Nothing Like Australia Competition

[Longshots]

Regarding the Tourism Australia - Nothing Like Australia photographic competition; well there is nothing like a great big red flag going up.

I've read and checked approximately 5 - 6,000 photographic competition's terms and conditions which are promoted here, and around the world, and these are by far the least palatable.

Be very very careful in reading the terms and conditions before considering entering.

This is the competition link:

http://nothinglikeaustralia.com/

Here's the Terms and Conditions link:

http://www.australia.com/promotions/...onditions.aspx

The simplest part to understand is that by entering you GIVE this organisation (which has huge funding), to use your entry for what it likes and where it likes.

11. By entering the Promotion, Eligible Entrants absolutely and unconditionally assign (and agree to use their best endeavours to procure any relevant third parties to absolutely and unconditionally assign) to the Promoter all right, title and interest in all intellectual property rights in their entry, including ownership of intellectual property rights in any photograph that forms part of an entry.

Apart from a long list of concerns, entrants also can be held liable in the long term future for how they (Tourism Australia)

Another quote from this "competition" :

12. By entering the Promotion, Eligible Entrants acknowledge that their entry may be used by the Promoter, the Promoter's related entities, agencies engaged by the Promoter, or any other third party nominated by the Promoter, for the Promoter's current and future promotional and marketing purposes without further reference or compensation to them. Eligible Entrants unconditionally and irrevocably:
(a) consent to any act or omission that would otherwise infringe any of their moral rights in their entry (as defined in Part IX of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)) and present and future rights of a similar nature conferred by statute anywhere in the world whether occurring before or after this consent is given (Moral Rights); and
(b) waive all Moral Rights in their entry that arise outside Australia.
13. Eligible Entrants acknowledge that:
(a) entries may be reviewed by the Promoter to ensure that they comply with the Terms, and consequently whether they are an Eligible Entry or not, which will be decided in the Promoter's sole discretion;
(b) the Promoter may notify entrants if their entry is invalid or rejected because it does not comply with these Terms, but is under no obligation to do so;
(c) the Promoter intends to post all Eligible Entries on the website located at www.nothinglikeaustralia.com, however the Promoter is under no obligation to post Eligible Entries to that website and makes no representation and provides no guarantee as to when Eligible Entries may be posed to that website;
(d) the Promoter intends to use Eligible Entries in its marketing campaigns, however the Promoter is under no obligation to do so;
(e) the Promoter has the right to use an Eligible Entry in any media or in anyway it sees fit; and
(f) if requested by the Promoter, Eligible Entrants may be required to provide the Promoter with a high resolution version of the photograph submitted as part of the Eligible Entry.


Having successfully convinced so many organisations to adapt and change their terms and conditions, to demonstrate an intent of good professional and ethical corporate behaviour, that works for both the organisers and the entrants, I would recommend that this particular "competition" be given a very wide berth by all. And I use the term competition loosely. :roll:

[ving]

not sure about these comps where you sign all rights over to someone else. :/

it used to not bother me but it does for some reason now.

[James T]

It's the same if you do work for the government. They won't let you do anything unless you give them sole copyright. Policy for them to control how images are used, so they can't be using one image, which is then associated to some other cause / product, etc that may reflect badly on them.

Very annoying.

[saratoga]

Thanks for the post Longshots.

Certainly won't be entering...just looking at the length of all the Terms and Conditions is enough to turn me off!

[Kym]

It's the same if you do work for the government. They won't let you do anything unless you give them sole copyright. Policy for them to control how images are used, so they can't be using one image, which is then associated to some other cause / product, etc that may reflect badly on them.

Very annoying.

I don't have a problem with that as long as you get paid for your work.
If I write software for an employer and get paid for it then they own the © to that work.
If I write software in my own time I can license it as I see fit.

But a comp as indicated by William you don't get anything for your work and they get commercial value for free.

[James T]

I don't have a problem with that as long as you get paid for your work.
If I write software for an employer and get paid for it then they own the © to that work.
If I write software in my own time I can license it as I see fit.

But a comp as indicated by William you don't get anything for your work and they get commercial value for free.

I think both are wrong personally. But yes, competitions like that are 'more wrong.'

Saying that, I'm still shooting for the State Govt. next week and will, unfortunately, be signing over my copyright.

[Longshots]

As a BTW, I regularly shoot for state, and fed govs, and as yet have always negotiated keeping my copyright and instead explained that I provide an unrestricted usage licence. Once explained, every dept I've ever been asked to work for, have been completely happy to proceed with commissioning me. Its a point of principle, and in reality there isnt much difference between the two. If anyone wants me to explain in detail, I can and will, in another topic.

[James T]

As a BTW, I regularly shoot for state, and fed govs, and as yet have always negotiated keeping my copyright and instead explained that I provide an unrestricted usage licence. Once explained, every dept I've ever been asked to work for, have been completely happy to proceed with commissioning me. Its a point of principle, and in reality there isnt much difference between the two. If anyone wants me to explain in detail, I can and will, in another topic.

Interesting. I tried to do the same, obviously, but had no joy. I even offered a joint copyright agreement to no avail. Just got the 'it's a new policy to own all the IP' response.

All I 'got' in the end, was folio rights (with individual approval) and mandatory credit where used. But as they're pretty much legal requirements anyway, I don't feel like I'm getting much.

[Longshots]

Further information on this "competition":

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/04/15/...operty-rights/

And scuse me quoting a fellow photographer Milton Wordley:

"The AIPP and the ACMP are working together to have the ATC change the entry rules on the latest campaign - if you are not aware of the campaign have a look at the following.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/04/15/...operty-rights/

http://acmp.com.au/tourism-australia...alia-really-2/

http://www.aippblog.com/?p=163

William Long has campaigned on our Industries' behalf over many years. Open Competitions are often held to obtain copyright free images at no cost.

The latest ATC campaign has by far the worst set of terms and conditions he has ever seen.

Currently in direct dialog with the ATC. He is after a brief statement from as many photographers as he can muster, to include in a submission he is presenting to ATC next Monday the 19th.

Have a look at the stories listed in the above links - or go to the ATC web site and have a look for yourself.

If you have time send him an email - a short statement with a few dot points voicing your concern would be great.

We need to do our best to stop this continual devaluing of our craft."


This is the terms and conditions link:
http://www.australia.com/promotions/...onditions.aspx


I would really welcome anyone who would have been interested in entering this competition, pro, enthusiast, amateur, tourist, anyone - and if the terms and conditions have stopped you entering.

Please dont make it a novel, just give me the bullet points. By listening and receiving a large number of responses over a large range of people with cameras, I will be well armed to tackle this issue.

So please take the time to comment. Thanks

[I @ M]

Unfortunately, your average punter with any sort of camera sees competitions like these with a prize attached and never even bothers to read the fine print regarding image usage and a good percentage of the ones who do simply don't even care what happens to their shots after they have entered or even won a comp.

[StanW]

I'm quite sure about "competitions" of this kind. DON't enter them, and advise all your friends.

[ricktas]

Good luck with the campaign William. I tend to agree with I@M here, your average joe with a camera often doesn't consider the t&c, and sees only the offer of a prize. I hope you manage to affect some change William.

[Longshots]

Unfortunately, your average punter with any sort of camera sees competitions like these with a prize attached and never even bothers to read the fine print regarding image usage and a good percentage of the ones who do simply don't even care what happens to their shots after they have entered or even won a comp.

I happen to agree with you here. But I feel a moral and ethical responsibility, that when a company or organisation produce something that is so blatantly unfair, I and many of my better informed colleagues should stand up and shout as loud as I/We can that this is NOT RIGHT.

If I can encourage just a few more people to read that fine print, then the unsavory, and in my view unethical practice will be shown for what it is - a sham.

[kiwi]

As a BTW, I regularly shoot for state, and fed govs, and as yet have always negotiated keeping my copyright and instead explained that I provide an unrestricted usage licence. Once explained, every dept I've ever been asked to work for, have been completely happy to proceed with commissioning me. Its a point of principle, and in reality there isnt much difference between the two. If anyone wants me to explain in detail, I can and will, in another topic.

Id certainly find that interesting if you are able

[Craftypics]

Good Luck Longshots with getting the terms changed. As they are now its just morally Wrong

[Analog6]

It's really simple, if you don't like the terms and conditions don't enter. Then they won't be any sort of a worry. It is disappointing that they chose to make such onerous terms but that is their prerogative, and it is ours as to whether or we not enter.

[creativepro]

It's really simple, if you don't like the terms and conditions don't enter. Then they won't be any sort of a worry. It is disappointing that they chose to make such onerous terms but that is their prerogative, and it is ours as to whether or we not enter.

thanks for the advice to be on the look out - it is a timely reminder


Sue

[Longshots]

It's really simple, if you don't like the terms and conditions don't enter. Then they won't be any sort of a worry. It is disappointing that they chose to make such onerous terms but that is their prerogative, and it is ours as to whether or we not enter.

I do completely agree with you.

But the point thats missing is that this an important gov funded organisation that is relying on people not reading the terms and conditions.

There is something in law - unconscionable conduct ( and I'll state that I'm not a lawyer but did once point out to a very well known legal organisation, that their actions in restricting my business could be construed as unconscionable conduct - I won the point) which is very apt in this case.

And if you like me would like to arm yourself with the right information - as I've found it extremely useful in business over the past decade and a half - then here is the link from the Aus Gov's Trade Practices Act:

for businesses

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index...?itemId=303748

and for individuals

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.../itemId/716807


Being taken advantage of in a way that offends the conscience is known as unconscionable conduct. The Trade Practices Act recognises that there may be circumstances where the manner in which a contract was executed was unconscionable, such as a disparity in bargaining power.


This is one of many arguments against brutally unfaid terms and conditions. And yes we're all quite capabale of reading them. But may I ask you Sue, just how many times you read the Terms and Conditions of say entering your local car park (they're inside most of the time, and most of the time they try to absolve themselves of their legal responsibilities - but you accept them as soon as you take the ticket from the boom arm entrance); or have you checked the Terms and Conditions of your local Westfield Shopping Centre, which are always rather entertaining; or the Terms and Conditions on your local transport; or the Terms and Conditions on your local software upgrade ? My guess is that like 99.999% of customers, you would just tick the little box on those upgrades and you would never think about it again.

Being held liable even when you have already given your copyright away, just by entering (not winning you should note, and not even being selected as a finalist), is simply not acceptable to standard ethics in business. And in my view its the power of the company/organisation that is transgressing a simple and reasonably well known part of the Trade Business Practices.

[CherylB]

Being held liable even when you have already given your copyright away, just by entering (not winning you should note, and not even being selected as a finalist), is simply not acceptable to standard ethics in business. And in my view its the power of the company/organisation that is transgressing a simple and reasonably well known part of the Trade Business Practices.

This is something I haven't seen mentioned in this thread. Where the terms and conditions of the competition state that:

11. By entering the Promotion, Eligible Entrants absolutely and unconditionally assign (and agree to use their best endeavours to procure any relevant third parties to absolutely and unconditionally assign) to the Promoter all right, title and interest in all intellectual property rights in their entry, including ownership of intellectual property rights in any photograph that forms part of an entry.

IP is more than copyright, but the important thing is it includes copyright! By using the term IP the ATC is further acting unconscionably (IMO) because some people might think that because it hasn't mentioned the word "copyright" they are okay and will retain it themselves. Absolutely wrong!

Take the next leap: as copyright holders once the ATC have received your entry, if you then try to do anything else with that particular image, you might well have the ATC's lawyers onto you because you don't own it or have any rights whatsoever to it! Theoretically, you could even try to print it from your local Harvey Norman and find yourself in hot water! (Not likely I know, but not beyond the realms of possibility!)

[ricktas]

Sadly we are seeing this more and more, and it isn't just photography competitions. I have had a recent ongoing 'discussion' with a person who wants the right to sign up on Ausphotography as a member, purely to promote a product. They have contacted me several times telling me all about the product (a range of hard drives), and since I told them they would have to pay for advertising, I have been bombarded with several emails calling me all sorts of unsavoury names.

People (and businesses/government) seem to be moving more and more towards this attitude of wanting all the rights, and not paying a cent for them. I think the rules in these photographic competitions are just an extension of a general shift in business/government ethics, sadly.

Good luck William, I hope you have a win in this instance.