SMH article on Photo Competitions

[Glen]

http://blogs.smh.com.au/photographers/a ... print.html

An article in the SMH discussing the proliferation of the promoter takes everything comp

[Alpha_7]

Thanks for the link Glen, I've been turned of entering numerous competitions over the last year or so because of they take full rights if you enter its such a dodgey way to steal peoples images in the guise of a competition.

[Glen]

We actually discussed the Relationships comp here, they plan to make a book out of the entrants images but only the top ones get a prize! Nice idea if you can get it, have 100 guys work for you and only pay the top 10. I can understand why you stopped entering, Craig

[aim54x]

well i think that has killed my desire to enter more photocomps. I submitted one for Sydney Life not long ago, wonder when they announce stuff for that one. Hmm maybe I should just print out that photo a few times and for personal use, and say that i had those prints prior to entering.

[Reschsmooth]

This was raised on this forum a while ago, and since then, I don't enter competitions with T&C which provide the promoter perpetual and unrestricted copyright of my images. The ones I have entered (Moran, Head-On, DSLRUsers) maintain copyright with the entrant.

[kiwi]

I can see the potential for competition holders to mis-use images. But, is there any evidence that it's actually occurred ?

[gstark]

But, is there any evidence that it's actually occurred ?

Is that the point? If the organisers are not intending to do this, then they should make it clear, up front. They do not.

With respect, it's very easy to put more contestant-friendly wording into the T&C. The mere fact that the decision is made to not do this is a serious cause for concern, and is, I believe, the point.

[kiwi]

But, is there any evidence that it's actually occurred ?

Is that the point? If the organisers are not intending to do this, then they should make it clear, up front. They do not.

With respect, it's very easy to put more contestant-friendly wording into the T&C. The mere fact that the decision is made to not do this is a serious cause for concern, and is, I believe, the point.

Sorry, the question should have been more accutely directed. I am in total agreement that the practice is poor. My local shopping centre management held a competition recently where they did exactly this, and when I protested they said well, no-one would do that, and unfortuntely I could not come up with a precedent.

[Greg B]

Thanks Glen, very interesting reading.

There have been many instances of photographs being used without the photographer's permission. This is
a case of sharp practices to obtain copyright in perpetuity. If you make the conditions long enough and
difficult enough to read, you can guarantee that entrants won't read them, but will happily acknowledge and
accept them. We do it everytime when installing software - how many of us read the EULA or whatever
before ticking the "accept" box so we can continue with the installation?

The transfer of copyright forever is a serious business, and notwithstanding the information in the conditions
of entry, should be subject to an additional acknowledgement.

1. I acknowledge the terms of entry
2. I acknowledge that I will lose all rights to the photograph forever

[Reschsmooth]

The transfer of copyright forever is a serious business, and notwithstanding the information in the conditions
of entry, should be subject to an additional acknowledgement.

1. I acknowledge the terms of entry
2. I acknowledge that I will lose all rights to the photograph forever

Whilst that is logical, it assumes that every other term and condition is less important. If the notion of irrevocably transferring your copyright to the promotor is that important to you, then simply read the terms and conditions and decide whether to enter based on that.

Again, we get to a position of moral outrage at something which is legal and voluntary. Of the T&C I have read, I found it reasonably clear what the copyright conditions were and have been able to make an informed choice.

But then again, I read my insurance policy documents.

[gstark]

and when I protested they said well, no-one would do that, and unfortuntely I could not come up with a precedent.

You don't need to come up with a precedent. Rather, ask them why they have that wording, unless that is their intent. If it isn't their intent, they need to make that crystal clear. Otherwise, they can always change their mind. If, as they say, "no-one would do that", then they should be prepared to put that in the T&C.

It's not a matter of taking them on trust; they're business, and they will do whatever they wish, regardless of what they might say.

[Reschsmooth]

and when I protested they said well, no-one would do that, and unfortuntely I could not come up with a precedent.

You don't need to come up with a precedent. Rather, ask them why they have that wording, unless that is their intent. If it isn't their intent, they need to make that crystal clear. Otherwise, they can always change their mind. If, as they say, "no-one would do that", then they should be prepared to put that in the T&C.

It's not a matter of taking them on trust; they're business, and they will do whatever they wish, regardless of what they might say.

And take the hypothetical one step further: assume the local shopping centre is owned by a small company who you trust (because small companies are trustworthy as opposed to large ones ). Now assume that Westfield or AMP or someone takeover the shopping centre - the copyright would, presumably, transfer to the new owner. Do you trust them?

[Greg B]

The transfer of copyright forever is a serious business, and notwithstanding the information in the conditions
of entry, should be subject to an additional acknowledgement.

1. I acknowledge the terms of entry
2. I acknowledge that I will lose all rights to the photograph forever

Whilst that is logical, it assumes that every other term and condition is less important.

Well, it probably is.

If the notion of irrevocably transferring your copyright to the promotor is that important to you, then simply read the terms and conditions and decide whether to enter based on that.

Again, we get to a position of moral outrage at something which is legal and voluntary. Of the T&C I have read, I found it reasonably clear what the copyright conditions were and have been able to make an informed choice.

But then again, I read my insurance policy documents.

Well Patrick, you are a freak (and I mean that in the nicest possible way )

You are absolutely right, of course. Although there are precedents in other areas of life where the fine print
cannot be used to gain an unexpectedly severe benefit. Say you entered your house in a "Best Kept House"
contest and the fine print included a provision that you were obliged to give the house to the sponsor?
Of course, it sounds ridiculous, but it is just a matter of degree.

Yes, the T&C might be legal and entry might be voluntary, but would a reasonable person expect that by
entering something in a competition, they would lose all rights to that thing? You and I would, but you read
everything and I always expect the worst.

Why does a competition need to have unlimited rights in perpetuity? It just seem disproportionate to me.

[Reschsmooth]

Well Patrick, you are a freak (and I mean that in the nicest possible way )

There is an "un-nice" way to define "freak"?

You are absolutely right, of course. Although there are precedents in other areas of life where the fine print
cannot be used to gain an unexpectedly severe benefit. Say you entered your house in a "Best Kept House"
contest and the fine print included a provision that you were obliged to give the house to the sponsor?
Of course, it sounds ridiculous, but it is just a matter of degree.

I accept that this would cause a massive storm should the promotor seek ownership of the house(s). And probably to the detriment of the sponsor, regarding branding and credibility. However, both promotor and entrant run the risks associated with the comp.

Yes, the T&C might be legal and entry might be voluntary, but would a reasonable person expect that by
entering something in a competition, they would lose all rights to that thing? You and I would, but you read
everything and I always expect the worst.

Why does a competition need to have unlimited rights in perpetuity? It just seem disproportionate to me.

I think one issue where we may disagree related to what the "reasonable" entrant expects and what is expected of the "reasonable" entrant. Is it reasonable to expect that T&C, that are accessible, are to be set aside because the entrant didn't like them, after entry?

Isn't that a bit like a photographer, who earns income, on a part-time basis, from photography, claiming for damage in a commercial setting on their home contents policy, without having read their policy doc which states that the policy only covers use that is not in a commercial setting. Would a reasonable person expect that a person, who uses their tools in a commercial setting, may have conditions applied to their domestic contents cover which affects that cover?

I personally don't agree with these T&C, and I accept that the underlying agenda could be for cheap/free stock images, but, who's responsibility is it to read the T&C?

And is it really disproportionate when the cost of entry can be zero (not even the need to pay for postage) for the chance to win a camera, for example, worth a couple of grand?