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.phtml/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. :eek::)

[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. :confused013
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 copy
You retain copy, 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

[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:



How I choose to make use of my images is my business.
I do not agree with the approach Jetstar is taking.
People either agree with Jetstar's position, or they don't; and their stance is not justifiable to anyone.
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:




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



How I choose to make use of my images is my business.
I do not agree with the approach Jetstar is taking.
People either agree with Jetstar's position, or they don't; and their stance is not justifiable to anyone.
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. :efelant:

[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 :rolleyes:

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? :efelant:

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"

[Wayne]

I saw the Courier Mail last week while in Brisbane, and it had splashed all over the back page perhaps 30 or so star jump pics advertising Jetstar, no announcement of any being winners of anything, just self-promotion..