Posted by Kalin Wilson on March 24, 2011 at 12:54 AM
I'd like to hear people's thoughts and experiences with various forms of rights language when entering photo contests.
I recognize the advantages of the exposure that a contest can give you, especially if you win an award. I also recognize that certain rights have to be granted to allow the contest to display your image online, etc.
However, I also know that some contests are ruses to collect stock photography, so I'm leary of some of the language in some contest rules.
I've considered entering into Outdoor Photographer contests, and I know many of you have in the past, but I always get tripped up by this language:
In addition, each winner grants to the Sponsor and its designees an irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, worldwide perpetual license to use and distribute the entry [(as submitted, or as cropped by Sponsor)], and his/her name, city and state of residence for credit purposes, in any and all media now or hereafter known, including without limitation in Outdoor Photographer magazine, for purposes of promotion of this Contest and other Sponsor contests and/or for purposes of advertising and promoting Sponsor and, except as otherwise stated herein, without further compensation, notification or permission, unless prohibited by law.
How do you guys approach this issue? Do you think the exposure is worth giving up some rights and revenue to a publication like OP?
Posted by Jack Garrett on March 24, 2011 at 1:53 AM
I most certainly do...unless it's a one of a kind image like a yeti fighting a grizzly
I feel like if you are a winner or finalist it looks pretty darn good in your portfolio. For the most part, these mags aren't going to outsource your image anyway. The only major issue I have is what recently happened to a good photographer friend. He submitted an image to a magazine contest and wound up with his entry on the cover of the magazine. They didn't notify him and he got a small credit on page 16. I feel if they are going to do something like that, they should at least let you know so you can go out and buy 10 copies!!
Posted by Grant Collier on March 24, 2011 at 2:13 AM
I've never entered an OP contest, but I'm assuming the winner gets a pretty good prize package, so at least they are, in a sense, being paid to give OP these rights. And OP does have to cover their arse against lawsuits. But it would be nice if they were only using the image for promotion of the contest and not for any and all advertising or promotion. The contest looks better than others, though. In general, I've never been a big fan of contests, although I entered one magazine contest on a whim once. For the most part, they seem kind of gimmicky and I don't like the idea of ranking images as being "better" than others, when that's a subjective assessment that can vary widely from individual to individual. But I won't say I'm against contests in general and certainly won't say people shouldn't enter them. Personally, I'm just sort of apathetic to them. I have entered the fall color contest on RMNP a few times and it is fun and low-key, plus I've found it a good way to get rid of some extra cash. There are some, though, that are little more than scams to give up your image rights, so the fine print should always be read, especially if submitting larger-res images.
Posted by Bill Pelzmann on March 24, 2011 at 2:53 AM
Gosh, OP is being rather generous in grabbing all rights only from their "winners"!
Earlier this year a friend forwarded me an application for the Jeffco Open Space photo contest. I was amazed to find the language was similar, but even more inclusive. These rules applied to ALL entries submitted, not just the "winners". I would gladly donate photos to non-profit organizations, but when they insist on using this "fine print" in their contests, I refuse to participate.
Posted by Jack Brauer on March 24, 2011 at 3:59 AM
Generally I don't have the time or energy to mess with contests. And I just don't care, frankly. The only one I do usually participate in is NANPA's Showcase, just because I think that's quite an impressive collection each year that I'd be proud to be part of. Even though it's an exclusive member-only publication, not public, so exposure is not even a real benefit to the winners.
The royalty-free terms your posted in the OP mag contest is enough for me to say "No way."
To me this is pretty similar to the phonebook people who ask for free cover shots in exchange for the "publicity".
Posted by Kalin Wilson on March 24, 2011 at 4:24 AM
Jack, we all know what you'll do for ...
Bill, All entrants give up rights for display and promotion of the contest - probably reasonable.
I wonder if the OP showcase pictures are licensed. Guy or anyone else that has been published in OP, were your images only licensed for the article? Curious.
Posted by David Mayhew on March 24, 2011 at 10:33 AM
I have declined entering a number of contests due to rights in their small print. Here their use is stated as being "for purposes of promotion of this Contest and other Sponsor contests and/or for purposes of advertising and promoting Sponsor". This therefore indicates that they are not going to print and sell your image because that would be for commercial gain and not for promotional purposes. I would say this one is fine.
One such contest wanted full rights for image use. Via the College of DuPage photo department and ASMP we got them to understand why this was unacceptable and they changed the fine print.
Another time a local church in Chicago ran an art competition and they buy the piece from the winner, but wanted full ownership of rights for the piece. For a one off art piece that may be fine, but I ain't gonna give up the right top ever print a best selling image ever again.
My advise is to do whatever you feel comfortable with. For a photographic competition generally they should understand the issues, especially with big name magazines. If in doubt query them via email (ie in writing) and pose the issues you may have like "Does this include printing and selling my work?" so you have something to fall back on.
Posted by Pam Colander on March 24, 2011 at 11:02 AM
I don't enter OP anymore because it's a social media popularity contest and I refuse to nag my friends to vote for me. And because their gallery is such a pain to get through I refuse to vote for anyone too. Sorry, it's not a personal thing...
However, I did enter the 9 News Weather Calendar last year and won the 2011 cover. Which was nice in the end. But the Conrad Group was not the easiest to deal with to say the least and I regretted the entry after the fact regardless of the publicity it brought me. After that I am a lot more selective and probably will limit myself to juried shows only.
Posted by Kalin Wilson on March 27, 2011 at 4:28 PM
Thanks for the thoughts, folks. I appreciate the range of views. Hope everyone had a great weekend!
Discussion
9 repliesI recognize the advantages of the exposure that a contest can give you, especially if you win an award. I also recognize that certain rights have to be granted to allow the contest to display your image online, etc.
However, I also know that some contests are ruses to collect stock photography, so I'm leary of some of the language in some contest rules.
I've considered entering into Outdoor Photographer contests, and I know many of you have in the past, but I always get tripped up by this language:
How do you guys approach this issue? Do you think the exposure is worth giving up some rights and revenue to a publication like OP?
I feel like if you are a winner or finalist it looks pretty darn good in your portfolio. For the most part, these mags aren't going to outsource your image anyway. The only major issue I have is what recently happened to a good photographer friend. He submitted an image to a magazine contest and wound up with his entry on the cover of the magazine. They didn't notify him and he got a small credit on page 16. I feel if they are going to do something like that, they should at least let you know so you can go out and buy 10 copies!!
Earlier this year a friend forwarded me an application for the Jeffco Open Space photo contest. I was amazed to find the language was similar, but even more inclusive. These rules applied to ALL entries submitted, not just the "winners". I would gladly donate photos to non-profit organizations, but when they insist on using this "fine print" in their contests, I refuse to participate.
The royalty-free terms your posted in the OP mag contest is enough for me to say "No way."
To me this is pretty similar to the phonebook people who ask for free cover shots in exchange for the "publicity".
Bill, All entrants give up rights for display and promotion of the contest - probably reasonable.
I wonder if the OP showcase pictures are licensed. Guy or anyone else that has been published in OP, were your images only licensed for the article? Curious.
One such contest wanted full rights for image use. Via the College of DuPage photo department and ASMP we got them to understand why this was unacceptable and they changed the fine print.
Another time a local church in Chicago ran an art competition and they buy the piece from the winner, but wanted full ownership of rights for the piece. For a one off art piece that may be fine, but I ain't gonna give up the right top ever print a best selling image ever again.
My advise is to do whatever you feel comfortable with. For a photographic competition generally they should understand the issues, especially with big name magazines. If in doubt query them via email (ie in writing) and pose the issues you may have like "Does this include printing and selling my work?" so you have something to fall back on.
However, I did enter the 9 News Weather Calendar last year and won the 2011 cover. Which was nice in the end. But the Conrad Group was not the easiest to deal with to say the least and I regretted the entry after the fact regardless of the publicity it brought me. After that I am a lot more selective and probably will limit myself to juried shows only.