big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
you could have named them "Paint BAlls "
and help to keep the site free for all
BA photo competition (always read the rules)
- Thread starter photogav
- Start date
- Status
you could have named them "Paint BAlls "
- Messages
- 25,300
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Lindsay does this so eloquently, but I feel the need to stress this when people are discussing working for free / cheap 'just because they can'.
Do you really feel comfortable when deciding what your family is doing without because you let someone have free photos? I appreciate that photography is rarely a 'poor mans hobby', but there are always choices in life; are you going without the 2nd or 3rd holiday? Going for the new car that's one down from what you'd really want? Or even having to tell the kids Santa isn't bringing a new IMac this year? And you're making these sacrifices so that BA gets free photos? Or that some bride on Gumtree can spend £500 on sparkly table centres and £200 for a light up dance floor but now she's only got £150 to spend on photos.
Personally, I'm happy to work for free for people I like, or for a good cause, but my kids aren't doing without stuff so that someone I don't know can have free photos and s*** expensive table centres.
Last edited:
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That - I've given shots away to a local dog rescue centre, to help for heroes, to the RNLI, and to various wildlife places (although the latter might be more quid pro quo than free as ive often special access as a result)
I also did a wedding free for a girl at work who had litterally no money for anything - not one who can't afford a pro because they've wasted their cash on crap - but one where his mum made the cake, her mum made the dress, guests chipped in food for the meal on a bring a plate basis instead of giving presents , and so forth.
I see no problem with any of that.
But if BA , or any other profit making company wants my work (and they arent exactly beating a path to my door) they can damn well pay for it
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
key point in that sentence is the bit ive bolded - no one is dictating to anyone that if they want to get arse raped by BA then they can't if they really must, however the key points you seem to be missing are a) that an awful lot of people won't realise what ' giving up copyright' actually means , b) that even some who alledgedly do seem to be in denial about it, and c) that it is unecessary for BA to grab copyright anyway.
as i said earlier if someone really wants to walk down the street handing out tenners to strangers, or really wants to respond with bank details to a 419 scam email, then its not my place to dictate that they shouldn't - but that doesnt mean I can't say that its a really bad idea in my opinion for the benefit of those who may still be making up their minds
- Messages
- 2,677
- Name
- Lindsay
- Edit My Images
- No
I think you'll find it's BA who are doing the dictating.
In putting forward a good argument for why entrants into these competitions are being disadvantaged most of us here are trying to encourage people to scrutinise and understand the terms and conditions, and then to consider the possible (moral and financial) ramifications of submitting their work. That's not being high-handed - it's an attempt to help photographers avoid mistakes. We can choose not to be part of a corrupt and unfair system which as you have acknowledged, continues to harm the industry.
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No, they are not. No one is holding a gun to anyones head and saying you must enter.
Pete
No one is missing the counter point. It only matters if you want to collect on the deal If you don't, then it matters not one jot. And of course we are still making the assumption that BA will strictly enforce their assumed rights over the image in question. As I said, thats unlikely to happen due to the adverse publicity. But again, even if they do want to do that, the fact remains if you don't like the T&C's, don't enter. Its a free country and no ones forcing you to. As I said, I don't like the T&C's, so I'm not entering it. As I, in common with you and clearly Lindsay aren't, it's got nothing more to do with us.
You may not have control over the copyright anyway, depending on where you take the a photo. If you take it on any BAA airport, then the BAA by-laws give them rights over use of photos. Go to an airshow, and you can't sell or license photos taken there without the permission of the operators. I'd not be surprised if the same applies to many events. But even though in theory they have control over use, as far as I know they have never enforced it.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 25,300
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Just to add to what Pete said, surely you'd agree that a key purpose of the forum is to educate and inform? No-one is dictating (other than BA) what we are trying to do is inform people how s*** a deal this is for them. You already understand this, so you won't enter.
I don't understand why your reaction appears to be 'Well I think it's a stupid thing to do, because I understand the terms, however if other people are too stupid to understand the rules, that's their tough s***'. (I may have paraphrased)
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Why do we have to assume people are stupid? You have over paraphrased, and in fact I am doing the opposite of calling people stupid.
In order to get onto this site, everyone can read, and most have a grasp (tenuous in some peoples cases I grant you) of comprehension. I agree there's a point to be made informing, but that was done in the first 4 posts. After which it became an attack on anyone who digressed from the 'company line' that no one should ever under any circumstances enter.
Thats whats wrong here, if people can't work out that they may be disadvantaged, or having worked that out decided that they still want to enter, then thats their affair, why attack them? Why accuse them of 'missing points' putting forward lame arguments etc? Thats goes well beyond warning. At the end of the day people are as entitled to do what they want with their pictures, if that means giving away copyright, then thats fine.
In order to get onto this site, everyone can read, and most have a grasp (tenuous in some peoples cases I grant you) of comprehension. I agree there's a point to be made informing, but that was done in the first 4 posts. After which it became an attack on anyone who digressed from the 'company line' that no one should ever under any circumstances enter.
Thats whats wrong here, if people can't work out that they may be disadvantaged, or having worked that out decided that they still want to enter, then thats their affair, why attack them? Why accuse them of 'missing points' putting forward lame arguments etc? Thats goes well beyond warning. At the end of the day people are as entitled to do what they want with their pictures, if that means giving away copyright, then thats fine.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,677
- Name
- Lindsay
- Edit My Images
- No
Because it's hard to see how entering competitions like this can be deemed an 'intelligent choice'. And because so far the only 'argument' in favour of entering runs along the lines of 'because I can'.
Other than the dubious first prize, there is absolutely nothing in it for the entrants. And if that is hard to fathom then yes, one has to wonder about the intellect of the people who enter. And I bet there are some great entries - the winning image is likely to be excellent, naturally with a very high commercial value. That's the whole point of BA rigging this little jaunt.
Remember this is a place frequented by full-time professionals, part-time professionals, and those hoping to make their mark on the industry - that means making a living of some sort, or at least generating profit, from photography. The opinions offered by those who are genuinely in business are very useful to those who ask their questions here - unless it's about something they don't want to hear. Of course it's up to any individual to act however they wish with respect to their photographs. But if some of them bring an unfathomable and illogical opinion into a public forum then it's unsurprising that the debate is going to become a little spirited.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Unless you want to use the image yourself in anyway , or for that matter if BA sell the image to a third party and you don't get anything not even a credit.
I know you believe that they wouldn't enforce the copyright because bad publicity, but thats what i mean about being in denial about what giving the copyright away means
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
also this shows a massive lack of understanding of what copyright actually means
nothing in the BAA byelaws or indeed the condition of entry to most airshows (and events in general) means you don't own the copyright - you may not be able to use the shots commercially without their permission but that doesnt mean you don't own the copyright
photography in the security zone is forbidden except by BAA acreddited press - but that is going to be irrelevant to 99% of enthusiast avaiation pics anyway (and if someone were to flout the rules and take a pic BAA still wouldnt own the copyright)
nothing in the BAA byelaws or indeed the condition of entry to most airshows (and events in general) means you don't own the copyright - you may not be able to use the shots commercially without their permission but that doesnt mean you don't own the copyright
photography in the security zone is forbidden except by BAA acreddited press - but that is going to be irrelevant to 99% of enthusiast avaiation pics anyway (and if someone were to flout the rules and take a pic BAA still wouldnt own the copyright)
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,451
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It’s a sad indictment of our industry that commercial concerns such as BA now see this “rights grab” as an alternative way of reducing marketing costs and increasing their bottom line. However, I can foresee that this is just the tip of the iceberg and their unscrupulous behaviour will be copied by many others around the world to the detriment of commercial photographers worldwide.
With an estimated 300 Billion images (and the number is growing) take globally every year it is inevitable that more and more images will be readily available for free to anyone that wants to exploit the less well educated. I would estimate that a huge percentage of the public have no idea of their consequences and will continue to unwillingly support the likes of BA.
Can this trend be reverse; I do not think it can be, I hope I am wrong but I know our industry is rapidly changing and we have to embrace these changes or we will simply starve. How we achieve this is open for debate and I am sure the more informed on here will have their own opinions.
Ian
With an estimated 300 Billion images (and the number is growing) take globally every year it is inevitable that more and more images will be readily available for free to anyone that wants to exploit the less well educated. I would estimate that a huge percentage of the public have no idea of their consequences and will continue to unwillingly support the likes of BA.
Can this trend be reverse; I do not think it can be, I hope I am wrong but I know our industry is rapidly changing and we have to embrace these changes or we will simply starve. How we achieve this is open for debate and I am sure the more informed on here will have their own opinions.
Ian
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The first step on that road is educating people about what these rights grabs actually mean
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Pewte
Heathrow By laws
4.9 Apparatus etc No person shall erect or use any apparatus for transmission, receipt, recording, reproduction or amplification of sound, speech or images for: (a) commercial purposes; or (b) for any purpose in a Security Search Area.
What I said was:
You may not have control over the copyright anyway, depending on where you take the a photo. If you take it on any BAA airport, then the BAA by-laws give them rights over use of photos.
In other words, the same as the by law. What I did NOT say was that 'own' the copyright. Please try and quote what I say, not what you think I said. The fact remains, you may own the copyright, but use it commercially and you commit a criminal offence, so you don't have full control over its use.
Lindsay
No, it's not hard at all. It's very easy. You don't like the idea and thats the issue here, but thats up to you. Just as it's up to others, if they want, to enter it, whatever their motivation. Giving BA copyright does not stop you printing out a copy for mum, it doesn't stop you leaving it on flikr. Yes, it might stop you making money on that image. A simple answer to that is take 2 shots, submit one, and use the other.
Heathrow By laws
4.9 Apparatus etc No person shall erect or use any apparatus for transmission, receipt, recording, reproduction or amplification of sound, speech or images for: (a) commercial purposes; or (b) for any purpose in a Security Search Area.
What I said was:
You may not have control over the copyright anyway, depending on where you take the a photo. If you take it on any BAA airport, then the BAA by-laws give them rights over use of photos.
In other words, the same as the by law. What I did NOT say was that 'own' the copyright. Please try and quote what I say, not what you think I said. The fact remains, you may own the copyright, but use it commercially and you commit a criminal offence, so you don't have full control over its use.
Lindsay
No, it's not hard at all. It's very easy. You don't like the idea and thats the issue here, but thats up to you. Just as it's up to others, if they want, to enter it, whatever their motivation. Giving BA copyright does not stop you printing out a copy for mum, it doesn't stop you leaving it on flikr. Yes, it might stop you making money on that image. A simple answer to that is take 2 shots, submit one, and use the other.
Lynton
awkward customer
- Messages
- 10,606
- Name
- Lynton (yes really!)
- Edit My Images
- No
So whats new? Likewise our local rag, EDP (part of Archant) has a "reader's pic of the day" - no not "Reader's wife of the day!".. Similar thing, hand over copyright with submission which means you cannot then use the same image for anything else.
kelack
TPer Emerita - But she's back!
- Messages
- 10,607
- Name
- Kelly
- Edit My Images
- Yes
We'd appreciate it if you reported these. We do not tolerate abuse either on the forum or by pm.
And the pros in the sports section aren't 'wannabe' pros.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Out of interest, if I had two very very similar images sat on my HD, one has been edited, uploaded to Flickr yadda yadda. The other (taken a second later) is just sat there as an unedited RAW file unlikely ever to see the light of day. Could I process that one, enter it into the competition, but continue to use my 'original' image as I please?
I have no interest in entering, I'm just wondering if that's a relatively easy way around the copyright issue (assuming you're only worried about that, and not the moral issue of the rights grabbing)
I have no interest in entering, I'm just wondering if that's a relatively easy way around the copyright issue (assuming you're only worried about that, and not the moral issue of the rights grabbing)
- Messages
- 2,642
- Edit My Images
- No
So although some of you say "it's not about the money" you then go on a say that us hobbyist don't really understand that it costs us something to take a photograph. But then again some of us haven't got the intellect to understand that.
Of course it costs us money, I still have the receipts from when I got my camera. You see, my take is that it is a hobby and a hobby cost me money. I have just sat down and worked out that this weekend one of my other hobbies is going to cost me over £100 I am aware of the cost, I can afford it. So wheres the harm? Oh yes and on Sunday I am doing something for free that others would charge £100+ to do.
I get it that for some of you every time you get your camera out you see the pound sign, but we don't all see it that way.
As for being shafted etc. again why, if you fully understand what is going on?
We are not all motivated by the same things.
Of course it costs us money, I still have the receipts from when I got my camera. You see, my take is that it is a hobby and a hobby cost me money. I have just sat down and worked out that this weekend one of my other hobbies is going to cost me over £100 I am aware of the cost, I can afford it. So wheres the harm? Oh yes and on Sunday I am doing something for free that others would charge £100+ to do.
I get it that for some of you every time you get your camera out you see the pound sign, but we don't all see it that way.
As for being shafted etc. again why, if you fully understand what is going on?
We are not all motivated by the same things.
Err yes it does. That's exactly what it does...
From Flickr T&C; You agree not to...
"upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights ("Rights") of any party;"
I get we disagree on the merits of this particular contest, that's life - we all have a free choice. People will make their own informed decision - but to be informed, you need to be educated as to what you are really entering into.
Perpetuating mis-information is not helping people make that informed decision.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,677
- Name
- Lindsay
- Edit My Images
- No
Bernie, this is not about the photographer being allowed to put a print on his or her wall. Let's say a year after handing the image to BA the photographer gets an offer from Apple, because it's the ideal shot to go on the packaging of the next iPhone. They offer a six-figure sum (which is entirely likely). But the photographer can't close the deal, because s/he no longer owns the rights to the photograph. In the meantime, Apple approach BA and buy the picture from them instead. Are you honestly suggesting that the photographer isn't going to feel like a complete twerp? Because I'm sure they would, and I think the matter would be extremely distressing for them. This is exactly what can happen after the horse has bolted, and hindsight isn't a lot of use. And Munch's replies thus far suggest that in this situation he would smile sweetly and be perfectly okay with it - I find that very hard to believe.
Taking two near identical photographs is not a simple solution. In fact it is no solution - many images are dynamic in nature and rely on a moment in time, which is lost a split second later. And even if you did retain a very similar image you could still run into copyright issues if BA's lawyers considered the image to be in conflict with their rights - and I think this does happen.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
are you sure ?-- our local rag (also archant) only grabs a licence to re-use (which is relatively reasonable)
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
and this illustrates the issue at hand, the average man in the street doesnt understand copyright , indeed some photographers, as bernie is ably demonstrating, don't appear to understand it either.
End of the day if you give your copyright away you might as well not have taken the picture because you can't do anything with it other than keep it yourself.. and as lindsay says duplicates arent the answer as they could still infringe the copyright by being identical.
Plus if you give it away the person who you gave it to can do all the things you now cannot - including selling it to a third partty, using it to promote things you disagree with and so forth.
For example Munch you mention you are a cancer survivor... would you be okay with your image being used to promte say tobacco ? (or whatever carcinogen) - because if you've given the copyright to BA theres absolutely nothing you can do to stop them selling it to a tobacco company.
If someone truly goes into it with their eyes open then fair enough, but going into with your eyes half closed by denial saying "ogh well they could but they probably won't" isn't making an informed choice
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No, you see this is the problem, in your rush to join the hysteria you are assuming that BA WILL forbid. Have you checked previous competitions? Are the T&C's the same, have they done what you think they 'might'? The answer is no you haven't checked, isn't it?
Ok, so thats your comments dealt with.
Lindsay
If, but maybe....perhaps, if my aunt had been a bloke she'd be my uncle. Its a circular argument, all based on if, but and maybe. If someone decided not to enter the competition, and apple look at their masterpiece and think, "What a load of crap!", then guess what, you get nothing. If a picture stays on my hard disk and is never seen again after I take it, then guess what, apple ain't going to offer me anything for it. If I enter it into a competition and it doesn't win, but But BA decide to use it, so what, what have I lost? Nothing no fee, because I'd not have shown it to anyone. So, there was nothing to loose.
People are not stupid, if they want to enter this, or any competition thats is their affair, its not yours to be outraged by proxy over. Thats all the point is, not what 'might' happen, not what 'if', and not simply because you don't like. It's up to others, you've made your point, noted, now let people get on with living their own lives.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Messages
- 25,300
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
But Bernie, it's not about if, buts and maybe's.
It's a simple point of law. Once BA own the copyright, all your rights to your image disappear.
It makes no more sense to suggest that you can probably get away with making a print than it does to suggest that someone drive over the speed limit, or claim someone elses work to be theirs. Of course you might possibly get away with it, but that doesn't make it legally right.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
BA don't neded to actively do anything - the law forbids , I would have thought you'd appreciate what a definitive legal point means.
so yes we are 'assuming' that the copyright law forbids someone who isn't the copyright holder from using the image - because it does. Of course someone might get away with violating BAs copyright just as someone might get away with breaking any other civil (or indeed criminal) law - but that doesnt mean its a good idea to try.
And on the point of personal choice, yes its every individuals free choice whether they give away the copyright, just as its their choice whether having done so they then choose to infringe it. However while most people 'aren't stupid' even seeminly intelligent people don't always understand what copyright law means - a point you are doing an excellent job of demonstrating
Last edited:
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
No he's not, he's asking for your phone. You say no, you walk away.
BA are saying if you enter, we own the image lock stock. They're not grabbing or stealing anything, they're just telling it how it is.
Enter, and you're agreeing. Don't and you're not.
Nobody's being "mugged".
Anyone who feels aggrieved after entering clearly didn't read the Ts & Cs, and is therefore either very naïve of very foolish.
No, Bernie. I'm not.
What I am saying is, If BA have no intention to exercise their rights as the copyright owner, why require ownership to be transferred? It's completely unnecessary from the point of using any images submitted for publicity purposes - a simple grant of a licence would suffice. As it stands, once you submit that picture, BA don't have to forbid anything; rather they have to explicitly grant permission for you to do anything, and I see no such clause in their T&C's.
All I (and many others) are trying to do is make it clear what rights you are giving up if you give away copyright (See https://www.gov.uk/intellectual-property-crime-and-infringement for full text):
If knowing this, people still want to enter, that's great.
As for why I'm getting my knickers in a twist over this, well, I don't like to see people unfairly treated, and I consider BA's terms in this competition unreasonable, so I'm going to speak out. The fact I would never enter is no reason to wind my neck in as far as I see it. Blame Martin Niemöller for that.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,810
- Name
- Geoff
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There are two sets of T&C's, one on the TimeOut website and the BA one.
From TimeOut:
Copyright in all photographs submitted for this Competition remains with the respective entrants. However, entrants agree that by submitting a photograph to the Competition, they grant Time Out and British Airways each a royalty free, perpetual irrevocable worldwide licence to use and republish their photograph(s).
Part of the prize is a trip with a pro photographer, "to help them capture a photograph that will then be used as part of a future British Airways advertising campaign."
At the bottom of the Timeout T&C's is a link to the BA Prize Specific conditions, so I'm wondering if the giving of the copyright only applies to the photograph taken as part of the prize? Of course I could be wrong....
From TimeOut:
Copyright in all photographs submitted for this Competition remains with the respective entrants. However, entrants agree that by submitting a photograph to the Competition, they grant Time Out and British Airways each a royalty free, perpetual irrevocable worldwide licence to use and republish their photograph(s).
Part of the prize is a trip with a pro photographer, "to help them capture a photograph that will then be used as part of a future British Airways advertising campaign."
At the bottom of the Timeout T&C's is a link to the BA Prize Specific conditions, so I'm wondering if the giving of the copyright only applies to the photograph taken as part of the prize? Of course I could be wrong....
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You are wasting your breath David - Bernie was once an airport policeman, this makes him the undisputed expert on all matters to do with aviation and the law (if only in his own head)
simon ess
Just call me Roxanne.
- Messages
- 9,604
- Edit My Images
- No
This made me wonder if this whole thread is a red herring, so I checked BA's terms and conditions.
IMO it's actually worse than stated here.
- By entering the competition with #FlyBA2015 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. In addition, upon request you will provide BA a royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, modify, publish, create derivative works from, and display such photograph or make use of the content contained within any entry in whole or in part, on a worldwide basis, and to incorporate it into other materials, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed, including for promotional or marketing purposes. If requested, the entrant will sign any documentation that may be required for BA or its designees to make use of the non-exclusive rights the entrant is granting, to use the entry or the content contained therein. You confirm that you are fully entitled to grant this licence to BA, that where necessary you will seek approval from any other relevant individuals to use the Photograph (or the content therein) and that nothing in the Photograph will infringe the copyright of any other person to the best of your knowledge and belief.
- Where imposing such condition is legal, participation in the competition constitutes the winner’s consent to BA’s and its agents’ use of winner’s name, likeness, photograph, voice, opinions and/or hometown and state, for promotional purposes in any media, worldwide, without further payment or consideration and you confirm that you will obtain from any companion whom you invite, permission for the promoters to use their name and likeness, for advertising and future promotional purposes without additional compensation.
- Messages
- 1,687
- Name
- .... Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Of course there are costs involved in taking a photograph, but for most amateurs these can be considered sunk costs and they would have been incurred regardless of whether a specific photo is taken.
I've never sold a photo, and probably never will. But if I did the only relevant factor would be how much the market valued the photo at. The cost of my time/gear etc can be used to establish a price at which I need to charge as a minimum to break even. But the amount anyone charges on here is surely based on what the market is prepared to pay for THEIR work, and bears little relation to the actual costs incurred.
So amateurs may give away their work at less than market value, which is bad for them but good for the buyer. It's still a free choice so hardly mugging.
And if a national magazine or newspaper wanted one of my photos for free I would give it, and then frame it and put it on the wall and be pleased. And if someone on here sneers and questions how I could gain any pride in giving work away for free or that its meaningless as it only got used as it was free... I'll tell my Mum.
And if it was a decent prize I thought I had a chance of winning I would enter even with those T&C
I've never sold a photo, and probably never will. But if I did the only relevant factor would be how much the market valued the photo at. The cost of my time/gear etc can be used to establish a price at which I need to charge as a minimum to break even. But the amount anyone charges on here is surely based on what the market is prepared to pay for THEIR work, and bears little relation to the actual costs incurred.
So amateurs may give away their work at less than market value, which is bad for them but good for the buyer. It's still a free choice so hardly mugging.
And if a national magazine or newspaper wanted one of my photos for free I would give it, and then frame it and put it on the wall and be pleased. And if someone on here sneers and questions how I could gain any pride in giving work away for free or that its meaningless as it only got used as it was free... I'll tell my Mum.
And if it was a decent prize I thought I had a chance of winning I would enter even with those T&C
- Messages
- 25,300
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
You're perfectly entitled to...
But then you'd not be able to hang a copy on your wall.
Just sayin'
- Messages
- 2,642
- Edit My Images
- No
There are a lot of people on here who talk about the principle of giving away copyright, which to me seems motivated mainly by money.
On the specific of would I be happy if BA then allowed the photograph to be used by a tobacco company. There are two answers to that, the first is In the real world the likely hood of that is so small as to be pointless. and even if on that basis it was used so what. I am not being flippant about this, It's just that It really doesn't worry me, especially as I can't really see it happening.
On the specific of would I be happy if BA then allowed the photograph to be used by a tobacco company. There are two answers to that, the first is In the real world the likely hood of that is so small as to be pointless. and even if on that basis it was used so what. I am not being flippant about this, It's just that It really doesn't worry me, especially as I can't really see it happening.
- Messages
- 2,677
- Name
- Lindsay
- Edit My Images
- No
Munch, we're motivated by fair play and equality. The terms of the BA competition are not fair and equitable - irrespective of how willing the entrant is to part with his or her property.
- Messages
- 2,677
- Name
- Lindsay
- Edit My Images
- No
Because clearly money is one way in which providers of goods or services can be rewarded, so that the exchange is fair. And if money is then generated for the recipient, then they are furthering their gains. If this is a one-way process then it's hard to identify any 'fairness' in that, unless the recipient justly deserves or has a moral right to the goods. Where competitions are concerned, the reward is normally a prize commensurate with the nature of the competition and its size - but if that competition also involves the entrants permanently saying goodbye to their intellectual property without compensation, and each and every loser (and I emphasise that word) is getting nothing in exchange but an irrecoverable loss, then that cannot be fair and equitable.
Last edited:
- Status