BA competition update

Amended T&C's...

You will retain the copyright in the photographs you submit to BA at the time of entering into this competition.

By entering the competition you agree that BA has the non-exclusive right to use your photograph (or any part of it) and all other content included in your entry for the purpose of judging the submission in accordance with the terms of this competition. Our use may include reproducing the image, sending it to our judges, uploading it to a database, displaying and/or printing it.

In addition, by entering the competition you hereby grant, if you are selected as a winner of the competition, BA the worldwide rights to use, reproduce, upload to a database, modify, publish, print, create derivative works from, distribute and/or display your photograph (or any part of it) in any form and on any media or technology including for advertising, marketing and promotional purposes, such as (without limitation): (a) on www.ba.com; and (b) in brochures and related materials; and (c) in advertising features run by our media partners, including TimeOut and the Telegraph. You agree that you may not withdraw these rights, that no fees or royalties will be payable to you for the exercise of these rights, and that BA may permit any of its third party partners to exercise these rights on our behalf.
Click to expand...

It's amazing what a bit of pester power and bad PR can do :woot:
 
Need a double like button!

Pester power roolz!!!
 
Which all just confirms it wasn't the dreaded 'rights grab' as BA hoovered up the copyright of thousands of photo's bankrupting photographers across the globe but as suspected some lazily written t&c's to give them usage of the winning photo's.

A load of hot air about nothing as usual.
 
a1ex2001 said:
Which all just confirms it wasn't the dreaded 'rights grab' as BA hoovered up the copyright of thousands of photo's bankrupting photographers across the globe but as suspected some lazily written t&c's to give them usage of the winning photo's.

A load of hot air about nothing as usual.
Click to expand...


Not really about nothing. Whether it was intentional by BA or just some half-assed lawyer not thinking things through... the effect is the same, and the change has been made. If no one had made all this "hot air" about nothing, they'd have not been changed. Intentional or not.. it WAS a rights grab. Now it's not. Result.
 
a1ex2001 said:
Which all just confirms it wasn't the dreaded 'rights grab' as BA hoovered up the copyright of thousands of photo's bankrupting photographers across the globe but as suspected some lazily written t&c's to give them usage of the winning photo's.

A load of hot air about nothing as usual.
Click to expand...

Did you even read the original terms? Because that's exactly what they were - an IP grab - they were clear and unambiguous, but they have now apparently been amended due to a number of complaints which may have had a detrimental affect on their PR. They were trying it on, and most probably expecting that the public would be either unable to understand those terms or too apathetic to care - and I'm guessing you might have fallen into the latter camp :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
It was a rights grab, BA knew exactly what they were doing. The people who draw up the rules to competitions like this know what they are doing, that's why BA employ them. I believe they have changed because people like many on TP and many other photography groups complained and made a noise about it. The amount of negative publicity worked and BA has been forced to amend the rules.

I'm rather proud of being a part of the small victory for photography and photographers.
 
Well done on the campaign, saving the entrants literally pennies in lost rights. :rolleyes:

Now where did I put my tin hat?
 
Steve said:
Well done on the campaign, saving the entrants literally pennies in lost rights. :rolleyes:

Now where did I put my tin hat?
Click to expand...

I think it was the point of principle.....not the pennies.
Why roll your eyes at something that's been sorted?
 
Last edited:
Steve said:
Well done on the campaign, saving the entrants literally pennies in lost rights. :rolleyes:

Now where did I put my tin hat?
Click to expand...


100% nothing to do with money on my part. (Would have put a shrug smilie here if there was one!)
 
Well the hysterical claims of some posters in the original thread suggested that entrants would be losing thousands in lost rights, so yes it was about the money. But then it was pointed out that those claims were ridiculous then it became just about the principle. I think that calls for another :rolleyes:
 
Steve said:
Well the hysterical claims of some posters in the original thread suggested that entrants would be losing thousands in lost rights, so yes it was about the money. But then it was pointed out that those claims were ridiculous then it became just about the principle. I think that calls for another :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

"Some" is not the same as "all" so generalisations to support sweeping conclusions aren't necessarily helpful.
 
Steve said:
Well the hysterical claims of some posters in the original thread suggested that entrants would be losing thousands in lost rights, so yes it was about the money. But then it was pointed out that those claims were ridiculous then it became just about the principle.
Click to expand...

Cobblers.
 
Steve said:
Well the hysterical claims of some posters in the original thread suggested that entrants would be losing thousands in lost rights, so yes it was about the money. But then it was pointed out that those claims were ridiculous then it became just about the principle. I think that calls for another :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Steve, I think you're twisting things a little. Anyone entering that competition under the original terms would have been giving up their rights to their property. There is no disputing that, and therein lies one of the principals at hand here. As a consequence, their images could potentially bring in revenue for other businesses with whom the entrant has no connection or relationship with, thus generating a financial loss for one party and gains for another. These are not ridiculous claims, this is how it works. And you can't possibly know the mind of all photography consumers, in fact in my experience I'm sometimes left baffled by the images which I don't rate very highly but which are greatly desirable to someone else - I would imagine most who engage in the stock photography market will say the same thing. So arguing that the photographs have no commercial value can be nonsense - and I imagine a competition like that will get some cracking entries.
 
Out of interest, has anybody ever been pursued for printing or posting online an image that was submitted to a competition such as this?
 
Steve said:
Well done on the campaign, saving the entrants literally pennies in lost rights. :rolleyes:

Now where did I put my tin hat?
Click to expand...


Forgive us for wanting to correct a wrong Steve. We'll turn a blind eye next time. I suppose it only matters when money is at stake huh? I guess that sums up most people these days: No principles unless something hits them in the wallet, then they're utterly righteous, and if someone used their images without their consent, even if no money changed hands, they'd be starting threads and crying about it like big girls.


The levels of inconsistency in here are simply staggering sometimes.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Forgive us for wanting to correct a wrong Steve. We'll turn a blind eye next time. I suppose it only matters when money is at stake huh? I guess that sums up most people these days: No principles unless something hits them in the wallet, then they're utterly righteous, and if someone used their images without their consent, even if no money changed hands, they'd be starting threads and crying about it like big girls.


The levels of inconsistency in here are simply staggering sometimes.
Click to expand...

Totally agree which is why I apologised for that post and expressed regret for posting it in my later post number 21
 
Steve said:
Well the hysterical claims of some posters in the original thread suggested that entrants would be losing thousands in lost rights, so yes it was about the money. But then it was pointed out that those claims were ridiculous then it became just about the principle. I think that calls for another :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

if you give away your IP rights you lose all possible future income (and all rights over how the image is used) - of course if your work is crap then that may not be an issue, but if its any good it's not hysterical to point out that you could be kissing off a fair bit

I seem to recall hearing that the guy who did the original tiger shot that esso used for the 'put a tiger in your tank' thing - gave them all rights for about £150 because he was "so flattered" to be asked... look at how much useage rights for that ought to have been... that kind of idiocy defintely calls for a :rolleyes:
 
big soft moose said:
if you give away your IP rights you lose all possible future income (and all rights over how the image is used) - of course if your work is crap then that may not be an issue, but if its any good it's not hysterical to point out that you could be kissing off a fair bit

I seem to recall hearing that the guy who did the original tiger shot that esso used for the 'put a tiger in your tank' thing - gave them all rights for about £150 because he was "so flattered" to be asked... look at how much useage rights for that ought to have been... that kind of idiocy defintely calls for a :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes and I apologised for that foolish post in post number 21 and again in post 24. Not sure what more to say really.
 
Steve said:
Yes and I apologised for that foolish post in post number 21 and again in post 24. Not sure what more to say really.
Click to expand...

Nothing else needed to say Steve, and perhaps if people would actually read all the thread before jumping in feet-first, it'd be a good idea!

...now can we all please refrain from further attacks on Steve for something that he's already apologised for... thanks.
 
No I didn't in the end, haven't been abroad for years.
 
Rapscallion said:
Out of interest, has anybody ever been pursued for printing or posting online an image that was submitted to a competition such as this?
Click to expand...
No they haven't because that isn't the point of the competition rules. The idea that BA has the time to go round enforcing the powers acquired in this so called huge 'rights grab' by clearing flickr etc of these images is frankly laughable.
 
Last edited:
a1ex2001 said:
No they haven't because that isn't the point of the competition rules. The idea that BA has the time to go round enforcing the powers acquired in this so called huge 'rights grab' by clearing flickr etc of these images is frankly laughable.
Click to expand...

I think Phil, Rapscallion, was asking a simple general question, not specific to BA. (at least that's how I read it)
 
OldCarlos said:
I think Phil, Rapscallion, was asking a simple general question, not specific to BA. (at least that's how I read it)
Click to expand...

It was what I was asking exactly. Just wondered what examples there were of such problems that people had faced after entering their pictures into competitions such as this.
 
Tempted to enter the shot in post number 10 but CBA! If anyone wants to rip it off and enter it, feel free...
 
Rapscallion said:
It was what I was asking exactly. Just wondered what examples there were of such problems that people had faced after entering their pictures into competitions such as this.
Click to expand...

the key one is self enforcing (assuming you are honest) once you've given the IP away you can't use it anywhere else because it isnt yours to use - in particular you can't sell it or enter anoither competition where you'd have to warrant that you had the IP - because you don't.

I've not had that exact issue, but when i was young and foolish i sold exclusive rights to an image to a post card company - i was then offered a much higher sum for the same image by a travel magazine but had to turn it down because i'd already sold the rights elsewhere for a pittance ... i could have lied and probably got away with it but thats not how i roll.

End of the day by entering a competition like this you are giving your word to abide by the T&C - if you word is worth anything then the issue isnt whether BA (or whoever) will catch you being a naughty boy, but what you can do with a clear concience. Course if your word isnt worth the paper its not written on then you can probably flout any agrement you make without getting caught unless you are really blatant about it.
 
Steve said:
Yes and I apologised for that foolish post in post number 21 and again in post 24. Not sure what more to say really.
Click to expand...

My apologies - I didnt read the whole thread befre replying to your post. (i'm on a very slow loading connection)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top