The Photo Attorney web site has a post on the subject of “rights grabs” associated with photography contests. (See “Photo Contests Here and Abroad Grab Rights“) This is a subject that has concerned me for some time, and about which I and many others have written from time to time.
The basic problem is this. In many of these contests (in most of them from what I’ve seen) the photographer who submits a photograph to the contest surrenders considerable rights to his/her work . Note that the loss of rights typically occurs whether or not the photographer’s work ‘wins’ the contest! In quite a few cases the language in the contest agreement gives full, unlimited rights for any imaginable use of the photographers submitted work without any compensation, control, or (in quite a few cases) credit to the company sponsoring the contest, the marketing firm(s) supervising the contest, and even to other businesses that they cooperate with.
This applies to every photograph submitted by every participating photographer – not just the winners. (Even if these onerous terms only applied to “winners,” one would wonder who actually “wins” in a situation where a whole team of corporate interests acquire free rights to the “winning” photographer’s work.)
No, I’m not making this up.
It is not without reason that many refer to these things as “intellectual property rights grabs” rather than as photography contests.
This is not to say that there are no legitimate photography contests. It seems reasonable that the work of contest winners would be displayed in some limited (as to time, medium, and so forth) manner directly associated with the contest itself – that would be mutually beneficial to the winning contestants and to those putting on the contest. But photographers who believe that their work has value should be very cautious about such contests, and they should read contest terms very carefully before submitting their work.
The most outrageous was a contest organized by Corbis, where you could submit not only your photos, but also other people’s photos as well. To top it, in the terms, you agreed to indemnify the organizer against any claims !
QT, that clause about indemnifying the contest organizers was one that I didn’t catch on to right away – I was so astounded when I first discovered that contests were claiming unlimited usage rights for all SUBMITTED photographs that I overlooked it. However, there is terrible potential for fiscal harm to photographers who innocently enter contests from this clause. While it is unlikely that a photographer would end up being liable for legal expenses for defending the improper (and free!) use of their photographs by the contest organizers, that is certainly what these clauses seem to allow.
The thing is that most of the contest terms that I’ve read include both of these features: the intellectual property rights grab from all who submit entries and the assumption of all legal liability by the contestants. And some of the entities that you would think would care about photographers – the Sierra Club, for one – are among the offenders. In addition, it is my experience that if you bring this up you’ll receive all kinds of horrible, demeaning, and threatening responses from those who run the contests. I could tell stories…
Dan
Thanks for sharing that, John.
It is truly bizarre that these contest terms come out this way. On a couple of occasions I’ve contacted people sponsoring such contests to ask about these terms. The responses have varied quite a bit. In a few cases the person was just plain outraged. (As a Sierra Club member myself, I’m embarrassed to say that the response I got from a representative of one of their contests was particularly hostile.) In other cases I think that the contest organizers just reused some boilerplate terms from some other source and may have been completely unaware of the onerous conditions.
The strangest sort of response is one that I’ve gotten more than once. When I pointed out that the terms essentially gave them (and other companies they work with!) unrestricted, uncredited, and uncompensated rights to use all submitted work whether or not it won in any way they might want to, they essentially said, “Oh, but we would NEVER do that!” But they wouldn’t change the terms of the contest.
At some point I think that self-respecting amateur and professional photographers as a group are going to have to get wise to this.
Take care,
Dan
Funny. It does seem ubiquitous. I just came across this one today, touted on John Paul Caponigro’s web site (he’s a judge). “…In the Affidavit and Release, each winner shall give the Sponsor’s permission, whether directly or indirectly through third-party licensees, to utilize the Entry and make derivative works of the Entry, including the right to reproduce the same, in connection with the reproduction, distribution, public display….”
It’s all here: http://www.photoworkshop.com/digimage_contest/rules
Plus, you pay them for the honor. ;)