Are these standard competition terms

[tijuana taxi]

Just wondered if the terms below are standard for competitions these days?

Reads like a ruse to get free photos for the price of a Nikon 5200 with standard lens, not surprised at the CEN, but John Lewis usually try to project a more ethical approach to business

By entering the competition, entrants grant a worldwide, irrevocable licence to Cambridge News to feature any or all of the submitted images in any of their publications, their websites and/or in any promotional material connected to this competition for a period of no more than five years, and are confirming that they are happy for their photographs to be featured on screens in John Lewis, without any copyright fee being paid

 

[a1ex2001]

How is it a ruse to get free photo's? They are offering a prize in a competition and all they have asked for is a 5 year license to use the photo. It would be more odd for them to give a prize and not require usage rights as then they could never display the winning picture even when announcing the result.

Those terms are actually a lot better than most as they haven't claimed the commercial rights so won't be selling all the images on for a profit!

 

[Phil V]

The rights are only in connection with the competition.

As Alex said, it's better than most, which actually are a rights grab.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Pretty standard stuff. Nothing wrong there. Things to watch for are those that ask for exclusive rights. Effectively that means they can sue YOU if you use your images anywhere else. Also, anything that asks you to relinquish copyright.

What you posted is merely asking that they have rights to use your images for their own promotional purposes. Nothing there seems to effect your own rights, moral or intellectual, so I wouldn't worry... unless there is more to those T&Cs you've not posted.

 

[Vertigo1]

Yeah that's actually reasonable usage rights as it's only in conjunction with the competition. The ones to watch out for are the ones which say you're transferring all rights for any usage at all as they're basically running a competition in order to build themselves a cheap stock photo library.

 

[meonshore]

Well I'd say that these are more than just for promotion about the competition.

You could argue syntax and grammer about the middle section of the clause where it might be that Cambridge News are only going to publish any of them directly in relation to the competition or if that part relates only to the promotional material but that there are no such restrictions to publications and websites.

What is definite though is....

- All entries are subject to this - not just the winners/runners-up
- John Lewis have the right to use any of the images without fee on their screens in store for 5 years

So IMVHO it is a right grab and a cheap way to get photographic images for a major retailer to use in their displays. That prize body probably doesn't even cover the usage fees of one image in one store for a year - let alone multiple images across the John Lewis retail estate.

But it is a big shiny black toy, and most people have no concept of the value of their work so I suspect the thought won't even occur to the majority of people entering....

 

[HoppyUK]

^^^ Yes, that is actually how it's written - Cambridge News can do whatever they like with any entries for five years.

It may not be intended as a rights grab, but the way it's worded, it is.

Edit: I would doubt that this is anything to do with John Lewis beyond local level. Cambridge News has done a promotional deal with JL Cambridge to get some ad revenue. Small beer in all probability - but that's not what it says.