Lowepro and Polar Bears International Co-Sponsor the 2010 “My Favorite Things” Photo Contest

[jhmaw]

Hi. I've just been looking through the terms and conditions for this competition (My Favorite Things Photo Contest).

http://www.lowepro.com/my-favorite-things-...-and-conditions

"Entrants agree that they will not use the Entry for any other purpose, including, without limitation, posting the Entry to any online social networks, without the express consent of Sponsors in each instance."

and further on

"OWNERSHIP/USE OF ENTRIES: For All Entries: By submitting an Entry, each entrant agrees that Sponsors shall have a non-exclusive, perpetual, fully-paid up and royalty-free license to the Entry submitted (including all rights embodied therein) and that they and their respective designees may exploit, edit, alter, modify, and distribute the Entry and all elements of such Entry, including, without limitation, the names and likenesses of any persons or locations embodied therein, in any and all media now known or hereafter devised, including in print and online, worldwide, without compensation, permission or notification to entrant or any third party. MORAL RIGHTS: To the extent permitted by law, each entrant waives and releases the Released Parties from any and all claims that each entrant may now or hereafter have in any jurisdiction based on “moral rights” or “droit moral” or unfair competition with respect to Sponsors’ exploitation of Entries without further notification or compensation to entrants of any kind, and agrees not to instigate, support, maintain, or authorize any action, claim, or lawsuit against the Released Parties in connection with this Contest, on the grounds that any use of any Entry or any derivative works thereof, infringe or violate any rights of any entrant and/or any participant therein."

I hope that someone with more legal experience than I takes a look at this and can give an opinion. Is this what is often referred to as a "rights grab"? I would love to get the view of someone with more knowledge.

If these terms were restricted to just the winning entries then fair enough, but the use of the word "entry" seems to indicate that is applies to all entries whether they receive a prize or not. If my reading of the terms is correct, the so called sponsors are going to end up with a very cheap collection of images which they can use as they want.

[feppe]

Looks like very clear blanket transfer of all rights to all submitted images. Just a year ago such legalese was limited to fly-by-night vanity photo "contests," but it looks like the big names want in on the action as well.

Is this the natural progression from stock to microstock to rights grab to orphan works to everything goes? As much as I appreciate creative commons, I bet majority of the entrants don't read and understand the convoluted implied* contract giving away all rights.

* Implied because there's no signature (is there's a legal term for that?), and I'm not sure such contract would hold up in court due to inequality of bargaining power

[jhmaw]

Interesting that a company that sells to photographers should do this. If this carries on how are we to afford their highly priced bags. I noticed with some amusement that the tag line on their web site is "the trusted original".

[inthesouthofireland]

If these terms were restricted to just the winning entries then fair enough, but the use of the word "entry" seems to indicate that is applies to all entries whether they receive a prize or not. If my reading of the terms is correct, the so called sponsors are going to end up with a very cheap collection of images which they can use as they want.

I think you are right - this is the classic rights grab.

However, we can let Lowepro know that if they do not want to spend any money on images they use, then we will not spend any money on their gear.

Information on this "contest" should be posted to other photography fora as well, as many as possible...

[telyt]

I think you are right - this is the classic rights grab.

I agree    unfortunately this is an example of what happens when supply exceeds demand.  The 20+ year flood of equipment that thinks for the photographer has enabled a huge supply of technically good - or even excellent - photos and the demand for good photos hasn't kept up.  Think about this the next time you ask for more convenience features in your camera.  Those features are great as long as you're the only one on the block who has them.

Don't hold your breath waiting for this situation to improve.

[feppe]

I agree    unfortunately this is an example of what happens when supply exceeds demand.  The 20+ year flood of equipment that thinks for the photographer has enabled a huge supply of technically good - or even excellent - photos and the demand for good photos hasn't kept up.  Think about this the next time you ask for more convenience features in your camera.  Those features are great as long as you're the only one on the block who has them.

Don't hold your breath waiting for this situation to improve.

Good photographers aren't buggy whips. In other words, skillful photography will be worth something, while photos requiring merely being there at roughly the right time and pushing the button of a P&S won't.

[telyt]

Good photographers aren't buggy whips. In other words, skillful photography will be worth something, while photos requiring merely being there at roughly the right time and pushing the button of a P&S won't.

Contests with this kind of rights grab aren't aimed at good photographers.  They're aimed at the nearly-infinite flood of photos from those who are enabled by their camera's convenience features, under the theory that from an infinite number of chimpanzees banging on an infinite number of keyboards the works of Shakespeare will eventually be produced.

A good photographer will produce good work regularly.  Those who are sponsoring this kind of contest are only looking for that one-in-a-billion photo from someone who got lucky.

[inthesouthofireland]

Contests with this kind of rights grab aren't aimed at good photographers.

As a professional photographer, this contest does not affect me in any way. However, I am appaled at the exploitation perpetrated via the rules of this contest.

I do not condone exploitation in any form which is why I do not buy products from Nike, Brooks, Asiks, and a lot of others. I just added Lowepro to the list.
Doesn't matter that in this particular contest it's the "first" world that is being exploited: I detest the attitude.

[telyt]

As a professional photographer, this contest does not affect me in any way. However, I am appaled at the exploitation perpetrated via the rules of this contest.

I do not condone exploitation in any form which is why I do not buy products from Nike, Brooks, Asiks, and a lot of others. I just added Lowepro to the list.
Doesn't matter that in this particular contest it's the "first" world that is being exploited: I detest the attitude.

Add Red Bull to the list.  Similar contest with similar rights grab.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Interesting that a company that sells to photographers should do this...

Not the only one, unfortunately. Nikon is another example, as mentioned in this thread:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....mp;#entry375779

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.

[Carl Glover]

That is disgusting.

[JoeKitchen]

It is so disgusting that contest are taking this route.  It is really insulting as a professional that they expect me to give them $100,000+ amount of licensing for free.

[John.Williams]

The silver lining in this conversation is that the contributors to this thread (and constant reader) are aware of reading the small print in these photographic contests.

It seems a regular topic on social media forums (LinkedIn, FaceBook) where a photographer is dismayed to learn their image is being used in several locations without compensation (can I sue...?) and then discovering they have no recourse due to the entry rules (rights grab.)

In the sense of community, it is important to spread the word to new photographers to read the T&C of photo contests (and the other legal contracts in their professional business conduct.)

Be smart and keep your creative side fed well.

John