Photographers, Contests and Photo Rights

I've written this short note regarding my debate about entering a photo contest. Normally I don't enter ones where they have you assign them the rights to do anything they want with your submission as long as it is to 'promote the contest'

If you could follow the link and reply on the note I would appreciate it. Part of me is silly enough to think that if enough good/great photographers would band together this could be changed.

Thanks

Photographers shouldn't enter contests that expect them to give up rights to their own work. I think that what would be appropriate in exchange for being awarded a prize would be for the photo to be used in one exhibit, one issue of a magazine, etc. You're probably right that if photographers stuck together and refused to enter such contests, the rules would eventually be changed. Good luck with your endeavor.

Photographers should not enter contests that require them to give up their rights, but in the same sense that company who is having the contest should think twice about asking photographers to give up their right to the entered photosgraphs. It's just wrong and a cheap way to get free photos to do with as you please.

I am in the same boat as the last two posts, if a comp wants me to give up all rights I simply move on. In effcet it is a scam as they are getting numerous images that they can then sell on and do with as they pelase without having to pay a bean.

Great way to build up a stock photography portfolio for someone...

This was from a post on LinkedIn that I wanted to share here.

Sue - Are you saying that you have no problem giving your rights away, not relinquishing them, to enter a contest? What is being described by the contests is - you get to keep the copyrights but they get to use the image in any manner up to and including books, and posters to promote the contest in the future and in perpetutity. I actually think that is worse.

These are Nikon's terms, Costco's terms, Canons term's, Nature photogrpaher's terms, National Geographic's term and quite a few more that I have read, yes they give you credit but you get no $$ for the use. Also, Brad is right about the exclusive's as well, and to be truthfull I ask for more money on an exclusive, rights managed contract. Don;t get me started on NWF they are very, very, stingy and seem to have issues with payments on time and in total.

As to a judge/jury fee, I don't have a problem with that since either they pay the juror or juries, (personal experience on being a judge in several contest/shows), or/and they have cost involved in putting everything together for the show/contest. I have been entering and judging contest for over 15yrs and in the judging department I do not play favorites but many times the same person will win because that person is the best of what has been entered, (only pro in the crowd, most advanced, spends more time on their craft.....). I quit entering some shows for that very reason. I had thought the same as you, Bonnie and Sue, until I became a judge. I have seen the same person win for other reasons as well, just not when I am the judge. Most of those times it has to do with sales of the artist/photgraphers work and the organization getting a percentage.

My recomendatition is to read the contract very, very closely because the terms descrbed above are usally in very, very small print and usally not up front, but found in the, "read all conditions first", located somewhere else, and at the very end of a very long size 8 font, (or smaller), two page "terms" contract.

I know this has gotten a little off the original question, and it makes a short answer very long, my short answer is to not enter those types of contests. The fewer quality entries they get will cause them to either clean up their act or their contest will go away.

Part of the reason I wanted to share this is because he DOES mention the organization holding the contest I've brought up. It is a well known and 'respectable' organization on my fronts, however, this industry standard of having photographers give up their rights, I'm having some major problems with and it's good to see others agree with me on it. It's sad to learn that many others didn't realize what rights they have given up when entering a contest. It's making me think about how to go about educating other photographers about this. My little post is a start, but I think a lot more will need to be done....

It's business. They state in their agreements and contracts what the requirements are. Nobody is forcing anybody to join these.

Let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

The company/magazine is putting forth the resources, pays judges and provides prizes for these contests and winning a major one can start a lucrative career either as in free-lance, stock sales or instruction. I personally know people who have literally gotten their businesses "rocked" by winning. One has a successful web sales business and the other offers lucrative workshops.

The limits on the rights to permit use for promotion of the contest seems to be just that. Without such permission, the organization would have to negotiate and pay for each image used to promote the contest.

All that said, it is your choice, just as it is in many trades and professions, accept the terms or don't play.

Again, not necessarily my opinion, just food for thought.

That's a good point, nobody has to enter these type contests; but as Steven mentioned, it's becoming an industry standard. It's one thing to enter the contest and allow use of the image for related purposes, because yes, if you win the contest you get a prize and recognition.

What I object to is expecting a photographer to give up exclusive lifetime rights (meaning you couldn't use the image for anything else - ever). The amount of money you win or publicity you receive isn't comparable to what they could potentially make from using the photo; the prize is a drop in the bucket compared to probably billions in profit. They may incur some costs although they already have publications, websites, etc. to promote the contest, and the judges are their own photographers so I don't know that they would have to pay them as judges.

icepics wrote: That's a good point, nobody has to enter these type contests; but as Steven mentioned, it's becoming an industry standard. It's one thing to enter the contest and allow use of the image for related purposes, because yes, if you win the contest you get a prize and recognition.

What I object to is expecting a photographer to give up exclusive lifetime rights (meaning you couldn't use the image for anything else - ever). The amount of money you win or publicity you receive isn't comparable to what they could potentially make from using the photo; the prize is a drop in the bucket compared to probably billions in profit. They may incur some costs although they already have publications, websites, etc. to promote the contest, and the judges are their own photographers so I don't know that they would have to pay them as judges.

Billions????

Also, it's been like this for awhile. It isn't becoming anything..it's already there.

You don't have to join the contests.

People are acting like victims when they volunteer to give their stuff away.

icepics: There is a difference between promotion of the contest and even lifetime promotion of the contest which could include books, posters, etc. If I entered a contest and they wanted to print the results in the magazine, great! They want to use it in a brochure in a future year, that's fine as well. It's when they start to make money off selling items with the picture on it, even if they don't have the exclusive rights to the image, that I start to object. I don't think these places should make money without giving $$s back to the photographers whose works they are using.

For those saying that "you don't have to enter", which is true. But if, as photographers, allow practices to continue then it is only our fault if we get screwed over. Yes, they have been this way for awhile, but we allow it.

Just like many of the other protests going on around the world, the citizens allowed it to happen until it got to a point a small group could no longer take it and try to make a change. We can continue to allow these contests to do this or not, it's our choice. If we were to choose NOT TO allow it by withdrawing support from the contests and educating others of the risks they are taking, that is our choice. Or we can say "Well, I'm not going to enter them, screw those who do" it is again our choice to allow the abuse to continue. Why not, as a group, stand up and make some effective changes, especially when companies like Nikon, Canon, National Geographic, etc. are perpetrating the horrible contests?

stevenjdonley wrote: icepics: There is a difference between promotion of the contest and even lifetime promotion of the contest which could include books, posters, etc. If I entered a contest and they wanted to print the results in the magazine, great! They want to use it in a brochure in a future year, that's fine as well. It's when they start to make money off selling items with the picture on it, even if they don't have the exclusive rights to the image, that I start to object. I don't think these places should make money without giving $$s back to the photographers whose works they are using.

For those saying that "you don't have to enter", which is true. But if, as photographers, allow practices to continue then it is only our fault if we get screwed over. Yes, they have been this way for awhile, but we allow it.

Just like many of the other protests going on around the world, the citizens allowed it to happen until it got to a point a small group could no longer take it and try to make a change. We can continue to allow these contests to do this or not, it's our choice. If we were to choose NOT TO allow it by withdrawing support from the contests and educating others of the risks they are taking, that is our choice. Or we can say "Well, I'm not going to enter them, screw those who do" it is again our choice to allow the abuse to continue. Why not, as a group, stand up and make some effective changes, especially when companies like Nikon, Canon, National Geographic, etc. are perpetrating the horrible contests?

They're not doing anything wrong, so how can they be horrible contests?

What they're doing may be legal, whether it's right or wrong is probably open to debate.

Steve, I think contests like this aren't particularly in the best interests of photographers, but they dangle a really big carrot. You're taking it a step further than people like me who don't enter such contests, by bringing it to other people's attention.

The reason I said billions was because I couldn't find a report of their current profits, but from Steve's description I had a good idea of which contest it was. I was able to find it the description on their website so I was able to figure out the organization who's sponsoring it. I did find that when they built their HQ in the early 80's it cost 30 million and they paid cash (meaning apparently no loans/mortgage). At that time their profit annually was 200 million, so I would imagine 30 years later it would be into the billions.

icepics: It isn't hard to figure out which contest it was from, especially since I quoted someone from another site and said it was in his list.

Scotty: If they aren't doing anything wrong on some level then why is this part of the agreement?

Entrants consent to the Sponsor doing or omitting to do any act that would otherwise infringe the entrant’s “moral rights” in their entries.

And if you think that it is right for a company to make money off your hard work without giving you anything but a byline credit then that is your choice. If I remember from the times I studied copyrights so I would understand them, it takes a signed agreement to give someone the rights to a picture that a photographer has taken, that the copyright is assigned to the photographer at the moment of taking the picture, even when doing it freelance, unless there is a signed agreement stating otherwise. Plus, from other business, even FAX'd signatures wouldn't be recognized by the courts.

stevenjdonley wrote: icepics: It isn't hard to figure out which contest it was from, especially since I quoted someone from another site and said it was in his list.

Scotty: If they aren't doing anything wrong on some level then why is this part of the agreement?

Entrants consent to the Sponsor doing or omitting to do any act that would otherwise infringe the entrant’s “moral rights” in their entries.

And if you think that it is right for a company to make money off your hard work without giving you anything but a byline credit then that is your choice. If I remember from the times I studied copyrights so I would understand them, it takes a signed agreement to give someone the rights to a picture that a photographer has taken, that the copyright is assigned to the photographer at the moment of taking the picture, even when doing it freelance, unless there is a signed agreement stating otherwise. Plus, from other business, even FAX'd signatures wouldn't be recognized by the courts.

By that logic, anything in an agreement is considered bad?

Not following the logic here.


Contests aren't designed to give every photographer tons of freebies. It's a system of gambling and having good skill sets. You enter the contest on the chance of winning something large such as a lump sum of money or some gear. Yes they most of the time use your photo as they please...but lets be real here...most photos aren't going to make a million dollars or anything near that in your life time. People act like their losing their salary in years pay. For what these large organizations promote and give in form of organization, judging, and such it's more than fair to all parties. especially since it's not forced upon anyone.

You don't have to enter the contest therefore they're not at fault for YOUR decision. Nobody is robbing anybody.

Steven -
I would love to see how you would write a "usage rights" statement for a contest you (or a company you worked for) would promote. I understand that you are not a lawyer (assumption) but what rights would you give the contest operator? What rights would you/they have to use submissions to promote the contest?

Just asking because you sure don't like what current contest operators are asking.