# Can Anyone Use An Extra $15k



## smoke665

Just saw this announcement come across my feed. The weather channel is running their annual photo contest. Haven't had a chance to read the fine print but it looked interesting. 

https://weather.com/photos/contest?cm_ven=SP_ToyotaPC_FBPaid_7102017_1


----------



## nerwin

What does this mean? 



> *11. Release:* By receipt of any Prize, the Winner agrees to release and hold harmless Sponsor, Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc. and their respective subsidiaries, affiliates, suppliers, distributors, advertising/promotion agencies, prize suppliers, and each of their respective parent companies and each such company’s officers, directors, employees and agents (collectively, the “Released Parties”) from and against any claim or cause of action, including, but not limited to, personal injury, death, or damage to or loss of property, arising out of participation in the Contest or receipt or use or misuse of any Prize (including any travel related thereto).


----------



## smoke665

@nerwin I read that to mean if you get hurt trying to take a shot for this contest they aren't liable. IE: You stand in front of a tornado trying to get a last second shot, and get transported to the Land Of Oz, don't look to them for a return ticket.


----------



## nerwin

smoke665 said:


> @nerwin I read that to mean if you get hurt trying to take a shot for this contest they aren't liable. IE: You stand in front of a tornado trying to get a last second shot, and get transported to the Land Of Oz, don't look to them for a return ticket.



I hate it when they word things in such a way that it's confusing to understand. I guess I'm just not smart


----------



## smoke665

It's a shame that just because the sponsors have deep pockets, people would think that they should pay because they (contest participate) acted stupid.


----------



## 480sparky

It's this type of crap I don't like in contests:



> Without limiting the generality of these Official Rules, Winners shall irrevocably grant, transfer, convey and assign to Sponsor the entirety of the rights in and to the Photos and all renewals and extensions of copyright, and the right to secure copyright registrations thereto for a period of five (5) years including, without limitation, the rights to use the Photos for any and all purposes in any and all media whether now known or hereafter developed, on a worldwide basis, for a period of five (5) years.



Basically, they can do what they want with your photo for 5 years and not compensate you at all. 




smoke665 said:


> @nerwin I read that to mean if you get hurt trying to take a shot for this contest they aren't liable. IE: You stand in front of a tornado trying to get a last second shot, and get transported to the Land Of Oz, don't look to them for a return ticket.



By their own wording, that would _only apply if you receive a prize_.  If you don't, sue the bajeezuz out of 'em.


----------



## nerwin

I mean $15,000 would be nice, don't get me wrong! But not sure if it's worth the hassle to bother with their shenanigans.


----------



## smoke665

480sparky said:


> Basically, they can do what they want with your photo for 5 years and not compensate you at all.





nerwin said:


> But not sure if it's worth the hassle to bother with their shenanigans.



Seriously???? You guys must be way better than I. I'd gladly give them one of mine for a "lifetime" of use for $15k. I could have a nice shopping trip for equipment with $15k.


----------



## nerwin

smoke665 said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, they can do what they want with your photo for 5 years and not compensate you at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> But not sure if it's worth the hassle to bother with their shenanigans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously???? You guys must be way better than I. I'd gladly give them one of mine for a "lifetime" of use for $15k. I could have a nice shopping trip for equipment with $15k.
Click to expand...


Except that you'll get like $250 after taxes.


----------



## smoke665

nerwin said:


> Except that you'll get like $250 after taxes.



Forget the photo contest I want to do your taxes, if you'll give me 50% of what i save you.


----------



## nerwin

smoke665 said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that you'll get like $250 after taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forget the photo contest I want to do your taxes, if you'll give me 50% of what i save you.
Click to expand...


The joke's on you! I don't do taxes since I don't make enough.


----------



## Overread

I would note that in the TC you also agree that they have a 1 year royalty and not limited use of your photo even if you don't win. Which to me simply says that they require it for basic promotion of the competition (and thereafter next year there'll be a new competition and thus no need to keep your photos around).


----------



## smoke665

Overread said:


> you also agree that they have a 1 year royalty and not limited use of your photo even if you don't win. Which to me simply says that they require it for basic promotion of the competition (and thereafter next year there'll be a new competition and thus no need to keep your photos around).



I noticed that the contest promotion featured shots of the top 64 contestants from 2016. I supposed this is to cover them for publication of those?


----------



## nerwin

Overread said:


> I would note that in the TC you also agree that they have a 1 year royalty and not limited use of your photo even if you don't win. Which to me simply says that they require it for basic promotion of the competition (and thereafter next year there'll be a new competition and thus no need to keep your photos around).



So basically that means if you submit a photo for the contest, they pretty much own it for a year and can do whatever they want with it?


----------



## 480sparky

nerwin said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would note that in the TC you also agree that they have a 1 year royalty and not limited use of your photo even if you don't win. Which to me simply says that they require it for basic promotion of the competition (and thereafter next year there'll be a new competition and thus no need to keep your photos around).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically that means if you submit a photo for the contest, they pretty much own it for a year and can do whatever they want with it?
Click to expand...


It's called a _rights grab_.


----------



## smoke665

nerwin said:


> So basically that means if you submit a photo for the contest, they pretty much own it for a year and can do whatever they want with it?



From their contest rules - "*non-exclusive license *to use, reproduce, modify, publish, create derivative works from, and *display such submissions (along with a name credit)*" They don't "own" anything, but they can pretty much use it however they see fit for 1 year. You retain ownership, and may sell licensing to as many people as you like.

I've looked at several of these contests over the last few months, and this one is actually minor compared to some of them. Check out the Smithsonian Photo contest. If you enter that you grant them a "*perpetual*" non exclusive license and they only give you credit when they deem it "feasible". I've seen others that go so far as to require and exclusive license.

It is what it is, these companies/organizations that sponsor these things are always going to write the rules in their favor.


----------



## Gary A.

... It also means that if you submit a photo which you do not own the rights to ... they cannot be sued ...


----------



## benhasajeep

Where do I sign up.  I need to pay for a couple lenses.


----------



## 480sparky

Gary A. said:


> ... It also means that if you submit a photo which you do not own the rights to ... they cannot be sued ...



The submitter of the infringed image cannot sue. But the actual copyright owner sure can sue. Both the contest and the infringer.


----------



## vintagesnaps

They're dangling a big $15 thou carrot, the stick is they get rights to a portion of your ability, your work, your effort, that goes into your photography. Sparky has the deal breaker - the rights grab. I've read enough... As usual with these contests, sponsors know 'everybody' is a photographer and they'll find people to submit, and yeah, somebody's going to win but it seems kind of like the lottery, what are the odds you'd win it?


----------



## pixmedic

Why not submit a photo? So what if they get the rights? How many of us have a picture making them anywhere near $15k anyway?
For that much money they can have the rights to my photo.
Ill just take another. 


Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## Overread

It's the rights to the photo for a year and as its such a specific period of use its likely only used for promotion of the competition itself and as such in line with most competitions. I agree if it were a no-limits licence forever then it would be more of a reason to campaign  to get that rule changed; at one year its not so bad.

Also $15K is a huge reward these days; that said being as I'm in the UK and no landscaper I won't be affected by it (much as it would be nice to have that chunk of cash


----------



## 480sparky

pixmedic said:


> Why not submit a photo? So what if they get the rights? How many of us have a picture making them anywhere near $15k anyway?
> For that much money they can have the rights to my photo.
> Ill just take another.
> 
> 
> Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk



It's not just the ONE image they get the rights to.  They get the rights to ALL the submitted images.

And if you 'just take another', they can sue you for infringement, even creating deriviative works.


----------



## smoke665

480sparky said:


> And if you 'just take another', they can sue you for infringement, even creating deriviative works.



Think you read the contest rules incorrectly, see my post above. They get a *NON-EXCLUSIVE *license to your images, including the winner.  That means you can do what ever you want with the image except sell an EXCLUSIVE license to someone else during the one year term. Compared to most contest rules I've read this is one of the most fair agreements to the photographer I've seen in awhile.


----------



## pixmedic

480sparky said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not submit a photo? So what if they get the rights? How many of us have a picture making them anywhere near $15k anyway?
> For that much money they can have the rights to my photo.
> Ill just take another.
> 
> 
> Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just the ONE image they get the rights to.  They get the rights to ALL the submitted images.
> 
> And if you 'just take another', they can sue you for infringement, even creating deriviative works.
Click to expand...

I didnt mean an exact same photo. Just some other photo. I mean Damn....if you don't like the terms don't play the game.
In just saying giving up one photo for $15k that isnt likely to do much except sit around your hard drive anyway isn't really a bad deal even with them getting copyrights.

How many of us are going to have one photo that earns $15k? 
Few I suspect.
Its a pretty good deal says I.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## Overread

I think the only thing you can't do is use an image formerly submitted to a competition with a prize over $300. Which is quite fair as that allows you to use a forum/local club winning photo.


----------



## 480sparky

smoke665 said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you 'just take another', they can sue you for infringement, even creating deriviative works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think you read the contest rules incorrectly, see my post above. They get a *NON-EXCLUSIVE *license to your images, including the winner.  That means you can do what ever you want with the image except sell an EXCLUSIVE license to someone else during the one year term. Compared to most contest rules I've read this is one of the most fair agreements to the photographer I've seen in awhile.
Click to expand...


They can still sue you if you take a similar image and sell exclusive rights to it.


----------



## smoke665

480sparky said:


> sell exclusive rights to it.



Of course they could if you sold an EXCLUSIVE use to someone else it would void their NON-EXCLUSIVE, I said that earlier. It wouldn't prevent you from selling additional NON-EXCLUSIVE rights to anyone though,  for as many times as you wanted, and at the end of the year, there wouldn't be a restriction on an Exclusive sale. 

I guess I'm not following your concern, unless it's the fact that non-winning entries are subject to the same Non-exclusive restriction as the winner, but even then the 1 year time limit seems to me, a trivial inconvenience.  Even if you're in the business of regularly selling your images, there would be substantial publicity value from the use (contest rules say they will give credit). So regardless of if you won any money, every time they used your image, you'd be getting a free plug. 

I have nothing to do with this contest, and not sure I have anything worthy of entry, but I know there are several on here that most likely do. I'm sorry just not following your concerns???


----------



## 480sparky

smoke665 said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> sell exclusive rights to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they could if you sold an EXCLUSIVE use to someone else it would void their NON-EXCLUSIVE, I said that earlier. It wouldn't prevent you from selling additional NON-EXCLUSIVE rights to anyone though,  for as many times as you wanted, and at the end of the year, there wouldn't be a restriction on an Exclusive sale.
> 
> I guess I'm not following your concern, unless it's the fact that non-winning entries are subject to the same Non-exclusive restriction as the winner, but even then the 1 year time limit seems to me, a trivial inconvenience.  Even if you're in the business of regularly selling your images, there would be substantial publicity value from the use (contest rules say they will give credit). So regardless of if you won any money, every time they used your image, you'd be getting a free plug.
> 
> I have nothing to do with this contest, and not sure I have anything worthy of entry, but I know there are several on here that most likely do. I'm sorry just not following your concerns???
Click to expand...


Then I'll lay it out for you, plain and simple.

It's a rights grab, and plays heavily on the naiveté of entrants for profit.


----------



## smoke665

480sparky said:


> It's a rights grab, and plays heavily on the naiveté of entrants for profit.



Again, only the right to sell an Exclusive license and only for a period of 1 year. How many "naive" photographers do you believe might have the need or opportunity to sell an "Exclusive" license on a given photo  during a 1 year term.  I would agree that a professional photographer with a following and regular sales of his images might have to think hard about such a contest, but then again don't most professionals try to avoid Exclusive use license anyhow?

Guess this is one of those "have to agree to disagree" things.


----------



## Timppa

I cannot join because I am not an American -.-'


----------

