Really, what's the arguement here?
People who want to join the competition will still join the competition because they think that it's fair for them. People who think that it's unfair, will just boycott it. There will be those who thinks it's unfair but still take part anyway. But please don't accuse the organisers of exploitation because it's not. They haven't done anything to force people to take part, and anyone who's taking part should have already read the T&C and agreed.
The example that CAnD gave, it's not exactly true that it's unfair for the other 97 participants. Even if the winning works are to be chosen randomly, the copyright that they give up is in exchange for the chance that they might win. Taken to the extreme, it's the same reason why you still have to pay for a lottery ticket. When the winning entries are chosen according to the participants' merit, it's still a matter of chance whether there's someone else who's better than you.
I'm a person who believes in artisic copyrights but sometimes you have to stop and think, how much is your picture worth? In the case of this competition, the organisers have already offered a price, that's the prize money. It's up to you whether you want to take this price or not. For $300, if they really wanted, they could have easily gotten a CD full of stock pictures of people drinking coffee anyway. Professional stock photography isn't cheap, but generic stock pictures are. If place too high a value on your copyrights, you will never be able to get it out, because no one will be able to afford it.
Last edited by Prismatic; 17th November 2006 at 04:12 AM.
It is good that someone HighLight this issue so that any amateur or newbie or enthusiast
is aware of losing their copyright if they submit their photos for competition.
It is not just a matter of how much our photo is worth.
The terms and condition should change to... "Any image submitted will be copyright of its original owner,
if images was used by Suzuki Coffee will be properly credited accordingly."
"for every submission to release their copyright is unfair
for winning entries to release their copyright is fair"
"....pay $300 for first prize and still want to hold rights to all pictures ah??? ...."
I think as long as Suzuki does not use the photographs submitted for any commercial use, then it'll be just like sharing photos online, no harm.
However, if not so, as they have stated such as 300dpi, and owning the right, definitely is some kind of shameless strategy to get free, and possibly quality photographs.
As mentioned, it's cheaper to just go buy those well done royalty free stock images. Most of those stock images are of MUCH HIGHER (artistic/technicality) quality than 95% of what you've seen here in this forum. In fact you can even pay peanuts for generic stock photos. For exampl, it's SGD$250 for 750 images of the choice @ www.shutterstock.com, all carefully/professionally done up/cleaned up etc, and you get to choose what you want and what you don't. That's 750 HIGH QUALITY images for anyone who pays...
Isn't it sad that most photographers here know they're not good enough, and most probably in the non-winner list, that they worry about their rights to their non-winning photos? Haven't they realised that for a low level competition, if they can't win, it's likely that their photos are worth nothing anyway. As in, no one else would even pay them a cent for that photo because, there are definitely better photographers out there.
Last edited by unseen; 18th November 2006 at 05:39 PM.
In fact just like someone has already mentioned in one of the above posts, I think the organisers, all of them holding competitions, should at least change their policy, rephrase and act according to the stated terms, and conditions, that they can use, but do not own the copyright, no matter what merit or quality level the photographs are, and give credit to the owner. In that way, it makes everyone happy, doesn't it??
Just my thoughts...
Or simply buy not buy from that shop, and buy from the US?
Or you buy 4D, demand that they make it 2D instead so it's easier to win millions? everyone will be happier ya? So how many of you still buy 4D even if it's not favourable?
Buying 4D, it's worse than this competition ya.. they take your hard earned $$, and they don't even give you any recognition. why not say "Exploited fools, those who have bought 4D ever in their lives. happy being exploited every week."
In the end, everyone is giving up something for that chance in a million to win something. In this case, it will be 1 in a few hundred chances. Certainly more worth it than 4D.
If the organiser is closing their eyes and randomly pick a photo then comparing it to buying 4D maybe make sense.
the random portion would be how many people enter, how good they are. The average skill level, the number of people are all random. You can't control that.
If there are only 3 people entering, no matter how randomly they pick they're going to win something.
If there are only 4 people entering, 4 kintergarden kids and 1 professional photographer entering, the pro would be winning something..
If there are 500 pros entering, than any random professional would have at most 1/500 chance of winning.
Looking at 4D, even if I was the only idiot buying 4D, i would have 1/(a few million) chances to win something.
This competition, if I'm the only entree, I'll 100% win the top prize ya.
True it's still quite unfair to compare to 4D because 4D is alot more random and even more impossible to win than such a competition.. But hey, there's always hope ya?
Last edited by unseen; 19th November 2006 at 04:43 AM.
Frankly..... despite all the hoo ha..... I can tell you from industry point of view (YES I AM IN THE MEDIA INDUSTRY, 5 years...)
Half my clients dont know their rights of what they can and what they cannot use. Why they dont know? They dont need to know, their advertising agency handles everything for them. Hence when they decide to do media stuff without their agency that is when they get into hot soup. Some use the image past the one year loading not knowing have to pay. And must admit some have been victims of suppliers that crank up charges and loadings that seems to appear out of thin air.
So maybe for them nowdays it is play it safe, just take the rights to everything so that in case, I say in case. They decide to use anything wont get into trouble.
And yes as some have said..... seriously this competitions are not really worth much.... they are for the sake of having fun, gaining experience and if you are lucky win something. Most pros I say pros as in those who make a living out of photography.... wont even bother about the competition..... or if they join, it is not for the money... please they can earn more money from their job.
Photography once was a ART, I say WAS because it is now so commercial. Anyone who has a camera is a photographer, DSLR can pay by installment. Everyone wants to be photographer....
Nowadays everytime got competition we will hear this issue of rights and this and that..... yes I know someone said before he or she know of someone whose work was used by a wine company and paid 5k. But how many will get that chance and most impt of all, how many here are that good?
Nowadays take a photo, DI here DI there and viola a masterpiece...
I went to the World Press Photos Talk and something touched me. The speaker said that The winning photographer this year, he was being interviewed, about how he is now world famous, his photographs will be worth lots more, he will be getting alot of assignments, (in short he struck the gold mine with his win) the photographer said something like this "That is not important, what is important is the world finally sees the suffering in Africa" For those who don't know the photo was that of a tiny baby's hand on her mother's hand. The baby was shrunken due to starvation.
That to me is the true spirt of photography. To preserve forever images in print and not to squabble over petty rights.
Last edited by centuryegg; 22nd November 2006 at 05:46 PM.
For 4d you have 1/9999 chance to get a prize and not 1/a few million chance of getting something
"play it safe" ... oh well.. the bank certainly does it extremely well. If one looks at the terms n conditions of using their credit cards, one would know. Yet, seemingly we do not have much choice.
"That is not important, what is important is the world finally sees the suffering in Africa"
Just some thought about this... may I say that with or without his photo, the World already knew and seen many of this kind of suffering in Africa?
What is troubling is .. how and when the life of these people can improve significantly.
Or perhaps, his photo actually create even more awareness and more funds pouring into this country?
is 1/10,000 correct then?
I think a JC student taking F.maths can answer.
give it a try.
ok, now back to the topic..
i think what 'Del_CtrlnoAlt' said is absolutely correct abt the rights, even if zealously. perhaps the organizer's marketing person (presumable 'lainey') truely quite unitiated and like 'Century_egg' said, to err on the side of caution with an 'all-encompassing' clause on the rights. 'unseen' is pretty discouraged by the early thumbsdown and perhaps takes very good pics and believe non-pros should not bother too much abt rights before even delivering the goods.
well well, let the contest go on..
lainey is wise in knowing this forum is a good place to reach photography enthusiasts. prizes are definitely more attractive than O'brien's contest. Del_CtrlnoAlt is indeed very helpful in increasing our awareness of the finer points of photo rights. many of us appreciate your highlighting it. i wasn't aware until now
Century_egg gave a fair view of the side of the organizer.
unseen is of course welcome to think nothing of poor pictures, along w the rights. perhaps he can also share his entries here later on too. (we hope you can help to increase the mentioned '5%' with your entries.) but i seriously think the good pics posted here are definitely more than 5% la.. else lainey is posting the ad in the wrong place liao. logical right?
that's what online forum is all about isn't it? we get myriad views and we learned something new at the end of the day. that's what makes this forum exciting.
let's all not quarrel but learn from each other, and also shoot more pics, whether good or bad, pro or hobbyist, and post them here.
photography brings new perspectives.
digital photography alters perspectives and shortens the learning curve.
good day everyone!
Last edited by blaine; 23rd November 2006 at 12:44 AM.
Well..some of us just "Buay Song" with the exploitation, so we voice out.. Is there a problem with that?
There are some photographer who actually value their work and take pride with what they do, but are ignorant about copyrights, so its good that it is being voice out about this issue. Is it better to just keep quiet? Mind you, we dun get any benefit from voicing these out, we just create some form of awareness.
Last edited by delong72; 23rd November 2006 at 01:03 AM.
Along the same theme, ignorance is not bliss. Reading through the points raised in this thread, I for one think it's good for all of us to think through any and all terms and conditions that we are about to agree to, especially those that are unilaterally imposed (most of the time by people who think they know best). No matter how bad and worthless anyone else thinks your photos are, I am sure that it is worth something to you. Is it worth a chance to win $300? You have to decide that for yourself.
Last edited by denmad; 23rd November 2006 at 01:51 AM.
i agree with both sidess here but only to a point.
I am sure my photographs cant get 10cents, and even if given free people wont take them, but the bottom line is they are MINE.
Of course it is the right of the organizer of such competitions to have these rules which benifit them, as is our right not to participate in these things as well.
The question that i ask is why would i take part, is it because i can win or isit because i can share what i think is beauftiful with a wider group. At the end of the day i would do it because i would want to share, but i would want to retain the rights to what is mine. thus the knot becomes tighter!
please send all images that you do not want with a signed contract transfering all right to me.
Maybe I'll start a photo library.
btw a photo no matter good or bad belongs to the photographer
the org is wrong to want the copyright
i take macros, not much commercial value
in fact cannot even impress girls
but the images are created by me
i value them
if you do not value your own work
how do you expect others to value them