So are these terms a copyright grab or not?

Donnie

Donnie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,027
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
Please someone clear this up for me as I dont know if my own pedantic nature is getting the better of me.

In short a local gallery / museum (owned and run by the council) is going to run an exhibition and is inviting entries in any format, ie collage, photo, drawings or paintings but the t&c's are:

By entering work into xxxxxx, participants agree to the following terms and conditions.

  • The image must be of Bedfordshire
  • The image must be of the specified dimensions – A5 210mm x 148mm (portrait or landscape format)
  • The image must be two-dimensional, e.g. a drawing, painting, photograph, collage etc
  • The image must be your own work
  • The image must be submitted by Wednesday 28th January to be eligible for inclusion at the opening of the exhibition – images will be accepted after the 28th, for the duration of the exhibition.
  • The participant gives his/her work freely and without any copyright restrictions
  • The participant accepts that their work may be collected by another member of the public at the close of the exhibition – The xxxxx cannot return any artworks and cannot reserve any artworks for collection by specific people
  • The participant is liable for any copyright infringement in their work
  • The xxxxxxxx accepts no liability for loss or damage to work during the course of the exhibition
  • The xxxxxxxx reserves the right to reject images that may cause offence
  • The xxxxxxxx cannot guarantee that all entered images will be displayed.
Now to me this is a copyright grab which could have been easily been a licence to use instead.
Additionally, someone that works part time as said gallery/museum (owned and run by the council) is now saying and I quote

"Surrendering copyright would mean that they own the copyright and you don't, which simply is not the case. I put this up as a private individual, despite having a part time job at the xxxxxx, and have answered your questions as best as I can as many others will read this post.

You're totally loosing sight of what this is about - a community exhibition. The fact is, whatever the wording, that they just aren't going to sell on your image or abuse it in anyway - they're a local museum run by a borough council, not an organisation with a commercial interest in your images."

So can anyone shed any light on this for me?
 
I suspect it's badly worded, semi-literate legalese.

If it concerns you and you want to participate, I'd ask them to clarify their intent in plain English. It could just be someone's confused way of making sure that submissions are made without restriction on when, where or how they are displayed - for the duration of the exhibit.

The collection bit is more concerning - that they'd give your piece to anyone that asked for it.
 
I agree with Alastair, that's how I see it too.

especially as it does ask you to give it without any copyright restrictions, then a few lines down, holds you responsible for any copyright infringement :thinking:
 
Thanks all, yes the bit where it also holds the participants responsible for any infringement stuck out for me too, like they want their cake but if it poisons someone it's the cooks fault not the supplier :-)
 
I suspect that they (and the person arguing with me about it on facebook) has no clue about the difference between copyright and licensing. Especially worrying given he is himself a fine art painter.
 
The piece about copyright infringement being the responsibility of the author is valid - you are indemnifying them forany copyright infringement you may have committedWITHIN THE PHOTOGRAPH - so if you photographed a light show for instance, the lighting engineer or artist could claim the light show was copyright. Think of banksie's graffiti art - photograph it and distribute those photographs could feasibly infringe banksie's copyright, and it is your doing, not the exhibition organiser's.

they do not require copyright - this is a misconception that a huge number of people get confused over. They confiuse copyright with right to use- it needs clarifying and the exhibition organiser needs to be educated. If you do nto feel capable of doing this yourself, get Gwen at the AOP to have a word.
 
When they refer to being collected by another member of the public is this the sort of exhibition I have heard where smaller such images are shown and include ones by very famous artists but in that case the works are sold for say £20 but in the above mentioned exhibition it is basically donation ware i.e. at the close members of the public can simply take one image away with them as a "gift"???

If that is what is due to happen to the exhibits perhaps(?) again very badly worded and not explained ~ are they trying to cover themselves against the recipient using said image for commercial gain after the event in some manner and by so agreeing to that term you are indeed (in effect) actually forfeiting your copyright.

I would not exhibit under those terms.......unless said image had a clear watermark in the corner???
 
It's the latter I believe and this person was saying "what on earth could happen?" but as you say, you don't know what as someone may well then use an image or artwork in advertising etc and indeed, with the copyright term Id say they could then get away with it :-(
 
It could be badly worded.

The participant gives his/her work freely and without any copyright restrictions

Could also mean that there are no restrictions on YOUR rights.

Call them and get them to clarify.
 
Are copyright and license even immediately relevant?

Thinking about this some more, I suspect it's ownership of the physical print that needs to be transferred. With an obligation on the gallery to make sure that if the work is sold as part of the exhibition the buyer understands that copyright is not transferred with the physical work and no license is granted for commercial use or reproduction. Much the same terms that need to be defined when a photographer sells a print of their work.
 
Alastair said:
Are copyright and license even immediately relevant?

Thinking about this some more, I suspect it's ownership of the physical print that needs to be transferred. With an obligation on the gallery to make sure that if the work is sold as part of the exhibition the buyer understands that copyright is not transferred with the physical work and no license is granted for commercial use or reproduction. Much the same terms that need to be defined when a photographer sells a print of their work.
Click to expand...

Now that is a good point...........................so what phrasing can one put on the individual prints label (stuck to the backing board in the frame) and indeed for an exhibition on the biog panel that some galleries have/insist on? Such a a one liner needs to state the copyright holders protection but without putting off the prospective buyer! Afteral you do not want said buyer to think what the heck does that mean and why is it being said??? Thinks? yes, it should be on the label as part of the information about the print/picture but that would not get seen until after purchase.............................(so) does it need to be stated on the biog panel???

The reason I ask is that I have an exhibition in April where the works will be for sale..............it is an unattended exhibition in a public space so no opportunities for meeting the (prospective) buyers.
 
Although they are not asking you to give up your rights it would certainly seem as though they don't want you to be able to exercise them.
"The participant gives his/her work freely and without any copyright restrictions"
Reading both parts of that sentence together, as the author intended, would imply that they don't want you to apply any copyright restrictions to the use of any image. That coupled with the next term about public collecting an image would mean you have no control over what is done with that image in the future and therefore does indeed amount to a copyright grab.

I don't think it's a misunderstanding on the part of the organisers, I think it is a way of grabbing exactly what they want without having to obviously declare their intentions or tell participants in plain English that they are giving up their rights.

In simple terms:

  1. You put an image into the exhibition
  2. I come along and view the exhibition and take your picture home with me (you agreed to this already)
  3. I then start to print that off and sell it to whoever I like
  4. You try to stop me and I refer you back to the original T&C's where you agreed there were no restrictions
  5. I/they have grabbed your rights
 
Last edited:
Think this is another classic case of over sensitive togs looking for something that isn't there. The terms are just badly written garbage there is no intentional rights grab.
 
I think you're probably correct, that a rights grab was not the intention; but if it comes to a legal case, what matters isn't what was intended (since that is always unprovable) but what was stated in black and white, and uncontestable. If someone provides what amounts to a legal contract to be signed/accepted, then surely it's reasonable for the person signing to ask what it actually says and legally means, even if that meaning is not what the person who wrote it meant?
 
many photo competitions have similar wording, including the ones by big name photo mags. if you don't like the terms, don't enter the comp.;)
 
Steve Smith said:
How can you be responsible for copyright infringement of your own image?


Steve.
Click to expand...

Because your photograph may actually be a breach of someone else's copyright. From memory, the copyright of the night lighting on the Eiffel Tower is copyright, so a photo is a copyright breach. You're not infringing your own copyright; the council is holding you responsibe for any legal action from a third party who regard your photo as infringing their (the third party's) copyright.
 
a1ex2001 said:
Think this is another classic case of over sensitive togs looking for something that isn't there. The terms are just badly written garbage there is no intentional rights grab.
Click to expand...

If the wording is garbage, how can you divine the intent?

:asshat:
 
a1ex2001 said:
Think this is another classic case of over sensitive togs looking for something that isn't there. The terms are just badly written garbage there is no intentional rights grab.
Click to expand...

But it is quite clearly there, intentional or not, you don't have to go looking.
 
StephenM said:
the copyright of the night lighting on the Eiffel Tower is copyright, so a photo is a copyright breach.
Click to expand...

It isn't as a photograph of a building cannot infringe any copyright a building has... but that's an argument for another thread.


Steve.
 
Agreed, it shoulod be for another thread; but I did say it was the lighting and not the Tower per se.
 
a1ex2001 said:
I don't think it is clear at all you could read it numerous ways just depends what you want to see.
Click to expand...
When you are asked not to put any copyright restrictions on an image how else can/would you read it? Why would anybody ask you to not exercise your rights?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top