which took me a total of about half an hour to setup, post process etc.

Its not all photo taking, part of its about creativity to win, but realistically, I'll never be a pro tog. The reason I've entered has been purely creative curiosity, a challenge to see if I can win and push my creativity outside of the box. Part of the benefit of some of these comps is that no self respecting professional would enter (probably because of the terms and conditions) so it makes the competition a little easier.

[Longshots]

Well I'm immediately going to dispute your claim that you've only given away rights to a "couple of photos"

Utter rubbish. Sorry I dont believe that to be true.

Sorry, but that cannot be correct if you've entered 10 competitions, and won 4 - I know, I review them all of the time.

If you've listed four competition wins, you would have even under the best conditions as a term of receiving a prize at the very least agreed to, as a condition of entry, given a limited licence limited to the competition use, given away an unlimited licence for the competition use and beyond, or given away an unrestricted licence and given away the copyright making it impossible for even yourself to use within your own portfolio. By entering 10 then you have either been extraordinarily lucky, which I doubt severly, or you have not bothered to read or understood the terms and conditions of the competitions you've entered. Stastically it just doesnt make sense.

And I'm not saying all competitions are bad either, but I would be intrigued that you found 10 competitions to enter, that you won those amounts, and just 2 of the competitions you entered you only had to give the licence for use or copyright away ? no sorry, that doesnt happen.

If you said that out of the 10, you had to agree to give away the licence for use in ALL OF THEM, if you win - I'd believe that - as that is a standard.

If you said that out of the 10, you had to agree to give away the licence for use in 80% of them, just by entering - I'd believe that, as that is the statistics show.

If you said that out of the 10, you had to agree to give away the copyright for use in 40% of them, again just by entering - I'd believe that, as again that is what the statistics show

I would have to also say that you must be remarkably lucky if you're also suggesting that by saying you only had to give away rights to 2 images, you've won four competitions with just 10 images entered. Most people I know who enter competitions enter a number in each. So again I would surmise that you have very likely given away a great deal more images than the 2 you've suggested.

Now its your choice to do that, I have no argument with that choice - but please dont incorrectly defend competitions on this basis.

If you want to send me the competitions and relevant terms and conditions privately, I'll read through the T&Cs for you. If Im wrong I will write you a grovelling and lengthy apology. As I've been reviewing competitions T&Cs for over 15 years now, and on average check 300 a year, I have a fairly strong feeling that I wont be needing to provide you and the forum with that apology.

[MissionMan]

Well I'm immediately going to dispute your claim that you've only given away rights to a "couple of photos"

Utter rubbish. Sorry I dont believe that to be true.

Sorry, but that cannot be correct if you've entered 10 competitions, and won 4 - I know, I review them all of the time.

If you've listed four competition wins, you would have even under the best conditions as a term of receiving a prize at the very least agreed to, as a condition of entry, given a limited licence limited to the competition use, given away an unlimited licence for the competition use and beyond, or given away an unrestricted licence and given away the copyright making it impossible for even yourself to use within your own portfolio. By entering 10 then you have either been extraordinarily lucky, which I doubt severly, or you have not bothered to read or understood the terms and conditions of the competitions you've entered. Stastically it just doesnt make sense.

And I'm not saying all competitions are bad either, but I would be intrigued that you found 10 competitions to enter, that you won those amounts, and just 2 of the competitions you entered you only had to give the licence for use or copyright away ? no sorry, that doesnt happen.

If you said that out of the 10, you had to agree to give away the licence for use in ALL OF THEM, if you win - I'd believe that - as that is a standard.

If you said that out of the 10, you had to agree to give away the licence for use in 80% of them, just by entering - I'd believe that, as that is the statistics show.

If you said that out of the 10, you had to agree to give away the copyright for use in 40% of them, again just by entering - I'd believe that, as again that is what the statistics show

I would have to also say that you must be remarkably lucky if you're also suggesting that by saying you only had to give away rights to 2 images, you've won four competitions with just 10 images entered. Most people I know who enter competitions enter a number in each. So again I would surmise that you have very likely given away a great deal more images than the 2 you've suggested.

Now its your choice to do that, I have no argument with that choice - but please dont incorrectly defend competitions on this basis.

If you want to send me the competitions and relevant terms and conditions privately, I'll read through the T&Cs for you. If Im wrong I will write you a grovelling and lengthy apology. As I've been reviewing competitions T&Cs for over 15 years now, and on average check 300 a year, I have a fairly strong feeling that I wont be needing to provide you and the forum with that apology.

You're making the assumption that these are pure photography comps, rather than competitions that require a photo entry so creativity has a large role in the comp rather than pure photography. I'm also very selective about the comps I enter so I don't just go out and enter 25 comps, I see a comp, think of something really good I can use as an entry and then submit an entry based on that. If I can't think of anything that is very likely to give me a win, or if the comp is based on something like number of votes (in which case there are voting syndicates that will get more votes irrespective of the entry), I don't bother.

The giving away rights to a couple of comps was a reference rather than an exact number. The photos I've used have generally been ones I've created for the comp and never intend using again so even if I gave away all rights to the photo, I couldn't be bothered because I don't intend using them again.

[ricktas]

I have to say, in their defence (because photo competitions aren't all bad), I've had a bit of luck with photo competitions.

As what I consider an amateur photographer, I've successfully won the following in photo comps over the last year:

1. Sports package worth $5K
2. $100 voucher
3. $1000 in coles vouchers
4. $400 visa card

I've given away rights to couple of photos but none of them were of spectacular commercial value and I've entered about 10 comps in total so my average rate on comps so far is about $650/photo which isn't far off commercial rates...

It is also the 6 competitions you did not win a prize in. If their T&C are the same as some, then even though you did not win, you have given them ALL the rights to your entry photo(s). I have no issue with them using the winners photos, as they are compensated in some way. It is the use of ANY entered photo, and the acquisition of the rights over your photos, simply by entering that I find abhorrent.

This thread is not about what comps you choose to enter, but a good reminder for everyone to READ THE T&C before entering, and then decide if you want to enter (or not).

[Kym]

William knows his stuff in this space!

Bottom line, many comps today are merely photo harvesting - and that is really unconscionable esp.
when the organisation is a Govt Department (eg. Tourism here in SA as well as Envrionment) i.e where my taxes go.
The other obvious problem is a for profit commercial operation being cheap in how its gets promo images.

We do need to raise awareness and not feed the harvesters. :th3:

[MissionMan]

It is also the 6 competitions you did not win a prize in. If their T&C are the same as some, then even though you did not win, you have given them ALL the rights to your entry photo(s). I have no issue with them using the winners photos, as they are compensated in some way. It is the use of ANY entered photo, and the acquisition of the rights over your photos, simply by entering that I find abhorrent.

This thread is not about what comps you choose to enter, but a good reminder for everyone to READ THE T&C before entering, and then decide if you want to enter (or not).

But that's the risk you take. That's why its a competition and not a paid piece of work. If you want paid work where you are guaranteed to get something, you have the ability to draft your own contract.

I stand by my comments that the vast majority of these comps are aimed at amateur's or every day people that may want to submit a photo. In all likelihood, there are probably only about 5-10% of the photos that they could actually use.

I agree that people should read T&C's but the vast majority of people don't for almost everything in life. How many of you have even bothered to read the T&C's for the software you install on your machine? I reckon 1%, if that.

[Xenedis]

I've given away rights to couple of photos but none of them were of spectacular commercial value

To me, the photo doesn't have to be of any commercial value for the terms and conditions to be utterly unacceptable.

The issue that bothers me isn't the perceived (yours or the promoter's) worth of the image, but the fact that these 'competitions' insist that entrants give up all their rights.

To me that is not, and never will be, acceptable to me.

As the createor of my images, I will exert my right to determine how my images are used.

- - - Updated - - -


I stand by my comments that the vast majority of these comps are aimed at amateur's

It should be pointe out here that the term 'amateur' should not be taken to mean someone lacking in photographic capability or the sense to understand matters such as one's rights, although certainly there are people who fit the more negative interpretation of the description.

The most talented and capable photographers I know are amateurs; ie, they don't shoot images for a living.



In all likelihood, there are probably only about 5-10% of the photos that they could actually use.

And depending on the T&Cs of those competitions, the people who took the photos may unknowingly give away all their rights, meaning legally they would not be able to even post their snapshots on their MyTwitSpaceBook pages.



I agree that people should read T&C's but the vast majority of people don't for almost everything in life.

That is utterly foolish.

In the photographic realm, people like William are trying to change that behaviour.

To me, the fact that these competition promoters insist on people signing away their rights disgusts me. I don't care one iota about commercial value; I care about the fact that photographers' rights are being continually eroded, and that people are actually allowing that to happen, knowingly or unknowingly.

[Mark L]

But that's the risk you take. That's why its a competition and not a paid piece of work. If you want paid work where you are guaranteed to get something, you have the ability to draft your own contract.

I stand by my comments that the vast majority of these comps are aimed at amateur's or every day people that may want to submit a photo. In all likelihood, there are probably only about 5-10% of the photos that they could actually use.
......


And that "5-10% of photos" (some comps 100% of entries can be used) they are getting for free and taking away income from paid photographers, where you are guaranteed to get something.

[ricktas]

I agree that people should read T&C's but the vast majority of people don't for almost everything in life. How many of you have even bothered to read the T&C's for the software you install on your machine? I reckon 1%, if that.

Agreed. When I was in banking quite a few years ago, working OS. A bank decided to test that theory and in their home loan application terms and conditions, they included a clause that gave the first born of anyone who took out a loan, to the bank. Over 50,000 people signed that contract and not one commented on the clause. The Bank then published the results and wrote to everyone advising them that next time they should read the contract thoroughly, and that the Bank was amending the contract conditions to allow them to keep their first born.

Just goes to show that most people do not read contacts/t&c..which the should.

[Longshots]

You're making the assumption that these are pure photography comps, rather than competitions that require a photo entry so creativity has a large role in the comp rather than pure photography. I'm also very selective about the comps I enter so I don't just go out and enter 25 comps, I see a comp, think of something really good I can use as an entry and then submit an entry based on that. If I can't think of anything that is very likely to give me a win, or if the comp is based on something like number of votes (in which case there are voting syndicates that will get more votes irrespective of the entry), I don't bother.

The giving away rights to a couple of comps was a reference rather than an exact number. The photos I've used have generally been ones I've created for the comp and never intend using again so even if I gave away all rights to the photo, I couldn't be bothered because I don't intend using them again.

I'm making no assumptions - what I know is that you havent read the competition entry terms and conditions.

And a small but relevant reminder of what you said:


I have to say, in their defence (because photo competitions aren't all bad), I've had a bit of luck with photo competitions.



No, photo competitions aren't all bad - I've never said that - but I do know what are and what aren't, and because I check a huge number every year (because people send them to me and ask), I know what competitions are based on a photo entries and what aren't. So I will repeat what I said earlier - I don't believe a word of what you said (again with the offer I gave before which you have failed to take up)

And I'll just repeat that I simply do not believe that you have entered 10 competitions with just 10 images, and won 4 prizes. When you say that your giving away the rights to a "a couple of comps was a reference rather then an exact number"; (- hello ? what does that mean in your language then ? that's hilarious if it wasn't so misleading :sc ) I am then absolutely convinced that this is the biggest pile of misleading rubbish that I've read for some time.

Am I sounding harsh - yes because a) I don't appreciate being thought of an idiot, and b) I think others should be more motivated to please read the terms and conditions of ANY COMPETITION, as opposed to your fascinating theory that you don't care about your photography and don't care that some competitions insist that you cant even use it in your own portfolio in the future; that's if it is based on a photograph being entered, which is what you said in your first piece (that's the only assumption I'm making here - because this is a photography forum and its because that's what the OPs topic was all about), then there is without question going to be a term that covers the intellectual property, and c) if I wanted to read some adult fiction I would go to a writers forum. Quite simply, again I don't believe a word of what you call "in defence of competitions", and I find it a great shame that people feel that to prove a point that they can offer something so completely misleading.

- - - Updated - - -


But that's the risk you take. That's why its a competition and not a paid piece of work. If you want paid work where you are guaranteed to get something, you have the ability to draft your own contract.

I stand by my comments that the vast majority of these comps are aimed at amateur's or every day people that may want to submit a photo. In all likelihood, there are probably only about 5-10% of the photos that they could actually use.

I agree that people should read T&C's but the vast majority of people don't for almost everything in life. How many of you have even bothered to read the T&C's for the software you install on your machine? I reckon 1%, if that.

Apart from my inability to defy common sense and believe your original claim, you persist in arguing about something that you simply have no idea about.

Aimed at amateurs - so does that really matter who its aimed for - take of your blinkers for a moment! So does that mean because you absolutely zero - and I mean zero about what you're opening yourself up to, that I should take advantage of you, and offer you (and this is what it is ), a business practice that in the business world would be held up in State and Federal Laws as unconscionable conduct ?

While you persist with your "well I dont care attitude", be aware that when a fourth or fifth party who uses one of those images that you "dont care" about of say Uncle Bob with his niece walking down the beach that you entered into the Queensland Family of the Year Photo Comp, gets used in the next Paedophilia Awareness Campaign, dont come running to me asking for help, because I'll be pointing to that term where you can be held liable - here is one I quote earlier (very common BTW):


"b) You agree to indemnify, and hold Sponsor, its officers, directors, employees, contractors, agents and representatives (“Indemnitees”) harmless from and against any third party claim (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs) arising from any use of the Content. You waive (i) any right to publicity, privacy or moral rights relating to the Content or your participation in this Contest, and (ii) any right to inspect or approve uses of the Content or to be compensated for any such uses. To the extent these rights may not be waived legally, you agree not to assert them."


Your Uncle Bob might be a tad naffed off, and the family ties might unravel ver quickly, and when the legal sharks with the NO WIN NO FEE get hold of you, then you might like to open your mind to what I'm telling you, instead of offering fiction.

And to continue so where do you gain your information from that only 5-10% of images entered into competitions are used - lucky guess again ? I don't think so. Sadly those in the know, those who bother to understand this know that a VAST number of images are used and passed on, and SOLD - yes SOLD - its a commodity. I cant believe you can be so naive about this I'm afraid. There is one thing that I patiently explain to people to be aware, and to be careful, that what they're dealing with and giving away for free is a COMMODITY. And peoples images are used, sold on, and traded.

Fortunately one particular gov has I believe just axed their substantial image bank that has been solely filled from images that have been entered into government departments photo competitions - 100% filled with images from those competitions. Sorry Mission Man - but you have no understanding of how prolific this is.

One competition about 15 years ago made me motivated. The competition was substantial - "world class" - and images were sought from both Amateurs and Pros - with prizes for the top sections of both - the books, the greetings cards, the images for sale, produce a multi million dollar profit for that company - they had a number of incredibly popular books that just sold and sold - and to this day I"m still seeing some of mine, and my colleagues and friends work being sold on and turning up on greetings cards, brochures etc. Fortunately that business went into receivership, and those individuals lost their business.

Would anyone like to guess what the receiver found to be the most valuable commodity left in the financial ruins of that disgraceful company ? Yep, the images !!

And Mission Man; we also clearly have different interpretations what the meaning of competition is - competition does not , or should not include a way of getting people to give you something for free - (if you can find me any similar analogy I would welcome it) - it means the act of competing where a winner or winners are chosen from those who have entered; or the act of competing.

Nope I looked really carefully, and I cant find anything that describes it as a way of gathering intellectual property for free, and in some cases persuade the entrants to also pay to have the right to have their intellectual property taken from them and then to be held legally liable for infinity (again don't think I'm joking, I'm quoting one of the terms of liability from a photo competition I reviewed this week).

What you're also failing to understand when you talk about Terms and Conditions and that no one reads them - well actually I do; but the main reason is that few read them, is that they are in general protected by state and federal law on the issue of unfair business - or its covered under unconscionable conduct - the sad part is that Photo Competitions are in a state of a legal loop hole, and while I have no doubts that I could personally rip apart the contract by any of these competition organisers, the reality is that there is no legal protection, and that the gov don't want to offer legal protection as they are some of the worst offenders in this case.

Having said all of that, its a huge bonus when competition organisers accept my suggestions and offers of assistance, and that they then produce photographically based competitions that are fair to both themselves and the entrants. FYI I work closely with Nikon, Canon, Epson, Fuji, NSW State Gov, Brisbane City Council, Tourism Australia and many other companies and organisations.

[Willow5075]

very informative discussion, I intend to read things VERY carefully from now on. I haven't yet entered any of these sort of competitions so I'm pleased because forewarned is forearmed :o

[MissionMan]

I'm making no assumptions - what I know is that you havent read the competition entry terms and conditions.

And a small but relevant reminder of what you said:




No, photo competitions aren't all bad - I've never said that - but I do know what are and what aren't, and because I check a huge number every year (because people send them to me and ask), I know what competitions are based on a photo entries and what aren't. So I will repeat what I said earlier - I don't believe a word of what you said (again with the offer I gave before which you have failed to take up)

And I'll just repeat that I simply do not believe that you have entered 10 competitions with just 10 images, and won 4 prizes. When you say that your giving away the rights to a "a couple of comps was a reference rather then an exact number"; (- hello ? what does that mean in your language then ? that's hilarious if it wasn't so misleading :sc ) I am then absolutely convinced that this is the biggest pile of misleading rubbish that I've read for some time.

Am I sounding harsh - yes because a) I don't appreciate being thought of an idiot, and b) I think others should be more motivated to please read the terms and conditions of ANY COMPETITION, as opposed to your fascinating theory that you don't care about your photography and don't care that some competitions insist that you cant even use it in your own portfolio in the future; that's if it is based on a photograph being entered, which is what you said in your first piece (that's the only assumption I'm making here - because this is a photography forum and its because that's what the OPs topic was all about), then there is without question going to be a term that covers the intellectual property, and c) if I wanted to read some adult fiction I would go to a writers forum. Quite simply, again I don't believe a word of what you call "in defence of competitions", and I find it a great shame that people feel that to prove a point that they can offer something so completely misleading.

- - - Updated - - -



Apart from my inability to defy common sense and believe your original claim, you persist in arguing about something that you simply have no idea about.

Aimed at amateurs - so does that really matter who its aimed for - take of your blinkers for a moment! So does that mean because you absolutely zero - and I mean zero about what you're opening yourself up to, that I should take advantage of you, and offer you (and this is what it is ), a business practice that in the business world would be held up in State and Federal Laws as unconscionable conduct ?

While you persist with your "well I dont care attitude", be aware that when a fourth or fifth party who uses one of those images that you "dont care" about of say Uncle Bob with his niece walking down the beach that you entered into the Queensland Family of the Year Photo Comp, gets used in the next Paedophilia Awareness Campaign, dont come running to me asking for help, because I'll be pointing to that term where you can be held liable - here is one I quote earlier (very common BTW):



Your Uncle Bob might be a tad naffed off, and the family ties might unravel ver quickly, and when the legal sharks with the NO WIN NO FEE get hold of you, then you might like to open your mind to what I'm telling you, instead of offering fiction.

And to continue so where do you gain your information from that only 5-10% of images entered into competitions are used - lucky guess again ? I don't think so. Sadly those in the know, those who bother to understand this know that a VAST number of images are used and passed on, and SOLD - yes SOLD - its a commodity. I cant believe you can be so naive about this I'm afraid. There is one thing that I patiently explain to people to be aware, and to be careful, that what they're dealing with and giving away for free is a COMMODITY. And peoples images are used, sold on, and traded.

Fortunately one particular gov has I believe just axed their substantial image bank that has been solely filled from images that have been entered into government departments photo competitions - 100% filled with images from those competitions. Sorry Mission Man - but you have no understanding of how prolific this is.

One competition about 15 years ago made me motivated. The competition was substantial - "world class" - and images were sought from both Amateurs and Pros - with prizes for the top sections of both - the books, the greetings cards, the images for sale, produce a multi million dollar profit for that company - they had a number of incredibly popular books that just sold and sold - and to this day I"m still seeing some of mine, and my colleagues and friends work being sold on and turning up on greetings cards, brochures etc. Fortunately that business went into receivership, and those individuals lost their business.

Would anyone like to guess what the receiver found to be the most valuable commodity left in the financial ruins of that disgraceful company ? Yep, the images !!

And Mission Man; we also clearly have different interpretations what the meaning of competition is - competition does not , or should not include a way of getting people to give you something for free - (if you can find me any similar analogy I would welcome it) - it means the act of competing where a winner or winners are chosen from those who have entered; or the act of competing.

Nope I looked really carefully, and I cant find anything that describes it as a way of gathering intellectual property for free, and in some cases persuade the entrants to also pay to have the right to have their intellectual property taken from them and then to be held legally liable for infinity (again don't think I'm joking, I'm quoting one of the terms of liability from a photo competition I reviewed this week).

What you're also failing to understand when you talk about Terms and Conditions and that no one reads them - well actually I do; but the main reason is that few read them, is that they are in general protected by state and federal law on the issue of unfair business - or its covered under unconscionable conduct - the sad part is that Photo Competitions are in a state of a legal loop hole, and while I have no doubts that I could personally rip apart the contract by any of these competition organisers, the reality is that there is no legal protection, and that the gov don't want to offer legal protection as they are some of the worst offenders in this case.

Having said all of that, its a huge bonus when competition organisers accept my suggestions and offers of assistance, and that they then produce photographically based competitions that are fair to both themselves and the entrants. FYI I work closely with Nikon, Canon, Epson, Fuji, NSW State Gov, Brisbane City Council, Tourism Australia and many other companies and organisations.

1. I will verify my claims in a private message (on the proviso they remain confidential). if you want proof, I'm happy to provide it but I don't want information of the competitions or sponsors made public. If you want me to verify my claim, send me a PM and I'll send you details. I can even copy you on the emails if you want. As mentioned, my conditions on this is that it remains off the public domain.

2. Well, for one, complaining about the terms and conditions here won't change much when the vast majority of people entering the competition are likely to be people who have and never will go to this site. Wouldn't it be better to lobby the government to have the legislation changed to prevent this type of exploitation? I'm not trying to insult you, just asking whether this is an option you have pursued or just whether you just think they won't change? Sure the best route (if you feel that strongly about it) would be to pursue avenues which make the public aware of the dangers or create enough bad publicity for the government that they are forced to change legislation.

3. The vast majority of images I create for comps have no value outside of the competition so they could sell my stock to 25000 organizations, I honestly don't care. If you PM me for details you'd understand why.

[ricktas]

Mission Man, I do not think you realise who longshots (William) is? He holds the role of competition watchdog for the AIPP. In other words it is his job to contact competition organisers and point out why/how their rules are unjust and work with the competition organisers to amend them.

http://acmp.com.au/photography-competitions-guidance/

http://www.aipp.com.au/AIPP/About_AIPP/AIPP_Governance/AIPP_Sub_Committees/AIPP/About_AIPP/AIPP_Sub-Committees.aspx?hkey=ab39956a-0483-4dd6-8120-5bc276221992

http://www.fotopriority.com.au/tag/australian-institute-of-professional-photography/

what you are asking for in your post above, is exactly what Longshots does! He is very highly regarding within the photography industry and his direct action has resulted in hundreds of photography competitions having their rules amended.

[MissionMan]

Mission Man, I do not think you realise who longshots (William) is? He holds the role of competition watchdog for the AIPP. In other words it is his job to contact competition organisers and point out why/how their rules are unjust and work with the competition organisers to amend them.

http://acmp.com.au/photography-competitions-guidance/

http://www.aipp.com.au/AIPP/About_AIPP/AIPP_Governance/AIPP_Sub_Committees/AIPP/About_AIPP/AIPP_Sub-Committees.aspx?hkey=ab39956a-0483-4dd6-8120-5bc276221992

http://www.fotopriority.com.au/tag/australian-institute-of-professional-photography/

what you are asking for in your post above, is exactly what Longshots does! He is very highly regarding within the photography industry and his direct action has resulted in hundreds of photography competitions having their rules amended.

Thanks Rick. Good to know. I guess that answers my question.

[Longshots]

Its actually my own organisation of my own making

PhotoWatchDog

I actually represent nearly 200,000 photographers - and that includes AIPP, ACMP, PICA etc on the issue of photo competitions. While wanting to produce my own website, I've not had time to do it - as I'm always chasing Photo Competitions.

Also I've been involved with another world wide organisation on this issue called Artists Bill of Rights :
http://artists-bill-of-rights.org/

I personally prefer a different approach here in Australia - and as I have most of the photographic organisations and manafacturers on side, I prefer to keep PhotoWatchDog autonomous, as I've proved its a succesful approach.

I said to you Misson Man, that you could PM me - I wouldnt think you need additional confirmation that it would of course be confidential, but if you insist on pointing out the obvious - yes its confidential.

Point 1 - well I've asked you twice to supply details (why the secrecy - that in itself is ridiculous - most people who win competitions are only to happy to let the world know) up to you now - I doubt I will be reading how you won four competitions and only gave away your rights to 2 - ever since you said this:


a couple of comps was a reference rather then an exact number

On your point 2 -



2. Well, for one, complaining about the terms and conditions here won't change much when the vast majority of people entering the competition are likely to be people who have and never will go to this site. Wouldn't it be better to lobby the government to have the legislation changed to prevent this type of exploitation? I'm not trying to insult you, just asking whether this is an option you have pursued or just whether you just think they won't change? Sure the best route (if you feel that strongly about it) would be to pursue avenues which make the public aware of the dangers or create enough bad publicity for the government that they are forced to change legislation.


I cant stop someone being extraordinarily stupid - and this is a classic case - I've told you what I do and you then want to offer me suggestions on what I should be doing - I DO THAT ALREADY !- read my last posts - with people like you out there I wonder why I bother - you deserve what you agree to.

your point 3 -



3. The vast majority of images I create for comps have no value outside of the competition so they could sell my stock to 25000 organizations, I honestly don't care. If you PM me for details you'd understand why.

I cant offer an opinion on that lack of logic. With that type of selfish approach it doesnt help anyone. So they sell your non winning image, to 25000 organisations (which hypothetically is unlikely) at lets say $2 a pop (also unlikely it would be much more) - because its a crap picture and has "no value to you" - hello lets do the maths genius $50,000 has no value to you - funny but I recall you talking about the value of your images in your first post at $650 per image over 10 images in 10 competitions. Trouble is with fiction is that it never has to refer to fact. So good luck to you - first time I've encountered such a response after I've highlighted the type of legal pitfalls you open yourself up to.


Thanks Rick. Good to know. I guess that answers my question.

And what question was that Misson Man - my identity is no secret - seems you have no name, no profile, no website, no images ?

- - - Updated - - -

Sent you a PM Mission Man - feel free to respond.

[Epicaricacy]

hypothetical question... If I take two photos in succession, and enter one of them in a comp such as this, can I use the second one for the 'commercial purposes'. What if they are identical, but I can prove difference via EXIF? What if one blade of grass has blown in the wind and thus slightly changed the image?

This is merely hypothetical and I'm not being a smart alec, but perhaps photographers could use burst mode :). Is it the image itself, or the likeness they suddenly own?

great info anyway. Perhaps Longshot will get in touch with the Kings Park board and point out their crap conditions.

[ricktas]

hypothetical question... If I take two photos in succession, and enter one of them in a comp such as this, can I use the second one for the 'commercial purposes'. What if they are identical, but I can prove difference via EXIF? What if one blade of grass has blown in the wind and thus slightly changed the image?

This is merely hypothetical and I'm not being a smart alec, but perhaps photographers could use burst mode :). Is it the image itself, or the likeness they suddenly own?

great info anyway. Perhaps Longshot will get in touch with the Kings Park board and point out their crap conditions.

Answer is YES, you can do anything you want with the second photo. If the T&C of entering are such that you give them all rights over the photo, it is simply just THAT ONE photo.

[Lance B]

While I have no interest in competitions, seeing the sorts of absurd T&Cs really irritates me, as these companies require photographers to sign away their rights, and I personally am sick and tired of photographers' rides being insidiously eroded.

As far as I'm concerned, if a company considers my image of sufficient standard for use in advertising and promotions, than it can pay me a sum commensurate with the worth of that image.

Well said. I am also getting sick and tired of photographers rights being eroded at every turn. :angry0:

[Longshots]

I'd love to have the time to point out to photo comp organisers when they produce unfair T&Cs - but there are so many that its close to impossible. I choose the ones that tend to be the most "seen". Most of the time it takes anything from a few full days - or a few weeks to communicate with each individual case. Its a time and financial sucker, and it gains me nothing other then grief ( to be honest and blunt). Few people appreciate whats involved, and the type of hostility it can produce. I do it because I'm passionate about what is effectively a legally approved scam. The easiest message I can deliver if READ the T&C's and do not EVER trust an organisation, a government body, to be doing the right thing. My experience is that 80% of all competitions are produced to provide a vehicle for the organisers to acquire images at very little cost.

I have no problem with ones where there is a genuine prize, and that the use of all entrants images are necessary for the promotion of the life of the competition. Its when the images (ALL OF THEM) are "claimed" by the organisers (often with a little smoke and mirrors, saying that you the photographer keep the copyright), by stating that the photographers "gives" them an unrestricted licence to use them for everything and anything in the future (even "including media still to be invented" !).

gets worse of course, because the people who put these T&C together dont only want your images, but want you to be legally held liable for how those images are used by them and or others that they sell or give your images too. Dont believe me ? Its there in Black and White, and its clearly unfair, but I've even pointed this blatant type of unfairness out to State Governments and Federal Governments who I've caught using that approach.

There will always be those out there who are too selfish, or just couldnt give a stuff about anyone else - I meet plenty of people like that on the roads every day - the best thing to fight this is to stand up and complain - simple and effective.

[ricktas]

William. I know you to have had to put up with some rather unpleasant interactions in your role. I would like to say, from me, that it is appreciated, and that I certainly think you need to be told a bit more often how much your role is appreciated. Sometimes a simple 'thank you' can be a powerful couple of words, that can make a bad day turn around. So...THANK YOU!

[MarkChap]

here here, Rick.

And from em, William, I too, say Thank You

[norwest]

From an annual comp run by by a government Catchment Management Authority in my region. Same ol same ol.

http://www.namoi.cma.nsw.gov.au/912950.html
http://www.namoi.cma.nsw.gov.au/photographic_competition_2012____rules.pdf


Rules of entry

4. Prints must be 4 x 6 inches (10 x 15cm).
No exceptions. Negatives of photographs may be
required to allow enlargement to display size. The
entrant should sign the declaration on the entry
form to confirm that the negative is available and
will be made available to the Namoi Catchment
Management Authority should they require it for
enlargement purposes. All digital images must be
printed on photo quality paper and be accompanied
by an electronic version.

8. The copyright of each entry submitted
remains with the photographers, however, the
Namoi Catchment Management Authority reserves
the right to use any entry for promotional purposes
or for reproduction in publications or displays.

[Xenedis]

From an annual comp run by by a government Catchment Management Authority in my region. Same ol same ol.


Prints must be 4 x 6 inches (10 x 15cm).

No problem.


Negatives of photographs may be required

Not a chance!


The entrant should sign the declaration on the entry form to confirm that the negative is available and will be made available to the Namoi Catchment Management Authority

Bzzzzzzzt. Not gonna happen.


All digital images must be printed on photo quality paper and be accompanied by an electronic version.

No real issue there, but if the promoters are being so picky about print size and quality, if they have the digital image they can print it themselves.


The copyright of each entry submitted remains with the photographers

As indeed it should.


Namoi Catchment Management Authority reserves the right to use any entry for promotional purposes or for reproduction in publications or displays.

If the NCMA wishes to use my images for promotional purposes, it can pay me for a licence to do so.

[norwest]

If the NCMA wishes to use my images for promotional purposes, it can pay me for a licence to do so.

Ditto

[MissionMan]

Here is another set of scary terms and conditions:

http://www.harveynormanphotos.com.au/babycomp13