Corbis: Photo contest is "Rights grabbing"

If you've thought about participating in the Corbis-sponsored photo contest, "I

Am Buried" you may want to reconsider after reading the fine print about your

image's "assignment of ownership." Here's an excerpt:

<blockquote>

"By providing Sponsor with your Submission in this Contest, you agree to

exclusively and irrevocably assign, convey and transfer to Sponsor any and all

right, title and interest in the Submission, including the copyright, right of

publicity, moral rights and any ideas included in the Submission and understand

that you may be required to sign a document to this effect."</blockquote>

<p>

This "rights grabbing" tip from <a target="_blank"

href="http://www.stockphototalk.com/the_stock_photo_industry_/2007/09/corbis-i-am-bur.html#more">www.stockphototalk.com</a>.

Sounds like the next obvious step after microstock agencies. Once people are willing to license their images for almost-free, it's not such a big step to ask them to give them away for really-free :D

I guess by assigning all rights including copyright to Corbis just by submitting an entry, the image is no longer yours, so they don't have to give you the prize. It's a neat trick!

 

Also note that "...this assignment shall give Sponsor the right to use the Submission in perpetuity and throughout the universe without further consideration...", so you're out of luck trying to sell it on Mars, or even in the Andromeda Galaxy. Don't even think of using a time machine either, they've already thought of that and covered it.

As a (non-practicing) lawyer, I have to wonder whether such language would hold up in court. Even if an entrant signed it knowingly, which might be questionable in a particular case, the language might still be struck down as being against public policy.

 

In the realm of copyright, there is precedent for using a public policy rationale to override purported assignments when they grossly undermine the purpose of allowing "authors of works" to hold copyrights in the first place.

 

Under the old copyright law -- the one that was superseded in 1978 by the Copyright Act of 1976 -- renewals of copyright were required to keep them valid for their full term. Back then, there were cases in which purported assignments of renewal rights were struck down. While the current law doesn't have the same renewal provisons and therefore doesn't raise precisely the same issues, I wonder whether there are analagous cases in which the courts have stepped in to "correct" private arrangements that undermine the purpose of the law.

 

Especially objectionable is the clause about "any ideas included in the Submission". On its face, this could stop a photographer with a distinctive style from continuing to pursue that style after submitting an entry into the contest.

 

Assuming all the information in the original post is accurate, this is beyond objectionable. It's disgusting.

Corbis is owned by Microsoft/Bill Gates. That should tell you something.

I can imagine the next step of this abomination would be for Corbis to turn around and sue some photographer who submitted an image, didn't win anything or hear anything further from Corbis, and then has some kind of commercial success selling the image himself. They seem to think this rights grabbing is entirely appropriate and "standard," so I wouldn't put it past them to claim copyright infringement. They'd probably win too, since Microsoft has the legal and financial resources to overkill anyone who dares to challenge them.

Microsoft doesn't own Corbis it is owned by Bill Gates.

 

I think this is just a poorly worded agreement. They probably just want the ability publish the best of Corbis contests or something like that.

 

Also this agreement is not legally binding, that is why they have a clause that states that you will agree to sign a document stating as such. You can't give up rights without adequate consideration.

 

And finally this is not a submission of an image contest. It's mostly an essay contest. Your submission may have images in it, but the agreement is worded where they only get copyrights to the submission not to the individual pictures contained in the submission.

 

Although, there could be in the actual contract you do have to sign away rights to individual images.

Unbelievable. I never knew Gates owned Corbis. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if he tried to drive Corbis with the same philosophy as some of his MS-branded products: sell at below cost to gain market share and then make a pile of money on the back-end products. Maybe with millions of images in "stock" he feels he can afford to loose a few photographers if it means driving up market share.

 

Some great comments here about the legal side of it. Cool to see some of you have legal backgrounds.

Did anyone other than Sam Song take the time to find out what the contest is about? He's right, it's about the writing, not the image - you can use a Corbis image with your submission, so you don't have to worry about your image being appropriated by Corbis. Most of this discussion (and the other one from the link above) is disconnected from what the contest is about. Go read the original material and you will see what the contest is about. Since it's not a photography contest, I would bet that most people either upload a Corbis image or take a happy snap for their entry.

Good point, Jeff. And precisely why I concluded my post by saying, "Assuming all the information in the original post is accurate..."

 

Apparently, it isn't.

Jeff and Jonathon, whether or not this particular competition is about imagery or not, and it does include imagery, look at the winners on the Corbis website, it is using the same conditions that apply to contests that are purely photographic. In these contests the sponsors apply such rights as a cheap way of acquiring superb imagery for nothing, they have then acquired the right to use all the photos submitted for ever, and the creator has no further rights.

 

Corbis hit the headlines because of the particularly extreme conditions they employ.

 

Through the continued use of conditions like this in contests, and the all powerful stock libraries continually devaluing the commercial value of photography, it is likely that in 5 years time there will be few opportunities to have a viable career as a professional photographer.

 

Such competitions are aimed at amateurs too. Amateurs often aspire to become professionals, but when they submit their best images to such competitions they are giving away potentially thousands of dollars/pounds that could be earned through the selling of usage rights to the photograph. The sponsors of these competitions know this and acquire such jewels for nothing.

 

This practice is an abuse of artists rights, and Jonathon, thank you for your post that these T&C's may be undermining the purpose of the law and could be challenged in the courts.

 

I would urge all photographers, be they professionals or amateurs, to shun competitions that acquire all ownership rights and title to the photographs submitted. These competitions simply harvest from time to time the latest crop of superb images for the sponsor.

 

I am at the start of a movement through my own organisation to combat this practice by using the law, and if need be by lobbying for the law to be amended by the European Union to make it illegal to mount such contests. The aim is also to link up with other photo organisations worldwide to combat this practice everywhere. If anyone out there would like to help or provide support please contact me privately.

 

This is going to be a long slog, but fortunately there is a shortcut!

 

Just ignore all competitions that seek to take your artists rights away, they are stealing your creativity, stealing your skill, and stealing your unique vision. These elements are part of your unique personality and are worth far more than any competition prize!

 

Feel free to quote from or copy this text to your friends and colleagues, post it on any forums you are a member of, take it to your camera club, send it to your associations or organisations, and stop this attack on our rights as artists!

<i>it is using the same conditions that apply to contests that are purely photographic.</i><p>If that's the case, then all the gnashing of teeth should be about those contests (I couldn't find any, maybe you can point them out) rather than one that allows the use of stock images. A lot of noise has been generated about this one specific contest which is not an "attack on our rights as artists" but something that encourages people to write an essay that they get to use.

Thanks Jeff. The conditions in the Corbis competition, are by their own admission, now an industry standard for nearly all competitions, they use this as justification for their T&C's.

 

Apple are currently involved in such a competition, see here -

 

http://www.lightstalkers.org/are_you_the_next_great_photographer__not_if_apple_has_anything_to_do_with_it#latest

 

About a year ago even Nikon got embroiled in this sort of stuff, and due to a public outcry had to the change the rules, see here -

 

http://www.epuk.org/News/357/nikon-opodo-rules-to-be-changed

 

The BBC are amongst the worst regular offenders, read here -

 

http://www.lightstalkers.org/bbc-photo-submission-rights-grab

 

Do a search on rights grabbing and your browser will bulge with links.

 

The trouble is that the vast majority of entrants to a photographic competition do not read the small print which states that by submitting photographs you are handing over all rights to the sponsor/organiser/etc.

 

It is almost a certainty these days that by submitting any images to a media company (and others) they have T&C's which claim all rights to these images. They will simply be in small print hidden away in the website somewhere. If you were to use some of your own images at a future date you could be sued for breaching their rights!

 

I accept that the Corbis competition is not a purely photographic contest, but it is still grabbing the rights to the written submissions as well as the images. If you go and look at the Corbis winning entries so far, they are all accompanied by images which now belong to Corbis, even the ideas behind the images as well as the written text.

 

They shouldn't be able to claim rights to the text either, this is also subject to artists rights as they are creative outputs of the human mind.

 

The reason Corbis has caused such a storm in photographic circles is the extreme nature of their T&C's which claim all rights "in perpetuity and throughout the universe" to reproduce even by techologies "not yet invented".

 

So now you can't exert your rights anywhere in the universe. Don't bother inventing a new reproduction device, that's not allowed, nor will a time machine get you out of this raid on your rights, the claim is "in perpetuity"!

 

As Corbis has said, these are now industry standard T&C's for competitions.

None of those links go to the original terms and conditions, instead they go to commentary that extracts information. Just like the original post here, that can be very misleading. Some direct references to the contest terms and conditions that are comparable to the Corbis terms would be a lot more valid as an argument.

 

Doing some research, in each of the examples you provide, there is not one example requiring full transfer of copyright, which is what people are most upset about above, even though the primary transfer here is on a simple essay rather than any photography. It's interesting how much smoke is being created here without giving all the details. As a photographer very interested in protecting my rights, I see this type of misleading commentary to be a detraction from protecting those rights.

Dear Jeff,

 

I have listed below my original letter of complaint to Nikon re it's competition, and appended to it is an extract from the terms and conditions.

 

I received a prompt reply to that letter saying that Nikon were changing the terms and conditions as a result of the protests. If I can lay my hands on the reply I will post that too.

 

The commentary is not misleading, and I would hope there was more awareness in our profession of the trends in the industry regarding rights grabbing.

 

In the case of Corbis the primary transfer is the 'submission', which includes the graphic as well as the textual content, and I think writers would be most upset if there were a suggestion that rights grabbing of textual content is of less concern than graphic content.

 

It is my simple view that the sponsors of competitions should acquire no rights to the submissions, except usage rights to promote and publicise the competition during it's period of operation.

 

If you can provide to me details photographic competitions that do that I will be very happy to post their details to the white list I intend to publish. Competitions of the normal type will be listed on the black list.

 

Remember too that Corbis have alreadty stated that the "The rules of the Corbis "I am Buried" promotion are standard and consistent with other online contests." Corbis seem to be refuting your argument that these T&C's are unusual, and this quote can be seen here -

 

http://www.stockphototalk.com/phototalk/2007/09/corbisiamburied.html

 

------

 

Letter to Nikon re Opodo Competition

 

 

A Letter written on 17 Sep. 2006 to Nikon's President protesting about Nikon's sponsorship of of the Opodo Reflections compettition

17 September 2006

 

Michio Kariya

President

Nikon Corporation

Fuji Bldg., 2-3, Marunouchi 3-chrome,

Chiyoda-ku,

Tokyo 100-8331,

Japan

 

Dear Mr Kariya,

 

As a professional photographer and a user of Nikon Equipment I am appalled that Nikon UK have sponsored a competition that removes a photographers rights to his creative works.

 

The competition in question is called Opodo Reflections, and grants to Opodo a license to use all the photographs submitted to the Opodo Reflections competition forever, and in anyway they so desire, including derivative works. The rules also state that the photographer must waive his moral rights with regard to any work submitted to this competition.

 

For your information I have appended at the end of this letter details extracted from the terms and conditions of the Opodo Reflections Competition that Nikon UK have sponsored.

 

You will also find information about Nikon UK's sponsorship of the Opodo Reflections Competition on the following websites -

 

http://www.nikon.co.uk/press_room/releases/show.aspx?rid=243

 

and

 

http://www.opodo-promotions.com/reflections/

 

It is outrageous that Nikon UK should be a party to such an unethical competition which is nothing more than a cheap way for Opodo to acquire a huge range of quality images for virtually nothing.

 

If Nikon UK were not aware of the terms and conditions of Opodo's competition, that implies that Nikon UK simply did not care enough to check the conditions of the competition. If Nikon UK were aware of the competition terms and conditions, it implies that Nikon UK supported the terms and conditions.

 

It would appear that Nikon UK is in breach of Nikon's 'Global Charter of Corporate Behavior'.

 

The first paragraph of Nikon's Charter states;

 

'1. Healthy Corporate Activity

 

The Nikon Group endeavors to obey related laws, regulations and in-house rules, which are supported by the exercise of fair and ethical business practices and by the use of good judgment, in order to gain trust from customers, shareholders, employees, business partners and society.'

 

On the Nikon website, the Nikon Philosophy is stated as -

 

'Trustworthiness and Creativity', and that Nikon:

 

'Is Trusted and loved by people worldwide.

Exists and prospers in harmony on all levels

throughout the world.'

 

The Opodo Competition rules are neither fair nor ethical, do not result in trust from users of Nikons imaging products, and are causing disharmony between Nikon and photographers.

 

I am a member of a worldwide association of professional photographers - Pro-Imaging - and I can assure you that it's members, many of whom use Nikon products, view Nikon UK's sponsorship of this competition as a breach of trust with them.

 

I would hope that as President of the Nikon Corporation you also view Nikon UK's support of the Opodo Reflections competition as being in breach of Nikons own Charter of Corporate Behavior, and that you will take steps to ensure that Nikon UK fully abide by your charter.

 

 

Sincerely

 

 

 

Gordon C Harrison

 

MANAGING DIRECTOR

 

 

 

TERMS AND CONDITIONS EXTRACT FROM OPODO REFLECTIONS COMPETITION

============================================================

 

Photo release.

 

By submitting photos to Opodo, you agree to grant Opodo limited and its group companies a royalty-free, non-exclusive, transferable, right to reproduce, market, store, adapt, distribute, communicate and make available to the public the Photos in any way Opodo wants whether through Opodo's online services and/or through other products or services (whether online or offline). Opodo may use the photos as set out above in any medium worldwide, including those which may come into existence in future.

 

You will still own all your rights to the Photos you submit, but Opodo will own all right, title, and interest in any compilations, collective works or other derivative works created by Opodo which use or incorporate the Photos. You agree to waive your moral rights in respect of the Photos and Opodo's use of the Photos.

<i>It is my simple view that the sponsors of competitions should acquire no rights to the submissions, except usage rights to promote and publicise the competition during it's period of operation.</i><p>It's my simple view that people don't have to enter contests if they don't like the rules. Entering a contest is a choice, not a requirement to be a photographer.

As a photographer are you happy to see major corporations introduce T&C's to the detriment of artists rights?

 

Or do you not care?

 

Or perhaps you feel that gullible people who enter such competitions get what they deserve?

 

Remember that all these images grabbed by these corporations for free are to our detriment and do affect our business.

 

Stock agencies and the media in general have no royalties to pay on images obtained in this way, and there will be a bias to selling images that cost them nothing compared to images that that are rights managed for example.

 

Why do you think the likes of the BBC is so keen to acquire rights on all the images it gathers in from competitions and other sponsored nonsense, because they don't have to pay any license fees to use them.

 

Every time a 'free' image is used a photographer somewhere is denied the opportunity of making a sale, and that could be you.

 

Or perhaps you don't care about that either? Surely you do!

 

Regards

 

Gordon C Harrison

This isn't an artist contest.

 

But here's the way I see it. If I enter the lottery and lose, can I ask for my money back? The rules say I only get something if I win and the government gets what I put into it.

 

Competitions are not the primary source of stock images. I doubt that 0.1% of stock images are garnered from contests, probably more like 0.00000001%, if any.

 

The photographers I know who enter contests enter serious contests for artists. They read the rules. They know what they are doing. If some happy snapper wants to enter a contest for a stock company, it doesn't affect me, I'm not going to sell that kind of photo. Any photographer who loses money to someone's kid pic or vacation snap needs to do something else.

Hi Jeff

 

I think the important point here is that to simply say "it doesn't affect me..." is untrue. Left

unchallenged, terms and conditions like Corbis' will become more and more prevalent and

will ultimately filter into the commissioned photography sector. (In fact, I'd say that has

started to happen already). The value of IP has been well and truly recognised by the likes

of Getty and Corbis, which is why they seek to try and control it and own it where possible.

The nature of Corbis' 'I am Buried' competition is immaterial, it is the way in which Corbis'

legal team have used this as a means to introduce this all-encompassing rights grab which

is important.

 

You say you are a photographer interested in protecting your rights, as indeed I am and

many, many others too, in which case you should see this as a way to further erode those

rights. Clients/art-buyers/commissioners all know something about licencing and I have

noticed an upturn in the number of people who ask for all rights in a job and have as part

of their terms and conditions that acceptance of a job means assigning copyright! If Corbis

is unchallenged because the nature of the competition is of no interest, then they are one

step further down the line of controlling our IP and us.

 

I also disagree with Sam Song about this being an essay-writing contest; the entry page

asks for "A few words about your buried situation. Should be 500 words or less. Hopefully

a lot less"...hardly the motivator for an essay-writing competition is it? Regardless, it is the

principle that is more important, imho.

 

regards

 

Nick Dunmur

Jeff,

 

This is the last time I will reply to you because it seems to me you are either not following the thread of the discussion, or are determined not to respond to any of the facts I have always offered you with regard to your points, as you are always shifting to new ground.

 

I will make two more points in reply to the points you made in your last post

 

Firstly with regard to your statement that perhaps only 0.00000001% of images in libraries are garnered from contests.

 

I have no idea where that statistic came from, and as you mentioned earlier, I view this as unsupported commentary devoid of references. Whatever the percentage is, and it is growing to our detriment all the time, those free images have far more value to those who have the rights to use them, and the bias will be to use them instead of a RM image.

 

Secondly there will be many amateurs who may less than happy at your dismissive statement about happy snappers.

 

You must know that many amateurs produce superb images that a pro would be proud to have taken, some are on this website, have a look, but the amateur may be commercially naive about the dangers of submitting their work to competitions.

 

Many successful pros have come from the ranks of the amateurs, and it is up to us, the current generation of pros to defend our industry so that there is still an industry left for keen amateurs to aspire to join.

 

It should behove all of us to to ensure that amateurs are aware of the value of their images, and by doing so we will benefit our industry as a whole. It is through sensible discussion on forums like this that industry concerns can be expressed, and those less knowledgable will improve their commercial acumen with regard to the imaging business.

 

Farewell Jeff

 

Gordon