I received a reply from URA.
They assured me that the images will not be used for commercial purposes. They have added clause 3.3 to the terms.
And that the copyright is retained by the photographer. (I hope some are assured by this fact)
They however reserve the rights to reproduce the images without fee payment but will acknowledge the photographer. (You can't have everything)
I believe most contests organised by government bodies are not for the purpose of getting cheap stock photos but rather to promote public awareness and to engage the public. (The advertisement and promotion of the contests probably cost a lot more then buying stock photos.) The terms are also there to protect their own interest.
I suppose when in doubt one can always write in and seek clarification and make your own choice.
Besides the ball is in our court, we should feedback to all organisations if we feel their terms are unreasonable. At most we get ignored.
btw some of these organisation outsource the organisation of these contests to you guessed it, companies dealing with photographic and video services. (so maybe these fellow photographers should relook their drafting of terms to reflect the sincerity of the organisers)
I also believe that many hobbyist photographer participate in contest for a sense of purpose, otherwise what to do with all the images sitting in your hard drive. Alternatively post them on clubsnap and share with all of us.
As an impartial observer (and an absolutely clueless one about the intricacies of the photo biz world), I think what you've done deserves affirmation. You were not quick to judge. And you actually took it upon yourself to write in to clarify their stand.
Moreover, I feel that the arguments you provided (big organizations and especially govt organizations spend more on the organization of the competitions than the procurement of images and that these competitions are often outsourced.) show a very balanced and well thought out piece of work.
The fact that you actually got then to amend their tnc is testament to the fact that a person can make a positive difference if he wants to. And it also underscores the fact that the organization did not mean for any malice.
Speaking of which, has anyone ever seen any govt organization "misusing" the photos after having collected tons and tons from the numerous competitions held? Cos if you so think so, just write in and demand and explanation of why that photo of yours had been use in such an unfair manner. Cos i feel that the govt organizations won't hide behind terms and conditions and do such sneaky things. (perhaps put of nobility. But most probably cos it is common sense)
Dear Mr tengk, Thanks for making so much sense.
The proper terms should included something like this (in bold underlined): "They however reserve the rights to reproduce the images in publications related to the specific competition ONLY without fee payment but will acknowledge the photographer.
If Nat Geo and other respectable organizations can have proper T&C, will can't these jokers have them too?
Btw, FYI, when photo buyer download Royalty Free Images from stock photo library, they are only pay for the licence to use these images, they are not allow to resell the stock images to third party.
We strongly advice photographers do read the term and condition carefully before partake such photo competitions.
we also heard a lot of stories of the photos end up somewhere else and nobody know is responsible.
ultimately, photos are theirs, it is up to them for what they want to do with their own photos.
This discussion has been most enlightening!
I suppose every photographer who comes across unfair terms should feedback to the organisers and bring out examples of reasonable terms.
Hopefully over time, most terms will be reasonable.
Here,s hoping that most of us will start providing positive feedback to organisers.
We need to do our part too. Cheers!
Can these multi-billion big companies afford to pay photographers to do the job? Of course, easily without breaking a sweat. But saving money will make one or two persons in a small marketing department look good. But the opportunities lost and damage done to the creative industry on the whole is on a different level. Small benefits to a few individual, big loss out to many. It could be anything other than photography too, a poster design contest, a podium display design contest, even a song or music jingle for an advertisment, or a video contest to 'borrow' ideas from creative people. Creative people are mostly fueled by passion so its easily to entice them with 'exposure' and chance to 'gain experience'. But, who cares about creative peple? People holding stakes care, people with empathy cares, people who are selfish don't, people who benefits from such actions don't, many are neutral, nothing wrong to be in any side, we are just different people. Its a free market, many people like to repeat that phrase.
Then again, it could just be an innocent contest and we are overthinking the issue.
WTB Manfrotto RC4 L Bracket
BTW, URA is an organisation which deals with urban planning of Singapore. They are constantly searching for materials to create awareness/promote the work they do. Just pop by their gallery and see for yourself. I know. I've worked with them for the past 10 years. Not in the capacity of a photographer though but as an architect.
They are looking for cheap photos and if you can't make out that simple and obvious fact, well good luck.
If you see any such posts not in compliance to these rules please do a report post and we will deal with it.
We however cannot and will not prevent any membera from joining such competitions. But the T&C needs to be acceasible easily for viewers to see. ClubSNAP members are reminded to scrutinize all competition T&Cs before entering any comoetition.
Last edited by daredevil123; 21st March 2014 at 01:18 PM.
Next time when I read lousy terms I will join to compete, I know all pro will not join, so I have better chance to win.
Olympus EM-1, Pen 3, Nikon D7000 & D800