"The copyright in any Submission shall remain the property of the entrant, but entry into this Promotion constitutes entrant's irrevocable and perpetual permission and consent, without further compensation, with or without attribution, to use, reproduce, print, publish, transmit, distribute, sell, perform, adapt, enhance, or display such Submission, and the entrant's name and/or likeness, for any purpose, including but not limited to editorial, advertising, trade, commercial, and publicity purposes by the Sponsor and/or others authorized by the Sponsor, in any and all media now in existence or hereinafter created, throughout the world, for the duration or the copyright in the Submission. Sponsor and/or others authorized by the Sponsor shall have the right to edit, adapt, and modify the Submission."
Ya, that's pretty awesome... Thanks for sharing Traci!
As someone who works in publishing and edits a monthly magazine, I can assure you this is pretty standard. You send in a photo to be published, you more or less give us the right to use it whenever and wherever and however we'd like. You still own it, yes, but we can use it. Contest submissions as well. Don't like it? Don't send your photos / enter contests.
If the photo is in the public domain, then it depends on the person or entity releasing the photo. I believe that unless specifically stated, public domain images do not require attribution. However, images released into the public domain can be done so with the requirement that attribution is given, such as photos from the NOAA: http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/about.html
If the photo is licensed in such a way that attribution is required, then yes. Examples would be certain licenses from press/photo agencies which may include a attribution requirement (although often this is only to the agency, hence the 'Getty' or 'AP' credits you often see on news sites). Another example, more relevant to amateur photographers, would be if you make an image available under the Creative Commons 'attribution' license, which would allow them to use it only if they provide attribution.
If you willingly provide the photo for their use (for example, by entering a competition, or providing it as part of a 'request for images' appeal), then they are under no obligation to provide attribution unless their own terms (which you are agreeing to by submitting the photo) state that they will do so.
In other words, there is no inherent requirement to give attribution unless either the licensee or the licensor actively put such a clause in place. Some publications will still strive to give attribution where it is possible to do so, but if you need any usage of your image to be credited to you, then do not release it without a contract being in place to enforce that (which includes not submitting it to sites that do not guarantee to give attribution).
Incidentally, I would slightly disagree with @sjoblues that these are standard terms and conditions, although I also find the analysis done by ASMP to be slightly lacking.
While at first glance they look like standard boilerplate, there are some definite concerns in those terms and conditions that are not commonly present, even in so called 'rights-grab' competitions. ASMP hasn't focused on all of these in their analysis.
The biggest concern I personally have with the terms and conditions are that you are giving them the right to *sell* your photo. Not merely to use it in their publications, or to sublicense it, but to sell it. Those terms and conditions mean that they can sell your image to a book publisher for the cover of their best-seller for any price they can get, and you get nothing at all. Or sell them to a greeting card company. Basically they have complete rights to profit commercially from your submission in any way they want, and no requirement to in any way reimburse you.
Let's compare this to a pretty rights-grabby set of terms from National Geographic:
'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.'
This is a more common set of terms and conditions, but note that it does not allow them to sell your image for profit to anyone they want. They may license or sublicense the image, but only to promote National Geographic products -- in other words, they can put your photo in a National Geographic calendar, but they can't sell it to another company to use. This is a big difference, and one which ASMP seem to have overlooked.
The other concerns that ASMP raise are legitimate but (with the exception of the requirement to sign a waiver) are not particularly unusual in this type of competition, as Shannon says.
The important aspect to take away from this is that you should *always* read the terms and conditions when you submit a photograph to a competition or in any other way give it to a commercial entity, and if you don't like the look of them, you should not submit your photo. Bear in mind that, even if the company you submit the photo to does absolutely nothing with it, you have still limited your ability to use that photo in the future. If someone comes to you and asks to exclusively license a photo of yours, and you have submitted it to a competition that granted the company running it a perpetual license, even if they have not used the photo in any way, you CANNOT (legally) grant an exclusive license for that photo to anyone else. Ever.
@byrdlip Are we bound to give proper credit? No. Do I try to for the magazine I edit? Absolutely.
@abirkill Obviously I do not speak for every publisher on the planet, there are countless entities out there. But in my experience in the network of editors and publishers I come in contact with, this implied use attitude is widespread (and often somewhere in the fine print). It's also important to note, as I have in other discussions on this site, that there are BILLIONS of photos available everywhere, every day. I do make an effort to contact photographers to let them know how and where I will (initially) use their image(s). If they get all high and mighty about negotiating terms, I thank them politely and move on to the next photographer/image. Because I can ALWAYS find an alternate. Always.
There is one particular photo agency out there -- and I won't mention any names -- that is particularly difficult. If I find it necessary to use any of their photographers' images, I make it clear to the person between me and them that that intermediary must pay for photo use, we do not. So they do get paid. More than once through the years someone from that agency has phoned me and lectured me that the publishing company should pay for photo use. I finally had it out with them and said as long as they are getting paid -- and they are -- it is NOT their concern where the payment is coming from and they do not have any authority whatsoever to tell me how to do my job. AND I can see that, going forward, none of their work will appear in my publication ever again. I've not had a phone call from them since, and occasionally their photos do appear.
I understand being proud of and wanting to be recognized, including financially, for your work. But as someone who sits on both sides of this debate, I also know how easy it is to acquire the images I need from the huge, huge pool of resources out there.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Ya, that's pretty awesome... Thanks for sharing Traci!
If the photo is in the public domain, then it depends on the person or entity releasing the photo. I believe that unless specifically stated, public domain images do not require attribution. However, images released into the public domain can be done so with the requirement that attribution is given, such as photos from the NOAA:
http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/about.html
If the photo is licensed in such a way that attribution is required, then yes. Examples would be certain licenses from press/photo agencies which may include a attribution requirement (although often this is only to the agency, hence the 'Getty' or 'AP' credits you often see on news sites). Another example, more relevant to amateur photographers, would be if you make an image available under the Creative Commons 'attribution' license, which would allow them to use it only if they provide attribution.
If you willingly provide the photo for their use (for example, by entering a competition, or providing it as part of a 'request for images' appeal), then they are under no obligation to provide attribution unless their own terms (which you are agreeing to by submitting the photo) state that they will do so.
In other words, there is no inherent requirement to give attribution unless either the licensee or the licensor actively put such a clause in place. Some publications will still strive to give attribution where it is possible to do so, but if you need any usage of your image to be credited to you, then do not release it without a contract being in place to enforce that (which includes not submitting it to sites that do not guarantee to give attribution).
While at first glance they look like standard boilerplate, there are some definite concerns in those terms and conditions that are not commonly present, even in so called 'rights-grab' competitions. ASMP hasn't focused on all of these in their analysis.
The biggest concern I personally have with the terms and conditions are that you are giving them the right to *sell* your photo. Not merely to use it in their publications, or to sublicense it, but to sell it. Those terms and conditions mean that they can sell your image to a book publisher for the cover of their best-seller for any price they can get, and you get nothing at all. Or sell them to a greeting card company. Basically they have complete rights to profit commercially from your submission in any way they want, and no requirement to in any way reimburse you.
Let's compare this to a pretty rights-grabby set of terms from National Geographic:
'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.'
This is a more common set of terms and conditions, but note that it does not allow them to sell your image for profit to anyone they want. They may license or sublicense the image, but only to promote National Geographic products -- in other words, they can put your photo in a National Geographic calendar, but they can't sell it to another company to use. This is a big difference, and one which ASMP seem to have overlooked.
The other concerns that ASMP raise are legitimate but (with the exception of the requirement to sign a waiver) are not particularly unusual in this type of competition, as Shannon says.
The important aspect to take away from this is that you should *always* read the terms and conditions when you submit a photograph to a competition or in any other way give it to a commercial entity, and if you don't like the look of them, you should not submit your photo. Bear in mind that, even if the company you submit the photo to does absolutely nothing with it, you have still limited your ability to use that photo in the future. If someone comes to you and asks to exclusively license a photo of yours, and you have submitted it to a competition that granted the company running it a perpetual license, even if they have not used the photo in any way, you CANNOT (legally) grant an exclusive license for that photo to anyone else. Ever.
@abirkill Obviously I do not speak for every publisher on the planet, there are countless entities out there. But in my experience in the network of editors and publishers I come in contact with, this implied use attitude is widespread (and often somewhere in the fine print). It's also important to note, as I have in other discussions on this site, that there are BILLIONS of photos available everywhere, every day. I do make an effort to contact photographers to let them know how and where I will (initially) use their image(s). If they get all high and mighty about negotiating terms, I thank them politely and move on to the next photographer/image. Because I can ALWAYS find an alternate. Always.
There is one particular photo agency out there -- and I won't mention any names -- that is particularly difficult. If I find it necessary to use any of their photographers' images, I make it clear to the person between me and them that that intermediary must pay for photo use, we do not. So they do get paid. More than once through the years someone from that agency has phoned me and lectured me that the publishing company should pay for photo use. I finally had it out with them and said as long as they are getting paid -- and they are -- it is NOT their concern where the payment is coming from and they do not have any authority whatsoever to tell me how to do my job. AND I can see that, going forward, none of their work will appear in my publication ever again. I've not had a phone call from them since, and occasionally their photos do appear.
I understand being proud of and wanting to be recognized, including financially, for your work. But as someone who sits on both sides of this debate, I also know how easy it is to acquire the images I need from the huge, huge pool of resources out there.