Losing Photo Bucks

D

dovi

Well-known
Local time
12:17 PM
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
Messages
212
I think this is definitely the wrong way to go:

http://contest.nyhistory.org/



Entries become the property of the New-York Historical Society.



PUBLICITY RELEASE:

By submitting a photo, each entrant grant the New-York Historical Society the right to use his or her name, voice, photograph, likeness and information provided on entry form, without compensation, including in all publicity and marketing materials (including the New-York Historical Society's web site) relating to the Times Square photo contest, except where prohibited by law.


LICENSE:

By entering the photo contest, each entrant grants to the New-York Historical Society a non-exclusive license to copy, distribute, display, adapt, publish, use and make derivative works from the photo or portions of the photo in the New-York Historical Society’s marketing, promotional, educational, commercial, and not-for-profit materials, in any format and media, whether now known or hereafter devised, for any and all purposes, including but not limited to publication and distribution of the photo or portions of the photo on the New-York Historical Society’s website or in exhibitions.


The New-York Historical Society will endeavor to include the entrant's name each time his or her photo or a portion of his or her photo is used in this manner. However, winner will not be entitled to any compensation from the New-York Historical Society for any use of the winning photo.


WARRANTY BY ENTRANT:

By submitting a photo, each entrant warrants that the photo is original, was created solely by the entrant, does not violate any copyright laws, and does not plagiarize, libel, defame, disparage, slander or otherwise infringe on or violate the rights of any third parties. Each entrant further certifies that it has obtained all necessary and appropriate approvals or consents from all persons and entities participating in or otherwise involved with the creation and production of the photo. Each entrant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the New-York Historical Society, its officers, directors, employees and affiliated organizations, and their respective officers, directors and employees, from and against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, liabilities and causes of action of whatsoever nature that are based upon or arise out of any breach by the entrant of these contest rules or the warranties and representations made in this paragraph.
 
Agreed.

A lot of photo magazines here in the UK do this. The small print usually says that all entries can be used as often, and in any way, the magazine likes with no payment made to the photographer. Given the broad spectrum of entries they receive, they then have images to illustrate articles for beginners, black and white special editions, still life, nature etc. etc. without ever having to dip into their pockets, and the competition prizes have usually cost them nothing.

Mind you it's nothing new. My late Grandmother was a skilled artist / designer who entered a competition in the 1920s for fabric design. She didn't win with her designs, but got a 'highly commended'. Imagine her shock when six months later she walked into a large department store and saw curtains, sofas and chairs with her patterns on them.

John
 
A former Editor of one of the photo-magazines told me that if anyone complained about the usage of their image the stock reply was that they had the "thrill of seeing one of their images in print". To which I replied I preferred the "thrill of seeing money in my wallet".

John
 
There's a sucker born every minute, luckily for some, enough suckers can support an entire class of parasitic middlemen/women.
 
Whatever, it's a competition and if you go out to take a picture for that competition exclusively and win... well you'll now have $500 - consider that the price of selling one image.

And whoever they are can use it for whatever they want - why should the photographer backtrack. You should be happy that people are using your work. If it ever suddenly became an actual historical photo of times square - you as the photographer will still get the credit for taking that photo regardless of who it is copyrighted to. The New-York Historical Society can't plausibly say the photo was taken by Santa Claus can they?

It sounds like people are panicking as if they are going to base their entire photographic career off one photo of times square.

Whatever.
 
Question : is it fair?

Question : is it fair?

For me the issue is whether this contest is unfair to anyone who does not come in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd because that is the majority and whether this type of contest is beneficial to the individual contestant.

For some because it is NYHS the answer is Yes, and for others No. I am curious what others think. My opinion is clear.

The sound of panic is unfortunate.




Neare said:
Whatever, it's a competition and if you go out to take a picture for that competition exclusively and win... well you'll now have $500 - consider that the price of selling one image.

And whoever they are can use it for whatever they want - why should the photographer backtrack. You should be happy that people are using your work. If it ever suddenly became an actual historical photo of times square - you as the photographer will still get the credit for taking that photo regardless of who it is copyrighted to. The New-York Historical Society can't plausibly say the photo was taken by Santa Claus can they?

It sounds like people are panicking as if they are going to base their entire photographic career off one photo of times square.

Whatever.
Click to expand...
 
Neare said:
Whatever, it's a competition and if you go out to take a picture for that competition exclusively and win... well you'll now have $500 - consider that the price of selling one image.

And whoever they are can use it for whatever they want - why should the photographer backtrack. You should be happy that people are using your work. If it ever suddenly became an actual historical photo of times square - you as the photographer will still get the credit for taking that photo regardless of who it is copyrighted to. The New-York Historical Society can't plausibly say the photo was taken by Santa Claus can they?

It sounds like people are panicking as if they are going to base their entire photographic career off one photo of times square.

Whatever.
Click to expand...

Assuming humans have free will, what if somehow the New York Historical Society used your photos for political purposes, would you like it?

And worse, if they use it for political purposes contrary to your firmly held beliefs, would you like it?

A prize is a prize. $500 is a prize and no matter how it sounds like "price", its not.
 
It's funny how some people want to defend others from all the trickery in the world.

As Fred said, the New York Historical Socity is upfront about what happens to your photo if you enter the contest: it's part of their permanent collection. If you don't like it, don't enter. The big bad historical society isn't coming to your house and snatching your photo out of your hand.
 
sonofdanang said:
Combine that with the fact that you should never show anything but your best work, would you give away (and that's what you're doing if you sell for a one-time fee with no reversion of rights) a piece of your "best work" to another rights-holder with no consideration of futurity?
Click to expand...
For certain work, sure, if I support the organization/cause/whatever and don't feel there is a better use. For example, I've contributed a bunch of pictures of musicians to Wikipedia, giving everyone an eternal, irrevocable right to use the pictures any way they like - even commercially - as long as they comply with the license (basically "attribution, share alike").

I'm not a great concert photographer, but I uploaded the best I had. Many of the pictures have lasted for several years on Wikipedia, and I reckon at least a couple of them have been viewed hundreds of thousands of times. Definitely better than them just rotting away on my hard drive. :)
 
igi said:
Assuming humans have free will, what if somehow the New York Historical Society used your photos for political purposes, would you like it?

And worse, if they use it for political purposes contrary to your firmly held beliefs, would you like it?

A prize is a prize. $500 is a prize and no matter how it sounds like "price", its not.
Click to expand...

Mate, all this is contextual. This is not some competition run by Hamas asking for the best picture of a dead child.

The chance that a photo of times square could have political implications or that even the historical society suddenly become heavily involved in a propaganda campaign is pretty unlikely.
Hey if they do, the photo that was taken would have to be pretty legendary.

I'm looking at it from this perspective - competition starts - photographer takes picture and submits it.

If you're looking at it from is one - photographer has image of times square that has been in gallery such and such - gives it to competition - looses rights to it.

^^ Then id understand why people would be upset. But honestly, any intelligent photographer would never do that.
And look, if you take a picture for this competition and you realize that it is actually really good, you don't actually have to submit it.

What shocks me more is that people are so afraid of giving their work over to others... The fact of the matter is that in the world of commercial photography - once you sell your image to make your income you usually loose your rights to it! That's why you 'sell' a photo. The photographer doesn't tell Louis Viton on what specific billboards they can use their photos on. Most if not all members of this forum are not worldwide recognized photographers, to put food on the table people have to do what they can even if it is unfavorable. I know this concept applies less towards a competition, but the same principals are there.

As I said, its contextual and it is at the photographers discretion. If you don't want to try and win, don't enter. But everyone getting their panties in a twist over this is really weird. When you sell images - expect to lose most of your rights to them or make contracts.

IMO - competitions where you have to pay to enter are a little different.
 
Neare said:
What shocks me more is that people are so afraid of giving their work over to others... The fact of the matter is that in the world of commercial photography - once you sell your image to make your income you usually loose your rights to it! That's why you 'sell' a photo. The photographer doesn't tell Louis Viton on what specific billboards they can use their photos on. Most if not all members of this forum are not worldwide recognized photographers, to put food on the table people have to do what they can even if it is unfavorable. I know this concept applies less towards a competition, but the same principals are there.
Click to expand...

That is NOT how commercial photography works at all. Not in the USA, and the USA is what we're discussing.
 
Chris, if you're selling under a commercial contract you have the right to negotiate how the image is used.
As this competition is dealing with a non-exclusive license, you have very little say in the matter.

Here's an example of what I'm saying:

If you sell your image to a magazine - you no longer have the right to sell it to another magazine.
You took that image for sure, but the truth is that you can do very little with it after it has been sold. In many cases for high profile jobs - you'd get in a lot of trouble if you displayed that photo online for example.

Working freelance is a very different story too.
 
Neare said:
Chris, if you're selling under a commercial contract you have the right to negotiate how the image is used.
As this competition is dealing with a non-exclusive license, you have very little say in the matter.

Here's an example of what I'm saying:

If you sell your image to a magazine - you no longer have the right to sell it to another magazine.
You took that image for sure, but the truth is that you can do very little with it after it has been sold. In many cases for high profile jobs - you'd get in a lot of trouble if you displayed that photo online for example.

Working freelance is a very different story too.
Click to expand...

Yes you do have the rightvto negotiate.

I worked myway through college as a photojournalist in the 60's and turned to commercial work in the early 70's and have done nothing but commercial and documentary since. I've delivered hudreds of thousands of images to clients in that time and have never surrendered my rights to my images. I sold full rights a few times but I was never forced to.

The enjoyment part of what I do is my documentary / historic work. I have negs that I shot going back to the age of 5 in 1953. It might be because I'm older now that i see the value in recording and preserving history and sharing it with future generations. I just donated 160 images to the East Tennessee History Center / McClung collection to establish a special collection of my documentary images. I retain copyright and can use it for any purpose but the images i donated can only be used for educational purposes by the museum and can never be released for commercial applications. They do have my permission to use them for promotional purposes for the museum. 95 of the images were in a 7 month long exhibition that's now touring other museums. In time the museum / collection will probably have my entire library of Appalachian documentary neg which consists of tens of thousands of negs and prints. The important thing about this is not any glory for me but is preserving historic images for educating future generations about a time and place in the past. How many of us love looking at old photographs?

Did you ever consider donating images to a museum as a way for your images to live on after you're gone? How many people leave anything behind that's worthwhile? I see this as an honour that someone would want to view and study my work a hundred years from now. What do you think will eventually happen to your work after you're gone? Will your negs sit in a box in your kids basement molding or will they be in the dumpster one day?

I seriously doubt this is a scam. I would say this museum like most are strapped for cash and having to find new and less expensive exhibitions plus add to their archives.
 
Last edited:
Neare said:
Mate, all this is contextual.
Click to expand...

Voice of reason imho.

When getting hot under the collar about copyright and money it's always worth stepping back for a moment and asking yourself 'what do I get out of it' and 'what do they get out of it', and often 'what they get out of it' is substantially less than amateur photographers think.
 
Peter R said:
Voice of reason imho.

When getting hot under the collar about copyright and money it's always worth stepping back for a moment and asking yourself 'what do I get out of it' and 'what do they get out of it', and often 'what they get out of it' is substantially less than amateur photographers think.
Click to expand...

Absolutely false. If a business wants a photo, they're getting a lot out of it. I have licensed a number of my images at fees that one image licensed for one use made me enough to live for a month, and once made enough to live for 3 months from one sale. These companies would NOT pay such sums of money if they were not making substantial money themselves from the use of the photo. If I give my photos away, my son and I do not eat. Even if I made a lot of money yesterday, next week I may make nothing, so I still charge for all photos so I can have some reserve in savings. I like eating. Every day, can you imagine that?! Yeah! My son does too...funny how kids are like that, and we really love living in a nice apartment and having my car to drive us places.

Even nonprofits have money. These organizations are staffed by people often making very above-average salaries; asking us to give them our work for free is parasitic and hypocritical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom