Jetstar Competition Warning

[Brian500au]

Kym - interesting comparison and I think we might be getting off the OP's original post but i think once again it all comes down to business strategy.

When you say AP - not profit it just covers costs - are you saying this is a registered not for profit business or are you saying the revenues just cover the costs (what ever you deem as costs - wages, licenses, depreciation etc).

Secondly if you compared the return on assets employed by Jetstar and AP you might find AP are in front. There are more ways to measure a business than how much revenues are generated.

Jetstar provide a service at a competitive price which you pay for - correct, but this service is provided at a competitive price due to their cost reduction model.

Ripped off is a personal opinion shared by the minority of people who enter (or dont enter) these competitions.

What is the difference to the tax department of "Limited revenues" and "Fully commercial revenues" - i work in finance and have never heard that definition expressed before?

And before anybody jumps up and down - no I dont work for Jetstar.

The bottom line is if you want Jetstar to pay for the photos be prepared to pay more for your seats when you fly anywhere - then we will have to start a whole new thread on why Jetstar went out of business.

[Wayne]

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

All of those terms and cond can be condensed to read what Kym said here. Imagine finding 3000 starjump pics on Getty or other stock site would e hard, and then consider what the stock agency would charge to have that many...Give away a few prizes, collect 20,000 prospects of which you can use any you like forever, and select 3000 for actual use now, save rest for another time.

[Xenedis]

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).

Without prolonging this debate (it's gone on long enough already), for me, the issue can be summed up by these points:

1. How I choose to make use of my images is my business.
2. I do not agree with the approach Jetstar is taking.
3. People either agree with Jetstar's position, or they don't; and their stance is not justifiable to anyone.
4. People should understand the terms of any competition they're considering entering.

[Wayne]

Without prolonging this debate (it's gone on long enough already), for me, the issue can be summed up by these points:

1. People either agree with Jetstar's position, or they don't; and their stance is not justifiable to anyone.
2. People should understand the terms of any competition they're considering entering.

Most people I would guess, thats the 20,000+/- who will enter the competition won't even think about Jetstar's position let alone agree or disagree, because that same number of people won't even bother to read the T&C's, and/or won't care about the use of the image because they don't place a $ value on taking and submitting a photo that is used by a company who is offering a prize for what is a simple photo. They don't see nor care about Jetstar getting these images at no cost and obtaining usage rights in the process.

[Xenedis]

Most people I would guess, thats the 20,000+/- who will enter the competition won't even think about Jetstar's position let alone agree or disagree, because that same number of people won't even bother to read the T&C's, and/or won't care about the use of the image because they don't place a $ value on taking and submitting a photo that is used by a company who is offering a prize for what is a simple photo. They don't see nor care about Jetstar getting these images at no cost and obtaining usage rights in the process.

Unfortunately you may be right about that.

[Longshots]

OK I apologise now and explain that I'm very busy ATM tackling not only Jetstar but many others

Brief over view on what I've quickly scanned here - and please exscuse my bluntness - I'm tired sorry.

OK whoever thought that you get a cut from magazine sales if you use your image clearly hasnt experienced any print sales to magazines.

Comparison with AP terms and conditions of entry - scuse me ### ? Are you even barely serious. Go and read the T&C of Jetstar again, and go and read the whole thing. I'm amazed at the politeness of Kyms response. They are like chalk and cheese. Where as AP needs a licence from entrants to display on their website in relation to the competition, Jetstar is asking for an agreement which is utterly different - which is that every entrant - WINNER OR NOT ! - agrees to an unlimited licence for worldwide use to be used in any marketing material - MAJOR MAJOR DIFFERENCE.

True many people wont really care about reading the Terms and Conditions, until - UNTIL - they dont win, and yet find that one of their images is being used all over the world for promotion by a Australian Company that is owned by another Australian Company, that promotes the lifestyle of being an Australian and doing the right thing.

I received a phone call from Jetstar explaining that (and I'm not changing any words here) that the "sole purpose of the competition is to acquire at least 3,000 individual images of star jumps that they (Jetstar) can use in future marketing material.

Now after 15 years of checking and working with companies lobbying as PhotoWatchDog, and representing at least 250,000 people with cameras across Australia, I have never received such a blatant, brazen and honest response. What is worrying is that he saw nothing wrong with that.

He also agreed with me that entrants are entering images of people who agree to be entered into a competition, but have no idea and no warning at all that their image will be used in a commercial manner (by a company who has an annual multi million dollar advertising budget). And best of all he also agreed with me that the photographer/entrant could potentially be sued by the model/person in the image, as its the entrant that agrees that they are accepting legal liability.

The amount of images they intend to use are over 3,000. They have available just 150 vouchers which can be used as part payment for a ticket. Which leaves at least 2850 upset people whose image will be used and not receive any benefit. Which again is IMHO in breach of the ACCC unconscionable conduct.

Its also worth noting that the 2009 terms and conditions which werent great then - only asked for the winners and finalists for a licence to use, and there was more prizes available.


So just consider that one as well.

[Longshots]

Without prolonging this debate (it's gone on long enough already), for me, the issue can be summed up by these points:

1. How I choose to make use of my images is my business.
2. I do not agree with the approach Jetstar is taking.
3. People either agree with Jetstar's position, or they don't; and their stance is not justifiable to anyone.
4. People should understand the terms of any competition they're considering entering.

I agree with you on some points. But are you insinuating that I am wrong to highlight and warn people of this trap ?

And I disagree with you on item 3 - they are an Australian business covered by Australian business law, and if they are in breach of their own stated ethics, and in breach of Australian business law, then I completely expect that their stance requires some proper justification.

[Xenedis]

I agree with you on some points. But are you insinuating that I am wrong to highlight and warn people of this trap ?

No! I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

I thanked you for highlighting this particular trap.

In point three, the stance I said was not justifiable to anyone is that of people like myself and others who dislike Jetstar's position, not the stance Jetstar is taking.

And I disagree with you on item 3 - they are an Australian business covered by Australian business law, and if they are in breach of their own stated ethics, and in breach of Australian business law, then I completely expect that their stance requires some proper justification.

Sorry, there's some confusion there. The justification to which I referred is that of the general public (ie, either agreeing with or disagreeing with what Jetstar is doing), not Jetstar's justification for its practices re the competition.

Point three reads as follows:

3. People either agree with Jetstar's position, or they don't; and their stance is not justifiable to anyone.

To clarify, this is what I meant:

3. People either agree with Jetstar's position, or they don't; and their view on Jetstar's approach is not justifiable to anyone.

[rellik666]

Blimey Longshots!

That is very worrying indeed. I hadn't thought of the implications like that! It is disgusting behaviour and yet people are concerned about their right to privacy and then don't even bother to read the T&C's for something like that!

People don't care, but they also expect someone else to sort things like this out for them.

Maybe a phone call to the rumour file or some other radio program is in order...

[Kym]

A bit OT.

The AP comparison was in response to Geoff's post. AP does not make any $$ from member content contributions.
I guess we could do a calendar based on the top entries in PoTY but that has issues.

As for AP financials, only Rick knows, albeit I'm privy to the cost side of things
due to recommending to Rick what we should pay for (Hosting, Licenses etc.), and can see what is given in prizes.
I'm aware of a lot of the revenue side as Rick is fairly open, and the fact is this Forum does not make much,
and when there is a bit in the kitty it tents to go out in prizes.
BTW That is one reason we require contribution on the site and not just lurking.

The team that help run AP plus contributing members make it what it is.
AP is not for everyone, but many get a lot of fun and help form this site.

I guess Jetstar is not for everyone either, esp. their photo comp.

[Longshots]

To clarify, this is what I meant:

In my haste I may have sound grumpy and misunderstood your points - thanks for clarifying and didnt mean to sound like I was biting your head off

[Xenedis]

In my haste I may have sound grumpy and misunderstood your points - thanks for clarifying and didnt mean to sound like I was biting your head off

No worries. :-)

As I was going through my reply I saw the ambiguity in one of my points.

[Longshots]

The issue I tend to have is that most people ASSUME that T&C are fair and reasonable. And there are many business practices that are considered unethical and not appropriate in this day and age. There are laws that in theory are meant to protect people who only read the large print and assume a company is doing the "right thing". Unfortunately they are not being utilised. So its the same old thing that I say time and time again - read the Terms and Conditions and make your own decisions.

[sunny6teen]

I'm sure those 3000 star jumpers all signed a model release

btw...is that the prize? discounted flights? so I can't even get a free flight in exchange for unlimated global usage.
Even with fair T&C's and even with the entrant agreeing to them...this competition is pretty weak.

[Woody08]

Hello Longshots,

You say you have been raising these issues for many years. Have youhad any success? Have you direstly approached the ACCC? Have you tried to raise this with local MP's?

I agree that most ameteurs are quite gullable, but only today I saw at least 500 photographers all with thier DSLRs clicking away at The Rocks. I was one of them.
If just 10% got some usable photos, then thats 50 sets of our Sydney icons. The cost, apart from the initial outlay of camera, lenses and other bits, is just about nil. And most ameteurs look at it this way. They give away their photos, post on Flickr, Facebook or Picasa anoung a plethora of others and would not know nor care if their photos were illegally downloaded and used.

Its only enthusiasts and professionals who reaslise the value of their hard work who see this as a problem. Earlier in one of your responses, you said this htread has gone on too long. I wholly dosagree, it should be a sticky and be continually put in from of all who take photos.

Regards,

John W

[bricat]

I can see by your passion for this subject that it is hard to fathom any business that uses this type of promotion as being ethical.
1. It is a sneaky way to obtain that amount of "advertising" at virtually no cost if all they give away is a few empty seats on a plane ride.
2. I don't think a business can be sued/penalised for "unethical" behavior.
3. If it is against business law or ACCC requirements then the full force of the appropriate law/s should be brought to bear.
4. The only other alternative is to do what you have done and make it as public as possible to shame Jetstar into withdrawing/changeing there T&C's.
5. I for one would not enter their competition on those grounds. I was infact dubious about signing over my rights to this site when I first signed up as I was not sure/did not know much about AP. (I don't think I will have to worry about any of my shots being exploited) I had to read several times the T&C on AP to see it would only be used for self promotion etc and I retained ownership.
6. Thank you for bringing it to our attention and to be aware next time we see a similar tactic used by any business. Keep up the good work.
cheers Brian

[98kellrs]

Has anyone considered that perhaps this stupid competition is for fun and will inspire some people (who wouldn't normally) to pick up their camera, dust it off, and get creative with some friends? Isn't that why we all played with cameras in the first place; because we enjoyed it? Why does everything have to be so PC these days?

Copyright issues are a serious subject, and you are well within your rights to defend them, but this competition is pitched at your average joe/jane who will probably take the picture on their iPhone for fun.

[Art Vandelay]

As much as I dont agree with it, it's really no different to what every news organisation around the world does in promoting viewers to submit photos, videos etc for news stories. The result is the same. Large company getting free use of material.

CNN was in the news having recently offloaded many photographers & journos, at the same time it sprung up a whole new division called iReport, which specialises in gaining user submitted material for it's news services free of charge from the public. It even has tutorials etc for aspiring correspondents http://ireport.cnn.com/toolkit.jspa

[Mark L]

Has anyone considered that perhaps this stupid competition is for fun and will inspire some people (who wouldn't normally) to pick up their camera, dust it off, and get creative with some friends?

And wouldn't it be fun if a large company paid part time Paula for the fun image that they will use (winning image or not) to promote themselves.

[aussie girl]

Yes it might be "nice" to see your very own photo splashed on the walls of every Jetstar sales site for a month or two. You could give yourself "bragging" rights if you wanted to, but to what benefit??? I am sure if you said to a staff member, "Hey that is MY photo up there on your wall" they would be mildly impressed, but I can bet your bottom dollar that nowhere on that photo would your name be written to identify that YOU were the one that actually took the photo.

I think you will find that by entering the competition, you agree to their terms, which clearly states that they have unlimited rights to any photos, so I doubt very much that if your photo was chosen as a "winner" it would not be as simple as then saying, No I have changed my mind and I dont want you to use it now. You have already given them permission just by entering, because somewhere on the registration page, would be a little box that you had to tick to say that you agreed to said terms and conditions, before you could progress any further.

As for other work coming your way due to your photo being splashed in brochures, sales points or even television adverts, I dont share your confidence. Even if some highend marketing firm took a shine to the photo that you entered, and which "won" the competition, and which had been splashed on every bill board, sales window display and brochure, I imagine that if they asked if they could use it, they would be charged by Jetstar for that privilege, and if they decided that they wanted to contact the actual photographer who took the photo, your name and details would have been long ago detached from your image never to be married up again. They would probably have no idea who took it as it was just another photo, from many many more that were sent to them for their exclusive use that they thumbed through and decided, 'Yep that one is nice"