use of your photographs by a business through a competition

[tk shots]

<p>did anyone have trouble with businesses stealing use of your photographs through entering a competition? i did this where i entered shots for a calendar competition to a tourist forum who are now using some of those shots to promote festivals...the terms say they can use the photographs,but it does say "related to the particular event"...it's really open to 2 interpretations,but if it was in their favour,that would mean they can use my photographs forever more,free of charge,to promote tourism in the area...what do you think?<br>

tommy</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Almost every contest you'll see these days, especially those you run into online, are just a way for the people running the contest to build stock libraries with unlimited licenses to do whatever they want with the images. Read the fine print. Most contest organizers are having you grant unlimited license (and sometimes even exclusive license!) to use your images, and to grant to <em>others</em> the right to use your images, in any way they like, forever. It's not just the contest winners, it's <em>every submitted image</em>. You have to read the rules, and decide if you find the potential exposure to be worth giving away your work in that way.<br /><br />Some (very few) contests are more in keeping with the photographer's own interests - but the trend is towards blanket license. You're not giving up your copyrights, but you're granting a bottomless pit of licensing to the people running the contest - and that's why many of them <em>hold</em> the "contests." It's a cheap way to scoop up hundreds of thousands of images to do with as they please.</p>

[tk shots]

<p>could that be considered an unreasonable/unfair contract?</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Not really, no. It might be considered unethical, in the sense that they're banking on a lot of people getting caught up in the excitement of entering and not reading the fine print... but you're hardly being compelled into participating. So, just like you'd expect your own customers to thoroughly read the contracts you're asking them to sign, you really ought to fully read the terms of anything in which you participate in hopes of getting something (like a prize, or exposure, etc).</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Matt is absolutely correct. The only reason for most of these "contests" is so that the organizer has their choice of images.</p>

<p>If you think about it, licensing an image from a reputable photopgrapher or stock agency is going to cost them somewhere between $250 and $1000 per image. Even one of the lesser agencies will have a fee of over $100 per image. If they run a contest which gets 5000 entries of which 100 are usable for their advertising and their grand prize is a DSLR outfit worth $1000, who comes out ahead?</p>

[enlightened-images]

<p>Yeah, they're called "sucker" contests. The company wants to build an image library of things they can use for anything, anywhere, anytime. The worst of these are contest where merely submitting any entry constitutes an acceptance of these kind of terms. Learn; then stay away.</p>

<p>You can try writing a letter objecting to this based on your interpretation, and ask them to stop using the photo - based on the language being vague and confusing. They may agree, they may not, but it's worth a try.</p>

<p>Good Luck.</p>

[digitmstr]

<p>>>.Almost every contest you'll see these days, especially those you run into online, are just a way for the people running the contest to build stock libraries with unlimited licenses to do whatever they want with the images.<<</p>

<p>Yep! The word is out: with more and more photographers in the mix (meaning, people who want to get into photography as a means of making money, perhaps even on the side) it is painfully clear that street-smart people who want to take advantage of them is increasing accordingly. </p>

<p>THis is true for many other professions (music, acting, etc...) - they know that the majority of people will indeed sign their rights away and many will also be willing to actually PAY some entry fee! I have even seen places asking for 'representation fees, storage fees, display fees, agency fees, etc...) -</p>

<p>People feeding upon other people's dreams and aspiration has unfortunately been around us for a long, long time.</p>

[tk shots]

<p>well,i won't be allowing it...it is possible to do something here even if you don't go down the legal route because of money...keep making contact with them by email for example until it's resolved to your satisfaction...the amount of time they would have to spend on it would cost them a lot more than the price of using a photograph...the guy i will be dealing with is the county manager of a county council,so any time he spends on this will cost a lot..you could also go over there and chain yourself to his personal bathroom or personal secretary...i think you would have a good chance in court too...remember all those unfair contracts musicians signed in the 60's? some of those were rescinded...we can't let these bastards get away with it,otherwise they will keep doing it....<br>

tommy</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Tommy: there's nothing unfair about it. There's only <em>unwise</em> to agree to it. It's the sort of thing you fight by encouraging the creation of contests that work in a different way. Start them yourself, or explain to a suitable party what they'd get out doing so, and only support those contests that operate within bounds you find acceptable. But if you maintain the posture that contracts people agree to (especially while hoping to win stuff) should be fought over after the fact, then you're also encouraging people to retro-haggle with every poor wedding photographer or freelancer who live and die by the contracts they ask people to sign. Don't like these deals? Just walk away from them, and starve them of oxygen.</p>

[profhlynnjones]

<p>I'm pretty sure that your submitting in the contest constituted a contract that you permitted your photos to be used. It is a cheap way to get lots of useable photos.</p>

<p>Lynn</p>