Comp Rules

[DacrimL]

Was going to enter a local comp the other week but when got around to reading the rules I came across this


By entering the Contest, all Entrants grant non-exclusive license to the Winton Wetlands Committee of Management INC, to reproduce, distribute, display and create derivative works of the entries (along with a name credit) in connection with the Contest and promotion of the Contest, in any media now or hereafter known, including, but not limited to: exhibit; produce publications (marketing material etc); online at the Winton Wetlands website or any social media pages; print media.


So being relatively new to this sort of rules etc.......could someone please explain in plain English for me.
To me it seems they are asking the entrant to sign over the copyright to the images......right or wrong?

[Brigitte]

I don't enter comps other then those on this site but my limited Legal English skills make me believe that you are handing over copyright:nod:

[Tannin]

In one word, yes. For a commercial organisation, this is a huge no-no. But in this case, we are talking about a for-the-public-good organisation working to restore important natural habitat. The sort of organisation, in other words, which you would be pleased and happy to support by donating a photograph to, so that they can reserve their very limited funding for actual on-ground conservation work.

If you happen to win the comp, well, that's just an added bonus. By all means enter, and the best of luck with it.

[Mark L]

I'll underline what I think is the important bit here,
"By entering the Contest, all Entrants grant non-exclusive license to the Winton Wetlands Committee of Management INC, to reproduce, distribute, display and create derivative works of the entries (along with a name credit) in connection with the Contest and promotion of the Contest,... .
Seems any other use of your photo isn't covered.

[bobt]

I think Mark is probably right, but it would have to be one of the worst attempts at legalise I've seen in a club. Basically, clubs retain the right to use your images in promoting the club and that's about it. I have no objection to that, and would probably feel flattered if that was the extent of it. The passage you have quoted is poorly constructed and ambiguous and if I were a member I'd suggest a re-write in plain English. It needs to be crystal clear and not require any interpretation or be open to abuse or misunderstanding.

[Tannin]

^ It's not a club. It is a non-profit conservation organisation devoted to the restoration of the Winton Wetlands.

[bobt]

^ It's not a club. It is a non-profit conservation organisation devoted to the restoration of the Winton Wetlands.

Same deal really. I think entrants should expect that they use the images for promoting their cause - that's why they have competitions like that. However, the wording of the agreement still needs to be clear, unequivocal and readily understood by all concerned. Probably someone on their committee having a serious attack of "I wish I'd been a lawyer". :D

[Tannin]

^ Reckon so.

[ricktas]

We have similar in our rules here on AP. We don't ask for exclusive rights to the image, we do not seek to acquire copyright. Sadly we have to have a rule like this so that you grant us permission to display your copyright work on the web, onto other people's computers, etc. The legal world is getting so licentious that protecting site owners and competition organisers means we have to have your permission to display your copyrighted work anywhere, even as in AP's case, we just display to on the site, to other members.

The only bit in their conditions that is outside of simply running a competition is that they can use your image into the future. So it is up to you if you decide you want that.



By entering the Contest, all Entrants grant non-exclusive license to the Winton Wetlands Committee of Management INC, to reproduce, distribute, display and create derivative works of the entries (along with a name credit) in connection with the Contest and promotion of the Contest

This bit simply lets them display your entry, you are giving them permission to show your entry to judges, the public, etc, in relation to the actual competition. The non-exclusive part means you are still free to do whatever you want with your photograph.


...in any media now or hereafter known, including, but not limited to: exhibit; produce publications (marketing material etc); online at the Winton Wetlands website or any social media pages; print media.

This is the bit that lets them use your entry into the future. It is quite good in that it lets them use it, but it does not let them sell it.

If a competition seeks to gain exclusive licence to use, and sell your image, then you are basically giving it away to the organisers and you cannot use the image ever again. I think the above rules are not to bad as far as competitions go.

Now here is the bit most members probably never read in the rules for Ausphotography:

LICENCE OF YOUR PROVIDED CONTENT TO AUSPHOTOGRAPHY


[25] You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services provided by Ausphotography. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Ausphotography a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Ausphotography to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in site rules.

[26] You agree that this license includes a right for Ausphotography to make such Content available to other companies, organisations or individuals with whom Ausphotography has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services. Eg. Ausphotography makes content available via Tapatalk or Forum Runner (mobile device interfaces) and other such applications.

[27] You understand that Ausphotography, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Ausphotography to take these actions. Eg. Content maybe re-factored for various browsers or mobile devices.

[28] You confirm and warrant to Ausphotography that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license.


Simply again, this legally gives us the right to store and share any photos you upload. It covers us in case we resize etc a photo (as we do for the home page of the site), where winners photos are resized to 300 pixels high. The above is a lot of legal jargon, simply so you have given us permission to store and share your photos across the internet. You own copyright to your photos, so we (AP) cannot go sharing them, displaying them on other peoples monitors, phones etc, without your permission to do so.

Again a lot of legal jargon that we have to have, thanks to the litigious nature of the world we live in. Last thing I need is someone trying to sue me cause I as the owner of AP, put a copy of their photo on the site home page and thus shared it with the world, without having the photographers permission to do so.

[DacrimL]

Thank you for clearing that up Rick.

So the next question is why make all this much needed legal jargon so incomprehensible, where one needs a legal mind to understand it.
And as it now happens the competition is closed so I missed out, but that is OK, I will know for next time

[ricktas]

Thank you for clearing that up Rick.

So the next question is why make all this much needed legal jargon so incomprehensible, where one needs a legal mind to understand it.
And as it now happens the competition is closed so I missed out, but that is OK, I will know for next time

it is incomprehensible cause it is written by lawyers :D I am sure they do it to confuse most people, but also by at least using a lawyer to have it written you can be sure you are covering your arse as much as possible against any attempt to sue you. Or it just confuses the punter into thinking I cannot sue cause I think I have given my rights away..so they decide not to even try :nod:

[MattNQ]

And as it now happens the competition is closed so I missed out, but that is OK, I will know for next time

Hi DacrimL,

If ever in doubt in the future, have a read of William Long's (aka Longshots) pages. He puts in a lot of work checking the T&C's of these sort of competitions.

website
http://longshots.com.au/photo-watch-dog/

Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/PhotoWatchDog/

[Hamster]

This is also a very good source of info
http://www.artists-bill-of-rights.org/guides/guides/guide-to-rights-%26-licensing/

Generally look for a non exclusive licence being granted. Never give away copyright. Giving a licence is different to giving copyright, know the difference.

Look for a time limit on the licence. That competition you gave as an example, as Rick said, has reasonable terms, one thing that would make them even more reasonable would be limiting the use of the photos in conjunction with the advertising of the competition for a period of say 3 years.

Check that moral rights are going to be adhered to and that there is no signing away of moral rights. The example in that comp is that they say (along with a name credit). The right of correct attribution is a moral right, it is not the only one. It's worth knowing what moral rights are.

It also says for use in connection with the competition only, which is good.

Conversely a rights grabbing competition, and there are many of these, including ones run by government departments like the tourism board, will ask you to give an exclusive, perpetual license (or the copyright itself :eek:) for use in any way and will say that moral rights will not be guaranteed or even just say you're signing those away as well. Non exclusive is no better.

The West Australian over here, regularly runs such rights grabbing competitions. My advice, stay clear, but if you don't care about someone else profiting from your images with no credit, payment or acknowledgement to yourself, then go for it.

Edit - Not all poorly worded rules are a deliberate rights grabbing exercise. Some will be lazy lawyers looking to cover themselves and just taking liberties in doing so. They're paid enough to get it right, so I have no respect for that as a reason either.

[John King]

Anyone can write something that means something.

Lawyers have to write things that mean one thing, and one thing only. Now THAT'S bloody difficult ...

[bobt]

Anyone can write something that means something.

Lawyers have to write things that mean one thing, and one thing only. Now THAT'S bloody difficult ...

Not as difficult as they have always tended to make it. It is a characteristic of elitist groups in society to make their communications seem loftier and more exclusive than the citizenship. It is part of the power structure evident in religion, government etc.

In recent years, this has changed and thus the term "Plain English" was born. Writing something which both means something but is also clear is not rocket science. Difficult, maybe, but not impossible and yet so many lawyers prefer to cloud their intent in language which is deliberately and unnecessarily convoluted. The recent issues with citizenship and politicians provide a good example of a disconnect between intent and eventual application of legal writing. Sometimes common sense and a good grasp of the language matter more than a law degree!

[feathers]

Not as difficult as they have always tended to make it. It is a characteristic of elitist groups in society to make their communications seem loftier and more exclusive than the citizenship. It is part of the power structure evident in religion, government etc.

In recent years, this has changed and thus the term "Plain English" was born. Writing something which both means something but is also clear is not rocket science. Difficult, maybe, but not impossible and yet so many lawyers prefer to cloud their intent in language which is deliberately and unnecessarily convoluted. The recent issues with citizenship and politicians provide a good example of a disconnect between intent and eventual application of legal writing. Sometimes common sense and a good grasp of the language matter more than a law degree!

Well said:th3:

[John King]

Bob, as just one of tens of thousands of examples, every single word in s.51 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 has been judicially interpreted by the full bench of the High Court of Australia. Why would this be necessary if it is so straightforward?

Making something mean one thing and one thing only is a lot more difficult than you seem to think.

Disclosure: while I am not a lawyer, I have done a double major in law as both an undergraduate and postgraduate student. I have also had quite a lot to do with legal interpretation in courts and elsewhere.

[bobt]

Bob, as just one of tens of thousands of examples, every single word in s.51 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 has been judicially interpreted by the full bench of the High Court of Australia. Why would this be necessary if it is so straightforward?

Making something mean one thing and one thing only is a lot more difficult than you seem to think.

Disclosure: while I am not a lawyer, I have done a double major in law as both an undergraduate and postgraduate student. I have also had quite a lot to do with legal interpretation in courts and elsewhere.

Hi John,

I'm not suggesting for a moment that all legislation is able to be simplified, and clearly there is a massive difference between Income tax law and the regulation of camera clubs. Drawing comparisons between the two would be no more useful than comparing the building specifications for the opera house and a backyard cubby house. Your example is not really applicable to the general premise, which is that legislation does not always need to be convoluted and complex in order to achieve a desired end.

Indeed it has been shown that complexity increases the likelihood of ambiguity, and provides greater opportunity for misinterpretation. I too have had experience in drafting and interpreting both government legislation and camera club rules and regulations. As it happens I am currently re-wording and simplifying my local state interclub rules, which have remained reasonably static for some years. Language evolves over time, and if you examine legalese from past years you will often find that the complexity of yesterday is no longer either necessary or desirable today. Sometimes complexity is necessary (as in your taxation example), but often it is not. I have encountered many wannabe lawyers who draft rules and regulations with all the flourish of an 18th century poet, but which fail to achieve the most fundamental characteristics such documents should have.

The bottom line lies in simplicity and clarity. Often these elements are missing, which results in incomprehensible documents which fail to achieve their fundamental purpose. So, in answer to your question, the complexity of a rule varies in proportion to the complexity of the issue. Camera club rules are nowhere near complicated enough to require the complexity of taxation legislation.