Read The Small Print

In case anyone is interested in knowing - the above link will take you eventually to pro-imaging and their Bill of Rights for competitions.

On their website today they announced that Nikon have withdrawn their support for the microsoft Iconic Britain competition. I would have posted in the iconic britain thread, but that is now closed.

If you want to read more:

http://www.pro-imaging.org/content/view/401/153/
 
The Pro Imaging Bill of Rights is designed to protect photographers from unscrupulous competition sponsors/companies effectively ripping off the photography and his(or her) rights to own and use their own images exclusively.

This competition is not limited its usage to promoting the competition, and instead states that it shall have the right to use any submissions for marketing purposes and for an unlimited period of time.

As a photographer, it is you who ultimately have to weigh up whether or not you wish to enter. You should consider whether you are happy for them to have free unlimited rights to use your entry (it might be fine if you win) for any purposes they so wish.

You should perhaps also consider whether you are likely every to make an income from the entry you submit. I would certainly be unhappy if one of my own stock images was used in this way, which is why I protect them, however if I had taken an image especially for this competition, then where is my commercial loss?

So perhaps, if you class yourself as an amateur, have taken your photo especially for the competition, and have no intention of adding your own images to a library or promoting them in any other way - then maybe the Bill of Rights will not matter to you.
 
I'm still trying to get my head round the pro's and con's of this really.

For example, if I found someone had used an image from my flickr page or my webpage without my consent, I'd be well hacked off. The same applies for the pile of images that I've got to sort through for some stock submissions (but that's another story :bonk: )

This has to be balanced with the old "in it to win it theory" and the publicity if you do actually win.

I think what I object to here is the option to enter 5 images per category. Off these 5 only one could win you have however given royalty free rights to use the other four "in perpetuity". This seems a blatant attempt to stock up a royalty free library of the back for this competition.

A photography magazine not naming the judges is poor too.

I'm still bouncing back and forwards on this and I'm now leaning towards entering one solid image per category. I know that that's what all of your entries should be for any competition but the thing with the five options is that it's tempting to submit a bunch to increase your odds (and in doing so, fill someone else's library for them)

Anyone else had any more thoughts on this? Do we ever see anyone from any of the magazines commenting on here?
 
just picked up this thread...I've entered several shots in the comp but am now having 2nd thoughts...schpleeps idea of just entering one per category seems a reasonable compromise, think I'll ammend my entries

simon
 
Back
Top