A great opportunity - to get ripped off. (1 Viewer)

[citrinella]

This is nothing new. And has less to do with "quick digital fixes and auto-capability" than you might think (if it's that easy, then let the publishers take their own photos). Everything is getting easier, like mass producing tomatoes, but you won't see the cost of fruits and vegetables coming down in the marketplace anytime soon! Why? -- Because tomato growers don't sell the fruits of their labor (sorry about the pun) for less than they're worth.

Hah ! Few, if any, tomato growers have control over the price they receive.

On photography, this problem has been obvious for quite a while. the best response I can make is to take sub-standard photos. That works really well.

The most obvious example to me is web-sites like the Beeb asking for photos - no suggestion of paying a fair rate - for all sorts of purposes. And they get them by the bucketload. Some are crap, but many are well worthy of reward. They are deliberately undermining pros to drive down the prices they can charge. We do get cheaper media, but a profession is being eroded. Like many another, there is an old song that goes :
"Weaving is a trade that never can fail ..."

I met a local pro photographer in Nanjing who talked about this problem, asked if it was any better in the west (where incomes are higher and leisure time much more plentiful) !

I bumped into a pro acquaintance in the street when I was a student. We witnessed a near accident with a car and he commented that neither of us had a camera. I got ticked off when I said mine was in my bag. He told me always have it ready, you can only get a "moment juste" photo with the camera in your hand. He added an afterthought - never to let your pictures go cheap. Maybe I haven't paid much attention - never taken a news worthy picture, but on the other hand I've never had one published on the cheap ! I did once enter a competition for a calendar (before the meeting described) and was so incensed by the rules that my view has been jaundiced ever since.

Mike.

 

[pe'rigin]

"The organisers reserve the
worldwide, royalty-free right and
licence for the full period of
copyright to publish

Copyright is a minefield, BW are basically covering their extended publishing rights which is part of competition rules. They're limiting the amount of money they have to pay for this usage and eliminate any disputes with the artist.

What I couldn't see is any third party copyright limitation, so for example if BP come along and ask to use the image for an advertising campaign and are willing to pay many ‘Ks’ for the privilege then as long as the accreditation is given to the competition, I can’t see any reason why the artist shouldn’t benefit.

I expect that there would be further small print attached to the winning entries.

As for Robert’s point about freebees, unfortunately we are in the age of ‘rip offs’. When you consider that you can copy an image/ideas off a computer, the coding off a website and pass it off as your own work (and still charge the client some serious money).

 

[postcardcv]

I've read this thread a couple of times now and must confess that I am at a loss... as has been mentioned charging an entry fee will stop them being flooded with total rubbish. As for the copyright issue, does anyone really expect someone to run a photo competition without such t&c. If they didn't do this then the photographer who wins could demand a very high price to use the image or even refuse to let them use it.

This is a well established competition being run by two well known and repsected companies, they clearly state the t&c's so I do not see how this can be called a rip off. Personally if I felt I had any photos that were of a good enough standard I'd enter it.

 

[graeme782]

I'm afraid i don't buy the line about charging so they don't get flooded with dross. I don't know what the circulation of this magazine is but i can't see that it's huge, and even then, only a percentage of the readership will be interested. As an example, i occasionally take a good photo but have no interest in submitting it anywhere to see if anyone else agrees with my evaluation. And lets say they did get a lot of entries, how difficult can it be to have a quick look and bin the rubbish.

Nobody would deny that the companies involved are well respected and, yes, the t and c's are there for all to see. You can, therefore, make your own decision as to whether it's a rip off or represents excellent value for money.

I know which side of the fence i'm on.

 

[postcardcv]

I'm afraid i don't buy the line about charging so they don't get flooded with dross. I don't know what the circulation of this magazine is but i can't see that it's huge, and even then, only a percentage of the readership will be interested. As an example, i occasionally take a good photo but have no interest in submitting it anywhere to see if anyone else agrees with my evaluation. And lets say they did get a lot of entries, how difficult can it be to have a quick look and bin the rubbish.

It's not just the readership of the magazine who can enter, it is also on WHE website. Imagine if there was a free photo comp with a £1500 top prize, it would soon get mentioned on sites like BF. There would be a huge number of entries, the £20 entry fee will make people think twice before entering and should weed out a lot of dross. As each person can enter three photos in each of seven catergories every extra person could mean an extra 21 high res images to wade through, the time taken would soon add up.

 

[Harold Stiver]

As the other sponsor, Birdwatching magazine naturally want the use of these images for their purposes.

Where I would disagree with the replies.

The photographer still has rights over the image and with the bonus of a placed image; it increases an awareness of an individual’s work and the chance to attain more commissions and higher fees.

In many of these "contests" the photographer no longer has rights over the image as he gives up all rights (I don't know about the one's mentioned)

These are nothing more than sleazy harvesting schemes to gather the rights to images at minimal cost.

There are websites that do this as well, I recall a website about hummingbirds that was trying this (and was posting invitations on this site).

If these people are legitimate, they will want to be able to publish the entries, that is no problem. There is no reason that can't be met by a user agreement rather than trying to rip off the copyright.

Read the guidelines, if they want all rights, please boycott them and stop this scummy practice.

 

[paul goode]

'7000 entrants from 36 countries' is stated on last years winners website. Rather more significant than Snoring by Sea camera clubs monthly competition I'd say. And I agree with Postcardcv, remove the entry fee and it would be a much higher entry

 

[graeme782]

OK, 7000 entrants at £20 a shot. You don't need to be a maths wizard to arrive at the rather tidy six figure sum this equates to. And the prize is how much!!!!!!:eek!:

And i still say it wouldnt take that long to root through (potentially) 21,000 shots. After all, they'll be looking for something pretty special.

 

[paul goode]

So the organisers are running a profitable business. Thats how life works .
I still reckon that many photographers would get something positive out of the experience rather than just ripped off. Win and they get a nice prize, good exposure and the ability to put 'award winning' on their website which is a proven marketing technique, maybe at the expense of some restrictions of image rights (last years winner has the winning image on his website which clearly states all images are for sale so I don't know the answer to that)
Lose and they've chucked twenty quid down the pan on a failed marketing scheme. Thats not going to be the end of the world for anybody

 

[Clive Watson]

Actually, I will concede the point about the entry fee, from the organisers point of view I can see that it might be a practical measure. Still not sure about the giving up of copyright though. If you win, then the prize, kudos and publicity is a fair swap for (presumably) one of your best-ever images, but what if you don't win? Do you still lose your copyright?

 

[graeme782]

So the organisers are running a profitable business. Thats how life works .
I still reckon that many photographers would get something positive out of the experience rather than just ripped off. Win and they get a nice prize, good exposure and the ability to put 'award winning' on their website which is a proven marketing technique, maybe at the expense of some restrictions of image rights (last years winner has the winning image on his website which clearly states all images are for sale so I don't know the answer to that)
Lose and they've chucked twenty quid down the pan on a failed marketing scheme. Thats not going to be the end of the world for anybody

I presumed that the vast majority of people who might be interested in entering a competition such as this would be Joe Bloggs, not professional photographers going for a bit of exposure (excuse the pun). I stand by my presumption but agree that £20 might be a decent gamble for a professional.

I,again, presume that the cover price of the magazine makes the owners a profit without them having to squeeze its readership more tightly for extra wedge. Maybe i'm old school, but i remember sending my drawings to Tony Hart for the thrill of possibly seeing them on the tele. I can't ever remember sending wads of cash along with it.

Of course, i have the right not to enter the competition and save the entrance fee. I'll probably need it for the bloody gas bill.:C

 

[paul goode]

Actually, I will concede the point about the entry fee, from the organisers point of view I can see that it might be a practical measure. Still not sure about the giving up of copyright though. If you win, then the prize, kudos and publicity is a fair swap for (presumably) one of your best-ever images, but what if you don't win? Do you still lose your copyright?

Prize winning and commended images are mentioned Clive, so make sure you win!
I still don't understand the rights issue because a winning image from last year (or one that looks remarkably similar to it ) is available as a non exclusive licence from a stock library. So I assume exclusive rights aren't handed over to the organiser?

 

[Robert / Seattle]

So the organisers are running a profitable business ...

Indeed they are. On the backs of photographers.

 

[paul goode]

I presumed that the vast majority of people who might be interested in entering a competition such as this would be Joe Bloggs, not professional photographers going for a bit of exposure (excuse the pun). I stand by my presumption but agree that £20 might be a decent gamble for a professional.

The homepage is worded strongly towards professional photographers with amateurs, it appears to me, mentioned as an afterthought. Although that could be a bit of hype on their part

 

[paul goode]

Indeed they are. On the backs of photographers.

Business is harsh though. In a lot of scenarios the photographer is rather low down the food chain. That has to be accepted or do something else for a living.

 

[rosbifs]

Nothing is free nowadays.

Whilst the photographer signs away his product I doubt that in law the magazine could profit by then selling the photos. This is outside the remit of the entry.

Photos would obviously be published as 'winner of this category' so acknowledge the photographer.

Telegraph fantasy league is not free now. Prizes have to be paid for plus salaries. Profits back into the business etc. to improve quality of product....

If you don't want to play don't pay!

 

[Harold Stiver]

Business is harsh though. In a lot of scenarios the photographer is rather low down the food chain. That has to be accepted or do something else for a living.

Actually the whole point is that photographers don't need to accept being ripped off.

 

[paul goode]

Actually the whole point is that photographers don't need to accept being ripped off.

But thats not the point I was making when you quoted me


Its a fact of life that companies the size of Bauer and Warehouse Express are high up the food chain and are in position to make bigger profits than a supplier. The supplier isn't necessarily being ripped off - just not making as much money as a business with more clout.

 

[Robert / Seattle]

Business is harsh though. In a lot of scenarios the photographer is rather low down the food chain. That has to be accepted or do something else for a living.

Or choose to do this very thing for a living, and hold others to the same standards and practices that they expect of you. I see it as a question of mutual respect, not predator-prey dynamics. The later is generally reserved for lower life forms.

 

[joannec]

I'm with Robert et al here....don't have a problem with the entry fee; that seems reasonable (if a bit steep), given the organisers time and effort involved but the photographer giving up all copyrights to the picture is wrong. The photographer and all his/her skills; artistic and practical, gained through hard work, effort, creative ability, technical knowledge and time are the sum of what's gone into the picture.......to me it's a bit like Paul McCartney giving up the copyrights to his music. Some may say that's an extreme comparison but I've worked long enough, most of my working life, in the arts (not photography, my pictures are crap) to know that there are many unscrupulous promoters, gallery owners etc out there who just want to screw us creative types...seen it too much.......the term "something for nothing" springs to mind.

(Just my 2 pence worth...don't want to offend anyone)

Joanne