Disturbing industry trend

[ann]

this is not new, it was very common for the folks running a contest to state that they kept the rights to the winning negative.

 

[JerryPH]

It sure is not new... but I wonder how many new users and experienced users fell for this "old" trap?

Better yet, how many actually DID something?

 

[TCimages]

I still think the use of the image should be for the purpose of the contest ONLY, not for them to resale or make money off it outside of the contest.

 

[JerryPH]

You enter a contest with the expectation of having your images displayed on that particular site if you don't want your images displayed don't enter.

Knowledge... these jerks prey on the innocents and ignorant. Knowledge is power. I just want more people to be aware.

Besides... what good is your watermark going to do if they crop it out or remove it... which they can becuase... YOU gave them ALL rights to be able to do just that.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Frankly, I find what you are writing alarmist and juvenile. You're not giving them all your rights, you're giving them a non-exclusive license. There's a big difference, learn them.

Theoretically, TPF should write the same thing. This forum here has a competition, and they earn money with it. There's a Sponsor, AND there's advertisement on every page. Yes, they are earning money off your picture. Oh, and I bet a lot of the participants don't have model releases or location permits.

Grow up, learn how the world works. It is litigious, full of opportunists, and of course full of online users who think everything ought to be free... except their own work, that should be untouchable.

Participation is voluntary, and the rules are clearly spelled out. I can't imagine what else a person could ask for.

 

[alabama1980]

I dont think it is being juvenile or alarmist to bring to light something that some people may not know. Granted people SHOULD read all the fine print, but who does? It was mentioned that if you dont want someone using your work dont post it on a site with this policy...I agree, but what about the guy that didnt read the print and then sees his picture on the side of a bus? I appreciate what this thread brought to the table....good job.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Sorry, but you've touched on a point that really irks me.

You're not giving them your rights, you're granting them a license. That license does not grant them the right to resell your image, just to use it in the context of their own site.

The only way you might see the image on the side of a bus (unlikely) is to promote the business to which you posted it. Again, unlikely, but you are granting them that right.

 

[Battou]

Sorry, but you've touched on a point that really irks me.

You're not giving them your rights, you're granting them a license. That license does not grant them the right to resell your image, just to use it in the context of their own site.

Yes, but the point is that some people are twisting this and using these tearms incorrectly. This leaves people like me sitting here on our asses failing because now all of a sudden regular people don't know the difference any more.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Regular people know the difference, less-educated ones don't... or there are always those that would sue a company because they can... they are equally prevalent.

If someone is posting a liability disclaimer or a license agreement, but then misuses it... well, you can't defend yourself against theft. But to suggest that the answer to the problem is No license agreements is also silly.

It goes to a more fundamental issue - people need to grow up. The internet is a lot of fun, but don't assume you can just type whatever you want and not be accountable. Don't think every competition or community is just hobby-fun. You are still You on the internet, even if you think you're anonymous behind a cool nickname. And people who create web businesses are accountable to what goes on there - both to their customers, as well as ISPs, software providers, and the community within which they live and work.

Btw, it's the same attitude that people display about downloading music or software. "Gee, wouldn't it be cooler and mellower if it were all free?! I should be able to safely display my artwork everywhere, no one should be allowed to touch it... but I want that music for free."

Life is a series of agreements, both verbal and written. You can do two things: either understand that and accept it and honor it, or you can complain about how uncool that is.

 

[Battou]

Regular people know the difference, less-educated ones don't... or there are always those that would sue a company because they can... they are equally prevalent.

If someone is posting a liability disclaimer or a license agreement, but then misuses it... well, you can't defend yourself against theft. But to suggest that the answer to the problem is No license agreements is also silly.

It goes to a more fundamental issue - people need to grow up. The internet is a lot of fun, but don't assume you can just type whatever you want and not be accountable. Don't think every competition or community is just hobby-fun. You are still You on the internet, even if you think you're anonymous behind a cool nickname. And people who create web businesses are accountable to what goes on there - both to their customers, as well as ISPs, software providers, and the community within which they live and work.

Btw, it's the same attitude that people display about downloading music or software. "Gee, wouldn't it be cooler and mellower if it were all free?! I should be able to safely display my artwork everywhere, no one should be allowed to touch it... but I want that music for free."

Life is a series of agreements, both verbal and written. You can do two things: either understand that and accept it and honor it, or you can complain about how uncool that is.

My arguement with you is not wether you are right or wrong, but merely that people are being decieved into thinking something else is this agreement.

Yes I understand what you said quite well, However the regular people who are by your words smart enough to know the difference are the ones complaining right now. I my self find the quoted ULA to be awefully shadey, sorry I just don't trust a legal agreement that is so poorly worded. It leads me to believe the one who wrote it knows nothing of the agreement they are wrighting or they plan on profiting. Wich is conciterably different from what you stated in your first post in this thread. The money exchange you mentioned is not profit, but financing to keep the website opperating via whatever menes including (but not limmited to) ad clicks.

Any one and their brother can google the tearm non-exclusive licence and learn exactly what it is, however the tearm unrestricted licence is one vague, two not a leagle tearm as far as intelectual property laws are concerned. That looks like a scam to me. It's worded similarly to a non-exclusive licence so it could be what they intend but it's not correct, there is no way of knowing.

 

[Iron Flatline]

My point was (at first) a general one as well, which is: not everyone is nefarious, or out to screw you. The fact that JerryPH is OUTRAGED that people are openly providing a EULA is juvenile, and alarmist. I can't think of a better and more open way of conducting business. Further, I do not believe that these people are out to get rights for free, but are usually just trying to protect themselves, and that they're probably swimming (like the rest of us) in a whole new sea of rights and responsibilities.

There needs to be common sense as well. In this case I can't really comment until I know which site it is... JerryPH, please let us know who posted that licnese agreement. there comes a point where you just also have to have some trust with the other party. If TPF were to require a license I would have no problem with that, because I doubt they're going to use the images in an odd way.

If you spell out every eventuality, you'll end up with four-page long agreement, and no one wants to enter into that, either. There needs to be a sensible middle ground. Every agreement requires you trust the other party to some extent, otherwise don't enter into it.

Look, we had the same discussion ad nauseum at the LFI Gallery. It led to (in part) the following clarification:

"...this right of use includes an open-ended right to copy, distribute and give public access worldwide..." means that the pages can be opened repeatedly worldwide: in legal terminology, opening up a page is considered a copying of the content.

 

[JIP]

I really think it is great Flatline that you can clarify this for the people who do not understand. Personally, I do what I can to contribute to a site that I find very entertaining and like to participate in every day. At the moment in my personal situation all I really can do is post and you can see from my numbers that I do quite a bit but in the future when I am able I intend to participate in the contests and challenges as I see it as a great way to challenge myself to be a better photographer. I also see it as a way of giving back to the only site I go to every day. I am a professional photographer and have been for may years and see no problem with adding some of my photographs to the pool of images on this site. I also see many photographers who are at a much higher level than me participating in the forum and adding their work to the pool. As I said in my earlier post if you don't want to participate don't for me I say if the forum can make a little off my contribution of an image, more power to you I like to give back as I did when I made a purchase from B+H by clicking through the link on the forum.​

 

[Seefutlung]

Iron Flatline .. you took the words out of my mouth ... (a rather disgusting colloquialism when you think about it ... but a colloquialism nonetheless).

Most of this type of language is all necessary to run a web site. To "Promote" does not imply or condone a "Commercial Enterprise".

Remember that:
1) If you don't read the fine print ... then shame on you.

2) If you have any question about the Terms of Agreement (TOA) at any internet site ... then don't post (it's not like posting on the internet is an unalienable right or a matter of life and death).

Gary

 

[yeti]

I perfectly agree with Iron Flatline. I would, however, also want to add something:

License agreements do often get abused these days. I agree with Iron Flatline that not everyone out there has some nefarious purpose in mind, but there are many many of those who do. I would say most and I am not only talking about photos here.

I can give you many many examples of bad licence agreements, which you have no choice but to "opt into". The problem ultimately is not that the government is not going to arbitrate between businesses and their customers (honestly, that's not why they are there), but that the customers let everything go past them without reading it.

Ultimately the Internet is no different than the real world: if you sign either a paper or electronic document that I can have your car, you can't blame me for driving away with it. If more people actually read what those documents say, then there would be a market force to condemn businesses who abuse their licence agreements with customers and there would even be judges who rule in their favour. As things are, none of that is hardly ever happening.

Why would website XYZ asks for the rights to promote themselves with your images on the side of a bus? Because they can get away with it. You have to agree that for the most part they DO get away with it. If you, as a customer, object to that, there are thousands of people who don't mostly because they haven't actually read the 10-page licence with fine script. Surprising as it may sound, it you alone take that to court, a good lawyer for website XYZ would tell you something along the lines of "Well, it's their business that they haven't read our licence, the fact of the matter is that YOU out of millions of Internet users do not agree to it. Therefore the problem lies with YOU, and not with OUR licence." I am no lawyer, but I have a feeling that this argument would probably work at least until more people start complaining.

My suggestion, therefore, is this:

READ that licence. If you don't like it, go for the competition. If they have a licence like that as well, MAYBE it is time for you to start BEING the competition. Ultimately all of that is an education issue: Internet is not as virtual as it seems and most people won't notice something is wrong until someone drives away with their car, kicks them out of their house or (as the case is here) posts their picture on the side of a bus.

 

[JerryPH]

Forgive me... I never knew that an "unrestricted license" meant that they could use it within the bounds of the competition, but not anywhere else. Yeah, right.

Yes, there are places that play by the rules, but there are more that do not and thats all I want to do... is to make people aware that its more than possible and happening a lot more often than we are aware of.

What I find amusing is the "juvenile" comment... if it is juvinile to discuss that these things are around and that a very high percentage of the poeple don't even know about it, and if it raises a few eyebrows and saves a few people the grief, I can take the name calling.

If you know to read the "small print" and you chose to participate or not, thats all fine... you were not the intended target audience of the original post... but if you did not know about this and now KNOW to be a little more leary and now can make a more informed decision, YOU were the audience I wanted to target and I accomplished all that I originally set out to do, nothing more.

I hope it continues to help more people.

End of thread for me.