Nat Geo Readers Submit Pictures for 125th Anniversary

ohkphoto

ohkphoto

Snow White
Excellent photos . . . and here's a question:

Each photo appears to be a "shared" copyright,

copyrightquestion.JPG

So, if the photographer wants to license his or her photo to another agency or publication, does he/she now have to have Nat Geo's permission and does the revenue have to be shared? Or by submitting this photo to Nat Geo, has s/he lost that option altogether?
 
Browncoat

Browncoat

Senior Member
nat-geo.png
(click for larger image so you can actually read it)

More info: Terms of Service

Aaaaand here's the part that makes photographers clinch up their butt cheeks (under Intellectual Property Issues):


  • By uploading Your Content, however, you grant National Geographic (which includes its subsidiaries, affiliates, joint venturers, and licensees) the following rights: a worldwide, perpetual license to display, distribute, reproduce, and create derivatives of Your Content, in whole or in part, without further review or participation from you, in any medium now existing or subsequently developed, in editorial, commercial, promotional, and trade uses in connection with NG Products. National Geographic may license or sublicense, in whole or in part, to third parties rights in Your Content as appropriate to distribute, market, or promote such NG Products. You also grant National Geographic permission to use and authorize others to use your name and any profile picture you provide in association with Your Content for identification, editorially, publicity related to Your Content or the Service, and for similar institutional promotional purposes. You also agree that National Geographic may make Your Content available to users of the Service who may display and redistribute it in the same way that National Geographic makes all other Content available.

After reading through the whole thing twice, I don't see where they specifically exclude themselves from collecting payments by you using the image for things outside of Nat Geo. They've sufficiently covered the bases on their own end, and even mention on several occasions that if you're due payment from Nat Geo, they'll get it to you and do their best to protect you from copyright infringement.

Seems like they are basically giving themselves a free-reign license to use your copyrighted work. At least that's how I read it.
 
Last edited:
ohkphoto

ohkphoto

Snow White
Ha!

Thanks, Anthony.
So, basically, Nat Geo, can use any of the photos to sublicense (even for a fee) and can create derivative products like mugs, puzzles, etc. to sell WITHOUT FURTHER PARTICIPATION from the photographer.

​. . . a hefty price to pay for the "honor" of being "screwed" by Nat Geo. . . . sigh
 
C

Carolina Photo Guy

Senior Member
ohkphoto said:
Ha!

Thanks, Anthony.
So, basically, Nat Geo, can use any of the photos to sublicense (even for a fee) and can create derivative products like mugs, puzzles, etc. to sell WITHOUT FURTHER PARTICIPATION from the photographer.

​. . . a hefty price to pay for the "honor" of being "screwed" by Nat Geo. . . . sigh
Click to expand...

And not a condom in sight!
Upon reflection, thats not necessarily a bad thing! :confused:
 
Browncoat

Browncoat

Senior Member
My stance on being published for nothing more than photo credit is always a resounding NO.

However, I would probably sweep my principals aside for Nat Geo. Dunno that I would realistically pass that up.
 
ohkphoto

ohkphoto

Snow White
Browncoat said:
My stance on being published for nothing more than photo credit is always a resounding NO.

However, I would probably sweep my principals aside for Nat Geo. Dunno that I would realistically pass that up.
Click to expand...

The being published for only credit is not what is so bothersome to me. It's their slapping the name onto the photo next to the copyright". How many artists (paint, sculpting, etc.) would allow a gallery to co-copyright their work? Yet, it's ok for a major, money-making corporation to do this to photographers.
 
Browncoat

Browncoat

Senior Member
Yeah, I agree. Any time I see this kind of crap, this is what I think of:

prince.jpeg

Prince was in a legal dispute with Warner Bros. over creative control of his music in the 90's. For a long time, he appeared in public with the word "SLAVE" written on his cheek.

The first step I have taken toward the ultimate goal of emancipation from the chains that bind me to Warner Bros. was to change my name from Prince to the Love Symbol. Prince is the name that my mother gave me at birth. Warner Bros. took the name, trademarked it, and used it as the main marketing tool to promote all of the music that I wrote. The company owns the name Prince and all related music marketed under Prince. I became merely a pawn used to produce more money for Warner Bros.
Click to expand...
 
Top