Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: gdanmitchell on August 10, 2009, 04:00:38 pm
-
I just saw Micheal's quick note pointing out the Nature Conservancy Photo Contest. Being a Conservancy member myself I was interested, and since it had Michael's recommendation I thought that perhaps this contest might be free of the onerous IP rights grab terms that apply in many similar contests. So, optimistic, I visited the contest page and went straight to their terms and conditions. (Sorry, but their links don't embed well.)
I was very disappointed to find the following:
By entering the contest, you hereby grant to The Nature Conservancy (i) a nonexclusive, worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free license to reproduce, distribute, publicly display and publicly perform the photographs you submit to The Nature Conservancy, and (ii) the right to use your name, city, state and country of residence in promotions and other publications.
Reasonable contest terms would require the WINNER of the contest to agree to certain LIMITED uses of his/her photograph in ways CLEARLY RELATED TO THE CONTEST. The problems with these terms are multiple:
1. The terms essentially grant the Nature Conservancy (a very fine and worthy organization, to be sure) a free, unlimited license to use contest photographs in ways that are not defined.
2. There is no guarantee of credit for the free use of contest photographs. If they want to use it on a book cover, they can. Calendar? Check. Advertisement? Check.
3. The worst part - the terms apply to ALL ENTRANTS, not just the winners. "By entering the contest, you hereby grant..." the license described here. Again, while I am a supporter of the Conservancy, I am not a supporter of terms that grant them a full, unlimited, cost-free license to each of the potentially thousands of photographs submitted in this contest.
4. Note that the "name, city, state and country of residence in promotions and other publications" also extends to all entrants - not just the winner.
As photographers, we really need to start calling these organizations on this stuff. It is impossible to tell the innocent cases (an overactive young contract lawyer, perhaps?) from those with more malicious intent. Folks I've spoken with at other organizations conducting similar contest have reported that their corporate attorneys are fully aware of the rights that they acquire with this and similar language. In several cases when I have contacted contest sponsors (a recent contest promoted by a well-known photo blogger - who responded with a very offensive email - and a couple by the Sierra Club - of which I've been a member for decades) the response was angry, accusative and offensive - but always coupled with a claim that "we would never do anything unethical with the photographs."
I learned that signing a contract (and that's more or less what you do when you enter a contest and agree to its terms) that says one thing when the other party to the contract says something else is a bad idea. If there is no intent to use "entrants" photographs in virtually unlimited ways, then the terms and conditions language should be changed to reflect the real intent.
I think that photo contests can be a good thing. I am positive that it is possible to construct mutually agreeable terms and conditions that properly protect both contest entrants/winners and the sponsor and their affiliates, and when this happens there can be tremendous benefits for all parties.
Please pass this on. More photographers need to hear about and understand the onerous terms of these contests.
Thanks.
Dan
-
Dan -
Well noted, and in addition see: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=36635 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=36635)
I agree with your points, but I also know that the number of excellent photographers that cheerfully submit images, fully aware that they sign over all rights (even if they are not selected as 'winners'), should not be underestimated. I'm sure that these organizers can still count on good quality submissions and grab all rights at the same time - a great way for them to obtain top-notch content!
With your comments and the above-referenced NY Times comments re: Flickr it seems to me that photography goes the way of music: content (MP3s) is free or almost free, protecting rights is impossible or too expensive and the public or sponsors will only pay for assignments (concerts!).
My 2 cents.
Mark
Edit:
PS:
Yours is a very nice website, by the way!
-
As photographers, we really need to start calling these organizations on this stuff.
I learned that signing a contract (and that's more or less what you do when you enter a contest and agree to its terms) that says one thing when the other party to the contract says something else is a bad idea. If there is no intent to use "entrants" photographs in virtually unlimited ways, then the terms and conditions language should be changed to reflect the real intent.
I think that photo contests can be a good thing. I am positive that it is possible to construct mutually agreeable terms and conditions that properly protect both contest entrants/winners and the sponsor and their affiliates, and when this happens there can be tremendous benefits for all parties.
Please pass this on. More photographers need to hear about and understand the onerous terms of these contests.
Thanks.
Dan
Dan, thank you for making my day. For the longest time, I thought I was the lone crusade writing to these organizations. We really need to join forces and educate them to have some respect for our rights (fat chance?).
Here are a few more such calls:
http://www.nps.gov/nero/nhlphoto/2009EntryForm.pdf (http://www.nps.gov/nero/nhlphoto/2009EntryForm.pdf)
http://www.boston.com/travel/getaways/us/s...onalparksrules/ (http://www.boston.com/travel/getaways/us/specials/nationalparksrules/)
In addition to the multiple problems you listed, I would include the following:
5. Many still ask for 300ppi submissions (for no good reason).
6. When credits are given, many would only display the names, but without any contact info.
7. Many would not clearly spell out the terms of use or mention credits would be given. Nor would they respond when inquired.
Good calls would benefit both parties, but are hard to come by. Bad calls hurt both. Many would feel ill at ease submitting their best work, and the callers would end up with the clue less or desperate.
-
It's an issue that's not going to go away, but it is important for photographers to be informed. We should all read the fine print every time we submit our work, and never rely on good intentions to protect it.
-
This site is seen by thousands of amateur and professional photographers every day. Can we have a forum where people could submit information about such rights-grabbing contests? It would be interesting to hear of contest entrants' and winners' experiences as well - whether their images were used in ads, or in areas unconnected with the contest, whether proper contact information was included with their photos, etc. Good contests which respect the photographers' rights should also be included in the scope of the forum. It could become a very valuable resource.
Kumar
-
This site is seen by thousands of amateur and professional photographers every day. Can we have a forum where people could submit information about such rights-grabbing contests? It would be interesting to hear of contest entrants' and winners' experiences as well - whether their images were used in ads, or in areas unconnected with the contest, whether proper contact information was included with their photos, etc. Good contests which respect the photographers' rights should also be included in the scope of the forum. It could become a very valuable resource.
Kumar
I think this sounds like a fine idea, but some care would need to be taken about accuracy and so forth. If one was not careful, making the wrong kinds of claims might be libelous. A good course of action might be to post copies of the terms and perhaps explanations of what they meant... letting others draw conclusions.
I had a run-in with the well-known of a photo web site who was conducting such contest. I posted the terms and pointed out the problems they presented. Although the exchange between myself and an individual I'll refer to as "SB" - which included some very insulting email from "SB" - included accusations that my post was factually inaccurate, my offer to retract my post if he would tell me what was inaccurate about it was never accepted.
I will tell you that some of these sponsors get quite irate when one brings this stuff up. Although I've been a lifelong member of the Sierra Club, when I pointed out the objectionable terms of their photo contests I was subject to some very personal and angry attacks from Club representatives. Not fun stuff, and these groups don't like being questioned.
Dan
-
[quote name='gdanmitchell' date='Aug 13 2009, 01:36 PM' post='303471']
I think this sounds like a fine idea, but some care would need to be taken about accuracy and so forth. If one was not careful, making the wrong kinds of claims might be libelous. A good course of action might be to post copies of the terms and perhaps explanations of what they meant... letting others draw conclusions.
Dan
I can see where there might be problems, but if, as you suggest, the terms and conditions of the contests are merely copied, and the offending clauses highlighted, without comment, say like this, it might work?
Kumar
EDIT UK photographers note: pro-imaging (http://www.pro-imaging.org/) is supporting a petition to the UK government placed by PhotoLegal (http://www.photolegal.com/) that asks "the UK government to enact legislation that would prohibit organisations from claiming intellectual property rights from people entering competitions."
-
I will tell you that some of these sponsors get quite irate when one brings this stuff up. Although I've been a lifelong member of the Sierra Club, when I pointed out the objectionable terms of their photo contests I was subject to some very personal and angry attacks from Club representatives. Not fun stuff, and these groups don't like being questioned.
Dan
I experienced the same, if and when they bothered to respond. But I don't expect anything different, considering that:
- These non-profits tend to believe that they are not held accountable for anything.
- Unlike calls from galleries, calls from non-profits like the ones cited here typically do not result in monetary gains. Nor are they looking for the best work. As long as they get some submissions, they would be happy. There is little incentive for them to change their behaviors.
- Those who draft the calls may not understand or appreciate the problems pointed out to them, or if they do, they may not be in the position to make any changes. Often, they would respond that they are volunteers, as if volunteers do not need to be knowledgeable, competent and considerate.
No, I don't anticipate things will change dramatically. But there are good calls out there. And we should continue to bring those to the attention of the bad callers. Perhaps we can start sharing what we consider to be good calls.
-
FWIW, I get the impression that some of the non-profit "contests" are thinking in terms of volunteers and donations.
For example, the Nature Conservancy page about the contest says, at the top, "Submit Your Nature Photos Via Flickr™ to our 4th annual photo contest. Your photos will help inspire others to protect our natural world."
So perhaps it's really meant as a request for people to donate photos to the cause, and the real problem is mostly that they call it a photo contest, which normally doesn't involve donating anything. If they had called it a pledge drive seeking donated photos (asking for "volunteer photographers," more or less, versus donations of cash or other services), it would be less of an issue.
-
So perhaps it's really meant as a request for people to donate photos to the cause, and the real problem is mostly that they call it a photo contest, which normally doesn't involve donating anything. If they had called it a pledge drive seeking donated photos (asking for "volunteer photographers," more or less, versus donations of cash or other services), it would be less of an issue.
Excellent point. I have seen such requests - see other Flickr groups, even for outright commercial purposes (I recall the Ford ads). At least it would clarify the purpose.
-
I have been working with them for the 22 years. Doing mostly free photoshoots for them to help them preserve some lands I thought needed some help.
I even helped them design brochures and portfolios, that have raised tens of millions dollars for new preserves through grants and others monies.
Yes your right, for an organization to ask for this royalty free and use for ever, is not only a joke but down right insulting to all photographers.
Its amazing to me that we give and we help but have not gotten usually as much as a thank you in return. Afterall with all their money and fundraising, they atleast buy some rights.
We all have bills and new gear to buy. Tim
-
Excellent point. I have seen such requests - see other Flickr groups, even for outright commercial purposes (I recall the Ford ads). At least it would clarify the purpose.
Regarding the "contests are really solicitations for photo donations" point... I think that in some of these cases you are correct, and that some of the individuals working on the contest imagine that photographers would be willing to "donate their work" to the cause.
The irony is that they are actually correct. I would, indeed, donate a LIMITED ONE-TIME LICENSE to use certain of my photographs to such groups. In fact, in a few rare cases I have done so - in a couple cases to the very same groups that run these contests. I'll bet that if a few of them were straight with us and asked for photographers to donate such a limited license that there are circumstances in which many of us would consider it. We would do this partly because we believe in the causes that these groups support and partly with the recognition that certain photographic placement with appropriate credit to use might constitute a reasonable "win" for both the photographer and the group.
But that isn't what happens in these contests.
There is no guarantee of any credit to the photographer. The sponsor's right to use the photo is often essentially unlimited. The sponsor's rights often extend to affiliates (including product vendors and marketing affiliates) with whom the photographer has no relationship.
Would I permit the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, one of my west coast redwood preservation groups to use one of my photographs for free in certain limited ways? Absolutely. Would I give any of them the sort of license they acquire by means of these contest terms? No!
Dan
-
I suppose I am a little late to this party, but I am glad to see I am not alone in the feelings shared here.
As an aspiring photographer, I too have wanted to enter some of these contests ... until I read the language that (basically) these organizations seem to want "free photos" from photographers everywhere around the world, from which to pick and choose some real gems for their own agenda, with absolutely no benefits conferred to any photographer. Well, except a select few who 'win': they get a cup of coffee and a firm handshake for their efforts as their 'award.' (Okay, to be fair, the winner of the Nat. Geo gets a nice prize.)
Still, it is nice to know that I am not alone in my sense of outrage, and that other photographers have felt the same sense of "WTF?" that I felt, when the language of these contest rules basically strips every photographer of all his rights to his own submitted images ...
To win a contest, people are going to submit their best work, and so these contests basically ask all photographers to send them their best work, for the free unlimited use potential of the contest holders. Where is the respect for the photographer and his efforts, and where is the motivation for anyone to do that?
Jack
.
-
This site is seen by thousands of amateur and professional photographers every day. Can we have a forum where people could submit information about such rights-grabbing contests? It would be interesting to hear of contest entrants' and winners' experiences as well - whether their images were used in ads, or in areas unconnected with the contest, whether proper contact information was included with their photos, etc. Good contests which respect the photographers' rights should also be included in the scope of the forum. It could become a very valuable resource.
Kumar
The Photo Attorney (http://www.photoattorney.com/) blog is an excellent blog to reference for a somewhat ongoing discussion of rights grabs by contests. Carolyn E. Wright, the author, practices law with a primary focus on photographers.
Bob
-
Yet another inconsiderate call from NPS.
http://www.boston.com/community/photos/raw...hy_contest.html (http://www.boston.com/community/photos/raw/2009/10/lowell_photography_contest.html)
-
Yet another inconsiderate call from NPS.
http://www.boston.com/community/photos/raw...hy_contest.html (http://www.boston.com/community/photos/raw/2009/10/lowell_photography_contest.html)
Even good old Ansel's foundation:
http://anseladamsgallery.smugmug.com/Other.../9089623_NaPur# (http://anseladamsgallery.smugmug.com/Other/Contest-Terms/9089623_NaPur#)
-
Yet another inconsiderate call from NPS.
http://www.boston.com/community/photos/raw...hy_contest.html (http://www.boston.com/community/photos/raw/2009/10/lowell_photography_contest.html)
Chris,
If that is you who logged in to the Boston.com blog as Fairnsquare I'd be interested in what comes out of your conversation with the NPS. It sounds like this may be a chance to bring about some change.
-
Even good old Ansel's foundation:
http://anseladamsgallery.smugmug.com/Other.../9089623_NaPur# (http://anseladamsgallery.smugmug.com/Other/Contest-Terms/9089623_NaPur#)
I don't see a problem with those guidelines, and I would suggest if you have a problem with them you might as well resign yourself to never entering any contest of any kind because you won't find any terms better than that. To quote:
Sponsor shall have the right to edit, adapt, and publish any or all of the Photographs, and may use them in any media in marketing or advertising related to The Contest with attribution to the name supplied at time of entry to The Contest and without compensation to the participant, his or her successors or assigns, or any other entity.
(bold emphasis mine).
This isn't a rights grab, they're not saying they can use the image for any purpose they want, or resell it, etc. They're saying it could be used in marketing for our about the contest, and they even say they'll provide a photo credit. What's to dislike about that?
-
This is from the Ansel Adams contest rules.
"Participants, by participating in this Contest, hereby waive and release, and agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, Sponsor, SmugMug, Inc., all contest and advertising agencies, and their respective parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, distributors, and all of their respective officers, directors, employees, representatives and agents, and their respective successors and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”), from and against, any and all rights, claims and causes of action whatsoever that they may have, or which may arise, against any of them for any liability for any matter, cause or thing whatsoever, including but not limited to any injury, loss, damage, whether direct, compensatory, incidental or consequential, to person, including death and property, arising in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, from: their acceptance, possession, use or misuse of the prize in the Contest; or their participation in the Contest; or the use of the Photograph, including without limitation any claims relating to violations of the Content Restrictions."
Not very easy to read, but from what I understand there is simply no claim possible.
As noted above, this is just a reminder that everyone should read the rules and decide whether to submit based on what they feel comfortable with. I don't believe that this is a rights grab (so I agree with Jeff), but rather an agreement not to claim if images are used for any purpose by a very broad group of "Indemnified Parties".
-
Chris,
If that is you who logged in to the Boston.com blog as Fairnsquare I'd be interested in what comes out of your conversation with the NPS. It sounds like this may be a chance to bring about some change.
As Fairnsquare stated in that thread, his first attempt in another thread to get that blogmistress to address the copyright issue got no response:
http://www.boston.com/community/photos/raw...to_contest.html (http://www.boston.com/community/photos/raw/2009/08/national_parks_photo_contest.html)
When the blogmistress restated that "this contest does not take your copyright" for the Lowell call, as if that has any meaning, I suppose Fairnsquare couldn't help but reiterated his points. I think NPS's offer to speak with him in private may just be an attempt to pacify him. If NPS really agrees with his reasoning, they could easily reword the contest rules, or promise to do so in the future.
What we need is more photographers speaking up, like Fairnsquare and many here. If we don't act to protect our rights ourselves, we can't expect others to.
-
This is from the Ansel Adams contest rules.
"Participants, by participating in this Contest, hereby waive and release, and agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, Sponsor, SmugMug, Inc., all contest and advertising agencies, and their respective parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, distributors, and all of their respective officers, directors, employees, representatives and agents, and their respective successors and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”), from and against, any and all rights, claims and causes of action whatsoever that they may have, or which may arise, against any of them for any liability for any matter, cause or thing whatsoever, including but not limited to any injury, loss, damage, whether direct, compensatory, incidental or consequential, to person, including death and property, arising in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, from: their acceptance, possession, use or misuse of the prize in the Contest; or their participation in the Contest; or the use of the Photograph, including without limitation any claims relating to violations of the Content Restrictions."
Not very easy to read, but from what I understand there is simply no claim possible.
As noted above, this is just a reminder that everyone should read the rules and decide whether to submit based on what they feel comfortable with. I don't believe that this is a rights grab (so I agree with Jeff), but rather an agreement not to claim if images are used for any purpose by a very broad group of "Indemnified Parties".
That's an indeminify clause though, basically it's CYA for them if the photo turns out to something that you didn't have the right to publish or enter int he contest (for instance, it's not your picture, or it depicts a person you didn't get a release for, etc). I don't think there's anything there that gives them the right to use your image beyond what's outlined in the paragraph I quoted from in my first post.
-
What we need is more photographers speaking up, like Fairnsquare and many here. If we don't act to protect our rights ourselves, we can't expect others to.
Oh, I agree completely. Also, speaking up makes others aware of what rights they are giving up. Actually, the Ansel Adams contest conditions seem reasonable and a good model for others to use. I'd suggest pointing those out to others holding contests as a model. Those who intend to steal your work will not care. Those who are sincere, but just copied someone else's conditions might take notice and change.
Carl
-
NPS's offer to speak with him in private may just be an attempt to pacify him. If NPS really agrees with his reasoning, they could easily reword the contest rules, or promise to do so in the future.
What we need is more photographers speaking up, like Fairnsquare and many here. If we don't act to protect our rights ourselves, we can't expect others to.
I've also encountered the "speak to use in private" business. In one case regarding a contest run by a well-known photo blog the person who runs the site sent me an incredibly unprofessional (and borderline wacko) personal email for having dared to mention the contest terms in public. Basically I had quoted the terms in a blog post. When this person accused me of posting an error-filled article, I offered to correct any inaccuracies in my post... but the person (who will remain unnamed for now) never pointed any errors. (I noted later that this person and his associates did change the terms of some of their following contests. :-)
I think that the "speak to me in private" request could be regarded as a partial success, but the follow-up steps must necessarily include the potential to speak publicly again. Essentially, the "speak in private" request demonstrates that there is a power in speaking of these things in public and that the sponsors both see the problem and fear that they would not look good in a public discussion.
If one is to have a "private conversation" about this with the sponsors, one needs to be very careful. I would certainly not agree that the outcome of the conversation should remain private, for example. I would certainly not agree to "discuss it in private and agree to keep it private."
The onerous rights-grabbing language used in many of the contests, if seen and understood by the public and the constituents of many of these groups, would damage their credibility. I'm thinking specifically of two run-ins I had. In one case I pointed out such a problem to the Sierra Club - a group that I have been a member of for decades - and I received two responses. One was an incredibly personal and angry attack. (I'm seeing a pattern here, by the way.) The other was a dismissive "we'd never do anything bad with the photos so why worry" response. (A second pattern.)
If the group would "never do anything bad with the photos," then they clearly should change the language of their contest terms so that their good intentions are clear. If they would never use the non-winning images of entrants, or let their affiliates use them, or use them without credit... and so forth... then there is no reason to include agreement terms that permit them to do those exact things and more.
(If you were signing a loan that permitted the party loaning the money to you to, oh, hold weekly parties at your home at your expense and give you no control over the guest list, assigned you all legal liability for anything that happened... and the other party said, "but, of course, we'd never actually do that!"... would you sign the loan papers? If no, why would would you agree to similar terms in a photo contest. If yes, please seek professional help! :-)
Dan
-
... why would would you agree to similar terms in a photo contest...
I agree 99% with everyone who thinks along your lines about rights-grab contests. The 1% is reserved for this angle: how many people actually suffered from the rights grab, done by a reputable institution (say NG or Sierra Club)? I know it is not the point, such legalese should not be there in the first place... and photographers should continue the pressure to remove it. But again, in real life, there are two questions here: 1. should the language be changed (of course it should) and 2. should we refuse to participate before it is changed. And that is where my original question comes into play: in real life, how many actually suffered from such rights grab? I support and applaud any effort (including yours here) to raise the awareness of bad legalese, including special forums or sites that list contests with it, but I am really curious to see a similar list of people reporting real-life abuse of contest terms.
-
I agree 99% with everyone who thinks along your lines about rights-grab contests. The 1% is reserved for this angle: how many people actually suffered from the rights grab, done by a reputable institution (say NG or Sierra Club)? I know it is not the point, such legalese should not be there in the first place... and photographers should continue the pressure to remove it. But again, in real life, there are two questions here: 1. should the language be changed (of course it should) and 2. should we refuse to participate before it is changed. And that is where my original question comes into play: in real life, how many actually suffered from such rights grab? I support and applaud any effort (including yours here) to raise the awareness of bad legalese, including special forums or sites that list contests with it, but I am really curious to see a similar list of people reporting real-life abuse of contest terms.
How many people actually suffered for a rights grab? Come on, as you yourself say, that is so missing the point. Would you send your images to someone who offered to pay nothing for them, not credit them and claim the right to do anything with them they choose, including selling them?
Duh, I think not...
If it was only winners who had to agree to some form of usage agreement, well (mostly) fair enough since there has been a reward of some kind. But these competitions are often claiming the right to use and even sell any images that were only submitted. They are playing on the pathetic eagerness of so many people with cameras by offering the merest possibility of getting 'published'.
It makes my blood boil and I have had this out with some organisers here in Australia with very limited success.
There's a current Canon competition which seems to be a good model - I can't think of its title but all image uses were limited to the promotion of the product and competition.
Our own terms in our magazines' competitions limits use of submitted images to education or publicity for the magazine. It means we might use the images to promote next year's competition or use the images in one of our article (with full attribution) if they illustrate some technique. They will never be sold, or offered to anyone else for any purpose - they are not our pics!
I say to people, in no uncertain terms, that they should NEVER enter any competition that claims unlimited usage rights (including on-selling) for submitted images. Internal use and product PR is OK, but on-selling is simply stealing wrapped up with a nice pink bow.
-
I say to people, in no uncertain terms, that they should NEVER enter any competition that claims unlimited usage rights (including on-selling) for submitted images. Internal use and product PR is OK, but on-selling is simply stealing wrapped up with a nice pink bow.
Um ... then don't enter the contest ... but why advise others not to enter? I'm fine with the Nature Conservancy using my work to promote conservation - as are lots of people, I would imagine.
Not everyone is a pro ... and if you are, why are you thinking about entering such a competition?
-
... Our own terms in our magazines' competitions limits use of submitted images to education or publicity for the magazine. It means we might use the images to promote next year's competition or use the images in one of our article (with full attribution) if they illustrate some technique. ... Internal use and product PR is OK...
Hmmm... Most magazines (yours included) are commercial enterprises... using an image to "illustrate some technique" appears to be for commercial purposes as well (helps sell the magazine and ad space)... so, why is it o.k. NOT to pay for it? By only attributing it to the author, but not paying him, aren't you also exploiting his vanity, in a similar manner those contests do? Aren't you also:
... playing on the pathetic eagerness of so many people with cameras by offering the merest possibility of getting 'published'.
Most people submitting to your contest are doing so to win, not to provide you with free material for possible publication. And to add insult to injury, not only you publish their pictures for free, you call them "pathetic" on top of that.
-
Um ... then don't enter the contest ... but why advise others not to enter? I'm fine with the Nature Conservancy using my work to promote conservation - as are lots of people, I would imagine.
Not everyone is a pro ... and if you are, why are you thinking about entering such a competition?
I'm ranting not entering!
I only enter comps that have fair and decent T+Cs.
-
Hmmm... Most magazines (yours included) are commercial enterprises... using an image to "illustrate some technique" appears to be for commercial purposes as well (helps sell the magazine and ad space)... so, why is it o.k. NOT to pay for it? By only attributing it to the author, but not paying him, aren't you also exploiting his vanity, in a similar manner those contests do? Aren't you also:
Most people submitting to your contest are doing so to win, not to provide you with free material for possible publication. And to add insult to injury, not only you publish their pictures for free, you call them "pathetic" on top of that.
OK, so my wording was a bit strong. I have a bee in my bonnet about these things and got carried away - apologies...
Just to be clear, our magazines' comp currently has a pretty decent $5000 prize, and we publish the winner's pics (or course). Other entries might get used, with re-affirmed permission, and they get a free magazine if so. So we do indeed pay.
What I was railing against was the blatant exploitation of amateur photographers' strong desire to be seen in print, even if it means fully giving away the picture against the slight chance of being published.
-
OK, so my wording was a bit strong. I have a bee in my bonnet about these things and got carried away - apologies...
Just to be clear, our magazines' comp currently has a pretty decent $5000 prize, and we publish the winner's pics (or course). Other entries might get used, with re-affirmed permission, and they get a free magazine if so. So we do indeed pay.
What I was railing against was the blatant exploitation of amateur photographers' strong desire to be seen in print, even if it means fully giving away the picture against the slight chance of being published.
This is a non-profit conservation organization - essentially by entering the contest, you are making an in-kind donation to the Nature Conservancy. Maybe that could be more clear in the collateral, but I don't see it as egregious a rights grab as I would if it were a commercial entity.
Is your magazine a commercial, for-profit enterprise?
-
OK, so my wording was a bit strong. I have a bee in my bonnet about these things and got carried away - apologies...
Just to be clear, our magazines' comp currently has a pretty decent $5000 prize, and we publish the winner's pics (or course). Other entries might get used, with re-affirmed permission, and they get a free magazine if so. So we do indeed pay.
What I was railing against was the blatant exploitation of amateur photographers' strong desire to be seen in print, even if it means fully giving away the picture against the slight chance of being published.
Nick, the problem is ancient and won't go away; it's part of what is killing professional photography in many areas, particularly stock. It is all about vanity and dreams, and as long as people have them there is no hope of change.
In my humble, the large stock agencies tried to fight this in their way, saw it was a losing battle so changed tactics and tried to buy out the cheapo/free competition as best they could.
Recent annoucements concerning one of the Big Two prompts me to think that this isn't working either.
I imagine that the only people who will survive to fight another day are the few doing highly sophisticated work in commerce and/or those running their own print sales operations and well enough hung to require little extra income in the first place. As for the rest, them bells is tollin'...
Rob C
-
it's part of what is killing professional photography
I can understand Nick's principled position - and would agree with him 100% if the Nature Conservancy weren't a legitimate conservation non-profit ... but ...
Your professional skills must be seriously limited and your comparative advantage quite slim if they are threatened by non-professionals entering contests sponsored by a well-established conservation organization.
-
Um ... then don't enter the contest ... but why advise others not to enter? I'm fine with the Nature Conservancy using my work to promote conservation - as are lots of people, I would imagine.
Not everyone is a pro ... and if you are, why are you thinking about entering such a competition?
Exactly. I think what many people fail to realize is that for many people photography is hobby nothing more nothing less. With regards to Nature and Landscape photography many of us (myself included) also view our outdoor time in the field as a hobby.
When such contests are offered by non-profit groups you can either enter to support the group, or not enter. The choice is up to you. As a general rule I never enter any photography contests because I am lazy and don't want to spend the time and/or money to do so. However I would glady donate any image of mine for a group such as the Nature Conservancy to use however they see fit. If they took an image of mine and made millions of dollars off of it GREAT! Since I have no means to give away that kind of money if a simple photograph that cost me nothing to make, can make them money good for them.
I have seen it claimed manyh times that gear is not free and as such we should never give any image away regardless of the situation. That is really not a valid argument for hobbyist photographers because we buy all our gear to support our hobby and as such we would have spent the money if they use the shot or not.
-
... the problem is ancient and won't go away; it's part of what is killing professional photography in many areas, particularly stock. It is all about vanity and dreams, and as long as people have them there is no hope of change...
Hehe... blaming it on vanity and dreams is like blaming world's problems on water and fire. Vanity and dreams have been with us since the down of the mankind, i.e., long before photography was invented, therefore can hardly be held responsible for the demise of the profession.
Coincidentally, aren't vanity and dreams the very foundation of fashion industry, and thus professional fashion photography?
P.S. Did not mean to sidetrack this thread about competitions and right grabs.. just could not resist the comment
-
There is something fascinating in the manner in which anything written on this site can be seized, totally misunderstood - possibly willfully - and turned into meaning something entirely different.
"Your professional skills must be seriously limited and your comparative advantage quite slim if they are threatened by non-professionals entering contests sponsored by a well-established conservation organization."
The remark that I made was addressed to the profession of photography in general and not exclusively at competitions which are somewhat periferal to any pro's interest.
The threat from the non-pro comes from his supplying of the requirements of the buyer's bottom line. It has nothing to do with the pro's skills or lack of them; it has everything to do with the professional people who make buying decisions based on twenty cents a shot and the fact that accountants have authority over art directors/buyers
"Coincidentally, aren't vanity and dreams the very foundation of fashion industry, and thus professional fashion photography? "
Indeed they might be, but the fashion industry isn't built on twenty cents a shot; particularly do the "dreams" of fashion photographers not live within the domain of the cheap.
But as I suggested when I came in, there is nothing that can't be altered, twisted or manipulated to mock or ridicule the professional attitude; it all becomes so predictable, probably based on envy and the hatred of anyone who might, just might, have managed to live well by doing something others can only wish that they could.
But it's nine twenty-three in the morning, I have the breakfast dishes to clean up, a shower to take, the bank to go to and then lunch to worry about after that...
Rob C
-
There is something fascinating in the manner in which anything written on this site can be seized, totally misunderstood - possibly willfully - and turned into meaning something entirely different.
Sorry - it wasn't clear to me that we (i.e. you) had stopped discussing the topic at hand and had started rambling on about unrelated things ...
-
Rob,
You raised some interesting points in your last post (#35), and I'd love to debate them, but I already feel guilty for sidetracking this thread, so perhaps we'll meet again in some other thread?
As for your lunch, have a nice one!
-
Chris,
If that is you who logged in to the Boston.com blog as Fairnsquare I'd be interested in what comes out of your conversation with the NPS. It sounds like this may be a chance to bring about some change.
Lowell NPS' response and revised rules at:
http://www.boston.com/community/photos/raw...hy_contest.html (http://www.boston.com/community/photos/raw/2009/10/lowell_photography_contest.html)
After speaking with a number of photographers regarding copyright and license issues, we've amended our contest rules to be more progressive and flexible to the individual entrant. Thank you for all the feedback.
IMAGE COPYRIGHT, USAGE LICENSE, AND RELEASES
By entering the Contest, all entrants grant a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to Lowell National Historical Park and its Authorized Parties, to reproduce, distribute, display and create whole or in part derivative works of the entries. However, all entrants retain ownership and copyright of their entries and are not restricted in the future use of their images.
If an entrant's image is not a finalist/winner and the entrant does not want their entries used/archived/published by Lowell National Historical Park, they may elect to "Opt-Out" of this license condition on the official contest form.
They followed one of Fairnsquare's suggestions to allow opting out. But they kept the meaningless statement "all entrants retain ownership and copyright of their entries and are not restricted in the future use of their images". And did not include giving credits.
A small imperfect but important step. Speaking up MAY bring about changes. Keeping silent definitely won't.
-
IMAGE COPYRIGHT, USAGE LICENSE, AND RELEASES
By entering the Contest, all entrants grant a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to Lowell National Historical Park and its Authorized Parties, to reproduce, distribute, display and create whole or in part derivative works of the entries. However, all entrants retain ownership and copyright of their entries and are not restricted in the future use of their images.
I wonder what 'distribute' means in the above T+C.
It's just not about the comp organisers using the pics for their own benefit, it's also about rights control. Photographers have been sued when an image has been used by two clients who both thought it was an exclusive use. If you have images floating around with unrestricted rights then you lay yourself open to this awkward situation cropping up. Also, no mainstream image library will take images unless they know them to be exclusive to them. Any images submitted to comps cannot therefore be put into image libraries since they could show up anywhere. This does limit the photographers rights regardless them 'keeping copyright'.
Amateur or pro, giving away your hard earned images for nothing is not a good idea.
-
Sorry - it wasn't clear to me that we (i.e. you) had stopped discussing the topic at hand and had started rambling on about unrelated things ...
That's called the freer spirit, Jeremy, the little breath of life that differentiates the wooden from the flexible. I would hate the rôle of martinet and am perfectly happy leaving it to others...
As for unrelated things - really?
Rob C
-
Amateur or pro, giving away your hard earned images for nothing is not a good idea.
You are seriously missing the point ... it isn't for nothing, it is for the cause of conservation.
As for unrelated things - really?
I'm sure you have a sink to clean or something, no?
-
Amateur or pro, giving away your hard earned images for nothing is not a good idea.
Isn't that an argument against all charitable contributions? It seems, in effect, just like saying, "Giving away your hard earned money for nothing is not a good idea."
-
Isn't that an argument against all charitable contributions? It seems, in effect, just like saying, "Giving away your hard earned money for nothing is not a good idea."
Exactly.
... but ... by doing so, we are "stealing" professional opportunities. If we were to refuse them, they might be forced to buy stock images to promote the cause. We're killing the profession of photography by undercutting the prices - at least in this market.
What a load of hooey.
-
What's killing photography isn't amateur photo contests. It also isn't digital. It's something the trades have offered for years which the professional photographic community sorely lacks - organization.
You don't see carpenters, plumbers, or electricians lamenting the loss of jobs to untrained professionals, and why is that? They've banded together, forming unions which, unlike the "professional organizations" photographers typically join - ASMP, PPA, NANPA, etc., (all which use a "pay to play" membership model, making their organizations have about as much professional "merit" as NAPP), actually mean something. These trade unions offer extensive, multiple-year training and apprenticeships the likes of which are non-existent today in photography. Sure, you can "assist" a "working pro" for a number of years, even become a "pro assistant", but what does that mean, really? Is that standardized? Nope. With the unions, it is. 7 years from apprentice (assistant) to journeyman (pro), and with clearly defined increases in pay/benefits.
But go ahead, keep paying into the coffers of the likes of Scott Kelby at the low low rate of $100/yr to show you how to swap heads on bikini models. I'm sure there's a huge market for that somewhere.
-
You are seriously missing the point ... it isn't for nothing, it is for the cause of conservation.
I'm clear on the point.
If you are keen to support a worthy cause just let them use the pics free of charge, that's what I do. That's not the same as giving them away since I retain the rights.
The charity aspect is irrelevant to this discussion about rights grab competitions.
-
I'm sure you have a sink to clean or something, no?
Wot! You still stuck in there?
Rob C
-
I'm clear on the point.
If you are keen to support a worthy cause just let them use the pics free of charge, that's what I do. That's not the same as giving them away since I retain the rights.
The charity aspect is irrelevant to this discussion about rights grab competitions.
Actually, it isn't irrelevant at all. This is about the Nature Conservancy's rules and the contest rules do exactly what you suggest ... the rules don't strip you of your rights, they just grant the NC a perpetual license.
-
Actually, it isn't irrelevant at all. This is about the Nature Conservancy's rules and the contest rules do exactly what you suggest ... the rules don't strip you of your rights, they just grant the NC a perpetual license.
And therein lies the rub; why would you want to grant a perpetual license?
It would make more sense, IMHO, to grant a one-time, non-exclusive license, and with that, to place a value on the license for tax purposes.
-
And therein lies the rub; why would you want to grant a perpetual license?
I entered with full knowledge of the rules. As I said already, I'm perfectly happy for them to have the license in perpetuity. It is a quality organization and if my images can help promote conservation today or tomorrow or the next day, then that's fantastic.
I'm sure many, many others feel exactly as I do.
-
... why would you want to grant a perpetual license?...
Hmmm... because people feel like it?... because they can?... because it is the land of the free (market)?... as much some are free to charge for their photos, others are equally free to give it away... because of the law of (over)supply and demand?... because photos are "a dime a dozen" today?... so easily and quickly created (at the rate of 10 per second), so easily distributed (five thousand pictures per minute every minute uploaded to Flickr only)... because marginal cost of an image rapidly approaches zero?... because never before in history so many people are able to create so many (great) photographs and distribute them to so many viewers and users with so little (marginal) cost?... because never before in history so many amateurs are able to do so?... amateurs, which by definition have the first two steps in the Maslow's hierarchy of needs already fulfilled, and are now moving toward the pyramid's top (i.e., esteem and self-actualization...or what our friend Rob C calls "vanity and dreams" )
-
Tim G,
The reason why the trades (and my trade: physician) can exert this control is that the product of the labor has a potential bad effect on the safety of the users of that product so that the ever intrusive government has decided that protecting the public deserves regulating the trade (profession). Bad plumbing or wiring can kill. Brain surgery could be dangerous without training. The government steps in and creates a monopoly by education testing or training hurdles or all. We all practice medicine (take a Tylenol ever?), do amateur plumbing or wiring without a license. But selling this expertise requires a license. I doubt that you will convince a legislature that selling images is a dangerous profession and deserving of monopoly protection. Hairdressing, braiding, barbering beg this question of course. By the way need a bypass or meningioma removed- cheap? http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/style_...ault/tongue.gif (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)
In general,
I am glad to donate a photo for limited use but even as an amateur an open ended perpetual license seems much. I already donate 4 figure amounts yearly from my profession to the cause- way more than I have ever or will ever make from photography (I guess I should not admit that here) but this bothers me. I am not new age amateur enough to state that the photo itself that the pat on the back is the reward. I'm surprised they do not insist on the rights to your raw image as well as a condition of winning. I have also considered giving somewhat crippled images (limited by size or jpeg compression) but the Nat conservancy lower limits make this difficult. See my earlier post on the sister thread. (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=36635). I have been told by several patients that they use my Web photos for monitor wallpaper and have printed the 7-8/12 PS quality 700pixel jpegs for their walls. Whaddya say? It's Mississippi. http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/style_...fault/laugh.gif (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (Glad it takes 10 years to get my knowledge and license.)
Nature Lover
-
Interesting idea that: it has to be potentially dangerous in order to get the right to form a professional enough body to exert control.
I have an alternative idea that could be applicable to photography. If it can't be considered worthy enough of professional status to guarantee some form of unionised power, then surely the equitable corollary should be that it then becomes a tax-exempt occupation? No registration = no income tax collection! That would at least put it into the same bag as the shamateur, moonlighting mother hell-bent on ripping the food from the mouth of the photographer's child? Should be perefectly fair, then; with more time to spend on photography, being otherwise unemployed, the so-called but still scorned professional snapper would have the opportunity of catching up with his would-be child killer!
Of course, this would principally benefit the stock shooter since the specialists in the more esoteric genres are pretty well covered by their obvious expertise... but still, it would be nice were they helped along with realistic legislation intended to keep them working.
I understand that countries such as Germany require some form of professional qualification prior to the hanging up of the shingle - protection of the public's money, at least! - but certainly in the UK all you needed was the money to open shop. You could then cream as many visually unsophisticated people as you could find before word went around and you folded, or somebody bigger than you came around and did it for you, the folding of you, that is.
The more I think about it, the better an idea tax exemption for professional photographers seems. There must be a few votes in it.
;-)
Rob C
-
You're donating a photo. So what? They don't take exclusive rights, so you can use it and sell it as you wish. For 99.99% of the people who post here, having the Nature Conservancy use your photo would be a benefit, even if they had it knitted into throw rugs. What's better? 1) I am an amateur photographer, and let me tell you, I'm pretty good. 2) I'm an amateur photographer, and, in fact, won last year's Nature Conservancy contest.
I even think I know why they want unrestricted use - it's because they're going to get thousands of photos, distributed across many computer systems, which are hard to track. Hell, even amateur photographers have trouble managing their own individual data bases. If TNC should sometime in the future inadvertently use one of the photos, at least they can't be sued by somebody claiming it's worth millions...In other words, they're protecting themselves, and given the litigious society we live in, who can blame them?
Besides, anyone here can get 100% protection: don't enter.
-
A little off topic. The original reason for licensing and Boards and such was to protect the Public but here is licensing run amok:
Wrestling (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008778516_wrestling24m.html) and
Wrestling redux (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123794479243933159.html) and finally its over. (http://seattlest.com/2009/03/10/goodbye_seattle_semi-pro_wrestling.php)
and licensing interior decorating. (http://reason.com/archives/2008/11/07/do-you-have-a-license-to-move)
Maybe we can license photographers. Good money grab for the govt.
-
Another set of contest terms, followed by some commentary:
[blockquote]By submitting an entry, entrant grants Sponsor and its designees an irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, worldwide perpetual license to use the entry and his/her name, city and state of residence for credit purposes in Sponsor’s online galleries, without further compensation, notification or permission, unless prohibited by law. In addition, each winner grants to the Sponsor and its designees an irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, worldwide perpetual license to use and distribute the entry [(as submitted, or as cropped by Sponsor)], and his/her name, city and state of residence for credit purposes, in any and all media now or hereafter known, including without limitation in Outdoor Photographer magazine, for purposes of promotion of this Contest and other Sponsor contests and/or for purposes of advertising and promoting Sponsor and, except as otherwise stated herein, without further compensation, notification or permission, unless prohibited by law.[/blockquote]
OK, better in some ways, but still a problem or two.
The positives:
- The license grants the sponsor (and a few others) rights to use the photographs in ways connected to the contest itself.
- It does not appear that the terms grant the sponsor, et all a right to use photographs for unlimited purposes.
The "not sure how good/bad this is" stuff:
- While it doesn't appear that photographs can be used for an unlimited range of purposes, there is a rather large range of permitted uses - especially in light of the "negative" I'll mention below. These include promoting this contest (fine), other contests (hmmm, but perhaps), and advertising and promoting the sponsor (seems a bit broad to me).
The negative - or maybe not?:
- One again, certain terms do not just apply to contest winners - they apply to ALL ENTRANTS. "By submitting an entry, entrant grants Sponsor and its designees..." However, I will note in defense of the sponsors that only the first clause of the agreement applies to ENTRANTS - " irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, worldwide perpetual license to use the entry and his/her name, city and state of residence for credit purposes in Sponsor’s online galleries, without further compensation, notification or permission, unless prohibited by law." And then, " In addition, each winner grants..."
Verdict? These terms are much improved in comparison to some of the very onerous terms that grab an unlimited license from all entrants for any use by the sponsor and affiliates for all eternity. Here, the ENTRANTS grant the sponsor a license for a type of use that I would regard as reasonable and necessary. Other terms apply only to winners, who grant the sponsors and affiliates considerable additional rights - though one could certainly make a case that the winners have been compensated by winning the contest.
The only concerning language that I see in my quick once over comes at the end: "and/or for purposes of advertising and promoting Sponsor..." This would clearly permit the sponsor to, say, run a public advertising campaign based on a photograph from any of the contest winners, and the actual value of a photograph used in such a way could easily exceed the value of contest prizes. I'd be more comfortable here with language that limited the use to promoting future editions of THIS CONTEST, and which eliminated the broad scope of that last section.
What do you think?
Dan
-
I just saw Micheal's quick note pointing out the Nature Conservancy Photo Contest. Being a Conservancy member myself I was interested, and since it had Michael's recommendation I thought that perhaps this contest might be free of the onerous IP rights grab terms that apply in many similar contests. So, optimistic, I visited the contest page and went straight to their terms and conditions. (Sorry, but their links don't embed well.)
I was very disappointed to find the following:
By entering the contest, you hereby grant to The Nature Conservancy (i) a nonexclusive, worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free license to reproduce, distribute, publicly display and publicly perform the photographs you submit to The Nature Conservancy, and (ii) the right to use your name, city, state and country of residence in promotions and other publications.
Reasonable contest terms would require the WINNER of the contest to agree to certain LIMITED uses of his/her photograph in ways CLEARLY RELATED TO THE CONTEST. The problems with these terms are multiple:
1. The terms essentially grant the Nature Conservancy (a very fine and worthy organization, to be sure) a free, unlimited license to use contest photographs in ways that are not defined.
2. There is no guarantee of credit for the free use of contest photographs. If they want to use it on a book cover, they can. Calendar? Check. Advertisement? Check.
3. The worst part - the terms apply to ALL ENTRANTS, not just the winners. "By entering the contest, you hereby grant..." the license described here. Again, while I am a supporter of the Conservancy, I am not a supporter of terms that grant them a full, unlimited, cost-free license to each of the potentially thousands of photographs submitted in this contest.
4. Note that the "name, city, state and country of residence in promotions and other publications" also extends to all entrants - not just the winner.
As photographers, we really need to start calling these organizations on this stuff. It is impossible to tell the innocent cases (an overactive young contract lawyer, perhaps?) from those with more malicious intent. Folks I've spoken with at other organizations conducting similar contest have reported that their corporate attorneys are fully aware of the rights that they acquire with this and similar language. In several cases when I have contacted contest sponsors (a recent contest promoted by a well-known photo blogger - who responded with a very offensive email - and a couple by the Sierra Club - of which I've been a member for decades) the response was angry, accusative and offensive - but always coupled with a claim that "we would never do anything unethical with the photographs."
I learned that signing a contract (and that's more or less what you do when you enter a contest and agree to its terms) that says one thing when the other party to the contract says something else is a bad idea. If there is no intent to use "entrants" photographs in virtually unlimited ways, then the terms and conditions language should be changed to reflect the real intent.
I think that photo contests can be a good thing. I am positive that it is possible to construct mutually agreeable terms and conditions that properly protect both contest entrants/winners and the sponsor and their affiliates, and when this happens there can be tremendous benefits for all parties.
Please pass this on. More photographers need to hear about and understand the onerous terms of these contests.
Thanks.
Dan
-
Dan, Thanks for the info. re the Conservancy contest. You are spot on re comment that if an organization says they would not do anything untoward, then what is problem in having specific language and not just someone's word. Unfortunately, the hand shake doesn't work any more except in those we know and have proven trust. Joe Dragon
-
Re value and pro vs. amateur:
I am not a professional miner. When I was a kid, I found a large gold nugget in my gravel driveway. Since I am not a professional, does the gold then have no value?
No question, it's mine and I can do as I wish with it; however, if I'm gonna donate it to your cause, whatever it may be, I will FOR SURE expect it to be called a donation, not a contest entry--and be valued accordingly. Why should it be any different for a photograph which has real value in the marketplace--a value which is diminished to many buyers if it does not have the ability to be licensed for their exclusive use. Non-exclusive licenses can, in fact, diminish the value of an image, regardless of the "professionality" of its maker.
I have no issue with the donation of images to good causes; I do it frequently. However, let's call it what it is, and be credited appropriately both in the usage and by the tax man! Arguing that donating an image through a "contest" entry does not impact the value of the image is silly; if true, it means that your image is crap and has no value--in which case your donation is meaningless. In order for your "donation" to have value to the organization, it MUST have value in the marketplace--ie, be a marketable image in which other users would have interest. Donating rights to such an image does in fact impact the value of the image to you, and therefore you should be credited (including tax-credited) accordingly.
Back to that nugget--a true story, by the way--just because I never intend to sell it does not mean that it has no value. Why is this not also true of images?
Steve
-
A general thought about entering these sorts of contest (not limited to Nature Conservancy) - I wonder what would happen if one were to visibly watermark one's entry (in a way not easily removed)?
If the image was a winner, you would send another copy sans watermark. If not a winner, the image would not be usable.
-
... Back to that nugget -- just because I never intend to sell it does not mean that it has no value. Why is this not also true of images?
Because nugget is a commodity and images are not? Commodities have unifying characteristics (i.e., gold is gold), as opposed to qualitative differences for non-commodities, i.e., "every picture tells a (different) story".
... Why should it be any different for a photograph which has real value in the marketplace...
A photograph submitted to a contest usually has no easily-determinable value in the marketplace. If that photo has never been sold before, how do you determine its value? You can not even argue that it is worth the same as similar photos sold by microstock agencies, i.e., typically a few pennies, because even those agencies have admission criteria. Just because you snapped something and sent it to a contest does not mean it would be accepted by a microstock agency or that someone would ever buy it. At best, you would end up with a worth of a few pennies.
... Non-exclusive licenses can, in fact, diminish the value of an image, regardless of the "professionality" of its maker...
True... but if you are at a pro level where you aim to sell exclusive licenses, you should not submit it to amateur contests like these. If you are, however, an amateur firmly believing you just created a masterpiece that someone might discover one day and offer an exclusive license for it, by all means hold on to it and do not send it around ... just sit tight and wait to be discovered.
... you should be credited (including tax-credited) accordingly...
Hey, thanks for the tax-tip! Not a moment too soon to reduce my taxes for 2009. Say I have a picture I sold once for a couple of hundreds... all I need to do before year end is to submit it to a dozen contests (heck, given the number of contests around these days, why not say "hundreds") and voila!... I just created a tax deduction in the amount of tens of thousands of dollars!
-
Because nugget is a commodity and images are not? Commodities have unifying characteristics (i.e., gold is gold), as opposed to qualitative differences for non-commodities, i.e., "every picture tells a (different) story".
Not so. While gold certainly has a base value, anyone who sells a large nugget for the straight price of gold has been taken, and hard. Large nugggets are sold for a negotiated value, since they are by definition unique, and they are collected for those unique values. Just as in artwork and photos, every nugget also "tells a diffferent story." Depending on condition, shape, and history, nuggets can bring anywhere from 125-200% of their weight-based value on the collector's market.
"A photograph submitted to a contest usually has no easily-determinable value in the marketplace. If that photo has never been sold before, how do you determine its value? You can not even argue that it is worth the same as similar photos sold by microstock agencies, i.e., typically a few pennies, because even those agencies have admission criteria. Just because you snapped something and sent it to a contest does not mean it would be accepted by a microstock agency or that someone would ever buy it. At best, you would end up with a worth of a few pennies."
True...but if you are arguing that you have helped an organization by giving them an image which you admit, above, is worthless, you have in fact given them nothing. According to your logic, is it possible to price any image for first-time sale? If it's never sold before...it has no value because you cannot determine one for it?
"True... but if you are at a pro level where you aim to sell exclusive licenses, you should not submit it to amateur contests like these. If you are, however, an amateur firmly believing you just created a masterpiece that someone might discover one day and offer an exclusive license for it, by all means hold on to it and do not send it around ... just sit tight and wait to be discovered. "
My point is that by valuing images according to who created them (ie pro images are worth more than amateur images), we devalue photography as a whole. A nugget is a nugget, regardless of who found (created) it. Devaluing the work of an amateur *solely* because of the photographer's status does not make sense. I've seen plenty of "professionally" produced images that are crap, and plenty of work produced by amateurs that is absolutely spectacular. Images should be judged on their individual merit--which means that all iamges should be assigned some value. Granted, crap images may be assigned a value of zero, but that value should not be assumed simply because of who produced the image.
Hey, thanks for the tax-tip! Not a moment too soon to reduce my taxes for 2009. Say I have a picture I sold once for a couple of hundreds... all I need to do before year end is to submit it to a dozen contests (heck, given the number of contests around these days, why not say "hundreds") and voila!... I just created a tax deduction in the amount of tens of thousands of dollars!
Funny guy. This is actually a great illustration of why contest entries should be entries for a contest (a specific use) and not considered donations. The terms of the contest pointed out here and elsewhere essentially create a donor relationship with the photographer, with all of the benefits going to the organization and none to the artist. Donations (which, again I do not oppose) should be made and recognized as such; this requires, just as in a sale, a negotiated valuation of the work, and acknowledgement of the receipt of such value by the organization. Specific licensing is the tool we use to make sure that this remains a two-way street; and it is the absence of both of these processes which invalidates the value of the "contest entry-as donation" for tax purposes. Will a contest like this draw a bunch of crap images? Of course. Will it also draw some fine work? Again, of course it will. Which work will the organization use? By obtaining that work under shady pretenses, and for free with no acknowledgement of its value (and a defacto value of -zero-), the value of any similar work that exists--regardless of who produced it--is reduced.
Steve
-
My point is that by valuing images according to who created them (ie pro images are worth more than amateur images), we devalue photography as a whole. A nugget is a nugget, regardless of who found (created) it. Devaluing the work of an amateur *solely* because of the photographer's status does not make sense. I've seen plenty of "professionally" produced images that are crap, and plenty of work produced by amateurs that is absolutely spectacular. Images should be judged on their individual merit--which means that all iamges should be assigned some value. Granted, crap images may be assigned a value of zero, but that value should not be assumed simply because of who produced the image.
The difference however is that no one is forcing anyone to enter any contest or to place a value on anything.
If I want to enter a contest that is up to me, my selfworth or the value I place on my photography is not changed or harmed in anyway. In fact if I win I would say it would go up.
Photography is vastly different than gold nuggets. In todays digital world one can easily make millions of copies of an image if you so wish and they would all be exactly the same, yet you would have a hard time making millions of gold nuggets.
For millions of people who enjoy photography as a hobby making money by doing so is not the goal. I make photographs because it is fun, since I also enjoy the outdoors doing Nature/Landscape Photography is 2X the fun.
If I somehow devalue all photography in your eyes by giving images away for anyreason I see fit so be it. Perhaps to you making money is the end game, for me it is not.
Also if you are not going to value Photographic Works value based on who shot it what do you base it on? If I pay say 20 or 50 grand at auction on an original Ansel Adams print of Moonrise Hernandez the reason it has that value is because Ansel shot it, and Ansel printed it. The same acution might have other prints that sell for $50 that would look just as pretty hanging above my sofa. The only difference is who shot it.