# Contest or Way To Obtain Royalty-Free Photos?



## JimMcClain (Jun 17, 2016)

A friend called my attention to a "photo contest" thinking some of my photography might earn me the top prize (we all love a friend that thinks we're the best). When I checked it out, I knew the submission requirements would disqualify me: "...should be in natural color, with only minimal color correcting and shadow/contrast adjustment, if any." I don't do this type of photography, which I refer to as documentary style. I always push the envelope, sometimes too far for some tastes.

But I looked a little closer at the contest specifics and see that there is only one winner of $101.00. No secondary prizes. But entering the contest gives the owners of the website "...unrestricted, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to publish, edit, promote, republish and otherwise use their credited submissions at any time(s) in the future in any and all media."

101 Things to Do Online - 101 Things To Do has 14 magazines and it appears that many of the photos they display are from submissions, possibly contests just like this one. I visited one magazine and see that they just announced a contest winner. My guess is that they have a contest similar to this in all of their mags at least once a year. This gives them a huge cache of stock photographs to use and it only costs them $101.00 per contest. What a great deal... for them.

There's prob'ly a lot of photographers that wouldn't mind having their photos published in an online magazine with their photo credit. The chance to win a hundred bucks is a plus. But it just doesn't seem fair to me. Maybe not quite a scam, but definitely favors - and profits - the sponsor/website.

Or maybe I'm just paranoid.


----------



## 407370 (Jun 17, 2016)

JimMcClain said:


> A friend called my attention to a "photo contest" thinking some of my photography might earn me the top prize (we all love a friend that thinks we're the best). When I checked it out, I knew the submission requirements would disqualify me: "...should be in natural color, with only minimal color correcting and shadow/contrast adjustment, if any." I don't do this type of photography, which I refer to as documentary style. I always push the envelope, sometimes too far for some tastes.
> 
> But I looked a little closer at the contest specifics and see that there is only one winner of $101.00. No secondary prizes. But entering the contest gives the owners of the website "...unrestricted, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to publish, edit, promote, republish and otherwise use their credited submissions at any time(s) in the future in any and all media."
> 
> ...


Nope you are not being paranoid. This is an example of why I dont enter photo contests. 
My other bug bear about photography contest prizes being based on how many likes a pic gets. This is a social media contest and has nothing to do with photography.


----------



## Rick50 (Jun 17, 2016)

National Geographic doesn't allow any photoshop at all. I visited the local museum and some of the pics were stunning. So I guess it can be done but I'm just not that good.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 17, 2016)

It's nothing more than a rights grab.  They stump up $101 and probably receive tens of thousands of images.  If even only .1% of them are worth while, that's still 10-20, maybe 30 or more good images for $101, so from their point, win-win.  I'm not a contest enterer either.


----------



## 407370 (Jun 17, 2016)

Rick50 said:


> National Geographic doesn't allow any photoshop at all. I visited the local museum and some of the pics were stunning. So I guess it can be done but I'm just not that good.


Do you really think that ?
Cameras have incredible editing suites in the device. Saturation, HDR, BW, Sharpness etc can all be controlled inside the camera.

Are they seriously suggesting that none of these were edited 2015 National Geographic Photo Contest | National Geographic 

The NG Rule on editing.

_Only minor burning, dodging and/or color correction is acceptable, as is minor cropping. *High dynamic range images (HDR) and stitched panoramas are acceptable.* Any changes to the original photograph not itemized here or in the NGS Your Shot Photo Guidelines are unacceptable and will render the photograph ineligible for a prize._


----------



## KmH (Jun 17, 2016)

Another urban myth bites the dust.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 17, 2016)

I don't enter contests on a regular basis because they are mostly rights grabs.  I am very selective on which ones I enter, based on reading the Terms & Conditions and Rules very very very very very carefully.


----------



## KmH (Jun 17, 2016)

Rights Grabs |


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jun 17, 2016)

That's what I've seen them called - 'photo rights grab' sites. You're not paranoid Jim, you hit the nail on the head with your perspective on it.

I think people need to look at the Terms & Conditions. For contests, I have a friend who has submitted to our local fair, or people could look at reputable published magazines and publications. Online I think it's necessary to be particularly careful and read through everything, make sure there's an actual address and that they actually exist somewhere on planet earth.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 17, 2016)

KmH said:


> Rights Grabs |





> *The forest will have non-exclusive, unlimited use of the photo(s).*



Now, exactly how would a forest use a photo?


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jun 17, 2016)

I was starting to think 101 Ways is on planet Mars... I didn't see any location or contact info. - or nuthin'! Found it at the bottom clicking on 101 Things To Do to the right of the copyright but it wasn't easy to see.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 17, 2016)

I've often wondered how profitable it would be to get into such a racket.

Offer on-line contests, get thousands of submissions, pick a handful for measly prizes, bury the rights grab in the rules, then...............

List the good images for sale wherever I could.  Pay fractions of a penny for each stellar shot, yet sell them (rights or prints) for moo-koo bucks.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 17, 2016)

_June 17, 2016

Bernie Madoff # 61727-054
Federal Correctional Complex, Butner
2 Old 75 Hwy
Butner, NC 27509

Dear Mr. Madoff,

A few friends and I would like to engage in a rights grab scam where in we would hold photo contests and give a way a nominal prize to one "lucky" winner.  In return we would get full rights to all submitted photos in perpetuity.  We will then lease/sell usage rights for any of the collected photos to any person(s) or entities that desire to use one of the photos.  

I am writing to you as with you current level of experience and history you could perhaps share with use your learned wisdom of the past few years whereby we would avoid the situation you find yourself in.  In return we would send to your commissary account the sum of $101.00.  

Sincerely, _

_*The Photo Entrepreneurs*

_
Sparky, Keith, Iron, Sharon & Number.  You are all in.  Will let you know what Bernie suggests we do.  

Jim McClain, you will be our first winner.  To show you our appreciation we will not take the $50.00 handling charge from you $101.00 winnings.


----------



## jsecordphoto (Jun 17, 2016)

it seems that most contests are like this now. Top prize will be like a d5300 or something, but every entry can be used by those hosting the content in any way they want. Great deal for those running the contests...


----------



## Dave442 (Jun 17, 2016)

I've entered one contest similar to this (a county tourism office) and so far batting a 1000 with the $100 for the photo, but now I feel cheated as I see that Jim could have won $101.


----------



## Arpit96 (Jun 24, 2016)

This certainly seems like a steal deal for the organisers. But since they clearly state that the person submits rights of publishing like you mentioned, then it's fair, right? The photographer is then aware that he/she is giving away his photo for a chance to win some bucks. As long as this information is available to him/her, he/she is simply consenting to it. Then why is it wrong?
They are doing business after all, they will look for their benefits, right?


----------



## KenC (Jun 24, 2016)

Arpit96 said:


> They are doing business after all, they will look for their benefits, right?



Absolutely, but we don't have to help them do it.  I don't know how others view it, but I don't see it as illegal or immoral, I just won't participate.  It is a little sneaky because they have to know a lot of people don't check the details, but that's true of so many things.


----------



## Arpit96 (Jun 24, 2016)

See, you don't need to participate in them. And that is acceptable.
The participants enter into an agreement of sorts and it's their own free will.
It might not benefit them, but they know that already. They know that they may not win. So I don't see any harm in it.
Kindly correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## JimMcClain (Jun 24, 2016)

Arpit96 said:


> ...since they clearly state that the person submits rights of publishing like you mentioned, then it's fair, right?


That's subjective. It's legal, but unbalanced in favor of the sponsor. I think they count on the fact that few people understand what they are giving up when submitting to contests. They are hoping entrants will be thinking more about having their photos published and getting rewarded $$$ than they are about giving the sponsor a way to collect valuable assets that they can use any way they choose and resell at a hefty profit.



> They are doing business after all, they will look for their benefits, right?


Yes, it is business. Whether it is right or wrong is for the individual to determine. It just smacks of deceit to me.

But why am I not surprised you would appear as the lone supporter? Maybe it's because you are using what looks to me like an affiliate link in your signature (a link that tracks traffic and sometimes monetization for the author). After all, we have permission to use links in our signatures and most people don't look at the link address in the lower-left corner of their browser to see where it actually leads before clicking it. I guess you were just trying to get a little taste of that 3-million dollars CodeCanyon pays out each year to affiliate members (you are known as member "Arpit15" there). So, if you are wondering what happened to your signature... I reported it. 



KenC said:


> It is a little sneaky because they have to know a lot of people don't check the details, but that's true of so many things.


You are so right. I guess I am just suspicious by nature. I don't like that I am so distrusting, but it has prob'ly saved me a lot of aggravation over the years.


----------



## Arpit96 (Jun 24, 2016)

Haha, that signature was a waste anyways. It was my own product that I had made a couple of years ago. The project died years ago.
I am not supporting anything. I am just saying, we can't expect a business to not look for their benefits. It shouldn't be surprising that they gain something out of conducting contests.
Sure it might be negative for professional photographers, but maybe they don't think so?
They are in consent, right?
If two parties enter into an agreement, all we can do is point out why they shouldn't. If they don't have a problem, then why should we care what two parties agree upon?


----------



## Arpit96 (Jun 24, 2016)

On the other hand though, my point only stands when the organisers clearly state that the participant is giving certain important rights to them.
If they try to be sneaky, like trying to hide this fact among long ToS, then it's clearly unethical and unfair. But if it is clearly stated, then my above point stands. 
I would like to hear counter arguments for sure.


----------

