BA photo competition (always read the rules)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Messages
194
Name
Gavin
Edit My Images
Yes
A promotional Tweet appeared on my Twitter feed yesterday from international travel conglomerate British Airways. In conjunction with some other large companies it is running a photo competition. The prize is a trip to help shoot for a future ad campaign. By now some of you will have clicked away from reading this to find the comp to enter it. It's very enticing, until you read the rules.

"By entering the competition you assign to BA the complete copyright and all other rights in or to any photograph or the content contained within any entry, which shall be for the full period of copyright."

Basically, British Airways is collecting hundreds, if not thousands, of pictures without having to pay for any. They will be able to use them for anything they want, without asking the photographer, or even paying the photographer.

A lot of big competitions are doing that these days, so always read the small print.
 
Last edited:
Nearly all photographic competitions have these sort of rules. I know some people get their knickers in a twist over this, but people have a choice.
 
The credible competitions do not have rules like this - this kind of nonsense tends to be the province of large companies or corporations who are, as Gavin says, on a rights grabbing mission. The vast majority of entrants won't even consider the copyright implications and will proceed with a high degree of naivete.

These tactics need as much exposure as possible. It would be interesting to see if a court would consider those terms to be 'fair and reasonable'.
 
Not this again it gets so dull, if they want the copyright to any of my pictures they are welcome it is worthless to me as I'd never sell it.
 
Nearly all photographic competitions have these sort of rules. I know some people get their knickers in a twist over this, but people have a choice.

I'm sorry... but they don't at all. Most will stipulate they have permission to use your work, but not actually ask you to relinquish copyright. The two are VERY different indeed.

Basically, British Airways is collecting hundreds, if not thousands, of pictures without having to pay for any. They will be able to use them for anything they want, without asking the photographer, or even paying the photographer.


That's not the issue.. yes, BA can use your shots without your permission.. that IS normal.. what they are actually asking for though, is far worse.. they are asking you to relinquish copyright, which gives them EXCLUSIVE rights... which means you will not be able to use your OWN work elsewhere. They stipulate, copyright and ALL OTHER RIGHTS.... which includes moral rights... so they don't even have to credit you for your work!

Not this again it gets so dull, if they want the copyright to any of my pictures they are welcome it is worthless to me as I'd never sell it.


Not the point. That attitude sets a precedent and is the reason the industry is on it's arse.
 
Last edited:
The "industry is on it's arse" because the world has changed, how people view photographs has changed, how we interact in society has changed, how/what we use to take photographs has changed. It is not because people are willing to "give" corporations their photographs.
 
The credible competitions do not have rules like this - this kind of nonsense tends to be the province of large companies or corporations who are, as Gavin says, on a rights grabbing mission. The vast majority of entrants won't even consider the copyright implications and will proceed with a high degree of naivete.

These tactics need as much exposure as possible. It would be interesting to see if a court would consider those terms to be 'fair and reasonable'.

(y) grabing non exclusive use to the image files provided is relatively common and not that big a problem (especially if you only provide low res shots ) , however grabing the copyright is well out of order.
 
The "industry is on it's arse" because the world has changed, how people view photographs has changed, how we interact in society has changed, how/what we use to take photographs has changed. It is not because people are willing to "give" corporations their photographs.

Rubbish this sort of thing has been going on for years,well before the digital age :(
 
The "industry is on it's arse" because the world has changed, how people view photographs has changed, how we interact in society has changed, how/what we use to take photographs has changed. It is not because people are willing to "give" corporations their photographs.


Riiiiiight... and you know that because?


20 years ago you'd never get a company calling you, or e-mailing you and saying,

"We have a great opportunity for you. We need some images for publicity of a new product launch, and we loved your work. Unfortunately there is no budget, but it's a fantastic opportunity to get your work seen and will be a great boost for your work".

Amateurs start to wet their panties with excitement when they read crap like that.

Happens a great deal now. They've caught on to the fact that the Flickrverse is just full of amateurs who getting exposure and likes is everything. They genuinely think giving their work away will launch a career for them. If it's shooting for Vogue for free probably would, but all this low end stuff... the stuff that used to pay the bills has dried up because people are willing to do it for nothing, just because they think having some "clients" will mean the NEXT job is paid.
 
Last edited:
So one of you think I am wrong because " this sort of thing has been going on for years,well before the digital age" the other doesn't think I am right but goes on to explain that yes things have changed.

In any case what I do with my photographs is up to me, doesn't mean I consider them worthless. I do a lot of things outside of work, a lot of them other people get paid to do. Does that mean I am A) taking paid work away from someone? B) my time and energy outside of my work is worthless?
 
In any case what I do with my photographs is up to me, doesn't mean I consider them worthless. I do a lot of things outside of work, a lot of them other people get paid to do. Does that mean I am A) taking paid work away from someone? B) my time and energy outside of my work is worthless?

abspolutely, and if you want to send your bank details in reply to a 419 email thats your choice too ... doesnt stop any one else from pointing out that you are being played for a mug in either case
 
Rights grab clauses are totally unnecessary. Much larger and more prestigious comps don't have such clauses. They simply have a clause that allows them free reproduction of images in connection with the competition, which is fine.

To say that "Nearly all photographic competitions have these sort of rules." is simply not the case. If they do have a rights grab clause, it normally ends with the competition promoter pulling the clause after receiving negative feedback from the photographic community and photography press. Hopefully the same will happen here.
 
Riiiiiight... and you know that because?


20 years ago you'd never get a company calling you, or e-mailing you and saying,

"We have a great opportunity for you. We need some images for publicity of a new product launch, and we loved your work. Unfortunately there is no budget, but it's a fantastic opportunity to get your work seen and will be a great boost for your work".

Amateurs start to wet their panties with excitement when they read crap like that.

Happens a great deal now. They've caught on to the fact that the Flickrverse is just full of amateurs who getting exposure and likes is everything. They genuinely think giving their work away will launch a career for them. If it's shooting for Vogue for free probably would, but all this low end stuff... the stuff that used to pay the bills has dried up because people are willing to do it for nothing, just because they think having some "clients" will mean the NEXT job is paid.

I think that is a bit of a generalisation. I have had some work published, never been paid for any of it and only credited once or twice. I certainly didn't think this would lead to a new career and as for 'like' on flickr I couldn't give a stuff.

There are other motivations. In my case it's photographs to help boost awareness of a new rock band I want to support, and stuff for trade mags that helps to support PR for businesses (not photographic) that I am involved with. The fact is the 'low end stuff' can be done by almost anyone who has a reasonable understanding of how to take a photograph and that understanding has become easier with digital than it was with film.

This idea that if an amateur photographer gives away work it takes food out of the mouths of 'professional' is not always true. This is because in many cases in the absence of 'free' photographs no photographs at all would have been used.
In the cases where it does take work away from a professional e.g a bride and groom get 'uncle Bob' to do their wedding photography rather than employ a professional, well that's their choice. Is it wrong that I wash my own car rather than using the hand car wash people up the road or that I decorate my own house rather than use a painter & decorator?

With regard to BA competition I can see why an amateur would enter, hoping to win a holiday and a good experience with photos that would otherwise sit on his/her hard drive. No one is being forced to enter and if there are professionals who can take far better shots than the best of the amateurs then maybe BA would have used them, maybe they still will.

Having said all that whenever my business has needed really good photographs e.g product shots we have used a professional. Whether or not the photographic industry is 'on its arse' the really good professionals still seem to be busy.
 
My other half just came through to the study with this competition advert torn out of the Evening Standard from yesterday. My first instinct was to look at the Ts&Cs and when I saw what they were stating I thought "No way". It's not just competition winners they grabbing the rights of, its every single entry. Whether my images are good, bad or indifferent and whether I stand a chance of winning a prize is neither here nor there, it's the bare-faced cheek of a company like BA together with their collaborators at Time Out and The Telegraph (who are worth a bob or two) acquiring lots of images at next to nothing.
 
why is someone being taken for a mug, if they know what they are signing up too?

As I said before it is my choice if I enter, I know the rules I am aware what they can do. So whats wrong with that?
 
why is someone being taken for a mug, if they know what they are signing up too?

As I said before it is my choice if I enter, I know the rules I am aware what they can do. So whats wrong with that?

because they are taking all rights to your work without any form of payment - yes its your choice, just as it would be your choice to wander down the street giving ten pound notes to complete strangers... doesnt mean I/we have to think its a good idea
 
Is it wrong that I wash my own car rather than using the hand car wash people up the road or that I decorate my own house rather than use a painter & decorator?.

I don't think you are comparing like with like, it would be more true to consider whether you would clean the cars of everyone in your street so long as they tell all their friends what a good job you did, or if you decorated your local hotel for free so long as they told all their guests who'd done it
 
This idea that if an amateur photographer gives away work it takes food out of the mouths of 'professional' is not always true. This is because in many cases in the absence of 'free' photographs no photographs at all would have been used.
In the cases where it does take work away from a professional e.g a bride and groom get 'uncle Bob' to do their wedding photography rather than employ a professional, well that's their choice. Is it wrong that I wash my own car rather than using the hand car wash people up the road or that I decorate my own house rather than use a painter & decorator?

.

Brian, the problem with the tendency to give photos away for free is that it creates a mindset - it is this very mindset which can lead to loss of earnings for professional photographers. When there are so many photographs being offered for free it has the effect of devaluing photography in the eyes of many businesses, consumers and clients. As a consequence they will continue to seek free photography (and are often quite happy to accept lower standards of work if it costs them little or nothing). We've seen the impact this has had on some sectors of the industry and it is very real.

I don't think the uncle Bob analogy or the car washing example is comparable to what is under discussion here. For it to be relevant, there would need to be people standing on every street corner offering free car washes to every stranger who approach them - then we would be on broadly similar lines to the photo industry. Except that would be incomprehensible to most people - presumably because there is no ego boost, facebook likes, false promises, or flattery involved. I think that's what David was alluding to.
 
why is someone being taken for a mug, if they know what they are signing up too?

As I said before it is my choice if I enter, I know the rules I am aware what they can do. So whats wrong with that?


It's about principles. There is no reason why BA couldn't have a reasonable and fair usage set of T&Cs that would still allow them to use the images free of charge, instead they've effectively stopped YOU from using them, and then stripped your moral rights, and effectively even a right to a credit,,. so you don't even get any exposure. Where exactly is the incentive to actually enter, other than to win the "prize" itself? It's just big business screwing over the little guy, and the little guy being pleased to have it happen.

My advice is do not enter.
 
people standing on every street corner offering free car washes to every stranger who approach them .

there was this girl who said she'd do whatever i wanted for 20 quid - for some reason she didnt think , "how about washing my car " was an appropriate response :LOL:
 
I think some people are getting a bit muddled with the initial post. I don't care if you give work away free (actually I do, free images and US$1 images have devalued my industry so much that I'm almost embarrassed to call myself a photographer these days). Letting someone use your picture for free is one thing. You sill own the copyright. What British Airways (a multinational company with a turnover of millions) is doing is taking away the rights of everyone who enters their picture into the competition. You are giving the picture away. Not just that 1 file, but the picture. BA will own the copyright. They will not allow you to use the picture for anything else. ANYTHING ELSE. You can't paste to on facebook, Flickr, hell you can't even send it to Granny to say you entered it into a competition. It's like giving someone else your car, not lending it to them to drive for a day, you are giving it up.

Very few photo competitions do this because it is so so bad. They own the entire entry base. Any picture uploaded to the competition becomes the property of British Airways. So what you might think? Well everyone enters their best picture to try and win a holiday, so the majority of the pictures will be good (certainly good quality). British Airways then has the right to do anything with them it likes. It can sell them to other people if it wants. It can put them on bill boards all over the world and not tell a single person that you took the picture.

Basically it is taking a giant cr*p on the gentleman's agreement that is essentially copyright law, without the decency of telling you that's what it's doing except in tiny text hidden in the T&Cs. If you are happy with that then fill your boots, if not don't enter and read every photo competition rules very carefully.
 
Right, I take photographs for me. Have absolutely no intention of becoming a paid photographer, I am not on an ego trip, don't do photographs on Facebook, my photographs on flickr are for me only so not interested in likes etc. I have had about three photographs published all without payment and i think only one was credited.

Why can some of you not get it if I enter, I enter just for the hell of it.

Photography as a source of employment is changing and yes it is in part because photography is now so easy to access. The standard of the work used is not set by the photographer, it is set by the buyer and that hasn't really changed from the time when the only portrait you could have was either drawn, painted or sculptured.
 
Why can some of you not get it if I enter, I enter just for the hell of it.
.

I think we all get that - why can't you get that we think you are being really dumb if you chose to give away copyright in order to enter a competition which you probably won't win (assuming that you appreciate the difference between copyright and licence to use. - if you give away the copyright not only can you not use the picture anywhere else including on your own website, social media,forums etc - but they can sell it to a third party and keep the money)
 
A question to all those so strongly against this competition - have any of you complained to the people who could actually do something about it - BA?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not on their side, it just seems rather pointless whinging about things like this on the internet rather than contacting BA, the photographic press etc..
 
Gavin, it is nothing like giving your car away. (Which I actually did last year) I would give them a photograph to do with what they like. It doesn't really matter if that file is sat on my hard-drive or their hard drive. I get it if you are a professional you want to hold onto your "rights". But please don't try to tell me what I do with a photograph is wrong because it is not what you would do.

As I wouldn't set out to sell any of my photographs, it doesn't worry me if other people do. Everything is not about money. Photography is a hobby for me end of. All my hobbies cost me money. I am not wealthy, hence a bottom end DSLR and no real decent glass, am just not a slave to money.
 
Last edited:
Why can some of you not get it if I enter, I enter just for the hell of it.

.

And that's a credible argument, is it?

Let's say the shot you enter is a good one - it has commercial value and is relevant to a number of fields, but you may not realise that at the time. And a year or so later that photograph is gracing a high profile advertising campaign which is raking in the profits for the organisation in question. Or perhaps it's promoting something you have strong views against - whatever. Meanwhile you receive nothing (and you have no say whatsoever in how the photograph is published) but you have to sit by and watch a bunch of strangers benefiting from something you created. Are you seriously saying that wouldn't matter to you? Because this competition wouldn't exist if the potential for profit or exploitation were not there.

The rules give a very clear message - that the competition organizers have absolute contempt for the people who enter, because they assume that most members of the public don't read the small print, and even if they do they're too thick to understand it. Nice. Of course there is a prize - but I highly doubt you'll get to keep the copyright from those photographs either, let alone any payment - I'm not sure the bragging rights to that will hold much water.
 
Last edited:
I would give them a photograph to do with what they like. It doesn't really matter if that file is sat on my hard-drive or their hard drive. I get it if you are a professional you want to hold onto your "rights". But please don't try to tell me what I do with a photograph is wrong because it is not what you would do.

As I wouldn't set out to sell any of my photographs, it doesn't worry me if other people do. Everything is not about money. Photography is a hobby for me end of. All my hobbies cost me money. I am not wealthy, hence a bottom end DSLR and no real decent glass, am just not a slave to money.

It isn't about money - there is a moral principle here. Of course you're free to do whatever you wish with your photographs, but please also accept that there doesn't seem to be a single argument for you to do so in this case. If you wanted to donate your photographs to a worthy cause then that would be different, and understandable (I do that myself as do many others here). But that's not what were talking about.
 
It's about principles. There is no reason why BA couldn't have a reasonable and fair usage set of T&Cs that would still allow them to use the images free of charge, instead they've effectively stopped YOU from using them, and then stripped your moral rights, and effectively even a right to a credit,,. so you don't even get any exposure.

I agree totally. Unfortunately, the word principles would not appear to be in the 'corporate' dictionary of many large businesses. I would avoid this competition like the plague it appears to be.
 
The rules give a very clear message - that the competition organizers have absolute contempt for the people who enter, .

and thats back to what i was saying earlier - the comp organisers think that the average photographer is a gullible mug - nice

course if youwant to be taken advantage of then thats entirely your choice, but lets not pretend that that isnt whats happening
 
Actually, just for the hell of it is a very credible argument. or do you live your lives in a controlled bubble?

And yes I am saying it would not bother me, if someone made money from my photograph, if I choose for that to happen.

It is not about morals, our rights as the photographer are protected. what we choose to do about that is up to the individual. It is all about choice
 
Last edited:
A question to all those so strongly against this competition - have any of you complained to the people who could actually do something about it - BA?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not on their side, it just seems rather pointless whinging about things like this on the internet rather than contacting BA, the photographic press etc..

I totally agree Nod - and yes, I have started (ditto some of my friends and colleagues who I've alerted to this).
 
Actually, just for the hell of it is a very credible argument.

No, it isn't.

For a start it's so evasive that nobody actually knows what 'just for the hell of it' even means in this context. What you're apparently saying is 'I do it simply because I can'. Fine, but that isn't an argument in favour of something, it's simply a statement that you've exercised a choice - but you're yet to justify that choice. Justification can be anything of course, ranging from 'I enjoy being shafted by strangers' to 'the CEO of BA saved my life once so I'm happy to offer what I can in return'.

Hmmm :rolleyes:
 
But I have explained it. IT IS MY CHOICE. I need no more justification than that. Why do I have to keep saying the same thing, if you don't get that, then tough luck. I am not being shafted, I don't fancy the CEO etc. I am if I choose to enter, exercising my choice/ free will, call it what you like. It is no different to your choice not to enter it.
 
But I have explained it. IT IS MY CHOICE. I need no more justification than that. Why do I have to keep saying the same thing, if you don't get that, then tough luck. It is no different to your choice not to enter it.

I know it's your choice munch. But I think people might be curious as to the 'why' behind that choice. The respondents here have justified why we would choose not to enter, and we've given reasons - that's where the dialogue between us differs. We're not just saying 'because that's our choice'.

It's understandable that many members of the public will enter competitions like this without sensing the possible implications - perhaps because they haven't read the small print, or they fully haven't understood the degree to which they're being taken advantage of. I'd say you don't suffer from that lack of understanding so it's interesting to know why you might still decide to enter when you're effectively doing nothing more than subsidising a wealthy (and less than ethical) Corporation. I'm not having a go at you, I suppose I'm just intrigued by the psychology behind a decision where the only likely outcome is your loss.
 
Because I don't see it as loss. Having come through cancer twice. maybe I look on things differently.
 
Because I don't see it as loss. Having come through cancer twice. maybe I look on things differently.

I'm truly sorry to hear that and I sincerely hope that you're OK. Quite frankly, after what you've been through you deserve a break - not horrible companies like BA trying to get one over you! Somewhere on the forum there is a list of competitions - I imagine they are ethical competitions where there is something tangible for the winners and equitable terms - if you haven't seen it already then it may be worth reading.

I'm struggling with your view of the BA conditions of entry but I fully accept that your decision is what it is. I wish you well and I do hope you're getting better.
 
Last edited:
Right, I take photographs for me. Have absolutely no intention of becoming a paid photographer, I am not on an ego trip, don't do photographs on Facebook, my photographs on flickr are for me only so not interested in likes etc. I have had about three photographs published all without payment and i think only one was credited.

Why can some of you not get it if I enter, I enter just for the hell of it.

Photography as a source of employment is changing and yes it is in part because photography is now so easy to access. The standard of the work used is not set by the photographer, it is set by the buyer and that hasn't really changed from the time when the only portrait you could have was either drawn, painted or sculptured.

So why would you wish someone to judge your pictures?
 
Why not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top