Who told you URA is being run by architects?? And what makes you think this competition is organised by architects?Originally Posted by surfs
Well, whatever or whoever is running this competition, it is still not very good that the photographer will not be acknowledged for his very own picture, even though there is a prize value involved.
The equipment can only bring you so far - the rest of the photographic journey is done by you.
the winning and shortlisted entries will be exhibited in URA centre, and the photographers will be credited.Originally Posted by nickmak
you can buy better gear but you can't buy a better eye
Hmm.. but do the non-shortlisted entries come under their gazetting rule? & actually even if they are credited at the exhibition, how long is the exhibition? I'm actually ok with the rights thing, since u're kinda competing for the payment. But the non-crediting when they use a photo in future is kinda unfair.Originally Posted by zaren
I guess they're really looking for ppl who willingly give to the nation w/o expecting any return or thanks. Either that or they know that many ppl probably dun bother to properly read the clauses.
I did not say that URA is run by architects or that the competition is organised by architects. Just that URA as an organisation does have lots of architects.Originally Posted by Kit
Anyway are you an architect or from URA?...
Last edited by surfs; 26th August 2004 at 11:16 PM.
hey surfs..relax. URA has only a handful of architects and the bulk of them are planners. This competition may not be even handled by the planners. But who cares, just ignore this competition and see how long they can extend the deadline.Originally Posted by surfs
it sure it's a cheap way of getting photographs.
Last edited by nostalgia; 26th August 2004 at 08:03 PM.
I think you got him wrong. Personal view, the reason why he mentioned architects is because architects design buildings and are defintely in view of the copyright issue, similar to Photographers. Both created pictures / drawings of their liking and would like to be credited.Originally Posted by Kit
However, if a building is designed by an architect, but his name wasn't credited, I am quite sure the architect would not be very happy.
Just think, one fine day, someone have a "building design contest" giving the similar clause where all drawings of the buildings will belongs to that company and all copyright be transferred to that company, and company is free to use all the drawings to the extend to building a building based on that drawing. The winner of this contest will be credited for the period of the exitbition and after the exibition is over, he is entitled to use the drawing by the architects. Isn't that pretty unfair to the architect to had work so hard for the design, especially those who did not win anything, to see their work being used by the company that organised the competition without the requirement to credit them?
It comes under the ruling, as long as you submitted your photographs, you had agreed to handover your copyright. They can use it without any credit to you.Originally Posted by vagabond
One day they can say the top xxx prizes goes to who and who. But tomorrow, in the newspaper, URA advertisment page, the photograph they use can be yours without the requirement to put the credit back to you.
Architects definitely value their design and copyright. This is not the issue being discussed here.Originally Posted by blurblock
What baffles me is the decision to associate architects with the competition. There is this assumption that whatever is related to URA has got something to do with architects, which is not the case at all. In actual fact, probably no architects were involved in the preparation of this competition so the impression that the competition should be held to certain expectations and standards similar to that of an architect's doesn't hold water at all.
Actually the other element I'm worried abt is that what if I want to use the photos I took for this competition for another purpose in future, be it another competition or exhibition or even a poster I'm coming up with? Me being the photog have to buy rights from them to use what I took. It is ok if I received something in return during the competition, at least I can still say I sold my rights to URA. But if I don't, it's like giving it to somebody then paying for it when I want to use it later.Originally Posted by blurblock
Originally Posted by vagabond
That is why everyone is not too happy with their T and C ....
If you want to see it that way, I guess no one can stop you .Originally Posted by Kit
However, I am pretty interested in the following comment
In actual fact, probably no architects were involved in the preparation of this competition so the impression that the competition should be held to certain expectations and standards similar to that of an architect's doesn't hold water at all
So what standard is expected of an architect? Do you mean architect should value their design and copyright and Photographers should be of a lower standard and thus their design and copyright should not be respected?
(Anyway, for all others, please disregard the previous paragraph, this is just to illustrate how easily is it for a miscommunication to occur where a sentence which means well can be twisted.)
Originally Posted by blurblock
Come on. Read what I said carefully. When did I ever compared architects to photographers? What I was saying is why should architects be associated with this competition. The standard in question is the rules of the competition. The standards of photographers was never a point of discussion.
If anyone wants to complain about this competition, bring it to the URA. Don't drag architects into this. They are both quite different entities if you haven't realised.
In your effort to "untwist" a sentence, you seemed to have given it another twist in a different axis altogether. Amazing.
Common guys, gov likes to commission/outsource third party for such things. They could have engage an event manager or even a publisher to help them.
My guess is they may be planning to publish a commorative "coffee table book" and they need photos, so the committee "whoever it is" just want to get the job done, they just care less about all this copyright stuff.
See if Darren (Clubsnap) together with other photography clubs is up to it to start a petition to discourage this trend/behaviour.
Unreserved apologies if this has offended the sensitivities of anyone.
Not associating architects with anything.
Anyway, it's just that the copyright consciousness of such an organisation should be expected to be higher.
Last edited by surfs; 26th August 2004 at 11:16 PM.
Hehe, I almost suggested we call the Today or Streat to write an article on it. I think someone must have beaten us to it by writing to URA. Good job to whosoever did the job.
Yup, make a stupid statement like that and then try to weasel your way out later jackass!. ;-) .......Originally Posted by surfs
I didn't realise that my posting a simple competition link would kick up such a ruckus:
Yes, let's face it, it would have appeared that the competition rules as they were originally prepared came across rather unreasonble (I didn't actually read about it since I was merely passing along news of this competition). I am at least glad that something good has come out of all this - that the URA has amended and clarified that it's only the winning entries that will be reused down the road for their publications and exhibitions.
But golly, the tone of some the posts here are equally dumb to begin with: e.g., write to MP, write to newspaper.........how freaking childish can you be? If you feel that there's some wrong with the rules, just write to the organisers for crying out loud. Obviously someone intelligent already has................
Last edited by kahheng; 26th August 2004 at 11:12 PM.