Jetstar Competition Warning

[Longshots]

Jetstars Unfair Photo Competition - one to avoid due to unfair terms.

I cant quite believe that after many years of complaining about the grossly unfair terms and conditions of your (Jetstar Star Jump) competition, Jetstar continue with producing competition which are blatantly unfair to the entrant - ie I suggest entrants read very carefully term #10. This is desperately unfair. Sure ask to use the winning entries, but there is no need in a real competition to insist that all entries can be used. Thats just wrong and its unethical. In my view this is what the ACCC describes as unconscionable conduct (harsh and oppressive practices in business). As PhotoWatchDog, I've been pointing this out to Jetstar for many years, receiving assurances that the competition rules would be adapted. They never are. Jetstar, try doing the ethical thing and adapt your poor competition guidelines NOW. Your customers, and entrants deserve better.

Refs#
Competition Term(10. While the Eligible Entrants retains the copyright of all images submitted as competition
entries, the Eligible Entrants grants Jetstar the right to unlimited world-wide use of the photos for company brochures, promotion and advertising relating to products or services from Jetstar and other providers, including without limitation agreeing to the publication of any winning photographs in the Herald Sun, Sydney Daily Telegraph, Brisbane Courier Mail, Adelaide Advertiser, Perth Western Australian, Northern Territory News and the Hobart Mercury newspapers on 26 January 2012. Eligible Entrants consent to any use of their entry which may otherwise infringe their moral rights pursuant to the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), or any other such similar rights. Note the entrant still retains ownerships of copyright, albeit with the grant of a broad licence to Jetstar to use the photos.)
ACCC Unconscionable conduct -
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.../itemId/716807

Its quite interesting that their terms and conditions this year are a great deal worse then 2009. And they werent good in 2009 either.

[Longshots]

I finally had a response from Jetstar to my very wide mail out warning to this competition.

Their response was quite simple - its nice and clear now - Jetstar contacted me and told me quite directly that the purpose of the competition is "to gain images for marketing purposes".

They actually need 3000 images of which they have 150 prizes - they intend to use 3000 of the images for their planned nationwide and overseas campaign - so only 150 receive any benefit. So they're being quite open about their intent.

Take it or leave it was their attitude.


Yes its everyones individual choice, even if in the business world this "contract" between entrant and Jetstar would be IMHO deemed as an unfair contract, as clearly there is no benefit for the entrant.

So I would strongly recommend any potential entrants to carefully read the T&Cs before entering.

Personally I would not enter it.
I would definitely leave it. Shame

[Xenedis]

William,

Thanks for both pointing out this issue, and jumping on Jetstar about it.

It's disgusting, but not surprising, to learn that the company wants images for marketing, veiled under the guise of a 'competition'.

This thread serves as a timely reminder to anyone considering entering any competition to read and understand the T&Cs. More often than not, competition T&Cs are almost always favourable to the promoter, and less favourable (and sometimes exploitative) to the entrants.

I for one would never enter a competition whose promoter insists on unlimited usage of entrants' images.

Shame indeed.

[ricktas]

Anyone on Facebook? Here is their page, bombard it with complaints : http://www.facebook.com/JetstarAustralia?sk=wall

[Brian500au]

Although I dont agree to the terms of the Jetstar competition, I suppose you could leave the best photo you have ever taken as the screen saver on your computer, or alternatively have a chance Jetstar print your photo in a brochure.

Imagine walking into a travel agent and seeing the pic you took on the front cover of their brochure or as a wall hanging. I would be stoked.

This could then be used in your own portfolio (with bragging rights) when advertising for future business.

How many times have we seen on photographers websites the list of where they have been printed - no one ever asks if they were paid for the submission.

You could sit on your principles and refuse to enter the comp - that is your prerogative, but it wont stop the other 20,000 entrants, and someone at the end of the day will have bragging rights the next time they walk into a travel agent and see their pic.

[sunny6teen]

This could then be used in your own portfolio (with bragging rights) when advertising for future business.

...and that's why this kind of marketing works for companies like Jetstar. Of course, if everyone does it - what kind of future business would you be hoping to ascertain as a commercial photographer?

[Brian500au]

...and that's why this kind of marketing works for companies like Jetstar. Of course, if everyone does it - what kind of future business would you be hoping to ascertain as a commercial photographer?

But the thing is not everybody does do it.

I worked for a major travel company - they also did the same thing where they had photo competitions and picked the best for their annual brochure. People loved doing it and the photos were very different to what a commercial tog would have provided. This company still used commercial togs when they felt the need (store openings, large format store hangings etc) but the images travellers sent it were exactly what the company wanted to portray - people on holidays having fun.

This company runs tours in over 150 countries around the world - can you imagine the expense required to have a commercial tog cover 1/10 of what they were able to collect from competitions.

In the end companies like Jetstar need to pass on all operating costs to the paying passenger - it is just another way to stay competitive in a very competitive market.

[Xenedis]

Entering such a competition with what I consider to be unfavourable conditions is ultimately up to the individual, but personally, I'm not after bragging rights.

If my image is good enough to feature on a poster or in holiday brochures, which could possibly attract business and earn money for that company, then the image is good enough for me to have a taste of legal tender.

Furthermore, I am not willing to grant a company an unlimited licence to use my image where, when and how it likes, for as long as it likes.

Maintaining control over the usage of my images is worth more to me than whatever prizes are on offer (and there's no guarantee I'd even win one anyway).

[Mark L]

You may be stoked to have a photo in a pamphlet, but in the scheme of things even a budget airline can afford to pay a decent price for a photo they will use to try and get themselves more business (they're not doing it to promote the photographers image).
Sounds a bit like slave labour to me.

[geoffsta]

One must ask a question.
To those that have been lucky enough to get their images in the magazine Australian Photography. Are they receiving a finacial cut out of the magazine sales?
There are many examples of images being used to promote websites, companies and newspapers that are freely given by the TOG, with no finacial gain.

This site displays competition winning entries on it's portal to promote the site to visitors. This site gets its finance from sponsers (albiet no where the value to pay Rick, Kym and the Mods for all the work they put in) But money does change hands. And all the images displayed on here are in a way promoting the site. (In a very round about way) So should we receive a share of the small amount the site earns, and then pay an extra $1000.00 a year to be a member. Or leave it the way it is.

The above is an extreme example. Please don't take it the wrong way

Geoff

[Brian500au]

Guys if you entered this competition - it is one image (of the 20,000 you have taken in the past 5 years). If you were the person who won the competition, would you actually be peeved to see your pic used in a brochure? If that is the case then leave it to the other 19,999 people who would be proud of such an image.

Do you really think it would not look good on your resume to say a major airline is currently using your image for front line advertising (do you think the people who you are pitching to will ask you how much you were paid for the job). Why don't you chalk it up as a marketing cost - if your image is good enough to win. Don't you think you could earn money on the back of this advertising? You are correct the intention of the airline is not to promote you as the photography - but inadvertently they will be.

Your image is not earning any money at the moment as a screen saver (but you do have full control over it).

[sunny6teen]

But the thing is not everybody does do it.

I worked for a major travel company - they also did the same thing where they had photo competitions and picked the best for their annual brochure. People loved doing it and the photos were very different to what a commercial tog would have provided. This company still used commercial togs when they felt the need (store openings, large format store hangings etc) but the images travellers sent it were exactly what the company wanted to portray - people on holidays having fun.

This company runs tours in over 150 countries around the world - can you imagine the expense required to have a commercial tog cover 1/10 of what they were able to collect from competitions.

In the end companies like Jetstar need to pass on all operating costs to the paying passenger - it is just another way to stay competitive in a very competitive market.

where the images come from is of no concern. you just purchase each image. it's the unlimited global usage that's the issue. you can purchase image usage like that from a stock library for about $15k...but you do get to keep your bragging rights.

[Xenedis]

To those that have been lucky enough to get their images in the magazine Australian Photography. Are they receiving a finacial cut out of the magazine sales?

I have had an image on the cover of that magazine, and I've also written a feature article for the magazine.

I was paid for both of my contributions.

Note that by my earlier comment, I wasn't implying that someone whose image is used should be entitled to an ongoing royalty-type payment, but certainly financial payment for the use of the image. After all, it is a commercial business using photographic images to promote itself in order to earn money.

There are many examples of images being used to promote websites, companies and newspapers that are freely given by the TOG, with no finacial gain.

I'm sure there are, and as I stated earlier, it's up to the individual as to whether not that type of arrangement is acceptable.

This site displays competition winning entries on it's portal to promote the site to visitors. This site gets its finance from sponsers (albiet no where the value to pay Rick, Kym and the Mods for all the work they put in) But money does change hands. And all the images displayed on here are in a way promoting the site. (In a very round about way) So should we receive a share of the small amount the site earns, and then pay an extra $1000.00 a year to be a member. Or leave it the way it is.

The operational model of this Web site is vastly different to a commercial enterprise such as Jetstar running competitions in order to harvest images for perpetual usage in its marketing material.

Again, it's the individual's choice as to whether not the terms and conditions of image submission are acceptable.

To me, they are unacceptable.

[Xenedis]

If you were the person who won the competition, would you actually be peeved to see your pic used in a brochure?

Not if I were paid, as indeed I would expect to be.

If that is the case then leave it to the other 19,999 people who would be proud of such an image.

They're free to do that if they're happy to have their images used with no remuneration.

People have a choice.

What's important is that people understand the T&Cs and make an informed decision.

Do you really think it would not look good on your resume to say a major airline is currently using your image for front line advertising

My résumé doesn't have the word 'Photographer' anywhere in it, and in my industry such an accolade is completely irrelevant.

(do you think the people who you are pitching to will ask you how much you were paid for the job).

That would be none of their business.

Your image is not earning any money at the moment as a screen saver (but you do have full control over it).

It also wouldn't be earning any money as a result of being entered into that competition and used in marketing literature.

Look, if you're happy with bragging rights, recognition or whatever, that's fine.

Some people are not willing to give away their images for potential (ie, not guaranteed) bragging rights or recognition.

[fess67]

I understand both sides of the discussion and there are many valid points. I am not going to sit on the fence though, I have to say I do not agree with the Jetstar position, nor any other companies / organisations that use this method to farm material.

I understand that I may be stoked to see my picture on their magazine or website, hell I would be really stoked actually!! However, IMO I see it more as another nail in the coffin of the business of photography. We have already seen the rise of 'mums with cameras' turning 'pro' and doing the bub and wedding scenes. They are not usually good but they are cheap and people find that acceptable.

This is the next logical step. No need to hire pro photographers, get 30,000 people to send them in, there are bound to be a few good ones, and we do not have to pay (excepting prize money).

If this proliferates, as it will, where does that leave the professionals?

Maybe in 50 years there will be ony a few professionals for specialised work. The void is filled by people like us, enthusiastic and capable of throwing a good one out now and again.

My bottom line, if you think my image is worth using, then pay for it in a commercial arrangement.

[Xenedis]

Fess, I completely agree with the points you've made.

I'm not a professional photographer, never have been and certainly don't want to be; but I am loathe to see the value of photographic images being eroded by Johnny-come-latelys and companies which harvest for images on the cheap. It makes it tough for the professionals out there who do need to sell their images and skills as photographers.

When the value of photography declines, as indeed it has been doing, we all lose.

Thankfully there are some very capable hobbyists out there doing their thing, but still, that's no consolation to those whose income depends on photography.

[Brian500au]

Xendis when you say you were paid for both your contributions - I seem to remember you entered a competition and the editor rang you and asked if they could use your pic in a feature article (and cover). Congratulations on this, and I am not taking anything away from a great achievement, but did you negotiate the price based on your commercial terms, or were you more stoked to be featured on such a prominent Australian photography magazine? If the price had not been what you had expected (your standard commercial price), would you have walked away (and reliquished the bragging rights).

Your personally may not put this on your resume (as you are not a full time photographer) but there are some people on this forum who use this type of exposure now. One particular member recently had a thread of travel shots that had used by "Virgin" (and other various companies). Not one respondant asked him if he had been paid for the exposure (and it does not have seemed to negativley impacted on his business either way). It is good marketing for him, and well done for being an astute business person.

We all have a minimum price for what our images are worth. In this case I would put the exposure down to the marketing cost and use the promotional material to my own advantage.

Jetstar / Qantas do use commercial photographers for a lot of their advertising material. Think of annual reports, advertising in flight magazines, billboards etc. In fact entering and winning the competition could open other doors for you with the company (paid work).

In this particular case Jetstar are not commissioning you to do a job for them, and then refusing to pay. I would go as far to say if you were selected to have one of your photos featured in one of there brochures, and you decided you were being exploited, then a simple letter asking them to not use your pic would suffice in not having it used. I am sure Jetstar would rather spend another 10 mins picking the next pic than having to spend $$$$$ defending a litigation claim from you to prove a point.

[Kym]

I was approched by a printing company here in Adelaide to use some of my photos from Rundle Mall for a shopping promo. (At least they asked!)
They found them via Flickr.
I offered them a limited use license for the hi-res JPEG at $100 per image (cheap really) - I never got a reply.
Presumably some other person got the 'attribution' for their commercial marketing efforts.

Sadly, there are too many ok/good amateur 'togs who don't understand the value of their work and are being exploited.
It's not going to change.

Jetstar see a cheap way to get lots of images. They don't care as 1,000s will enter.

[Brian500au]

I was approched by a printing company here in Adelaide to use some of my photos from Rundle Mall for a shopping promo. (At least they asked!)

Sadly, there are too many ok/good amateur 'togs who don't understand the value of their work and are being exploited.
It's not going to change.

Jetstar see a cheap way to get lots of images. They don't care as 1,000s will enter.

Kym I cannot agree with you here on either point.

The market has changed dramatically with the digital era - and not just with photography. The cost of producing an image 20 years ago was ten times the price of today (if not more). The market is saturated with photographers to cater to every level in the market. Be it cheap weddings, portrait or promotional - there is a tog at every price point in these markets. Those that do not have the overheads naturally do not have to charge the same dollars to make the same profits.

In your particular case you were most likely undercut in the market - but the thing is if you had read the market correctly then you would have sold your images - even if you had sold them at $25, the costs were already covered, and you were in a profit position. You may choose not to enter that particular market - but someone will and they are making profits from it.

As for Jetstar no caring. Jetstar employ 1000's of staff, pay millions in taxes, and still return a dividend to their shareholders. They have a responsibilty to all these people to be competitive in the market and stay in the airline industry. They pay millions of dollars a year to support third party businesses (including the services of professional commercial photographers). This competition is not exploitation of the commercial photographer - it is legal way of collecting photos and cutting marketing costs.

[Kym]

One must ask a question.
To those that have been lucky enough to get their images in the magazine Australian Photography. Are they receiving a finacial cut out of the magazine sales?
There are many examples of images being used to promote websites, companies and newspapers that are freely given by the TOG, with no finacial gain.

This site displays competition winning entries on it's portal to promote the site to visitors. This site gets its finance from sponsers (albiet no where the value to pay Rick, Kym and the Mods for all the work they put in) But money does change hands. And all the images displayed on here are in a way promoting the site. (In a very round about way) So should we receive a share of the small amount the site earns, and then pay an extra $1000.00 a year to be a member. Or leave it the way it is.
The above is an extreme example. Please don't take it the wrong way
Geoff

Let's compare AP with Jetstar...

AusPhotography	Jetstar
AP - non profit (and it just covers costs)	Multi million dollar profit making company with marketing staff and budget
Site provided for free	You pay to use Jetstar services
Prizes given - no entry fee	No entry fee, limited prizes, you lose ©
You retain ©, AP has limited license	You are ripped off
Limited revenues via sponsors, click thru adverts, a some donors. Most costs is hosting and software license costs, the rest is prizes.	Fully commercial revenues