Unique2Me National Photo Contest

[yqt]

What's wrong with that? Would you rather have the government prescribe terms&conditions, and in turn make it obligatory for amateur photographers to submit their photos? Freedom works for both parties ...

Hi littleWolf, thanks for your input. I'm sure your views above is also on some other CSer's mind. What we hope to achive here is to gether diff POVs from as many as possible.

While there are those who will not mind the T&Cs, we wish them best of luck. For those who are not aware of the implication of the T&C, we hope to inform them. To those who just pop in to take a look, we hope to create some awareness of a photographer's rights.

Don't be surprise that some org may not even be aware of the photographer's rights/views, they just want to cover their behind so that their boss will not blame them in case something happens. To these org, we hope to inform them of the views from the other side of the lens ( that's why some of us have written to them, spoke to them, etc ). At the end of the day, copyrights of photographer here is still at "third world stage".

While orgs have the freedom to set the T&Cs, we hope that in time to come, photography works and photographers will be better respected by org of photography competations. At the moment, photography competation is used by some org to get large no. of images to build a stock for the org. Belive me, this happen to a friend working in an org and the boss ask them to run a competation with this in mind. He ask for my opinion and I advise him about the pros and cons. He went back, told his boss and they debated about this. Good thing is that his boss finally agreed that it is not a good idea and drop the idea. BTW my friend just got promoted this year.

 

[vince123123]

Well said - I hope that this input from a professional in the industry enlightens those who think that all organiers have bona fide intentions when organising competitions - and that there is a practice in the industry to organise competitions simply for the sake of gaining a large quantity of free (ok save for the prizes given) stock photos.

Hi littleWolf, thanks for your input. I'm sure your views above is also on some other CSer's mind. What we hope to achive here is to gether diff POVs from as many as possible.

While there are those who will not mind the T&Cs, we wish them best of luck. For those who are not aware of the implication of the T&C, we hope to inform them. To those who just pop in to take a look, we hope to create some awareness of a photographer's rights.

Don't be surprise that some org may not even be aware of the photographer's rights/views, they just want to cover their behind so that their boss will not blame them in case something happens. To these org, we hope to inform them of the views from the other side of the lens ( that's why some of us have written to them, spoke to them, etc ). At the end of the day, copyrights of photographer here is still at "third world stage".

While orgs have the freedom to set the T&Cs, we hope that in time to come, photography works and photographers will be better respected by org of photography competations. At the moment, photography competation is used by some org to get large no. of images to build a stock for the org. Belive me, this happen to a friend working in an org and the boss ask them to run a competation with this in mind. He ask for my opinion and I advise him about the pros and cons. He went back, told his boss and they debated about this. Good thing is that his boss finally agreed that it is not a good idea and drop the idea. BTW my friend just got promoted this year.

 

[LittleWolf]

Hi littleWolf, thanks for your input. I'm sure your views above is also on some other CSer's mind. What we hope to achive here is to gether diff POVs from as many as possible.

Overall I agree with what you write. My point is that freedoms (even the freedom to set ludicrous terms & conditions) should only be curtailed when they negatively affect the freedom of others. If people agree to these T&Cs, that's from my point of view unfortunate, but it's their freedom to do so as well. Everyone is an individual and stands out from the crowd in sopme aspects. If we were to regulate everything, we all would frequently come into conflict with unnecessary and stifling restrictions of the "one size fits all" kind.

Interestingly, the debate is always about copyrights etc. If I haven't overlooked it, a far more severe cause of concern never entered the debate: when I read the T&C's, they implied that winners would agree to work without compensation at the Tourism Board's request as actors/voice actors, models, authors, and in similar functions related to producing advertisements. If I misread this, please correct me.

 

[meepokman]

Hi Littlewolf,

all of us agree with you, we can't regulate everything. It is the freedom of the organizer to set such T&C and it is anyone's freedom to join the competition.

I hope I summarize correctly, but this is what I believe this whole discussion is about:

(1) fellow CS-ers are pointing out some things which they believe everyone should take note of.

(2) many believe the T&C can be further improved to everyone's benefit.


As to the appearances required by the winner, I guess, again, you are assumed to agree when you join the competition. It's the same issue as the discussion on copyright. Instead of you working for them without any numeration, it is your work working for them without numeration.

 

[vince123123]

Just had the chance to see the T&Cs, you all know what's the worst Term? It isn't anything that has been discussed so far - it is the term which allows them to amend the T&Cs as they like.

Imagine one day they amend to say "copyright is now mine and you owe me S$1,000,000,000".

By the way, where's the clause on having to work for STB? Didn't see it.

Overall I agree with what you write. My point is that freedoms (even the freedom to set ludicrous terms & conditions) should only be curtailed when they negatively affect the freedom of others. If people agree to these T&Cs, that's from my point of view unfortunate, but it's their freedom to do so as well. Everyone is an individual and stands out from the crowd in sopme aspects. If we were to regulate everything, we all would frequently come into conflict with unnecessary and stifling restrictions of the "one size fits all" kind.

Interestingly, the debate is always about copyrights etc. If I haven't overlooked it, a far more severe cause of concern never entered the debate: when I read the T&C's, they implied that winners would agree to work without compensation at the Tourism Board's request as actors/voice actors, models, authors, and in similar functions related to producing advertisements. If I misread this, please correct me.

 

[sORe-EyEz]

Interestingly, the debate is always about copyrights etc. If I haven't overlooked it, a far more severe cause of concern never entered the debate: when I read the T&C's, they implied that winners would agree to work without compensation at the Tourism Board's request as actors/voice actors, models, authors, and in similar functions related to producing advertisements. If I misread this, please correct me.

i hope u r wrong on tis. hope STB not so cheapskate, i cant imagine being squeezed from left, right & center from a gahmen body. taking us locals 4 granted...

 

[yqt]

Interestingly, the debate is always about copyrights etc. If I haven't overlooked it, a far more severe cause of concern never entered the debate: when I read the T&C's, they implied that winners would agree to work without compensation at the Tourism Board's request as actors/voice actors, models, authors, and in similar functions related to producing advertisements. If I misread this, please correct me.

I think you're refering to #18 of the T&C( if I remember correctly) this is refering to the winners lending their winning picture, name, voice, etc... and to appear in promotion for the purpose of the photo competation. Nothing really wrong with that if it is related to the photo competation. You win a prize, they take a photo of you for their press release, news letter, annual report or even posters to promote future photo competation.

 

[Zookeeper]

t isn't anything that has been discussed so far - it is the term which allows them to amend the T&Cs as they like.

To look on the flip side, if they don't have this particular T&C, they won't be able to amend anything, even if it is in the favour of photographers, like changing the part abour copyright ownership, etc. Without this T&C, organisers won't be able to reconsider their rules, once the rules are published.

I don't think they put in this T&C with the intention of turning the competition upside down midway through its run.

 

[oeyvind]

$10,000 is only for the Grand prize winner.

The organizer retain the rights to all submitted pictures even when they didn't win anything i.e. they get the rights without paying anything.

BINGO... :devil:

 

[vince123123]

Well, it would be VERY unusual if someone puts in this clause to amend the T&Cs to favour the other side - I think you might be a tad too optimistic there. Besides, if A is amending the T&Cs to benefit B, you don't need such a clause - the parties can just agree to amend the Agreement by mutual consent.

The only time when this clause is used is when A, the person given the power to amend, is amending the clause to prejudice B, because A will never get B's agreement to amend, and therefore he will need to invoke this power.

Such clauses are intended to give a back door catch all power to one party - so he can insert things he missed out, or things which he overlooked but which become important later, or in some extreme cases, to induce someone to enter into the agreement, and then invoke the clause to alter the contract substantially.

Accordingly, you might want to consider the position again.

Cheers!

To look on the flip side, if they don't have this particular T&C, they won't be able to amend anything, even if it is in the favour of photographers, like changing the part abour copyright ownership, etc. Without this T&C, organisers won't be able to reconsider their rules, once the rules are published.

I don't think they put in this T&C with the intention of turning the competition upside down midway through its run.

 

[vince123123]

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I reckon that most of us here are peeved more at the clauses which prejudice the non-winning participant, rather than the winning participant - the winning participant may be willing to give up more simply for the honour of winning and the prize - but the non-winning participant shouldn't be expected to give up anything at all - because he gained nothing out of it.

I think you're refering to #18 of the T&C( if I remember correctly) this is refering to the winners lending their winning picture, name, voice, etc... and to appear in promotion for the purpose of the photo competation. Nothing really wrong with that if it is related to the photo competation. You win a prize, they take a photo of you for their press release, news letter, annual report or even posters to promote future photo competation.

 

[fWord]

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I reckon that most of us here are peeved more at the clauses which prejudice the non-winning participant, rather than the winning participant - the winning participant may be willing to give up more simply for the honour of winning and the prize - but the non-winning participant shouldn't be expected to give up anything at all - because he gained nothing out of it.

My thoughts exactly. If I were absolutely confident that I'd win the prize for this competition, I certainly wouldn't mind. $10K is a good deal of money for someone like me who doesn't work. And even if my photo will make more than that as a stock photo, such a large sum of money is good enough compensation at this point.

 

[Zookeeper]

Well, it would be VERY unusual if someone puts in this clause to amend the T&Cs to favour the other side - I think you might be a tad too optimistic there. Besides, if A is amending the T&Cs to benefit B, you don't need such a clause - the parties can just agree to amend the Agreement by mutual consent.

Accordingly, you might want to consider the position again.

Cheers!

Certainly it will be unusual. It will also be very unusual for an organiser to amend a clause to say "copyright is now mine and you owe me S$1,000,000,000". Ok I know, you were joking and citing an extreme example that is highly unlikely.

I don't disagree with you on the point that most of the time, this clause protects the organiser. I was merely looking at the flip side, at how a seemingly disadvantageous clause may sometimes be of advantage as well.

Cheers too!

 

[yqt]

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I reckon that most of us here are peeved more at the clauses which prejudice the non-winning participant, rather than the winning participant - the winning participant may be willing to give up more simply for the honour of winning and the prize - but the non-winning participant shouldn't be expected to give up anything at all - because he gained nothing out of it.

well, the org may feel that since they have given you the chance to win a prize, they should get something in return. Is this fair? Though I would have like it not to be so, this thinking (of the org) do carry some weight in persent day context. Hopefully, in time to come this will improve.

Perhaps a more acceptable term maybe that all submitted entries will have limited copyrights given to the org ie: a 1 year limited release without the legal mumbo jumbo ( org have to shoulder this themselves ) but we have to assist by providing the names of the people (that we know) in the images, location of image, etc.

Some may say that it is not possible for the org to get the model release of an images shot in public when the people are not known to the shooter, as such it is not fair to the org. Look at it this way, if an org with more resources than the shooter can't get the release, what makes them think the shooter can do it? It only goes to prove that the T&C is not fair to the shooter in the first place. This may make the org rethink their T&Cs for the next photo competation.

Many a times things improve only when the other party is put in the same shoes of the shooter. Unless of course, the org just don't care. In that case, threads like this will inform or even serves as a warning to shooters of the T&Cs.

 

[vince123123]

Well my main point is that, you don't need such a clause to give advantage to the participant, if the organiers wants to amend any clause to benefit the participant, you don't need this clause at all - the parties just mutually agree to amend. Not having this clause doesn't mean you cannot amend - this is the issue which I said you have to reconsider.

The clause is only invoked in situations where the organiser wants to make amendments that the participant disagrees with. Whether the amendments are unusual is a side show.

Certainly it will be unusual. It will also be very unusual for an organiser to amend a clause to say "copyright is now mine and you owe me S$1,000,000,000". Ok I know, you were joking and citing an extreme example that is highly unlikely.

I don't disagree with you on the point that most of the time, this clause protects the organiser. I was merely looking at the flip side, at how a seemingly disadvantageous clause may sometimes be of advantage as well.

Cheers too!

 

[vince123123]

I think you're right on this count :bsmilie:

Unless of course, the org just don't care. In that case, threads like this will inform or even serves as a warning to shooters of the T&Cs.

 

[yqt]

I think you're right on this count :bsmilie:

I think some of us are right on a few counts :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

 

[meepokman]

just wondering,

are the organizers reading any of this??

 

[Staphylococcus]

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I reckon that most of us here are peeved more at the clauses which prejudice the non-winning participant, rather than the winning participant - the winning participant may be willing to give up more simply for the honour of winning and the prize - but the non-winning participant shouldn't be expected to give up anything at all - because he gained nothing out of it.

Does this mean that the photos that I submitted to Competition A but didn't win anything, now CANNOT be submitted again for Competition B? I always thought that only the winning entries will have their copyrights given to the organizers. After all, it's supposed to be a 'form of payment' for use of the image (albeit a cheap payment! ).

Now I'm getting the feeling of getting short-changed...give something but get back nothing. Has photography become charity?:dunno:

 

[Antasus]

For the digi contest, it's not by voting, right?:dunno: