My company's contest rules

I posted about this last year and got some good feedback from fellow NPNers so I'm giving it another try.

My company (very very large and profitable global corporation) is having an internal photo contest, and in the process is taking full ownership and copyrights - not just of the winners, but of every photograph submitted.

http://www.utc.com/photo_contest/rules.htm

Last year, I emailed the legal representatives with my concerns, and this is what they said:

"This is a contest for amateur photographers who happen to be employees. Since amateur photographers normally do not make money selling rights to their photographs and since we wanted to be free to use these photographs as we choose, it was easiest to simply take ownership. As you can see the submitted photos are posted on the web---we have made copies, displayed them and distributed them. Although we take ownership, we do not plan to object to personal use of a photo that has been submitted to the contest."

To me this reads "An amateur's photographs are worth nothing, so we are taking them because it is easier that way (and we want free imagery)."

Obviously my emails last year did nothing because the same set of rules is being used again this year. I'd like to raise my concerns again and welcome any comments, suggestions or different ideas on how to approach this.

Regards,
Jeff Hanna

I would simply not send them any photos. The BNSF Railroad has a similar deal. You send them photos for their annual company calendar and they keep them to use as they please. I've had several divisional manager look at my photos and say, "Wow, you should send that in to our calendar people!" I then explain why I won't. I mean, it's not like BNSF, the second biggest railroad in the Western Hemisphere, can't pay me a few bucks. The largest railroad, Union Pacific, does pay $100 per photo, and they don't assume ownership of the image.


Kent in SD

I remember your posts from last year. Corporate arrogance and greed is an ugly thing. They are doing this because they can, not because of a lack of knowledge. Their statement on the value of the works of amateur photographers makes that clear.

Quite honestly, I don't think they care what you have to say.

Sorry.

You might try pointing out to your employer that they may be liable for copyright infringement in spite of the language in number 7 of their contest rules. I'm not convinced their language satisfies the requirements of USC 17 204(a). which states:

§ 204. Execution of transfers of copyright ownership
(a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized agent.

I suppose it would be up to the courts to decide if your employer's rule number 7 constitutes "an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer".

That looks distinctly like Handwriting on the Wall to me, sorry to say. Your choices would appear to be live with it, don't participate, or leave.

Most photographers start off as amateurs with no intention of selling. Of course those who give it up won't make any money selling later because companies like that take away their good images. A lot of people don't know any better, but I don't think it is their fault. They usually don't know the value of what they could get for their images or how to go about getting it. The corporations know that and will entice them with all sorts of crap.

Personally if it were me working there and I wanted to keep my job, I'd let the issue drop and just not participate. If you're looking for a new job then the gloves should come off.

If I were in your place my inclination, assuming I didn't particularly value my job, would be to tell them quite directly to stick it. If I did value my job I'd keep my hands in my pockets, my mouth (mostly) closed and my images out of my employer's clutches.

My employer asked me to take some safety themed shots for a company calender for no compensation other then my hourly wage. My problem with it is that one of my co-workers has grading equipment and would not be asked to do work at the site during regular hours for his hourly wage-so why should I?

Hi Leann,

That depends entirely on the nature of your employer (i.e., private company, government agency, academic institution, whatever) and the specifics of your job description. The easy out is to say your gear is broken and ask them to provide "company" gear and you'll be happy to shoot it on company time.

Possibly could get them coming and going... You could be a "whistleblower" and turn them in to someone bigger in the food chain who could put more pressure on them. ASMP? Of course if they retaliate against you for whistleblowing, you could sue, because i think it's illegal to penalize a whistleblower. Unfortunately, working there would become quite unpleasant and in the end you'd probably want to work somewhere else. Darn it. I hate this stuff. "Big pocket" corporations trying to snuff out all the "little pockets" people.

Hank I work for a BIG chemical company and was asked to do this because I often bring in my prints to the team breakroom to show co-workers. I am flattered don't get me wrong but also see that they want to get me "on the cheap" and wouldn't do so with services that other employees can do. I wouldn't want it to become expected.

It's not just companies that do this. The Anchorage Daily News does a similar thing. This last summer they had contest for entries to put in a calendar. I think the people who won actually did get something, BUT, the newspaper took the rights to ALL images submitted. I can't remember all the details, but I do remember being pretty ticked off when I read the fine print. That paper also invited people to submit pictures of clouds and weather in general. These pictures are then printed, albeit small, in the weather section of the paper. The result: the newspaper gets free pictures!!!
The thing is most people still want to have their images published, and they don't care if they don't get paid.

Usually I am of the mind that if you don't like the rules simply don't submit photos, there is no reason to get riled up over it. What I find humerous here is the reasoning of the legal team "...since we wanted to be free to use these photographs as we choose, it was easiest to simply take ownership."

Why wouldn't it be just as easy to state in the rules that they would be entitled to use all images freely as they choose and NOT simply take ownership?

Hi Jeff
I saw your osprey series & they're stunning Congratulations & what a fantastic series of images you've captures. Kudos!!