Another rights grab... by Nikon!?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Gee... if camera manufactures do not protect photographers' rights, what to expect from others?

From Nikon's THE COOL SHOT: I'M A ROCK STAR CONTEST:

... winner will irrevocably assign and transfer to the Contest Entities any and all rights, title and interest in the Submission, including, without limitation, all copyrights, and waive all moral rights in that Submission.

[fredjeang]

Yes, that's really sad.
But the think is that there are so many people doing photography, and so many who want to succeed that a lot are ready to leave their rights
in order to be published or win a contest.

In Paris, in the music scene in the 90's, a similar phenomenon appeared. Bands suddenly where ready to play for free. Some even where paying to play
in order to be able to catch the attention.
It went to such a point that prices broke even for the famous and experienced bands. Sad times indeed. It seems that now a more reasonable
politics has finally take place.

Too many hungry wolfs ready to take-off their clothes for a minute of fame. How to blame Nikon?

Warhol was absolutely right.

[RSL]

I've a feeling they mght have a bit of trouble enforcing that one in court -- if it ever came to that. In addition, what competent photographer is going to enter anything in a contest like that one? As Fred pointed out, though, probably there'll be plenty of incompetent ones entering.

[Rob C]

I'm sure there will be plenty of people willing to chance their arm on nonsense like this; it's been going on for ages and I have a feeling that photographers are going to acccept it as the norm. There are always battles, screams and war cries when people's rights are threatened, but I think that they usually end up shrugging, giving up and going with the flow. Just look at the state of the photo-stock market if you doubt what I'm writing: we all objected, petitions were signed and agencies fought, but in the end, who won? Right.

It's like the tide - it always wins any battle. Hell knows what'll happen to Holland when global warming really hits its stride, to the Delta regions of the USA and northern India, but do the folks there really believe it's going to happen? Or, if they do, are they all going to migrate elsewhere, anywhere?

It's no different with rights: they rot away because the rotting agent is more corrosive than the resistance it meets can combat.

I was going to mention my Golden Era again, but thought better of it; don't want to rub anything in!

Ciao

Rob C

[Chairman Bill]

Not much of a rights grab if it's only the winning entry that's subject to those terms

[PeterAit]

Gee... if camera manufactures do not protect photographers' rights, what to expect from others?

From Nikon's THE COOL SHOT: I'M A ROCK STAR CONTEST:

Read the rules and then don't submit if you don't like them. It's as simple as that.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Read the rules and then don't submit if you don't like them. It's as simple as that.

Is it?

The point of my post is not about rights grab... that's old news. It is about who is doing it: a camera manufacturer. Livelihood of camera manufacturers depends on photographers, and I would expect them to be the last one to grab photographers' copyright. In my opinion, that is a red flag and deserves to be, as a minimum, noticed and discussed, rather than dismissed as a simple photographer's choice to submit or not.

Another disturbing thing is that a rights grab usually comes in the form of a perpetual license to use an image without compensation, while the copyright would still stay with the photographer. Nikon's version is going after the copyright itself.

[fredjeang]

Is it?

The point of my post is not about rights grab... that's old news. It is about who is doing it: a camera manufacturer. Livelihood of camera manufacturers depends on photographers, and I would expect them to be the last one to grab photographers' copyright. In my opinion, that is a red flag and deserves to be, as a minimum, noticed and discussed, rather than dismissed as a simple photographer's choice to submit or not.

Another disturbing thing is that a rights grab usually comes in the form of a perpetual license to use an image without compensation, while the copyright would still stay with the photographer. Nikon's version is going after the copyright itself.

Indeed Slobodan,

But IMO, there is a relation with the other fact. Nikon is trying this path because they know that it is possible, there are tons of candidates for accepting whatever conditions.
They know that those practises are now more or less admited.
There is no torturer without victims.

The fact that this is a camera maker and can be both surprising and shame, is just signs of the time where everything is valuable from the marketing departments, specially when it comes to
rights, money etc...

Today Nikon, tomorrow Canon or Sony.

Andy Warhol predicted with absolute precision what kind of society we were going to have.
This, is just the reflection of what to expect in mass marketing.

Let me tell you more: tomorrow, Nikon or other will lauch a design contest. You know that in design, the ideas are expensives. Real good designers sell their ideas well. Too well now for the insatiable
appetite of these big compagnies. Lauch a worldwide contest, you will have tons of ideas, mostly bad, but 2 or 3 will emerge. No need to pay a professional designer any more. You win on every part.
It gives you publicity, a lot, and you get ideas for free.

Here is my 100% free of rights design idea: Lewis should now work on a trouser with a whole in the ass, so there will be no need for the people to take it off !...

[Philmar]

Today Nikon, tomorrow Canon or Sony.

...then LuLa?!??!?!

[duntov]

Is it?

The point of my post is not about rights grab... that's old news. It is about who is doing it: a camera manufacturer. Livelihood of camera manufacturers depends on photographers, and I would expect them to be the last one to grab photographers' copyright. In my opinion, that is a red flag and deserves to be, as a minimum, noticed and discussed, rather than dismissed as a simple photographer's choice to submit or not.

Another disturbing thing is that a rights grab usually comes in the form of a perpetual license to use an image without compensation, while the copyright would still stay with the photographer. Nikon's version is going after the copyright itself.

I agree.  It really sounds like a corporate lawyer without a leash.  I can understand Nikon wanting full rights to reproduce for their marketing material but asking for the photographer to give up his own rights is just not right!  

Imagine if U.S. Camera Annual 1943 asked for that from Adam's regarding his Moonrise entry?

[Chairman Bill]

I'll just mention again, as it is only the winner's entry that is effected, it really isn't much of a rights grab. Or have I missed something?

[duntov]

I'll just mention again, as it is only the winner's entry that is effected, it really isn't much of a rights grab. Or have I missed something?

It doesn't matter that it effects one person?  What if that person is you and you could not profit from your picture?  Nikon (and other camera mfrs) should be more inline with their clients.

[Rob C]

I'll just mention again, as it is only the winner's entry that is effected, it really isn't much of a rights grab. Or have I missed something?

Maybe Nikon knows a thing or two about the stuff that gets submitted? Only the winner may be worth ripping off.

No discourtesy to those here who do buy into the B&W mag ethic, but I used to buy it (with great effort to track down) in Spain until I bought my second or third Special Issue at silly prices for a production that was maybe twenty percent good photography and the rest, in my view, packing of the most blatant, shameless nature. Crap, in a word. What a shame that something that started with such potential went the way of Mammon too.

I think that Nikon's competition may face exactly the same problematic ratios, if not far worse.

Rob C

[BobFisher]

I'll just mention again, as it is only the winner's entry that is effected, it really isn't much of a rights grab. Or have I missed something?

Well, why would someone submit if they didn't think they might win?  Given that, it is a rights grab.  Even so, why is any rights grab unimportant?  Why is it less important because only 1 image and 1 photographer may be affected?  Shouldn't it be important to that photographer?  Shouldn't it be important to all photographers that a camera manufacturer is engaging in this sort of thing?

Checking that Pro Imaging website Rights Off list, I'm surprised YouTube isn't on there (or maybe I missed it).  They, in concert with Ridley Scott and someone else whose name escapes me at the moment have a similar rights grab statement in their Life in a Day documentary competition.

[Rob C]

And you know what, Bob? They will always find willing rapes.

Rob C

[kpmedia]

Read the rules and then don't submit if you don't like them. It's as simple as that.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Ignoring the problem is not the solution.

[RSL]

And you know what, Bob? They will always find willing rapes.

Rob C

Rob, A "willing" rape is called "consensual." That's what Nikon appears to be expecting -- photographers with round heels. I'm almost embarassed to admit that I own Nikons.

[Haraldo]

Thanks very much for this thread. I was aware of rights grabs by photo contests (and I believe this is one!), but not aware of the Bill of Rights for such things. And I find this very interesting as I get more involved with having "missions" and "challenges" and "quests" on Phoozl.com. I might not call all of these "contests" exactly, but one could make that case. But I bet Pro-Imaging did not count on the existence of whimsical or fanciful photo contests, such as my recent "Mission Blue 1." However, following this thread's lead, I checked my Rules against their checklist, and I'm doing pretty well so far. Of the 13 "Do Nots" on their list, I may have missed 1.5 of them (naming the judges who reside in Atlantis is a little difficult!).

But I will keep this Bill or Rights in mind for the future, so thanks for the lead.

And I will show all this to my attorney .

[Phil Indeblanc]

So what if it is possible and more companies are doing it....does it make sense for them to participate?  There is no reason to give up the copyright. most contests will have full rights to use the image in ads and everything else...why would they want to get rid of the person behind the camera?

Shame on Nikon!  i dont care who else is doing it.  Sad to see so many not even flinch and further more see it something to shrug off.

I just lost a chunk of respect for them.  Nikon should be behind the person who wins the contest, not to strip away the one link to it.


Everyone asks me which camera to buy...Now I have a reason to suggest any brand other than Nikon.

[Phil Indeblanc]

ya, you missed the fact that if its one person its alright..as long as it likely isn't you.  Hate to go camping with you ;-P