Can Anyone Use An Extra $15k

[smoke665]

So basically that means if you submit a photo for the contest, they pretty much own it for a year and can do whatever they want with it?

From their contest rules - "non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, modify, publish, create derivative works from, and display such submissions (along with a name credit)" They don't "own" anything, but they can pretty much use it however they see fit for 1 year. You retain ownership, and may sell licensing to as many people as you like.

I've looked at several of these contests over the last few months, and this one is actually minor compared to some of them. Check out the Smithsonian Photo contest. If you enter that you grant them a "perpetual" non exclusive license and they only give you credit when they deem it "feasible". I've seen others that go so far as to require and exclusive license.

It is what it is, these companies/organizations that sponsor these things are always going to write the rules in their favor.

 

[Gary A.]

... It also means that if you submit a photo which you do not own the rights to ... they cannot be sued ...

 

[benhasajeep]

Where do I sign up. I need to pay for a couple lenses.

 

[480sparky]

... It also means that if you submit a photo which you do not own the rights to ... they cannot be sued ...

The submitter of the infringed image cannot sue. But the actual copyright owner sure can sue. Both the contest and the infringer.

 

[vintagesnaps]

They're dangling a big $15 thou carrot, the stick is they get rights to a portion of your ability, your work, your effort, that goes into your photography. Sparky has the deal breaker - the rights grab. I've read enough... As usual with these contests, sponsors know 'everybody' is a photographer and they'll find people to submit, and yeah, somebody's going to win but it seems kind of like the lottery, what are the odds you'd win it?

 

[pixmedic]

Why not submit a photo? So what if they get the rights? How many of us have a picture making them anywhere near $15k anyway?
For that much money they can have the rights to my photo.
Ill just take another.


Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

 

[Overread]

It's the rights to the photo for a year and as its such a specific period of use its likely only used for promotion of the competition itself and as such in line with most competitions. I agree if it were a no-limits licence forever then it would be more of a reason to campaign to get that rule changed; at one year its not so bad.

Also $15K is a huge reward these days; that said being as I'm in the UK and no landscaper I won't be affected by it (much as it would be nice to have that chunk of cash

 

[480sparky]

Why not submit a photo? So what if they get the rights? How many of us have a picture making them anywhere near $15k anyway?
For that much money they can have the rights to my photo.
Ill just take another.


Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

It's not just the ONE image they get the rights to. They get the rights to ALL the submitted images.

And if you 'just take another', they can sue you for infringement, even creating deriviative works.

 

[smoke665]

And if you 'just take another', they can sue you for infringement, even creating deriviative works.

Think you read the contest rules incorrectly, see my post above. They get a NON-EXCLUSIVE license to your images, including the winner. That means you can do what ever you want with the image except sell an EXCLUSIVE license to someone else during the one year term. Compared to most contest rules I've read this is one of the most fair agreements to the photographer I've seen in awhile.

 

[pixmedic]

Why not submit a photo? So what if they get the rights? How many of us have a picture making them anywhere near $15k anyway?
For that much money they can have the rights to my photo.
Ill just take another.


Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

It's not just the ONE image they get the rights to. They get the rights to ALL the submitted images.

And if you 'just take another', they can sue you for infringement, even creating deriviative works.

I didnt mean an exact same photo. Just some other photo. I mean Damn....if you don't like the terms don't play the game.
In just saying giving up one photo for $15k that isnt likely to do much except sit around your hard drive anyway isn't really a bad deal even with them getting copyrights.

How many of us are going to have one photo that earns $15k?
Few I suspect.
Its a pretty good deal says I.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

 

[Overread]

I think the only thing you can't do is use an image formerly submitted to a competition with a prize over $300. Which is quite fair as that allows you to use a forum/local club winning photo.

 

[480sparky]

And if you 'just take another', they can sue you for infringement, even creating deriviative works.

Think you read the contest rules incorrectly, see my post above. They get a NON-EXCLUSIVE license to your images, including the winner. That means you can do what ever you want with the image except sell an EXCLUSIVE license to someone else during the one year term. Compared to most contest rules I've read this is one of the most fair agreements to the photographer I've seen in awhile.

They can still sue you if you take a similar image and sell exclusive rights to it.

 

[smoke665]

sell exclusive rights to it.

Of course they could if you sold an EXCLUSIVE use to someone else it would void their NON-EXCLUSIVE, I said that earlier. It wouldn't prevent you from selling additional NON-EXCLUSIVE rights to anyone though, for as many times as you wanted, and at the end of the year, there wouldn't be a restriction on an Exclusive sale.

I guess I'm not following your concern, unless it's the fact that non-winning entries are subject to the same Non-exclusive restriction as the winner, but even then the 1 year time limit seems to me, a trivial inconvenience. Even if you're in the business of regularly selling your images, there would be substantial publicity value from the use (contest rules say they will give credit). So regardless of if you won any money, every time they used your image, you'd be getting a free plug.

I have nothing to do with this contest, and not sure I have anything worthy of entry, but I know there are several on here that most likely do. I'm sorry just not following your concerns???

 

[480sparky]

sell exclusive rights to it.

Of course they could if you sold an EXCLUSIVE use to someone else it would void their NON-EXCLUSIVE, I said that earlier. It wouldn't prevent you from selling additional NON-EXCLUSIVE rights to anyone though, for as many times as you wanted, and at the end of the year, there wouldn't be a restriction on an Exclusive sale.

I guess I'm not following your concern, unless it's the fact that non-winning entries are subject to the same Non-exclusive restriction as the winner, but even then the 1 year time limit seems to me, a trivial inconvenience. Even if you're in the business of regularly selling your images, there would be substantial publicity value from the use (contest rules say they will give credit). So regardless of if you won any money, every time they used your image, you'd be getting a free plug.

I have nothing to do with this contest, and not sure I have anything worthy of entry, but I know there are several on here that most likely do. I'm sorry just not following your concerns???

Then I'll lay it out for you, plain and simple.

It's a rights grab, and plays heavily on the naiveté of entrants for profit.

 

[smoke665]

It's a rights grab, and plays heavily on the naiveté of entrants for profit.

Again, only the right to sell an Exclusive license and only for a period of 1 year. How many "naive" photographers do you believe might have the need or opportunity to sell an "Exclusive" license on a given photo during a 1 year term. I would agree that a professional photographer with a following and regular sales of his images might have to think hard about such a contest, but then again don't most professionals try to avoid Exclusive use license anyhow?

Guess this is one of those "have to agree to disagree" things.