Photo competition conditions

[blissful]

I know this subject has been discussed a couple of years ago but I think AP members might benefit from a re-visit.

Kings Park in Perth are having a festival, including a photo competition called "Wildflowers in Focus".

See: http://www.bgpa.wa.gov.au/festival/competitions

I was very tempted to enter, considering it has a nice 3 night holiday prize, until I read through the terms and conditions. Here are some relevant parts to those:

You agree not to use, or permit the use of, any images taken of or from Kings Park and Botanic Garden sites for any commercial or promotional purpose other than entering this competition or your own personal use.

You expressly agree not to use such images for commercial purposes such as sale or license to third parties.

On completion of this competition, all photographs received as entries will become the property of The Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority. The Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority has the right to use images for the promotion of Kings Park. The photographer will be appropriately credited if/when their image is used.

The winner agrees to grant the Promoter a perpetual and exclusive license to use the photographs in all media worldwide and the winner will not be entitled to any fee for such use. The winner agrees they will not, and will ensure that their companions do not, sell or otherwise provide their story and/or photographs to any media or other organisation who are not associated with this promotion.

I may be wrong but what I read into this is that as soon as I enter my photos I give up any right to using them ever for commercial purposes, and I won't get anything for them if they are used by Kings Park for any reason (unless I happen to win the competition).

[Wayno]

Geez, they always want to take the fun out of it.
I was going to throw a pic or two into this comp as well....

[ricktas]

Not unusual, but also not very fair either. Often the organisers of these competitions have probably never run a photography competition before and they just get a heap of clauses off the net, from someone elses competition rules and amend the relevant name etc to use. They often do not realise the implications of the rules they have.

But like any contract, people should read it before signing in the dotted line.

[Xenedis]

Yet another 'competition' I'd avoid like the plague.

Don't you just love the fact that some companies harvest images under the guise of a 'competition', and then have the temerity to dictate what the copyright holder can and cannot do with his/her own photos?

My advice is the same as always: read the terms and conditions, and decide whether or not they're acceptable.

In this case, for me, those terms and conditions are utterly unacceptable.

[MissionMan]

I think these are more aimed at Amateurs who are unlikely to ever use their photos for commercial purposes anyway.

[fillum]

...what I read into this is that as soon as I enter my photos I give up any right to using them ever for commercial purposes

Only if they were taken in Kings Park and Botanic Garden sites (or if you win). It is actually a condition of the park:

Part 5: Section 28 of the Botanic Gardens and Parks Regulations 1999 states;

'A person must not, without permission, take still or motion pictures on the designated land by photographic or electronic means for:
a) The purpose of public display, broadcast or transmission; or
b) Use in the promotion or sale of goods or services.'

Your written confirmation, together with your receipt, must be held by you for the entire duration that you are present in Kings Park and Botanic Garden or in Bold Park.

So strictly speaking, unless you have a permit you can't even post a photo from King's Park on your Facebook page. I bet there aren't too many people aware of this (or the potential $1500 fine).



Cheers.

[Mathy]

I bet there aren't too many people aware of this (or the potential $1500 fine).

!!!!!!

[ricktas]

Only if they were taken in Kings Park and Botanic Garden sites (or if you win). It is actually a condition of the park:
So strictly speaking, unless you have a permit you can't even post a photo from King's Park on your Facebook page. I bet there aren't too many people aware of this (or the potential $1500 fine).


Cheers.

I think you are right on the money. Most councils have parks that if you look into it, you require a permit to take photos within those parks. Here in Hobart there are several, but the council itself seems to ignore most photographers unless you are there with a wedding, group of people and taking portraits with the garden as a back-drop. If you are there taking photos of the flowers etc, they seem to ignore you.

Certainly these rules in competitions are becoming more prevalent, and people need to read the rules carefully.

[blkmcs]

Only if they were taken in Kings Park and Botanic Garden sites (or if you win). It is actually a condition of the park:
So strictly speaking, unless you have a permit you can't even post a photo from King's Park on your Facebook page. I bet there aren't too many people aware of this (or the potential $1500 fine).



Cheers.

That part relates only to commercial photography.

[ricktas]

That part relates only to commercial photography.

As facebook as been deemed as an 'advertising site' by the Australian Advertising Standards Bureau, posting them to FB could be deemed as advertising, and thus commercial, especially if posted on a 'photographers' page on FB.

[Longshots]

Ah but the competition organisers want the images for use in commercial situations Hysterical and hypocritical. Classic case of the council not reading its own T&Cs

OK as PhotoWatchDog (my organisation) I've been reviewing T&Cs of competitions for about 15 years - and on average I see about 300 a year - thats a lot of competitions and a lot of T&Cs.

Some competition organisers are quite open to advice and some do produce honest competitions.

Unfortunately many competitions are organised to gain images for free - or worse to simply make money on the entry fee and to also gain images for free.

By the way, I couldnt care less if the competitions are aimed at amateurs - do you think if you're an amateur that you have less rights ? Of course you dont. So be very wary of entering comps with these type of T&Cs as they are a legal minefield and the only people that gain from them are the cheapskates who put zero value on your photography.


Reading this competitions T&Cs I'd avoid like the plague. They're dreadful.

[geoffsta]

taking portraits with the garden as a back-drop.

Perfectly ok if using a point and shoot or mobile phone. But a DSLR would be a no no.

[Longshots]

well actually Geoff - it wouldnt matter - but I think I understand your point that a DSLR would gain more attention.

For the record, regardless of what the image is shot on, if its going to entered into a competition, then it ultimately can be used for commercial use.

Which you would think "well that might be debatable" or "well its only be used for the purpose of the competition"

But the real catch is that :

A) many competitions have a term which holds you the entrant liable if the subject "doesnt like" how the image is used
for example:

"b) You agree to indemnify, and hold Sponsor, its officers, directors, employees, contractors, agents and representatives (“Indemnitees”) harmless from and against any third party claim (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs) arising from any use of the Content. You waive (i) any right to publicity, privacy or moral rights relating to the Content or your participation in this Contest, and (ii) any right to inspect or approve uses of the Content or to be compensated for any such uses. To the extent these rights may not be waived legally, you agree not to assert them."

And the clincher is that

B) your entered image is often not restricted to the use by the competition, but is often extended to the sponsors, and affliate companies, or worse they then sell the copyright (which of course you may have also given away within in the T&Cs) to a third party/image library - which of course you agreed to an unlimited time to indemnify those who use your image.

Think thats a joke ? Or that I'm kidding ? This I'm afraid is norma. The joke is that even high profile photographers either dont care or cant be bothered - an example of what not to enter :
http://www.creativelive.com/content/...flickr-contest

[Eberbachl]

*snip*...
Think thats a joke ? Or that I'm kidding ? This I'm afraid is norma. The joke is that even high profile photographers either dont care or cant be bothered - an example of what not to enter :
http://www.creativelive.com/content/...flickr-contest

......

(ii) You agree that Content shall be, to the maximum extent eligible, a "work made for hire," under the U.S. Copyright Act, as amended, with all rights therein, including without limitation the exclusive copyright, being the property of Sponsor. Otherwise, if your entry or any element thereof is considered not to be a "work made for hire," you hereby unconditionally and irrevocably transfer to Sponsor all right, title, and interest in the Content (including, without limitation, the copyright) in any and all media whether now known or hereafter devised, in perpetuity, wherever produced or located, including without limitation the right to use, copy, distribute, perform, display and to create derivative works of the Content for advertising, trade, other commercial purposes or any other purpose.

(c) By submitting an entry, you grant Sponsor and its affiliated companies for a period of three (3) years from the end of the Contest Period, the right (except in the state of Tennessee and where otherwise prohibited by law), to use your name, likeness, picture, address (city and state), e-mail address, voice, biographical information, submission/entry and written or oral statements, for advertising and promotional purposes in promoting or publicizing the Contest, Sponsor and its goods and services, without compensation unless required by law. You shall have no right of approval, no claim to compensation, and no claim (including, without limitation, claims based on invasion of privacy, defamation, rights of integrity or attribution, or right of publicity) arising out of any use, blurring, alteration, or use in composite form of your name, image, picture, likeness, voice, address (city and state), e-mail address, biographical information, or entry. The rights granted under this paragraph shall extend to Sponsor and its affiliated companies and agents for all entrants in the Contest, including entrants who are selected as prize winners and those entrants who are not selected. Sponsor shall have no obligation to use the winning entries or any other entry for any purpose.

Whoa!



Who would actually enter that 'competition'?!?!

[Xenedis]

Think thats a joke ? Or that I'm kidding ? This I'm afraid is norma.

While I have no interest in competitions, seeing the sorts of absurd T&Cs really irritates me, as these companies require photographers to sign away their rights, and I personally am sick and tired of photographers' rides being insidiously eroded.

As far as I'm concerned, if a company considers my image of sufficient standard for use in advertising and promotions, than it can pay me a sum commensurate with the worth of that image.

[Mark L]

......



Whoa!



Who would actually enter that 'competition'?!?!

Ah, possibly the problem is, who would actually read the terms and conditions of that (or any) competition?

[Longshots]

And thats the crux of the matter - READ the terms and conditions - do not trust people to act ethically or morally - because its my experience that the majority of them dont.

[livio]

This has been a fantastic discussion and it really opens up your eyes. I just had a comment for Longshots. Your comments above are so true and well stated. Trust in this day and age is no longer a commodity and should be used sparingly unless you know who you are dealing with.

Kind Regards
Livio

[MissionMan]

I have to say, in their defence (because photo competitions aren't all bad), I've had a bit of luck with photo competitions.

As what I consider an amateur photographer, I've successfully won the following in photo comps over the last year:

1. Sports package worth $5K
2. $100 voucher
3. $1000 in coles vouchers
4. $400 visa card

I've given away rights to couple of photos but none of them were of spectacular commercial value and I've entered about 10 comps in total so my average rate on comps so far is about $650/photo which isn't far off commercial rates. Some have been suitable photos I've had in my library so work required was zero, other's I've created for the occasion, each of which took me a total of about half an hour to setup, post process etc.

Its not all photo taking, part of its about creativity to win, but realistically, I'll never be a pro tog. The reason I've entered has been purely creative curiosity, a challenge to see if I can win and push my creativity outside of the box. Part of the benefit of some of these comps is that no self respecting professional would enter (probably because of the terms and conditions) so it makes the competition a little easier.

[Longshots]

Well I'm immediately going to dispute your claim that you've only given away rights to a "couple of photos"

Utter rubbish. Sorry I dont believe that to be true.

Sorry, but that cannot be correct if you've entered 10 competitions, and won 4 - I know, I review them all of the time.

If you've listed four competition wins, you would have even under the best conditions as a term of receiving a prize at the very least agreed to, as a condition of entry, given a limited licence limited to the competition use, given away an unlimited licence for the competition use and beyond, or given away an unrestricted licence and given away the copyright making it impossible for even yourself to use within your own portfolio. By entering 10 then you have either been extraordinarily lucky, which I doubt severly, or you have not bothered to read or understood the terms and conditions of the competitions you've entered. Stastically it just doesnt make sense.

And I'm not saying all competitions are bad either, but I would be intrigued that you found 10 competitions to enter, that you won those amounts, and just 2 of the competitions you entered you only had to give the licence for use or copyright away ? no sorry, that doesnt happen.

If you said that out of the 10, you had to agree to give away the licence for use in ALL OF THEM, if you win - I'd believe that - as that is a standard.

If you said that out of the 10, you had to agree to give away the licence for use in 80% of them, just by entering - I'd believe that, as that is the statistics show.

If you said that out of the 10, you had to agree to give away the copyright for use in 40% of them, again just by entering - I'd believe that, as again that is what the statistics show

I would have to also say that you must be remarkably lucky if you're also suggesting that by saying you only had to give away rights to 2 images, you've won four competitions with just 10 images entered. Most people I know who enter competitions enter a number in each. So again I would surmise that you have very likely given away a great deal more images than the 2 you've suggested.

Now its your choice to do that, I have no argument with that choice - but please dont incorrectly defend competitions on this basis.

If you want to send me the competitions and relevant terms and conditions privately, I'll read through the T&Cs for you. If Im wrong I will write you a grovelling and lengthy apology. As I've been reviewing competitions T&Cs for over 15 years now, and on average check 300 a year, I have a fairly strong feeling that I wont be needing to provide you and the forum with that apology.