"Enticing" terms for local photo contest!

[rbiemer]

I'm currently working in the kitchen of my local hospital and they have just finished remodeling a couple of floors in the residential care facility.
And today, they circulated a flyer for any employee photographers to join a "contest" and submit photos to be printed--on canvas!--and hung in the hallways.

I thought, cool! I've got a few photos that might work, maybe I'll submit them.

Then I read this line in the flyer: "By entering the contest, entrants grant Xxxxxxx Medical Center a royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual, non-exclusive license to display, distribute, reproduce, and create derivative works of the entries, in whole or part, in any media now existing or subsequently developed, for any educational, promotional, publicity, exhibition, archival, scholarly and any other purpose."

But, hey it's a contest, so that means winners and prizes, right? Not so far as the flyer is concerned. No mention of anything like that so I'm guessing that the "prize" is to occasionally see your photo as you walk by.

The hospital I'm at was, until the first of this year, locally owned and operated (non profit) and, if they'd asked in December, I'd happily have offered some of my landscapes to them. Now we are part of a rather bigger organization that is, technically, a non profit. But, according to the latest quarterly report I could find, they were showing for that quarter, $16 million "excess margin". So, no I'm not giving them any of my photos.

Rob

 

[zauhar]

Hi Rob,

Even a non-profit is allowed to have a positive ‘margin’ (only reasonable , right?) , and don’t forget that ‘profit’ is what’s left over after you pay all expenses, including the bloated salary of the CEO. Because even a non-profit with a purely humanitarian mission needs a CEO!

I think this appropriation of global rights is de rigueur by now. Organizations of all kinds apply the same boiler plate language to everything they do. **** them all.

Hope all is well otherwise !

Randy

 

[Hogarth Ferguson]

My wife and I donate to charities a lot. The first thing she does it look at the salary of a ceo for the charity and how much of the money they recieve goes to their cause. It is amazing how many charities donate so little money.

 

[farlymac]

Our local "non-profit" hospital makes so much "excess margin" they've been able to buy up every specialty practice in town they could get their paws on, added six floors to the main building, have opened three new satellite locations, and a large clinic that consists of a bunch of doctors who used to have their own offices. They're also known to be very insistent when it comes to bill collections.

PF

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Our local "non-profit" hospital makes so much "excess margin" they've been able to buy up every specialty practice in town they could get their paws on, added six floors to the main building, have opened three new satellite locations, and a large clinic that consists of a bunch of doctors who used to have their own offices. They're also known to be very insistent when it comes to bill collections.

PF

Fort Wayne's "Non-Profit" hospital not only bought up most of the small town hospitals in northeast Indiana, they even bought the naming rights to a baseball stadium!

Fort Wayne's other hospitals are owned by a for-profit corporation. That is, a corporation that is HONEST about being for profit. The "non-profit" is no different than a for profit company in my eyes, and if I were the executives of the honest hospital company, I'd be pissed that the "non-profit" competition gets to act like a for profit company, yet gets away with not having to pay any corporate taxes.

 

[willie_901]

...
Then I read this line in the flyer: "By entering the contest, entrants grant Xxxxxxx Medical Center a royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual, non-exclusive license to display, distribute, reproduce, and create derivative works of the entries, in whole or part, in any media now existing or subsequently developed, for any educational, promotional, publicity, exhibition, archival, scholarly and any other purpose."
...

A perpetual license is more valuable and less common than a one with time limits. I used very liberal license terms for my clients (Realtors™, property owners and interior designers) but they all expired several years later.

The phrase "any other purpose is troubling. If there are recognizable people in the photos and if the images are used commercially, then you could be sued by those people unless you have a signed release. And, they could use your images or part of them any way they want in their advertising. I think they meant - any other purpose except commercial usage, but that's not what their license says.

Also, just the act of submission grants a license! They could use your image for other purposes without displaying it in the building.

I would not submit even though it is seems unlikely the Medical Center would use them for commercial purposes.

However, if they do display your image(s) in their building, you would gain some benefit when marketing to clients in the future. Also, in my amateur opinion, this type of usage does not constitute an endorsement of the Medical Center (advertising) by people in your image(s), so a release is not technically necessary. An attorney could advise otherwise.

 

[Steve M.]

So what exactly does the term "non profit" mean anyway? I understand that a lot of these terms are simply ways to dodge paying taxes or eliminate certain employee rights, but still, this is crazy.

Those are pretty draconian terms in that photo contest too, but you just know they will get plenty of entries from people who either don't care or never read the usage terms. I wouldn't give them anything either.

I'm pretty sure that any people that are in photos are fine to publish without signed releases as long as they were taken in public, or in other places where there was no expectation of privacy. Does a coffehouse count as a place where there is no expectation of privacy? I would say it would. How about in an employee cafe like in the hospital? Probably not. That's for the lawyers to sort out though. I say send in the photos using a nom de plume through a Tor browser. Let them deal with that.

 

[ptpdprinter]

However, if they do display your image(s) in their building, you would gain some benefit when marketing to clients in the future.

Patients in a residential care unit don't sound like a good market to me.

 

[ptpdprinter]

A couple of owners ago, a local non-profit hospital CEO, who incorrectly thought he was a great photographer, plastered his photos all over the hospital as a vanity project. I am pretty sure the hospital picked up the printing and framing costs. He took a personal tax deduction for a charitable contribution.

 

[rbiemer]

Well, another part of the terms is that if there are any recognizable person/people the photographer must have signed releases.

Patients in a residential care unit don't sound like a good market to me.

I wonder if some one visiting from another hospital might see the photos and think "Gee, those look decent, maybe we ought to get some for our hospital?" With the terms of this "contest" my hospital could say to them "well, sure we can sell you prints of those, or the files if you'd like." And not involve (pay) me at all.

The other thing that bugs me about those terms is the "derivative works" part. They could decide that with a little--or no--alteration, any photo I entered becomes a great graphic logo or what ever.

Non-profit or not, I think of "promotional" and "publicity" uses as effectively commercial use--that probably isn't what the law here says but I don't know.

If the terms were such that the hospital was asking for photos to use as decorations for the walls and that they could reproduce them as needed, even in perpetuity, and that was it, I'd be happy to submit a few.

Or, maybe I will submit two or three with an email:
"By accepting my entries for your contest, the hospital accepts the following terms, which shall supersede any and all prior conditions and terms offered.

The photos are licensed for use in (hospital name) only and may not be used for any other purpose than decoration of the public areas of said hospital and if any other use is desired then a new agreement must be made prior to any such other use. " (I would need a lawyer to get the wording correct.)

The corporate grab all you can and cover your butt mentality evidenced by the memo for this "contest" just bugs me.

To say nothing about the fact that they are calling it a contest in the first place. I thought contest meant prizes and winners?

My new overlords actually have pretty good ratings and reputation for the medical care they provide and I have looked at quite a few employee reviews about how they are to work for which were postive by a large margin. At least I've only got a few more years til retirement. 🙂

That this bothers me so much surprises me a bit. I think I will reach out to the contact person for this and--nicely!--ask about these terms and, maybe, who wrote them.

Rob

 

[willie_901]

Patients in a residential care unit don't sound like a good market to me.

Think bigger.

You can use the fact that your work was chosen for display to influence clients that will never step foot in the hospital. Commercial photography is a crowded field. Any factual validation of one's work is an asset.

 

[willie_901]

...
Or, maybe I will submit two or three with an email:
"By accepting my entries for your contest, the hospital accepts the following terms, which shall supersede any and all prior conditions and terms offered.

The photos are licensed for use in (hospital name) only and may not be used for any other purpose than decoration of the public areas of said hospital and if any other use is desired then a new agreement must be made prior to any such other use. " (I would need a lawyer to get the wording correct.)

...

That this bothers me so much surprises me a bit. I think I will reach out to the contact person for this and--nicely!--ask about these terms and, maybe, who wrote them.
...
Rob

Both of these thoughts are good plans.

I don't think you need a lawyer. All you need to do is not grant commercial usage (advertising and, or merchandise).

I think those terms should bother you.

 

[Huss]

Think bigger.

You can use the fact that your work was chosen for display to influence clients that will never step foot in the hospital. Commercial photography is a crowded field. Any factual validation of one's work is an asset.

Ha.
The carrot of exposure in return for not getting paid is a sucker's bet.
This is the same ruse that 'clients' use to get work done for free:
"We can't pay you for this project, but will for the next one.." which never happens as they get the new batch to fall for that.

Bottom line, if you have given someone your work for free, guess what you just valued it at? And this hospital is even worse, not only have they not paid 'you' but they stake claim to ownership to all the rights.

Exposure for free is a race to the bottom.