Photo Competition - Maybank Tower Through The Seasons
- Thread starter TheChef
- Start date
- Status
seems like you only feel that only the winning image are good.
I suppose you are a photographer yourself? do you even know how the judges for the competition are?
are they professionals in photography? do they know anything about photography?
How sure are you that the winning images are the best among all entries and not just some image that the judge (which could just be some executive from the company) went "wow" due to his/her personal preference.
And from what you've been saying so far, you don't seem to have any respect for your own work. :thumbsd:
Hey Mr known all corporation operation, is that ALL you know?
not just that. he only thinks winning entries are good:bsmilie:
meaning, if 5 world class photogs sent in photos that are damn good, only got 3 prizes to win, the other 2 must be crap.
Seriously,
The Corporation has alot to gain from this kinds of "Clever Marketing"
1) Tons of photos. . . Mind you, not all CSers are pros but there are alot with adequate skills to make a picture right. Furthermore, by taking over all rights, they basically have a diverse pool of photos coming from various types of photographer.
2) Free Publicity. . . Right now, 945 views and still counting. . . Photographer whose photos are submitted are also well supported by family members and friends adding in to the pool.
3) From you earlier statements, you seem to assume that paid agencies always delivers. While they usually do deliver, there are instances where they don't.
4) "Promoting Photography" an be used as a cover up for clever marketing. If they are really promoting photography, why in the first place take over the rights of the photos? Taking all the rights of submitted photos instead of only the winning entries further supports this claim.
However, there is good in the competition as it brings in the possibility of winning some prizes and a little fame for their work. While it may not appeal to professionals, hobbyist whom want to have a little exposure would surely see no problem "selling" their art.
What kit, nightmare and sinned 79 are doing is to bring the awareness to everyone on the repercussions of their submissions.
Just my 2 cents.
PS: Having my Liang Teh now. . .
The Corporation has alot to gain from this kinds of "Clever Marketing"
1) Tons of photos. . . Mind you, not all CSers are pros but there are alot with adequate skills to make a picture right. Furthermore, by taking over all rights, they basically have a diverse pool of photos coming from various types of photographer.
2) Free Publicity. . . Right now, 945 views and still counting. . . Photographer whose photos are submitted are also well supported by family members and friends adding in to the pool.
3) From you earlier statements, you seem to assume that paid agencies always delivers. While they usually do deliver, there are instances where they don't.
4) "Promoting Photography" an be used as a cover up for clever marketing. If they are really promoting photography, why in the first place take over the rights of the photos? Taking all the rights of submitted photos instead of only the winning entries further supports this claim.
However, there is good in the competition as it brings in the possibility of winning some prizes and a little fame for their work. While it may not appeal to professionals, hobbyist whom want to have a little exposure would surely see no problem "selling" their art.
What kit, nightmare and sinned 79 are doing is to bring the awareness to everyone on the repercussions of their submissions.
Just my 2 cents.
PS: Having my Liang Teh now. . .
wa, still OT, let me tell stories la. there were once 2 men talking on a bridge.
A: look at the fish in the water, they must be very happy.
B: how do you know? are you a fish? i'm not a fish, i couldn't say for sure if they're happy. perhaps they are alive, and perhaps they are swimming around, but that's all i can see, and that's all i will say.
A: you obviously know nothing about fish and how fish work.
B: do you? what proof do you have that you know about fish and how they work? just your mouth saying it?
A: you obviously know nothing about fish and how fish work.
B: ....
A: you obviously know nothing. i'm certain of it.
B: yawn.
A: you obvious know nothing about fish and how they work. yawn yawn yawn.
:bsmilie:
merry x'mas!!!
A: look at the fish in the water, they must be very happy.
B: how do you know? are you a fish? i'm not a fish, i couldn't say for sure if they're happy. perhaps they are alive, and perhaps they are swimming around, but that's all i can see, and that's all i will say.
A: you obviously know nothing about fish and how fish work.
B: do you? what proof do you have that you know about fish and how they work? just your mouth saying it?
A: you obviously know nothing about fish and how fish work.
B: ....
A: you obviously know nothing. i'm certain of it.
B: yawn.
A: you obvious know nothing about fish and how they work. yawn yawn yawn.
:bsmilie:
merry x'mas!!!
photographers send in a photo and blanko Maybank branding out.
stand up for your right to be recognised!
*strikes goes on*
stand up for your right to be recognised!
*strikes goes on*
I can tell stories too. How about this?
Someone who has no idea how corporates work, what Marketing does, thinks corporates are out to hold photo competitions which are fronts for amassing photos on the cheap so that they can be used for corporate marketing purposes.
And as a result, she doesn't join any photo competition, and makes it her mission in life to highlight any competition where there are any clauses which are suspect, and makes it her quest to dissuade all potential contestants from joining any such competitions.
But she has never produced any proof to substantiate her allegations. Ie that corporates are out to screw photographers for free images thru photo competitions.
Isn't that a great story? Of course, any resemblance to any persons, living or dead, is not coincidental.
Someone who has no idea how corporates work, what Marketing does, thinks corporates are out to hold photo competitions which are fronts for amassing photos on the cheap so that they can be used for corporate marketing purposes.
And as a result, she doesn't join any photo competition, and makes it her mission in life to highlight any competition where there are any clauses which are suspect, and makes it her quest to dissuade all potential contestants from joining any such competitions.
But she has never produced any proof to substantiate her allegations. Ie that corporates are out to screw photographers for free images thru photo competitions.
Isn't that a great story? Of course, any resemblance to any persons, living or dead, is not coincidental.
Last edited:
^^^ That didn't sound like a story much different from what you were blabbering all along, just a sequel to this vvv
ok, i've had enough laughs...
i never get enough amusement from people who just repeat themselves like broken record. as if saying that cows would fly 8 times would make them fly....
i never get enough amusement from people who just repeat themselves like broken record. as if saying that cows would fly 8 times would make them fly....
Regarding the loose copyright clauses, you have a point when you say that none of us can be certain of the intention of the corporation. It could be a cover-all clause to mininise any legal complications, it could be a exploitation of less discerning photographers, it could be somewhere in between.
None of us can claim to know for sure, but using your same argument, I suppose you can't claim to know for certain either.
I don't see where it wrong to highlight suspect clauses and create awareness. And if people are still willing to join the competitions after that, then they do so with an informed choice.
flowerpot
Senior Member
Cut the flames guys. Here is something more constructive for any organizer to follow.
I found this photo contest which has a better T & C.
The Arizona Highways 2011 Online Photo Contest
The Terms:
The Arizona Highways 2011 Online Photo Contest is open to amateur and professional photographers, except employees of Arizona Highways magazine, the Arizona Department of Transportation and members of their immediate families. Any images not made in the state of Arizona will be disqualified. By submitting images to the contest, participants grant Arizona Highways magazine the right to publish their images in Arizona Highways magazine and on its website and in any promotional materials (i.e. press releases, future photography contest announcements, social medial efforts, etc.) for no other consideration beyond photographer credit. Photographers retain copyrights to their submitted photographs. First-, second- and third-place winners will be announced in the September 2011 issue of Arizona Highways, as well as on our website. Only the winners will be notified. Incomplete submissions will be disqualified.
I found this photo contest which has a better T & C.
The Arizona Highways 2011 Online Photo Contest
The Terms:
The Arizona Highways 2011 Online Photo Contest is open to amateur and professional photographers, except employees of Arizona Highways magazine, the Arizona Department of Transportation and members of their immediate families. Any images not made in the state of Arizona will be disqualified. By submitting images to the contest, participants grant Arizona Highways magazine the right to publish their images in Arizona Highways magazine and on its website and in any promotional materials (i.e. press releases, future photography contest announcements, social medial efforts, etc.) for no other consideration beyond photographer credit. Photographers retain copyrights to their submitted photographs. First-, second- and third-place winners will be announced in the September 2011 issue of Arizona Highways, as well as on our website. Only the winners will be notified. Incomplete submissions will be disqualified.
next time we have any queries on "how corporations work", you know who to call on speeddial. :bsmilie:
Ahbian, if you look carefully at Maybank's T's and c's, they do not require you to give up copyright. Just to give them the right to reproduce.
Which is actually what Arizona highways has below as well, ie AH can reproduce submissions in any promotional materials without any compensation beyond photographer credit.
So is there any substantive difference between what Canonixus thinks is a favourable set of t+c vs what Maybank does?
Which is actually what Arizona highways has below as well, ie AH can reproduce submissions in any promotional materials without any compensation beyond photographer credit.
So is there any substantive difference between what Canonixus thinks is a favourable set of t+c vs what Maybank does?
- Status
Similar threads
