Washington Post Photo Contest
RogersDA
Registered Users Posts: 3,502 Major grins
YOU REALLY NEED TO READ AND UNDERSTAND THE RULES OF PHOTO CONTESTS
Most contests sound legit. Most are, I presume. However, before entry you should really understand what they get in return for your submission. Take the latest photo contest from The Washington Post as an example.
Every year The Post asks for entries. A far as I can tell it's the same prize. And if you win you get:
The rules, however, include what I consider to be a rather laughable condition:
So, The Post gets all rights to your photo (even if you loose) to do with as they please (print publish, give away, sell, market, etc,), and they do not, under any circumstances, have to credit to you at all.
Now that's a good deal.:nah :scratch:nah
With rules this loose The Post could, in theory, sue you for copyright infringment should you choose to publish, print, and sell your photo after you enter. Remember, the rule loosely states that the submission becomes their property. The Post could loosely interpret that to mean that your submission constitutes assigining the copyright to them. Would The Post ever take this route? I have no idea, and I personally don't think so. The warning is though, that you need to be careful and read and understand the rules and the risks.
Most contests sound legit. Most are, I presume. However, before entry you should really understand what they get in return for your submission. Take the latest photo contest from The Washington Post as an example.
Every year The Post asks for entries. A far as I can tell it's the same prize. And if you win you get:
That is, the photo is printed in a newspaper, which everyone knows has very high print quality.You shoot, you could score prime real estate in the Travel section
The rules, however, include what I consider to be a rather laughable condition:
Photos become the property of The Washington Post, which may edit, publish, distribute and republish them in any form.
So, The Post gets all rights to your photo (even if you loose) to do with as they please (print publish, give away, sell, market, etc,), and they do not, under any circumstances, have to credit to you at all.
Now that's a good deal.:nah :scratch:nah
With rules this loose The Post could, in theory, sue you for copyright infringment should you choose to publish, print, and sell your photo after you enter. Remember, the rule loosely states that the submission becomes their property. The Post could loosely interpret that to mean that your submission constitutes assigining the copyright to them. Would The Post ever take this route? I have no idea, and I personally don't think so. The warning is though, that you need to be careful and read and understand the rules and the risks.
0
Comments
Regards,
I have submitted photos to magazines or newspapers knowing that possibly my name might appear, but if I had a great shot I knew I could sell, then never ever would I turn it over to some periodical. Just not woth the effort.
And get this... our local papers have stopped crediting photographers other than the ones in their direct employ. If I got a front page news story shot, they would most likely just print "Submitted photo" on the bottom. Nice of them, huh?
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
Hey, Richard. That is what I was really trying to warn people about. People need to understand what they are giving up. Starting a cheap stock photo site, when The Post owns to photo, means that they would not have to give any credit to the photographer. And, if the stock photo idea were true, then I would expect The Post to not give credit as it gives the appearance that they are selling your photo, not theirs.
GreyLeaf PhotoGraphy
Agreed
That would suck. Perhaps the local paper has some legal mumbo-jumbo for doing that burried somewhere?
GreyLeaf PhotoGraphy
The Wichita (ks) Eagle has done this for years......I used to get calls after every concert wanting to see my photos of whomever performed at the latest concert at one of the 3 major venues....I did it once and all they paid me was $5, they did take excellent care of the slide....it was in a better protective holder than I gave it to them in and all I wanted was the credit line.......that was the 1st and last time for me to be published in this paper....but they would still call for over 2 yrs.....I even tried submitting my portfolio but I had no journalism degree so they wouldn't consider me.....oh well their loss -
Sad to say, needing the degree to be considered as photographer is becoming more common; like a piece of paper guarentees that you shoot good work
www.fastcatstudio.com
www.fastcatstudio.net - blog
But, every submitted picture becomes property of NY Times... suddenly 'free' is no longer very 'free' at all.
This is the link:
http://yourphotos.boston.com/
When I hear the earth will melt into the sun,
in two billion years,
all I can think is:
"Will that be on a Monday?"
==========================
http://www.streetsofboston.com
http://blog.antonspaans.com
well, its free to them
www.fastcatstudio.com
www.fastcatstudio.net - blog
To get that, the language would have to say "exclusive property." With the language they have written they are not taking away any of your rights to the photo.
That said, you are right that it is a bit silly to enter a contest with those rules. My attitude is I have to get either money or a credit line for any use of a photo of mine. I am often quite happy for people to publish my work if they leave my copyright imprint intact, but if they want the right to remove it they have to pay for it.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Citation?
GreyLeaf PhotoGraphy
Best Business Practices for Photographers by John Harrington is a good reference on contract language for photography.