Any Serious Shooters Here Enter Contests?

[BackdoorArts]

I was wondering how many people here enter the odd photography contest, particularly if you otherwise market your photography for licensing, purchase, etc.? The reason I ask is that I have recently gotten into drone photography and am studying for me FAA credentials, and after posting some work to my Facebook page with tags for the drone manufacturer I was asked if I was planning on submitting something to their contest. First place could get me $500, and two second place prizes are $250 each. So I went to the website and read the terms and conditions, which read like almost every other contest out there...

By uploading or otherwise transferring or submitting the UGC ("User Generated Content"), you hereby grant to (manufacturer) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, unlimited, irrevocable, fully sublicenseable, transferable, assignable, royalty-free, fully-paid right and license to use the UGC, including to record, reproduce, copy, modify, adapt, publish, display and prepare derivative works, incorporate other works into, publicly perform, publicly display, distribute, broadcast, telecast and otherwise exhibit, transmit, edit, and otherwise exploit the UGC, in whole or in part, whether or not within or in connection with the (manufacturer) Network Materials, for any purpose in any form, media, or technology now known or hereafter developed or created, including, but not limited to, the Licensed Uses.

The bold text is what bothers me the most, because it applies to every image submitted, not just the winners. I tend to look at these as free content grabs and avoid them like the plague. Anyone feel differently and want to try and talk me out of my opinion?

 

[mikew_RIP]

Its what we call in the UK RTA syndrome (road traffic accident) you know you shouldn't look as it will be messy and possibly upset you but you still look.

 

[RocketCowboy]

I tend to agree with you Jake. I think the company is looking to source some images for their own marketing campaigns, and this is one way to do it. They don't have to provide credit back either, since they are licensed unlimited rights, in perpetuity.

I guess the question goes then ... did you have other intentions for the images that might be submitted? The hobby shooter is good with the personal recognition that they entered the contest and maybe made it to a certain level. If the intent was to also sell the images that were submitted, then I would definitely think twice about entering them. It doesn't sound like they are asking for copyright transfer, so you can still use your images as you see fit, but then so can they through this license.

I would be cautious with any images I intended to submit, just to keep up with who is licensed for what.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

... Anyone feel differently and want to try and talk me out of my opinion?

Not I.

And while I don't think I have any delusions about the quality of my work I sure as hell respect it more than to give it away so it can not only be redistributed in whole by every conceivable method, but also butchered, pieced-out and/combined into who knows what and for any purpose under the sun.

 

[hark]

Not I.

And while I don't think I have any delusions about the quality of my work I sure as hell respect it more than to give it away so it can not only be redistributed in whole by every conceivable method, but also butchered, pieced-out and/combined into who knows what and for any purpose under the sun.

Yes, since it says they can modify the images, that leaves me wondering how anything might be used in the future. [MENTION=4399]Rick M[/MENTION] and [MENTION=9753]Scott Murray[/MENTION] both of you have entered contests, haven't you? Can either of you add any words of wisdom or share your experiences with the processes and outcomes?

 

[Texas]

Pretty standard agreement. You get to enter, they get the photo's.

Sierra Trading Post's Photo Contest is No Bargain |

 

[BackdoorArts]

Pretty standard agreement. You get to enter, they get the photo's.

Sierra Trading Post's Photo Contest is No Bargain |

Which is what I've stated. I'm looking to find out if anyone sees any real benefit to photographer in exchange for the giveaway?

 

[Texas]

That will be interesting if any of the sophisticated photographers on this forum see a benefit to such a deal. I'll stay tuned !

 

[BackdoorArts]

Yes, since it says they can modify the images, that leaves me wondering how anything might be used in the future. @Rick M and @Scott Murray both of you have entered contests, haven't you? Can either of you add any words of wisdom or share your experiences with the processes and outcomes?

These are some of the folks I'm waiting to hear from because I know they do contests. I suspect that most of the alterations have to do with crops and the addition of logos, etc., but once that image license has been passed on all bets are off, including pieces being used in stock photo composites. What it does is makes it near impossible for you to track the copyright on the photo submitted - or at least complicates the hell out of it.

And as I said before, when you're giving away your work you are doing a great disservice to all those who do this for a living, which is one of the main reasons why I hesitate. That said, my brother shot news for two decades and one of the first things he did when he left was starting to submit his personal work to contests. We've talked about it and a lot depends on the scope of the use, and generally contests that require you to pay to enter have more limited use verbiage. Blah, blah, blah...

 

[hark]

These are some of the folks I'm waiting to hear from because I know they do contests. I suspect that most of the alterations have to do with crops and the addition of logos, etc., but once that image license has been passed on all bets are off, including pieces being used in stock photo composites. What it does is makes it near impossible for you to track the copyright on the photo submitted - or at least complicates the hell out of it.

And as I said before, when you're giving away your work you are doing a great disservice to all those who do this for a living, which is one of the main reasons why I hesitate. That said, my brother shot news for two decades and one of the first things he did when he left was starting to submit his personal work to contests. We've talked about it and a lot depends on the scope of the use, and generally contests that require you to pay to enter have more limited use verbiage. Blah, blah, blah...

Well...of course the other option you can do is to tease them with a few images without entering their contest. If they ask again whether you submitted them, tell them no, but they are for sale. Lol--I'm just being funny with a dose of seriousness, Jake.

 

[Rick M]

These are some of the folks I'm waiting to hear from because I know they do contests. I suspect that most of the alterations have to do with crops and the addition of logos, etc., but once that image license has been passed on all bets are off, including pieces being used in stock photo composites. What it does is makes it near impossible for you to track the copyright on the photo submitted - or at least complicates the hell out of it.

And as I said before, when you're giving away your work you are doing a great disservice to all those who do this for a living, which is one of the main reasons why I hesitate. That said, my brother shot news for two decades and one of the first things he did when he left was starting to submit his personal work to contests. We've talked about it and a lot depends on the scope of the use, and generally contests that require you to pay to enter have more limited use verbiage. Blah, blah, blah...

The only contest I've entered is an annual calendar from a local news station, I've been featured in 4 of the last 5 years. There is no "prize" except exposure and the satisfaction that proceeds go to the Golisano Children's Hospital here in Syracuse. They've raised tens of thousands of dollars through sales of the calendar over the last few years.

Their disclaimer is simply the images become their property for use at their discretion. One version I read years ago was that they would only use images for their purposes and not resell which I'm fine with. I would probably feel different if it was used as marketing material for a for-profit business. I am given credit for each image in the calendar, the photographers name appears under each image. They do not accept watermarked images due to public outcry (misconception of course) that watermarks mean only "professional" photographers "win".

I have had people buy the images at my shows because they recognized the shot, which is a nice plus. The owner of one farm bought about 20 prints a few years back.

Contests for money from a for-profit are a bit different and I would be skeptical. I wouldn't enter an image I consistently make money from now or think I might in the future; nor would I enter a shot that I wouldn't feel comfortable begin significantly altered. It's like playing the lottery, you pay up front with your image rights for a chance that you might win. If you don't think the footage will be valuable to you in the future, I'd enter it, but then again I like to gamble.

 

[Scott Murray]

I was wondering how many people here enter the odd photography contest, particularly if you otherwise market your photography for licensing, purchase, etc.? The reason I ask is that I have recently gotten into drone photography and am studying for me FAA credentials, and after posting some work to my Facebook page with tags for the drone manufacturer I was asked if I was planning on submitting something to their contest. First place could get me $500, and two second place prizes are $250 each. So I went to the website and read the terms and conditions, which read like almost every other contest out there...

By uploading or otherwise transferring or submitting the UGC ("User Generated Content"), you hereby grant to (manufacturer) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, unlimited, irrevocable, fully sublicenseable, transferable, assignable, royalty-free, fully-paid right and license to use the UGC, including to record, reproduce, copy, modify, adapt, publish, display and prepare derivative works, incorporate other works into, publicly perform, publicly display, distribute, broadcast, telecast and otherwise exhibit, transmit, edit, and otherwise exploit the UGC, in whole or in part, whether or not within or in connection with the (manufacturer) Network Materials, for any purpose in any form, media, or technology now known or hereafter developed or created, including, but not limited to, the Licensed Uses.

The bold text is what bothers me the most, because it applies to every image submitted, not just the winners. I tend to look at these as free content grabs and avoid them like the plague. Anyone feel differently and want to try and talk me out of my opinion?

Basically you are giving them the rights to your images with the 'chance' to win $500. That is not good enough, even other competitions put rules down that the images will only be used during the competition and is voided once the competition is over.

To me it sounds like they are wanting lots possible thousands of images for $500. To put it in comparison, Australia Post paid me $400 for 200 runs of a single image. And it was not to be used thereafter.

I would not enter this competition if it was me.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

I got to (over?) thinking this and the more I did, the more questions I had...

For instance, what happens to all those images once the contest company monetizes them for as much as they think they can? Obviously the point of these contests is to make money, so the companies sponsoring these contests must be doing so knowing they can monetize a sufficient number of images well enough to recoup the costs of not only paying the "winners" but also the overhead incurred by running the contest itself. Beyond that the collected images would need to be stored and if they're stored they're backed up; assuming the contest company thinks they're still an asset, and that costs money. My overarching point, though, is that at some point these images are going to start costing more money than they're worth, no?

So now what? I suppose the obvious answer is the contest organizer deletes the images once they've outlived their usefulness. But DO they? Is that explicitly stated in the contract? I'm betting it's not. So am I over-thinking it when I wonder if those images could eventually find their way into the Public Domain; Where they would quite literally be up-for-grabs by anyone, for any purpose whatsoever, forever?

 

[BackdoorArts]

I got to (over?) thinking this and the more I did, the more questions I had...

For instance, what happens to all those images once the contest company monetizes them for as much as they think they can? Obviously the point of these contests is to make money, so the companies sponsoring these contests must be doing so knowing they can monetize a sufficient number of images well enough to recoup the costs of not only paying the "winners" but also the overhead incurred by running the contest itself. Beyond that the collected images would need to be stored and if they're stored they're backed up; assuming the contest company thinks they're still an asset, and that costs money. My overarching point, though, is that at some point these images are going to start costing more money than they're worth, no?

So now what? I suppose the obvious answer is the contest organizer deletes the images once they've outlived their usefulness. But DO they? Is that explicitly stated in the contract? I'm betting it's not. So am I over-thinking it when I wonder if those images could eventually find their way into the Public Domain; Where they would quite literally be up-for-grabs by anyone, for any purpose whatsoever, forever?

I think this is a little over-thought. Think of it this way...

You go out to shoot a pair of nesting eagles. They come and go, you shoot and shoot, and you come home with 500-1000 images after a day. You go thru them, 5 of them are pure keepers, 10 are really good but not great but probably usable with the others in a blog post, 20-40 more are "something I can probably do something with in the right situation but I'm not going to bother with them up front. The other couple hundred are now useless to you. Do you save them anyway, and if so, do you ever go back to them? Maybe, but if you do it's on a rare occasion where you remember something specific about one of them, but that almost never happens.

Contests are like a day's shooting where you are pretty sure you're gonna come back with some stuff that will stay in your catalog for a long time, and some more stuff that you'll never get rid of, and a bunch of stuff that is destined for the bin. So while the company running does have a right to a bunch of crap I don't think they track more than a handful of it precisely because it's not worth their time. If they need more they need only run another contest. In the meantime, keeping a couple thousand photos tagged and cataloged that are free to use any time you want isn't hard - we all do it for our stuff, right? And that stuff we kept around more times than not we dump that too.

 

[SkvLTD]

Only contest I'd enter and put my time and effort into is something along the lines of - this creative director needs a few shoots done that MAY or may not end up published in (for sake of convo) say Vogue and couple other mags. If I lose, I still have folio shots above and beyond my ability to pull together by myself. If I "win" - I might get hired by the mags for their next articles and not being paid and yielding rights to my chance images is fine.

 

[Moab Man]

Late to this thread, but I have never entered for the exact reasons originally bolded.

 

[hark]

Curious as to what you decision you made, Jake. I hope it all worked out well for you.

 

[BackdoorArts]

I don't give stuff away unless it's to friends.

 

[Fortkentdad]

Why do you think companies sponsor contests?

Their reason for being is to make money - even so called corporate charity is done with an eye to corporate benefit, in some cases their take-away is only improved corporate image but it's all about making money - that's why the share holders invested their money into these companies. I hope the companies my retirement savings are with make money. This isn't a bash corporations post but a reality check. The contest is about raising corporate profile (aka advertising) and a source of photo's they would otherwise have to pay for.

But there is a quid pro quo for the contestant. First the chance to win that glorious prize. And you also may benefit from the exposure. Being able to display the winning photo in your studio and proudly say you are "an award winning photographer" is worth something to you and your business. And that photo that made it big because it was award winning and the sponsoring corporation gets all the benefit - well would it have made it that big had it not won the contest? Sure it must have been a glorious shot to win; but I'm sure that there are lots of glorious shots on the hard drives of the good shooters here at Nikonites; shots you can look back and and say "yep nailed that one" and move on.

I think the quid pro quo for the enthusiast is worth it if we are not in the business of normally selling our art. At some point you don't need to give away good art as the entry price for a contest because the other contest is maybe you will sell that shot for much more.

As my Papa always said - "you don't get anything for free" .

And yes I've entered a few contests but besides the weekly contest here still hoping for my first big win. But thanks to Nikonites I can say I am a Award Winning Photographer (kinda sort of eh?)

Unless you count that time in my life when I went contest crazy and entered dozens of contests each week for a year or two - did win a few small prizes but nothing that would let me retire. There are 'contesters" who enter every free draw possible, I hear some enter hundreds every week.

 

[editorial_use_only]

Competition Lists