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

Harold Stiver · Aug 2, 2008

Robert / Seattle said:
We may all have to defer to an Intellectual Property Rights Attorney on this one. Semantics aside, the thrust of the argument is that the author of the image, whether willfully or in ignorance, is being exploited.

I'm very sure we both know the situation without consulting attorneys. The submitter is granting a Use Agreement but retains copyright. The submitter has every right to do what ever else he wishes with the image including selling further uses.

You argue that he is being exploited by having to grant the User Agreement without monetary compensation, and that may be right but they are in no way giving up their copyright.

Harold Stiver · Aug 2, 2008

Robert / Seattle said:
It's certainly analogous, Dave. There's a reason I don't buy Nike footwear. There's also a reason why I'll patronize the local deli instead of McDonald's. Does it cost me more? Absolutely. But the value added is immensely important to me. And if it enables that Mom and Pop store down the street to hang on just a little bit longer, then so much the better.

We've all got to do our part.

I certainly agree with that. I live in a small town which has seen the opening of the big box stoes (Walmart etc) I am happy to pay a little more to support my neighbors.

Robert / Seattle · Aug 2, 2008

Harold Stiver said:
I'm very sure we both know the situation without consulting attorneys. The submitter is granting a Use Agreement but retains copyright. The submitter has every right to do what ever else he wishes with the image including selling further uses.

You argue that he is being exploited by having to grant the User Agreement without monetary compensation, and that may be right but they are in no way giving up their copyright.

They are effectively granting usage normally associated with full copyright privileges.

But again, the thrust of the discussion is:

Are the submitters being exploited? (to which I would say "yes"), and

Are they contributing to a deterioration of the craft with respect to the market? (to which I say a resounding "yes").

Robert / Seattle · Aug 2, 2008

Robert / Seattle said:
... There's also a reason why I'll patronize the local deli instead of McDonald's. Does it cost me more? Absolutely. But the value added is immensely important to me. And if it enables that Mom and Pop store down the street to hang on just a little bit longer, then so much the better.

We've all got to do our part.

Harold Stiver said:
I certainly agree with that. I live in a small town which has seen the opening of the big box stoes (Walmart etc) I am happy to pay a little more to support my neighbors.

Harold,

Then it would seem that we're not that far apart.

Cheers,
Robert

Jos Stratford · Aug 2, 2008

Leif said:
But if you put them in a bowl in front of your house for strangers to take, well you would not really benefit.

Similarly, (photographs, blah, blah)..... I would class you as a fool.

I guess this is where I will leave it - Leif, maybe you only do things if you personally benefit, all for more pity for you, but with the fruit example, I have more fruit in my garden than I could possibly eat in the next ten years, I really don't need to benefit from it in any way.

Likewise with photographs - as I have already tried to point out, maybe you are not so alert, but money is not necessarily the only reward. I would class someone a fool if they are happy with simple pride in seeing their pictures in print, and not really giving a toss about the financial aspect.

Ever written a letter to a newspaper or magazine? If that gets published, do you get paid? If not, why do you do it, surely that too is part of the content of the magazine, ie helping them fill it for free.

Jos Stratford · Aug 2, 2008

Leif said:
if a company takes your image, and makes themselves rich without passing any money on to you, then IMO you are being exploited

Robert / Seattle said:
Ah! Simply stated, "spot on".

"Spot on" only if money is your driving force. If I am using the magazine to bring my pictures to a wider audience, then I am taking advantage on their circulation.

Incidently, my comments throughout this post relate to a situation where I have submitted images for publication in a magazine or newspaper. If my images were used to advertise something (over and above the publication, if you wish to argue that), then I'd be in the same boat as both of you.

Leif · Aug 2, 2008

Harold Stiver said:
I thought it might be useful to look up exactly what the contest rules are regarding ownership rights. It is as follows:

The organisers and sponsors reserve the right to free reproduction and exhibition in all media of prize-winning or commended entries, but only in connection with this competition and publicity for it.

The organisers reserve the worldwide, royalty-free right and licence for the full period of copyright to publish winning and commended images in a book or magazine, and at their discretion will pay reproduction fees to photographers.

This is not a copyright grab as some unscrupulous contests are. In fact they require an agreement that they can publish the winners and commended, which seems very reasonable to me.

The ones to watch out for usually say something like "all images submitted become the property of Mad Dog Enterprises"

Those terms and conditions are quite reasonable and fair IMO. But the £20 entry fee is a bit steep. Nice money if you can get it.

Leif · Aug 2, 2008

Robert / Seattle said:
It's certainly analogous, Dave. There's a reason I don't buy Nike footwear. There's also a reason why I'll patronize the local deli instead of McDonald's. Does it cost me more? Absolutely. But the value added is immensely important to me. And if it enables that Mom and Pop store down the street to hang on just a little bit longer, then so much the better.

We've all got to do our part.

I will use the local shops if they are more convenient.

This is getting off topic, but we have Farmer's Markets. I have visited, but I find that local producers are charging more than supermarkets for items that are substandard. I bought a mint plant, only to find it infested with green fly. I bought some strawberries, only to throw them away as they were not nice. And I bought some cheese which was okay, but 20% more expensive than the supermarket.

Back on topic, if the competition organisers use the images IN CONNECTION WITH the competition e.g. in a book of the winning images, then I think that is okay. The extra publicity could help the photographer's career. But if they sell it to agencies, who sell it on, and the photographer gets no money, then that is exploitation, and should be condemned. IMO of course.

PaulD · Aug 6, 2008

Harold Stiver said:
I thought it might be useful to look up exactly what the contest rules are regarding ownership rights. It is as follows:

The organisers and sponsors reserve the right to free reproduction and exhibition in all media of prize-winning or commended entries, but only in connection with this competition and publicity for it.

The organisers reserve the worldwide, royalty-free right and licence for the full period of copyright to publish winning and commended images in a book or magazine, and at their discretion will pay reproduction fees to photographers.

This is not a copyright grab as some unscrupulous contests are.

Sorry for the late posting, but I've only just seen this.

I don't think there can be any doubt that these terms give the publishers of BirdWatching magazine the right to use winning and commended photos in a book or magazine without paying the photographer. BirdWatching magazine is published by Bauer who publish 238 magazines in 15 countries on 3 continents. Worldwide sales of H. Bauer titles amount to 38 million magazines a week. Their leading UK title sells 1.4 million copies per week.

Note that it says nothing about the book or magazine being associated with the competition. So a fantastic photo of a Blackbird confronting a Magpie could be in a birdwatching magazine one month, a shooting magazine the month after and a gardening one after that - and it's up to them whether they pay you or not.

Harold Stiver · Aug 7, 2008

PaulD said:
......Bauer who publish 238 magazines in 15 countries on 3 continents. Worldwide sales of H. Bauer titles amount to 38 million magazines a week. Their leading UK title sells 1.4 million copies per week.

Note that it says nothing about the book or magazine being associated with the competition.

That's a great point, I hadn't thought about that. There is no reason why they could not have been clear that it would only be used in relation to the contest.

postcardcv · Aug 17, 2008

paul goode said:
Markus Varesvuo, in my opinion a gobsmackingly good wildlife photographer has either won or been runner up in a category of this competition in 2007,2006,2004 & 2003. I have no intention of insulting him with the words the OP and others have used to describe people who enter this competition but if they are right those words must apply. Does anyone truly believe a wildlife photographer of Markus's standard is entering this competition to be ripped off. I don't. One way or another he is getting enough out of the competition to justify entering it.
Oh yeah he's got an MSc in economics as well, so I think he'll know if he's being scammed.

I completely agree - Markus is a stunningly good photographer. Personally I hadn't heard of him until ~5 years ago when he won this competition, now you see hiw images all over the place.

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

More options

Harold Stiver

Well-known member

Harold Stiver

Well-known member

Robert / Seattle

Well-known member

Robert / Seattle

Well-known member

Jos Stratford

Eastern Exile

Jos Stratford

Eastern Exile

Leif

Well-known member

Leif

Well-known member

PaulD

Paul Doherty

Harold Stiver

Well-known member

postcardcv

Super Moderator

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread