Contest or Way To Obtain Royalty-Free Photos?

[Arpit96]

This certainly seems like a steal deal for the organisers. But since they clearly state that the person submits rights of publishing like you mentioned, then it's fair, right? The photographer is then aware that he/she is giving away his photo for a chance to win some bucks. As long as this information is available to him/her, he/she is simply consenting to it. Then why is it wrong?
They are doing business after all, they will look for their benefits, right?

 

[KenC]

They are doing business after all, they will look for their benefits, right?

Absolutely, but we don't have to help them do it. I don't know how others view it, but I don't see it as illegal or immoral, I just won't participate. It is a little sneaky because they have to know a lot of people don't check the details, but that's true of so many things.

 

[Arpit96]

See, you don't need to participate in them. And that is acceptable.
The participants enter into an agreement of sorts and it's their own free will.
It might not benefit them, but they know that already. They know that they may not win. So I don't see any harm in it.
Kindly correct me if I am wrong.

 

[JimMcClain]

...since they clearly state that the person submits rights of publishing like you mentioned, then it's fair, right?

That's subjective. It's legal, but unbalanced in favor of the sponsor. I think they count on the fact that few people understand what they are giving up when submitting to contests. They are hoping entrants will be thinking more about having their photos published and getting rewarded $$$ than they are about giving the sponsor a way to collect valuable assets that they can use any way they choose and resell at a hefty profit.

They are doing business after all, they will look for their benefits, right?

Yes, it is business. Whether it is right or wrong is for the individual to determine. It just smacks of deceit to me.

But why am I not surprised you would appear as the lone supporter? Maybe it's because you are using what looks to me like an affiliate link in your signature (a link that tracks traffic and sometimes monetization for the author). After all, we have permission to use links in our signatures and most people don't look at the link address in the lower-left corner of their browser to see where it actually leads before clicking it. I guess you were just trying to get a little taste of that 3-million dollars CodeCanyon pays out each year to affiliate members (you are known as member "Arpit15" there). So, if you are wondering what happened to your signature... I reported it.

It is a little sneaky because they have to know a lot of people don't check the details, but that's true of so many things.

You are so right. I guess I am just suspicious by nature. I don't like that I am so distrusting, but it has prob'ly saved me a lot of aggravation over the years.

 

[Arpit96]

Haha, that signature was a waste anyways. It was my own product that I had made a couple of years ago. The project died years ago.
I am not supporting anything. I am just saying, we can't expect a business to not look for their benefits. It shouldn't be surprising that they gain something out of conducting contests.
Sure it might be negative for professional photographers, but maybe they don't think so?
They are in consent, right?
If two parties enter into an agreement, all we can do is point out why they shouldn't. If they don't have a problem, then why should we care what two parties agree upon?

 

[Arpit96]

On the other hand though, my point only stands when the organisers clearly state that the participant is giving certain important rights to them.
If they try to be sneaky, like trying to hide this fact among long ToS, then it's clearly unethical and unfair. But if it is clearly stated, then my above point stands.
I would like to hear counter arguments for sure.