BA photo competition (always read the rules)

Status
Not open for further replies.
munch said:
Actually, just for the hell of it is a very credible argument. or do you live your lives in a controlled bubble?
Click to expand...

So you're arguing just for the hell of arguing? Thought so.


No.. I lived a great deal of my life earning my money with a camera. What about you? I suspect not. You have no idea what you're talking about.
 
No I don't earn any money from photography. The Discussion is about entering a competition where by entering you give the organisers the right to do with that photograph as they like. Know a lot of you go on about the principle of this and that is OK for person who makes money from their photographs.
Lets move this away from photography a bit. Say I had landscape painting as a hobby, I decide to give one of my paintings to a friend. He puts it in his living room. Several months later, some comes round to his house and likes the picture. Offers my friend £50 to buy it. A few months later it is in a gallery for £700. Now you could say I have lost £700 (I know if a gallery is selling it for £700 I, as the artist wouldn't get that) But I gave it away quite happily. Why can you not see what I am saying in the same way.

Photography has changed some of you may not like it, but it has. Don't have a go at me, have a go at BA or whoever is administrating it on their behalf.
 
Suppose you entered the competition. The picture didn't win but as BA liked the image and it suited a future ad campaign so they used it. That's okay you say and yes it is your right to do so if you wish. However, you want people to know you took it so put a copy on Flickr, Facebook, wherever.

What happens when BA send you an invoice for its use or sue you for copyright infringement?
 
munch said:
Say I had landscape painting as a hobby, I decide to give one of my paintings to a friend. He puts it in his living room. Several months later, some comes round to his house and likes the picture. Offers my friend £50 to buy it. A few months later it is in a gallery for £700. Now you could say I have lost £700 (I know if a gallery is selling it for £700 I, as the artist wouldn't get that) But I gave it away quite happily. Why can you not see what I am saying in the same way.

Photography has changed some of you may not like it, but it has. Don't have a go at me, have a go at BA or whoever is administrating it on their behalf.
Click to expand...

A friend is normally somebody we care for or love. Giving a friend a painting that we have created is a gesture of affection, appreciation, or perhaps gratitude given how much we may have come to value the association. The act of giving something to somebody we value is an emotionally rewarding experience. That really cannot be compared with giving your work to a faceless, financially endowed Corporation with whom you have no connection and who is blatantly taking advantage of your nature.

This is precisely why we cannot see what you are saying.
 
big soft moose said:
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
Click to expand...

Just enter images you wouldn't use for resale/commercial use anyway. If you win a holiday..great, if not who cares.
 
ST4 said:
Just enter images you wouldn't use for resale/commercial use anyway. If you win a holiday..great, if not who cares.
Click to expand...

if they are that s***e you arent going to win anyway... plus its the principle as lindsay mentioned above
 
If someone walks up to you in the street and politely asks for your mobile phone, he is still mugging you.

The key issues to this are not whether money will be made by someone else. Images are giving and taken all around the world every second, but no matter who's computer they sit on, the ultimate control with with the photographer who took them. The issue here is that BA don't just want to use the pictures, they want to control them. Once entered the picture is no longer yours (whether it is on your computer or not). BA could, if they wanted, sell the images to organsations that you hate. Islamic State could buy the images if they wanted and use them to recruit new fighters. BA won't care as they've been paid. It's an extreme example I grant you, but image an organisation you can't stand, who had done you wrong or maybe harmed you in some way. They are quite a liberty to buy your image and use it however they like and you can't say a word about it.

That is why I am so against this type of rights grabbing. Yes I am a professional and so my images do have a monetary value to me, but even if I wasn't I do want some control over my pictures. Many competitions leave the copyright in the hands of the photographer and ask permission to use them for publicising the competition. BA hasn't even got the decency to ask for your copyright, it is just taking it. Personally I find it rude and insulting and the last person who tried to mug me ended up with a bloody nose - I hope the same happens to BA.
 
Do not professional photographers have a hobby outside work they do just for the pleasure of doing it and no monetary gain?
Or does taking photos rule your whole life.
There seems to be a fair number of guitar playing people on here. Would you not consider doing a gig for free
just for the buzz of doing it?

Well guess what it is the same for hobbyist photographers.
 
DerekL said:
Do not professional photographers have a hobby outside work they do just for the pleasure of doing it and no monetary gain?
Or does taking photos rule your whole life.
There seems to be a fair number of guitar playing people on here. Would you not consider doing a gig for free
just for the buzz of doing it?

Well guess what it is the same for hobbyist photographers.
Click to expand...
Most pros will have worked for free at some point. That's a mile from the point, have you not read the thread?
 
DerekL said:
There seems to be a fair number of guitar playing people on here. Would you not consider doing a gig for free
just for the buzz of doing it?

Well guess what it is the same for hobbyist photographers.
Click to expand...

Yeah sure. No problem. I'll do a gig for free at the next BA shareholders' meeting. I'll play a couple of my own songs.

They'll then retain copyright of my songs, record them and make some money.

Brilliant!
 
simon ess said:
Yeah sure. No problem. I'll do a gig for free at the next BA shareholders' meeting. I'll play a couple of my own songs.

They'll then retain copyright of my songs, record them and make some money.

Brilliant!
Click to expand...

Fair enough I agree with the relinquishing copyright is wrong. However giving photos away seems to attract ridicule on here.
I know as I once stupidly admitted to getting some sports photos printed in the local rag. I was rewarded with abusive PMs.
Would you get them if you played your guitar for free?
 
Letting people use pictures for free and mugging you for your copyright are 2 different things, although they look the same. Many amateurs never think about copyright and usage of their images. Pros have to think about it all the time.

There is a big distinction between letting someone use you picture without payment and giving them all rights to the picture and it goes beyond money.
 
DerekL said:
Yes I read the thread. As usual with these threads it is an opportunity to slag of amateurs who give away phots as mugs.
Click to expand...
You never even acknowledged my whole post. Proving my point really. You just want to believe its 'pros slagging off amateurs'. Which like I said is a mile from the point.
 
Phil V said:
You never even acknowledged my whole post. Proving my point really. You just want to believe its 'pros slagging off amateurs'. Which like I said is a mile from the point.
Click to expand...

I did acknowledge the copyright issue. I never said it was pros who slag of amateurs.
To be honest I sometimes think it is want to be pros who are more abusive. Perhaps they want to pretend they ars pros who knows.
Anyway I do not want to take the thread of course and if I did then it was not my intent.
I am now going to enjoy my Saturdsy evening an will catch up tomorrow.
 
DerekL said:
... I never said it was pros who slag of amateurs.
To be honest I sometimes think it is want to be pros who are more abusive...
Click to expand...
Sorry, I must have made it up...

...
DerekL said:
Yes I read the thread. As usual with these threads it is an opportunity to slag of amateurs who give away phots as mugs.
Click to expand...

Oh no, there it is look. :D

You have a bee in your bonnet, I understand that, if you had abusive PMs on the issue, I hope you reported them, and had the perpetrator banned. But that wasn't me, or anyone else on this thread, step back and see the thread for what it is, rather than colouring it with unrelated baggage.

I'm on the fence in Pro vs Amateur debates, because I'm not full time, I can see both sides of this, which would be the opposite of 'pretending to be a pro', but I'm comfortable with that. Whereas you clearly want to see everything as a big battle.
 
Oh please I never said pro in my post. As I rarely post I fail to see it as my battle. There are plenty on here who do it much better. As I have always seen you as one of the more respected people who post on here don't read more into what I said than there actually is.

I did not report the abuse I just stay off the sports section.

Anyway back to my Saturday evening.
 
DerekL said:
Oh please I never said pro in my post. As I rarely post I fail to see it as my battle.
Click to expand...

Oh FFS,
So what group is it that are 'slagging off the Amateurs' I'm struggling because I can only see one 'opposition' camp.

So enlighten me:
Is it the Judean Popular Peoples Front? The Popular Peoples Front of Judea (Splitters, the lot of em)? The Picts? Immigrants? The EU? The Bloody Health and Safety Executive? News International?

Although earlier you did say:
DerekL said:
...
To be honest I sometimes think it is want to be pros who are more abusive. Perhaps they want to pretend they ars pros who knows...
Click to expand...

Ahh well, just me making stuff up.
 
DerekL said:
I take it you not a morning person
Anyway you win and I have a plane to catch.

Have a good day
Click to expand...
Me? I'm in a great mood. It's just fun debating with people who don't understand that once you've written something, you look daft when you try to deny the point. It's realising the point you have to stop digging.

Have a good flight. :D
 
I can just imagine it, big board meeting.... "How can we promote a big campaign, with a lot of original, inspired photographs of our product that won't cost us much at all?"

Does this position need any further explanation further to this discussion?

I'm with Steve in terms of taking two very similar shots - however, as a point of Corporate principal, I wouldn't/won't enter!
 
DerekL said:
Yes I read the thread. As usual with these threads it is an opportunity to slag of amateurs who give away phots as mugs.
Click to expand...

Try reading it with your eyes open - thats not whats being said at all... the point isnt that giving work away makes you a mug (indeed several pros here have said that they've given work away before), the point is giving copyright to your work away to a large profit making corporation who can easily afford to pay for it makes you a mug
 
chuckles said:
I can just imagine it, big board meeting.... "How can we promote a big campaign, with a lot of original, inspired photographs of our product that won't cost us much at all?"

Does this position need any further explanation further to this discussion?
Click to expand...

I don't think BA's board care about the 'big campaign' they are just pleased to get an immensely valuable commodity in the form of copyright owned images for next to no outlay. It's like all the entrants checking people's bags in for free or serving drinks on an aircraft. Check in staff are paid, so are air stewards, so why not the people providing them with pictures?

If they wanted to promote a campaign with a photographic competition why not state in the rules the wining images will be used to promote the competition? They deliberately chose not to do that and to take the copyright of all the entries to use how they want, when they want. Basically the entrant worked for British Airways free of charge while taking the picture.
 
munch said:
Because I don't see it as loss. Having come through cancer twice. maybe I look on things differently.
Click to expand...

Really sorry to hear that, but please humour me, how would you feel if BA then sold your image to a company that then used it in an advertising campaign for something that we know can actively increase the chances of getting cancer? [and plenty of that kind of advertising still goes on around the world] That is merely an example, but it is what could happen to any entry in this competition as the T&C's stand and the entrant couldn't do a damn thing about it!

DerekL said:
Do not professional photographers have a hobby outside work they do just for the pleasure of doing it and no monetary gain?
Or does taking photos rule your whole life.
There seems to be a fair number of guitar playing people on here. Would you not consider doing a gig for free
just for the buzz of doing it?

Well guess what it is the same for hobbyist photographers.
Click to expand...

I know, repeating what has been said, but it isn't about giving work away for free, hell I give work away for free monthly, mainly to the charity I support, but I give them unlimited usage on the photos, NOT copyright - and get plenty of paid work back via their supporters, it is a two way street where everyone benefits.
 
Jeez I stay away for a day and get beat up. Moose I am not a mug regardless of what you think
I get what you say about copyright and agree- Honest.
If it makes you feel better my flight was delayed I have only just got to the hotel and I am cream crackerd. Perhaps it someone's way of showing me the errors of my way.

Bye for now.
 
I do find Munch's argument that he's doing it for the hell of it credible.

I would have entered this competition myself, but I do agree that the terms and conditions aren't to my liking either, so I wont. But that does not make anyone who decided to enter, knowing what the consequences are wrong. As Munch says, the photo would sit on his hard drive, he wouldn't normally do anything with it, so why not.

I do get the counter argument (obviously as its why I wouldn't enter it!), but I think we all have to realise that this is happening more and more. Morally, it may well be wrong, it might well be taking the bread out of photographers kids mouths, but that's life, everyone and their dog has a camera these days, and they take photos, lots of them. If they are willing to give them away, there's nothing anyone can do to stop that. It's called freedom. Ok, a large company is exploiting that, but its for those entering it to decide if they are willing to accept it. Those who aren't....Won't enter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
munch said:
Don't have a go at me, have a go at BA or whoever is administrating it on their behalf.
Click to expand...

I thought that's what we were doing?
 
munch said:
No I don't earn any money from photography. The Discussion is about entering a competition where by entering you give the organisers the right to do with that photograph as they like. Know a lot of you go on about the principle of this and that is OK for person who makes money from their photographs.
Click to expand...

My emphasis and yup, I have no problem with this.

They key bit in the T&C's however is this bit, my emphasis again; "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."

This means that as soon as I enter the image, it is no longer mine. I can't pop it up on my flickr stream, I can't upload it to facebook. It is no longer mine to show off with pride. This is the bit I have a problem with.

All BA need is a licence to use, they do not need the full copyright - this is the bit people in the thread are objecting too.
 
Furtim said:
All BA need is a licence to use, they do not need the full copyright - this is the bit people in the thread are objecting too.
Click to expand...

Which is fine, they have every right to object. But other people, for their own reasons don't, which is the crux of the matter. I agree with the objections, but we don't have the right to use that objection to force others to act in any particular way. If someones aware of what will happen if they enter, then it's their business.
 
Bernie174 said:
Which is fine, they have every right to object. But other people, for their own reasons don't, which is the crux of the matter. I agree with the objections, but we don't have the right to use that objection to force others to act in any particular way. If someones aware of what will happen if they enter, then it's their business.
Click to expand...

Free will and all that - no intention of 'forcing' people not to participate. My gripe is are they really aware when they enter that by assigning copyright that they can no longer use their own photos anymore? I suspect not. Most would assume they are letting BA use the photo in any which way they see fit (which is just fine for most I suspect).

I take a great photo, I want to share it, the BA competition looks like a great way to get it some attention so I enter it - a perfectly normal and understandable position.
The fact that that photo is no longer mine - I can't use it any more, I can't share it, I can't upload it elsewhere, I can't print it and put a copy on my wall, I can't give a copy to my mate in the picture, and if I did any of those, BA can charge me money! That's not right.

So the crux of the matter for me is not whether people have the 'right to give their work away' - that's a no-brainer. Of course they do.
The crux is whether they know what it is they are giving away, and in this case, BA is requiring people give a lot more away than most others do in this day and age.

You're here a posting, so you likely know what giving copyright away means, so you can make an informed decision (as is your right); would you say the same is true of most people who will enter?
 
Furtim said:
I take a great photo, I want to share it, the BA competition looks like a great way to get it some attention so I enter it - a perfectly normal and understandable position.
The fact that that photo is no longer mine - I can't use it any more, I can't share it, I can't upload it elsewhere, I can't print it and put a copy on my wall, I can't give a copy to my mate in the picture, and if I did any of those, BA can charge me money! That's not right.
Click to expand...

I am not so convinced that you can no longer print, or put it somewhere like flikr. Strictly speaking they may well have the right to stop you doing that but, even BA aren't that anal!

Anyway, even assuming you were absolutely correct and BA then took an absolute view, then it's like everything if you didn't check the T&C's, then it's prima facia hard luck.

Yes, you could probably argue it to a compromise in Court (Which is why in reality I doubt BA would be so prescriptive in the application of the terms, the publicity would be horrendous for them), but it's everyone's responsibility to check before ticking the box. The argument that people don't, belongs in Jeremy Kyle land.

As I said, I knew about this, before the topic came up, I didn't like the terms & conditions, so no, I won't bother entering it. I managed to read and understand and dislike.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
I am not so convinced that you can no longer print, or put it somewhere like flikr. Strictly speaking they may well have the right to stop you doing that but, even BA aren't that anal!.
Click to expand...

I suspect that the T&C have been written by a non photographer and approved by a corporate lawyer (also a non specialist) and even BA don't actually understand what they are asking for.

Chances are what they meant is that once you've entered they don't want you giving the picture to other organisations, stock liberaries etc (which is still too much of a rights grab for me , but i can see why it might not bother an amateur) - technically that could be better worded as
"by entering you give us perpetual and exclusive rights to all comercial uses of the picture entered" but some chucklehead has said "just claim the copyright that'll do it"
 
Bernie174 said:
I do find Munch's argument that he's doing it for the hell of it credible. As Munch says, the photo would sit on his hard drive, he wouldn't normally do anything with it, so why not.
.
Click to expand...

And how credible is that argument if in the future Munch suddenly found a use for that image, but was stuffed because he no longer owned it? And what if next year a commercial entity approached him or whoever else has submitted their photos to the competition and wanted to buy the image for a good sum - again, he would have to decline.

I have all sorts of things sitting in my attic doing nothing, but it doesn't mean they're up for grabs by any slimy wealthy corporation who believes they have a right to my property. This has been said quite a lot already, but if you want to give your stuff away then why not choose a worthy recipient, where your work will actually do some good instead of lining the pockets of a faceless executive who's laughing at the gullibility of the great British public. I'll also add (and this is famously overlooked by hobbyists) that it costs you something to produce your photos, whether they're for your own pleasure or not. If you add up the cost of all of your camera gear, and apportion a cost of your computer horsepower and software, and divide it by the number of outings you engage in per year, and then consider the time and petrol involved in the outing, then you might be surprised.

Rolling over and saying 'this is the way of the world and everyone is doing it so let's just take it up the rear' is no defence - everyone is doing it because nobody is prepared to acknowledge that they ARE in fact being a complete mug!
 
Lindsay D said:
Rolling over and saying 'this is the way of the world and everyone is doing it so let's just take it up the rear' is no defence -!
Click to expand...

see @Daryl I told you she wasn't that sort of girl....
 
Lindsay D said:
.... or maybe you just know Daryl quite well.
Click to expand...

Hey i don't know him that well ... it was you who wanted to take him shooting in the nude ;)
 
big soft moose said:
Hey i don't know him that well ... it was you who wanted to take him shooting in the nude ;)
Click to expand...

:eek::LOL: For the last time - it was the models, but Daryl (being a gentleman) didn't want them to feel out of place without their clothes on. And as you know I applied bodypaint so from a distance it would look like he was clothed.

.... I should have sent BA some of those.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top