just in case, there is anybody interested in this contest:
I'm not eligible anyway, so I didn't read the smallprint. probably the same usual things. photo contests are popping up like mushrooms these days, but a guided trip to Alaska for four sounds like a nice price.
Posted by Mike Brown on November 8, 2007 at 9:07 AM
I don't think so!
There are a lot of companies who are running this type of contest, ..... taking advantage of others.
Read on in part.
__________
All Photos will become the exclusive property of Sponsor, and none will be acknowledged or returned. By submitting a Photo, entrant irrevocably grants Sponsor and its agents an unlimited, worldwide, perpetual, unconditional, gratis license and right to edit, modify, adapt, publish, broadcast, reproduce, encode, store, copy, transmit, post, publicly display, exhibit, and or otherwise use or reuse (without limitation as to when or to the number of times used) the Photo (in each case, as submitted or as edited/modified in any way by the Sponsor, in its sole discretion) in any way, in any media (including but not limited to the Contest Web site) without limitation, without attribution or compensation to the entrant, his/her successors or assigns, or any other entity, and without notice, review, or approval from entrant or any other party.
*
Posted by Cliff Beittel on November 8, 2007 at 9:10 AM
After the clause Mike quoted, they actually say it again in all CAPS just so you can't say you didn't know:
"ENTERING A PHOTO IN THIS CONTEST CONSTITUTES ENTRANT’S IRREVOCABLE ASSIGNMENT, CONVEYANCE AND TRANFERENCE TO SPONSOR ANY AND ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN THE PHOTO INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL COPYRIGHTS."
Note that you've transferred ownership just by entering, whether or not you win anything. Then there's this gem:
"By submitting a Photo, you warrant and represent that: (a) it is your original work and has been legally created, (b) it has not been previously published or distributed in any media . . . "
So perhaps they would sue if you tried to hand over your copyright on an image you've posted online or entered in another contest. Talk about cojones.
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.
Posted by Cliff Beittel on November 8, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Mark,
So you would enter a contest with those terms, hope to prove in court later you hadn't transferred ownership?
Hank, right on. Very socially incorrect but right on. I love it.
I read Nat Geo a lot and I have a few of their photo coffee table puplications and I must say that I think they are not in keeping with what's current with regard to image quality. It also looks like they've given in to the high price of assigment photog's and are now soliciting from the amature market at least for some purposes.
That said, I still love the huge impact that a lot of their work has on me. Even though their quality standards are not up to what can be done these days (technically) they still have a way of hitting you between the eyes with some of the best travel/documentary/art images.
I don't think it's socially incorrect at all Bob. They're doing exactly the same thing, trying to lure in unsuspecting innocents for their own uses- without regard for the well being of their victims. I'm having second thoughts about the NG renewal solicitation sitting on my desk at this moment. I have to speculate that there is need for some kind of national yellow alert program for unsuspecting photographers. Yeah, I think the scams are that destructive. It's that bad.
Posted by Toni Lankerd on November 8, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Now I'm wondering if some images I submitted (per request through Photoportfolio) to Canada Geo were used in one of their special issues without letting me know.
Posted by John W. Wall on November 8, 2007 at 4:31 PM
I don't know if you're talking about the Your Shot section of National Geo, but that section has those same stipulations. I'm surprised they get enough good submissions to keep it going, but obviously some folks will give their work away to see it published in NG. I'm not sure how that works, though. Wow, you got published in NG. You were paid nothing, and now they own the image. It doesn't seem like a deal a photographer could be proud of.
Posted by Lon Overacker on November 8, 2007 at 8:24 PM
Mark/all,
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'm no lawyer, but an "instrument of coveyance" could certainly mean that when a submitter, "agrees to the terms and conditions...." they have "agreed." Electronic signatures are legal these days - just think how we submit our tax returns or when you click on the "I agree" button for any software installation.
With all that verbage, and the submitter agreeing to the terms, I can't see a lawsuit against these guys holding up in court. You submit to the contest, you agree.
Unfortunately, it's an all to common means of getting free images.
Lon
Posted by Dan Borzynski on November 9, 2007 at 1:39 AM
Lon's take on the "submission constitutes a transfer of copyright" agrees with my thoughts. I'm not going even bother trying to honor this contest by going to its website, but I have seen more than one photo contest where you sign at the end of the entry form, or by electronic submission, agreeing to all terms and conditions.
On the bright side, it would probably be cheaper to go to one of the RF microstocks instead of organizing a contest, so those guys can't be *too* smart.
They're just trying to stir up "reader interest" as they see it. Lots of folks out there with cameras, and most dream of an NG photo someday. They don't know any better, so they pile on.
Posted by Cliff Beittel on November 9, 2007 at 8:30 AM
On the bright side, it would probably be cheaper to go to one of the RF microstocks instead of organizing a contest, so those guys can't be *too* smart.
Actually, I think their costs will be negligible (apart from attorneys' fees). The winner would probably get unsold cabins (by the engine room?) on a scheduled NG cruise, and the terms for claiming the trip are so onerous (must be taken between 4/1 and 12/31 2008, but the final winner probably won't be known on 4/1), must choose a trip 21 days before departure, must agree to flight itinerary selected at sole discretion of NG, prize subject to availability, etc., etc. The whole thing smells.
Posted by William Vrolyk on November 9, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Canadian Geographic ran a photo contest too (deadline has passed; contest now closed). According to the rules they wanted only "the non-exclusive right to publish any entry and/or use any entry in promotional material". Nowhere does it say they wanted full copyright or ownership of the photo. Would any of you have agreed to those conditions? They still can use your photos without giving you any compensation, but at least you retain the rights and ownership to your work.
I'm pretty hardline on this Will, but from a purely business perspective, any time my photo is used without payment, it's money directly out of my pocket. There's little or no tangible value for me in "exposure" of my images in a deal like this. Others' mileage will most certainly vary, but if someone approached me in person with a similar proposal I'd laugh in their face. Yeah, I'm a crotchety old curmudgeon, even if I can't spell!
Posted by Dan Borzynski on November 10, 2007 at 12:11 AM
Quoting from above"
"Actually, I think their costs will be negligible (apart from attorneys' fees). The winner would probably get unsold cabins (by the engine room?) on a scheduled NG cruise, and the terms for claiming the trip are so onerous (must be taken between 4/1 and 12/31 2008, but the final winner probably won't be known on 4/1), must choose a trip 21 days before departure, must agree to flight itinerary selected at sole discretion of NG, prize subject to availability, etc., etc. The whole thing smells."
Hmmm. Good point. I guess it would be pretty cheap if you can't actually get the prizes offered.
Posted by Andy Richards on November 11, 2007 at 11:24 AM
I am a lawyer (though not an intellectual property specialist), but I had the same immediate thought that Lon and Dan did. I think it would be difficult to argue that agreeing to the terms and conditions would not amount to a "memorandum" within the meaning of the statute. Unless there has been some caselaw interpreting this differently or giving the "memorandum" "term of art" status.
Discussion
17 repliesI'm not eligible anyway, so I didn't read the smallprint. probably the same usual things. photo contests are popping up like mushrooms these days, but a guided trip to Alaska for four sounds like a nice price.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/bestbuy/contest.html
Georg
There are a lot of companies who are running this type of contest, ..... taking advantage of others.
Read on in part.
__________
All Photos will become the exclusive property of Sponsor, and none will be acknowledged or returned. By submitting a Photo, entrant irrevocably grants Sponsor and its agents an unlimited, worldwide, perpetual, unconditional, gratis license and right to edit, modify, adapt, publish, broadcast, reproduce, encode, store, copy, transmit, post, publicly display, exhibit, and or otherwise use or reuse (without limitation as to when or to the number of times used) the Photo (in each case, as submitted or as edited/modified in any way by the Sponsor, in its sole discretion) in any way, in any media (including but not limited to the Contest Web site) without limitation, without attribution or compensation to the entrant, his/her successors or assigns, or any other entity, and without notice, review, or approval from entrant or any other party.
*
"ENTERING A PHOTO IN THIS CONTEST CONSTITUTES ENTRANT’S IRREVOCABLE ASSIGNMENT, CONVEYANCE AND TRANFERENCE TO SPONSOR ANY AND ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN THE PHOTO INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL COPYRIGHTS."
Note that you've transferred ownership just by entering, whether or not you win anything. Then there's this gem:
"By submitting a Photo, you warrant and represent that: (a) it is your original work and has been legally created, (b) it has not been previously published or distributed in any media . . . "
So perhaps they would sue if you tried to hand over your copyright on an image you've posted online or entered in another contest. Talk about cojones.
So you would enter a contest with those terms, hope to prove in court later you hadn't transferred ownership?
I read Nat Geo a lot and I have a few of their photo coffee table puplications and I must say that I think they are not in keeping with what's current with regard to image quality. It also looks like they've given in to the high price of assigment photog's and are now soliciting from the amature market at least for some purposes.
That said, I still love the huge impact that a lot of their work has on me. Even though their quality standards are not up to what can be done these days (technically) they still have a way of hitting you between the eyes with some of the best travel/documentary/art images.
Bob
I'm no lawyer, but an "instrument of coveyance" could certainly mean that when a submitter, "agrees to the terms and conditions...." they have "agreed." Electronic signatures are legal these days - just think how we submit our tax returns or when you click on the "I agree" button for any software installation.
With all that verbage, and the submitter agreeing to the terms, I can't see a lawsuit against these guys holding up in court. You submit to the contest, you agree.
Unfortunately, it's an all to common means of getting free images.
Lon
On the bright side, it would probably be cheaper to go to one of the RF microstocks instead of organizing a contest, so those guys can't be *too* smart.
Actually, I think their costs will be negligible (apart from attorneys' fees). The winner would probably get unsold cabins (by the engine room?) on a scheduled NG cruise, and the terms for claiming the trip are so onerous (must be taken between 4/1 and 12/31 2008, but the final winner probably won't be known on 4/1), must choose a trip 21 days before departure, must agree to flight itinerary selected at sole discretion of NG, prize subject to availability, etc., etc. The whole thing smells.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
"Actually, I think their costs will be negligible (apart from attorneys' fees). The winner would probably get unsold cabins (by the engine room?) on a scheduled NG cruise, and the terms for claiming the trip are so onerous (must be taken between 4/1 and 12/31 2008, but the final winner probably won't be known on 4/1), must choose a trip 21 days before departure, must agree to flight itinerary selected at sole discretion of NG, prize subject to availability, etc., etc. The whole thing smells."
Hmmm. Good point. I guess it would be pretty cheap if you can't actually get the prizes offered.