Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 11, 2010, 08:49:45 pm
-
Another sad moment: a photographic magazine engaged in a blatant rights grab. Popular Photography magazine has this in its annual readers' contest rules:
"... By entering, you grant to Sponsor a non-exclusive, worldwide, royaltyfree license to edit, publish, promote, republish at any time in the future and otherwise use your submission, along with your name and likeness, in any and all media for any purpose, without further permission, notice or compensation..."
In addition, they charge you $10 per image for this dubious "privilege" to enrich their stock library.
EDIT: Not surprisingly, another photo magazine of the same parent company, American Photo, has exactly the same language in their annual contest. The only difference is they charge $25 per photo. :(
-
But sadly, there will be no lack of willing rapes.
On the other hand, if they don't care, why would I for them? The entire industry is cut into a million bits because of infighting, poor business sense and a general state of anxiety; why should the amateur be different? At least the money doesn't matter to him, though the damage to the professional section is ever greater through such practice: the setting of precedents.
Rob C
-
Clearly there is both good $$ and opportunity to be made by putting a carrot before the herd.
-
It's strange with Pop Phot; in the 50s and 60s they were excellent magazines with lots of pro content and their two annuals were wonderful. First saw W. Eugene Smith's work there (Pittsburgh) as well as Bert Stern, Haskins and so many others. I was very much influenced/educated by what I beheld within those covers.
I did see a copy of the mag some years ago and thought it terrible, just as I found the US version of French Photo: all 'mentor' and photo-travel packages. Photography? Totally US oriented. They did a Top 100 photographers thing once when I was still buying the two versions; the US one was as if Europe had never existed. So parochial.
Rob C
-
Right, Rob. I remember when the mag was good too. But now it's nothing but a catalog of equipment for sale. Their "pro's" attempts at improving "amateur" photographs are so absurd that they're hilarious. I've been a subscriber for a long time but I'm about to let my subscription expire. Too bad US Camera is long gone. That used to be another good one, but had it survived it'd probably be much like Pop Photo. Let's face it, the big thing nowadays is equipment, not photographs. Thank heaven for LuLa.
As far as their "contests" are concerned, they operate strictly on the Barnum principle.
-
... Let's face it, the big thing nowadays is equipment, not photographs. Thank heaven for LuLa.
As far as their "contests" are concerned, they operate strictly on the Barnum principle.
Yes! probably also because of the same effect.
Photography does not sell, equipments yes. Now they democratized the photography to a global scale they all want the part of the cake, except that the photographers are not invited.
Lets take the art galleries, well a print masterpeice photography of a known master is priced like an average painting of a local artist. But a MF equipment costs the same as a peice of land.
-
Not surprisingly, another photo magazine of the same parent company, American Photo, has exactly the same language in their annual contest. The only difference is they charge $25 per photo. :(
-
Not surprisingly, another photo magazine of the same parent company, American Photo, has exactly the same language in their annual contest. The only difference is they charge $25 per photo. :(
That Filipacchi ain't no fool!
Rob C
-
Not surprisingly, another photo magazine of the same parent company, American Photo, has exactly the same language in their annual contest. The only difference is they charge $25 per photo. :(
So let me get this straight: they take my money, and in return they take full rights to my photos.
P.T. Barnum was (once again) right about the number of suckers out there. I bet they get a lot of submissions.
-
Harri, They only take your money and your copyrights if you're dumb enough to send them your photos. But that doesn't deter the same sort of folks who used to respond to Barnum's "EGRESS" sign by exiting the attraction they'd paid for and then find the door locked behind them.
-
Ah, the old tricks!
Rob C
-
That Filipacchi ain't no fool!
Not any more... last year Filipacchi sold Popular Photography and American Photo magazines to Bonnier Corp.:
http://www.bonniercorp.com/news/bonnier-corp-acquires-five-magazine-brands-from-hachette-filipacchi-media-us-1000072410.html
Looks like the change in contest rules is a consequence of the ownership change. I am rather careful which contests I enter, and I am pretty sure such rights grabbing rules were not in place before.
-
Seems standard practice today.
"By entering, you grant to Sponsor a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license to edit, publish, promote, republish at any time in the future and otherwise use your submission, along with your name and likeness, in any and all media for any purpose, without further permission, notice or compensation (except where prohibited by law)"
-
It's not standard practice for actual photography magazines like LensWork, B&W, Color, etc. Only for equipment magazines.
-
I'm still not seeing the problem.
Have there been complaints ?
-
I'm still not seeing the problem.
Have there been complaints ?
I am not sure if you are serious or sarcastic. If serious, you do not see a problem with them exploiting your photo "any time, for any purpose, in any media"?
-
... "By entering the Contest, all entrants grant an irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide non-exclusive license to Authorized Parties, 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, ..."[/i]
John, there is a crucial and substantial difference between NG terms and Bonnier terms, and it is underlined in red above.
-
So they can reprint it their other magazines, later issues of the same magazine or use it to advertise all over the world ? Can they make prints and sell them ? I asked and was told "No". So what it comes down to is they might use your photo later on which might draw more attention to your work all without lifting a finger ? Again, unless I'm missing something I don't see the problem if you know what the rules are before you submit a photo,. It doesn't sound like they're trying to scam anyone. Has anyone complained that they were taken advantaged of ?
-
John, there is a crucial and substantial difference between NG terms and Bonnier terms, and it is underlined in red above.
Missed that! Thanks for the proof-read and correction.
My post has been withdrawn :-[
Jack
.
-
So they can reprint it their other magazines, later issues of the same magazine or use it to advertise all over the world ? Can they make prints and sell them ? I asked and was told "No". So what it comes down to is they might use your photo later on which might draw more attention to your work all without lifting a finger ? Again, unless I'm missing something I don't see the problem if you know what the rules are before you submit a photo,. It doesn't sound like they're trying to scam anyone. Has anyone complained that they were taken advantaged of ?
The point that gets me is that they're perpetual, and in any media - not only connected to the competition. Even if the current outfit honors common sense when it comes to photographers' rights, say they get bought up by a stock agency with less scruples: the stock agency can use all submitted photos in any advertising in any media for any purpose.
Of course signing off your rights and giving them $25 for the privilege is your prerogative.
-
So they can reprint it their other magazines, later issues of the same magazine or use it to advertise all over the world ? Can they make prints and sell them ? I asked and was told "No". So what it comes down to is they might use your photo later on which might draw more attention to your work all without lifting a finger ? Again, unless I'm missing something I don't see the problem if you know what the rules are before you submit a photo,. It doesn't sound like they're trying to scam anyone. Has anyone complained that they were taken advantaged of ?
Michael,
As they say, verbal promises are not worth "the paper they are written on" ;) So, them telling you (in private, over the phone) they will not "make prints and sell them" is practically worthless. Even if the person who told you that meant it, that does not mean they are not legally entitled to it at a later stage (including the same person changing his mind). As Harri (feppe) pointed out, change of ownership (and with it business ethics) is quite common these days.
In copyright law, "publishing" means something different than in layman terms, namely it means "the distribution of copies of work to the public by sale...". Defined that way, it certainly encompasses "making prints and selling them". In fact, many newspapers offer prints from their archives for sale.
As for advertising, it is not inconceivable that some big names would like to use your photographs for a major, world-wide promotional campaign. This usually means big bucks, but in this case not for you.
Now, if your only goal is promotion of your work (and possibly your name), then I can not argue with that. However, it is worth asking, what is a perpetual promotion worth for (other than vanity)? If you (or they) constantly promote your work, but see no dime from it, then why doing it (again, other than vanity)? Especially if the monetary benefit goes to a pure for-profit organization, not some charitable institution.
In fairness to your point of view, I understand that such a misuse has yet to take place (i.e., we have not heard anyone complaining - yet), and that my concern might then be purely theoretical. As a matter of fact, I raised the same issue in an earlier thread. But give lawyers enough chance, and one day they will take it. There would certainly be nothing to stop them (legally).
EDIT: As always, I am a big fan of your work, and would prefer you to profit from it, not some fat-cat corporate lawyer :)
-
Not any more... last year Filipacchi sold Popular Photography and American Photo magazines to Bonnier Corp.:
http://www.bonniercorp.com/news/bonnier-corp-acquires-five-magazine-brands-from-hachette-filipacchi-media-us-1000072410.html
Looks like the change in contest rules is a consequence of the ownership change. I am rather careful which contests I enter, and I am pretty sure such rights grabbing rules were not in place before.
I didn't know that it had been sold!
I wonder if that will change it dramatically? The original French edition of PHOTO was what it was because of the connection with ELLE magazine and the fashion photography world; unless Bonnier can keep that alive, the US version might well sink into Mining and Cave Photography Holidays in Chile/Two Weeks Sailing with a Camera near Icebergs. On the other hand, maybe that's where the majority of readers would rather go... I stopped buying any magazines a couple of years go. They all seemed irrelevant to my actual life.
Rob C
-
Thank you very much Slobodan.
BTW I'll have at least 1 photo in the B&W Magazine Single Image Issue that comes out in December
-
Thank you very much Slobodan.
BTW I'll have at least 1 photo in the B&W Magazine Single Image Issue that comes out in December
Great! I'll be looking for it.
Eric
-
Also in the soon to be released print version of Rangefinder magazine with Josef Hoflehner.
http://www.rangefindermag.com/storage/articles/RF1110_Penn_Quintenz-Fiedler.pdf