BA photo competition (always read the rules)

[Ed Sutton]

Munch, we're motivated by fair play and equality.

If you are motivated by fair play why do you even mention money then?

please explain the equality pit to me, after all I do appear to have a poor intellect.

Maybe I'm thick, but it doesn't seem at all fair to me for a large business with plenty of cash to take the intellectual property rights of someone with less cash and potentially use those rights to make even more cash without the originator of the intellectual property receiving further compensation.

 

[Phil V]

I probably shouldn't admit to this, but I do get wound up by people who keep insisting that the pro's are just suffering from some bitterness.

There's a modern wilful ignorance of evidence, people refuse to accept that this is a simple moral discussion, but instead believe that 'pros are just bitter', and that people giving away copyright for no gain are just 'exercising their freedom' and are in fact losing nothing.

I should probably have learned to just let stuff like this pass, and to just get on with my life, but to me it's part of the modern disease, where everyone but business is treated with suspicion. It's the most arse about face conclusion in the world. Massive corporations are shafting the world, but the man in the street would rather trust the faceless corporation than the bloke next door.

 

[Pookeyhead]

If you are motivated by fair play why do you even mention money then?

please explain the equality pit to me, after all I do appear to have a poor intellect.

What do you do for a living munch?

 

[Steve]

You're perfectly entitled to...


But then you'd not be able to hang a copy on your wall.

Just sayin'

lol....yes. Would have to hide it whenever they visited

 

[munch]

I'm a technical manager.

 

[Yv]

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.

OK, now maybe I am being stupid, but can someone explain why in those T&C's, they need the bit in blue, given the bit in red?

 

[Alastair]

OK, now maybe I am being stupid, but can someone explain why in those T&C's, they need the bit in blue, given the bit in red?

Lawyers charge by the word.

 

[Steve]

I probably shouldn't admit to this, but I do get wound up by people who keep insisting that the pro's are just suffering from some bitterness.

There's a modern wilful ignorance of evidence, people refuse to accept that this is a simple moral discussion, but instead believe that 'pros are just bitter', and that people giving away copyright for no gain are just 'exercising their freedom' and are in fact losing nothing.

I should probably have learned to just let stuff like this pass, and to just get on with my life, but to me it's part of the modern disease, where everyone but business is treated with suspicion. It's the most arse about face conclusion in the world. Massive corporations are shafting the world, but the man in the street would rather trust the faceless corporation than the bloke next door.

Are pros being accused of bitterness? I've re-read the entire thread and don't really see anyone saying this. Plenty of posts saying amateurs with my opinion and stupid, dumb and mugs. But none saying pros are bitter.
And yes, big businesses and capitalism is bad, and will attempt to make a profit at our expense at any opportunity.

Is me giving away my copyright ruining the photographic industry. I plead not guilty as it has never happened and I have never been printed/published and probably never will be. But given the opportunity to give away an image to appear on the front of the Radio Times and I will agree....will save me the cost of vanity publishing.

And the conclusion that my work has zero commercial value is based on over 30 years of historic sales data.

 

[munch]

Maybe I'm thick, but it doesn't seem at all fair to me for a large business with plenty of cash to take the intellectual property rights of someone with less cash and potentially use those rights to make even more cash without the originator of the intellectual property receiving further compensation.

But they wouldn't be taking my "intellectual Property" I would be freely giving it to them, with the possibility (very slim I know) of winning a "prize" that appeals to me.

Have to agree with Steve, plenty of posts implying I am stupid, dumb, a mug of questionable intellect etc but none that "pro's are bitter" I have questioned why everything related to this thread seems to come back to money. That is very different to "having a go at professional photographers"

 

[Bernie174]

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)

Pete even by your low standards, that was utter tripe. Perhaps you'd explain the connection between policing and this?


David

I am fully aware of what is being put forward as an objection, and that isn't the point I am countering. If anyone (and that is me in this case) doesn't like the T&C's, we don't have to enter the competition.

Right, so hopefully we are agreed on that?

Good. However, if someone else looks at the T&C's and thinks, OK I can live with that if BA go for the worst case scenario on me using my masterpiece, then what right has anyone here to stop, or try and stop them? None.

So hopefully, we are still agreed (See Pete, sod all to do with Policing or aviation. So stop talking rubbish there's a good chap!). Splendid.

So the point here is simply this, BA have the right to impose whatever conditions they like. We, the public have every right to decide if we want to enter their competition. If both parties agree then great, competition happens, someone wins, BA get their photos to stick in the in flight magazine that no one really reads, everyone is happy.

As to what you can do or not do once you have entered, OK, BA now own the copyright. In theory yes, they can stop you doing anything they like with that picture. But will they? are these scare tactics the reality? I asked if you'd checked BA's previous for a reason. A friend of mine entered something similar, same T&C's, wrote to the airline concerned afterwards, and was told in writing he could do whatever he wanted with the picture he entered. So he promptly had it published in a travel magazine and was paid for it.

So my point is that Copyright means (in this case) BA can, not will.

So taken in entirety, people have the right to enter what they want, no one on here has the right to try to prevent them. I accept that pointing out the pitfalls is a good thing, but most of that pointing out has gone well beyond the line of fantasy. Yes, giving BA copyright can lead to hell and damnation, but does not mean it will. That's really all there is to it. Take away Pete's rantings (and I am still struggling with his connections!) ,the fantasy scenarios, assumption that photographers are idiots who can't read, and this is a whole lot of fuss about nothing at all.

 

[Yv]

Lawyers charge by the word.

It would seem so! I have a rough idea of copyright laws and the 2nd part seems to me at least, unnecessary given the first part - albeit I can understand that last bit about permissions on people/objects in the photos, given model/property release is essential in some countries. However, I am not an expert in the field, so perhaps I am missing the obvious.
What I can't decide is whether it was written by some office wallah with no idea what they are actually doing, especially given the T&C's on TimeOuts website, which are contradictory.

@Lindsay D You said you were proactively doing something, any word/info on this?

 

[Alastair]

So the point here is simply this, BA have the right to impose whatever conditions they like. We, the public have every right to decide if we want to enter their competition. If both parties agree then great, competition happens, someone wins, BA get their photos to stick in the in flight magazine that no one really reads, everyone is happy.

But how many entering understand the implications of the heavy-handed t's&c's that they've imposed by choosing to claim the copyright on entries..

The image ceases to be yours when you enter it. You no longer own the image or the right to do anything with it.

• You can't enter it into any other competition.
• You can't share it on Facebook.
• You can't legally have it printed to put on your own wall.

Because BA have chosen the term "copyright" and because you agree to it by entering you give up the image entirely. Whether BA choose to enforce it doesn't matter. In law it's now their image.

 

[Ed Sutton]

But they wouldn't be taking my "intellectual Property" I would be freely giving it to them, with the possibility (very slim I know) of winning a "prize" that appeals to me.

WC Fields would have loved you.

By the way what is a 'technical manager'?

 

[Bernie174]

Because BA have chosen the term "copyright" and because you agree to it by entering you give up the image entirely. Whether BA choose to enforce it doesn't matter. In law it's now their image.

Correct we all know that, so what point are you making?

If that isn't a problem to someone who wants to enter the competition, then so be it. If it is a problem then don't enter. Everyone's happy then aren't they.

 

[Steve]

Correct we all know that, so what point are you making?

If that isn't a problem to someone who wants to enter the competition, then so be it. If it is a problem then don't enter. Everyone's happy then aren't they.

Totally agree. T&C would not be a problem for me. Not entering as not interested in prize, but if I was the T&C would not bother me as I've yet to read a convincing argument that I would be losing something of value, just daft analogies about handing out money in street and fantasies about Apple using my image globally. Neither of which realistically describe any imaginary loss I may suffer.

 

[Faldrax]

OK, now maybe I am being stupid, but can someone explain why in those T&C's, they need the bit in blue, given the bit in red?

Are they, in fact, contradictory? - if you give them copyright, you cannot then give them a licence (as you are not the copyright holder!).

 

[big soft moose]

Totally agree. T&C would not be a problem for me. Not entering as not interested in prize, but if I was the T&C would not bother me as I've yet to read a convincing argument that I would be losing something of value, just daft analogies about handing out money in street and fantasies about Apple using my image globally. Neither of which realistically describe any imaginary loss I may suffer.

So you are saying that your image is totally worthless ? - from what ive seen of your work thats distinctly not the case.

In terms of what you are losing by giving someone else your copyright you lose

the ability to enter the picture in any other competition
the ability to sell or give the picture to anyone else
the ability to post the picture on any internet forum , website, or social media
any control over how the picture is used
any right to be acknowledged as the originator of the picture
the ability to legally print the picture or indeed use it in anyway at all

Personally i'd have said that those losses were of some value ... of course bernie et al may well be right that you could 'get away with' violating the copyright in various ways because BA might not care , but the point remains that the picture would no longer legally be yours.

If you are happy to exchange the use (in all forms) of that picture and all identical copies for the slim chance to win a prize then thats fair enough - my issue ist with people making the informed decision, its with people who don't understand what they are giving up being hoodwinked by the T&C

Course it also depends on what the prize is , if it was say half a million quid and a night with angelina jolie , then yes its probably worth exchanging your image right for a slim chance of winning - but in this case the 'lucky' winner gets the right to work for free for BA producing more images that they also won't retain copyright to , so in essence you would be giving up your image rights for the chance of giving up more image rights... yeah okay ... erm

 

[Steve]

So you are saying that your image is totally worthless ? - from what ive seen of your work thats distinctly not the case.

In terms of what you are losing by giving someone else your copyright you lose

the ability to enter the picture in any other competition
the ability to sell or give the picture to anyone else
the ability to post the picture on any internet forum , website, or social media
any control over how the picture is used
any right to be acknowledged as the originator of the picture
the ability to legally print the picture or indeed use it in anyway at all

Personally i'd have said that those losses were of some value ... of course bernie et al may well be right that you could 'get away with' violating the copyright in various ways because BA might not care , but the point remains that the picture would no longer legally be yours.

If you are happy to exchange the use (in all forms) of that picture and all identical copies for the slim chance to win a prize then thats fair enough - my issue ist with people making the informed decision, its with people who don't understand what they are giving up being hoodwinked by the T&C

Course it also depends on what the prize is , if it was say half a million quid and a night with angelina jolie , then yes its probably worth exchanging your image right for a slim chance of winning - but in this case the 'lucky' winner gets the right to work for free for BA producing more images that they also won't retain copyright to , so in essence you would be giving up your image rights for the chance of giving up more image rights... yeah okay ... erm

Pete,

Thanks for the kind comments about my work.

I don't view my work as worthless. I get a lot of satisfaction from producing it and showing it to family and friends. I use family and friends a lot as models, so the photos have an added sentimental value to them.

So worth something to me, but have little or no commercial value.

And realistically what is the commercial value of a photo? Answer - whatever someone is willing to pay for it. ie the market value.

So lets try and value a photo of mine. Take this one:

Media City by SteveGam, on Flickr

I took it as a series of photos of Media City for my photography evening class a while ago, and it helped me get a good grade. The tutor and other students thought this was my best photo from the series. So I got it printed and framed on the wall. People who saw it said they liked it. I entered it into the POTY competition on this forum and was pleased with a second place finish. The photo has done all that I wanted it to, and has more than repaid the cost of taking it. The photo owes me nothing. But if I did want to monetise it...how much would it be worth? Well on Shutterstock there are many many photos of Media city that are much better than mine. And the cost to buy one for a 250,000 print run? .... £6, so I assume the photographer gets £3?

So a commercial value of £3 for my photo seems reasonable? So not worthless, but of little commercial value.

And yes, I know that I could get repeat sales and that I couldn't use the photo again if I gave the rights away. But lets be realistic. I've read threads on this forum that to make any money from stock you need a portfolio in the thousands. And that the majority of photos will never ever be sold It's very hard to make a convincing and realistic argument that any of my photos are worth more than £3, and more probably nil.

Yes, Apple could swoop in and want to buy it for £x thousand, but that's about as likely as me winning the lottery tonight.

I agree that the BA competition prize is not worth winning for me, but its the prize rather than the T&C that stops me entering.

 

[Furtim]

Pete even by your low standards, that was utter tripe. Perhaps you'd explain the connection between policing and this?


David

I am fully aware of what is being put forward as an objection, and that isn't the point I am countering. If anyone (and that is me in this case) doesn't like the T&C's, we don't have to enter the competition.

Right, so hopefully we are agreed on that?

Good. However, if someone else looks at the T&C's and thinks, OK I can live with that if BA go for the worst case scenario on me using my masterpiece, then what right has anyone here to stop, or try and stop them? None.

So hopefully, we are still agreed (See Pete, sod all to do with Policing or aviation. So stop talking rubbish there's a good chap!). Splendid.

So the point here is simply this, BA have the right to impose whatever conditions they like. We, the public have every right to decide if we want to enter their competition. If both parties agree then great, competition happens, someone wins, BA get their photos to stick in the in flight magazine that no one really reads, everyone is happy.

As to what you can do or not do once you have entered, OK, BA now own the copyright. In theory yes, they can stop you doing anything they like with that picture. But will they? are these scare tactics the reality? I asked if you'd checked BA's previous for a reason. A friend of mine entered something similar, same T&C's, wrote to the airline concerned afterwards, and was told in writing he could do whatever he wanted with the picture he entered. So he promptly had it published in a travel magazine and was paid for it.

So my point is that Copyright means (in this case) BA can, not will.

So taken in entirety, people have the right to enter what they want, no one on here has the right to try to prevent them. I accept that pointing out the pitfalls is a good thing, but most of that pointing out has gone well beyond the line of fantasy. Yes, giving BA copyright can lead to hell and damnation, but does not mean it will. That's really all there is to it. Take away Pete's rantings (and I am still struggling with his connections!) ,the fantasy scenarios, assumption that photographers are idiots who can't read, and this is a whole lot of fuss about nothing at all.

Bernie,

Perhaps I might pose my question slightly differently

A. Would you prefer BA had imposed T&C's that allow them to do whatever they want with your photograph, and also let you do the same?

or

B. Would you prefer BA to impose T&C that allow them to do whatever they want with your photograph, but prevent you legally from doing so unless you sought permission from BA?

To be clear, I'm firmly in the 'A' camp.

 

[Diving Pete]

Bernie,



B. Would you prefer BA to impose T&C that allow them to do whatever they want with your photograph, but prevent you legally from doing so unless you sought permission from BA?

Furtim,

Actually your B. isn't even correct. its worse than that.

Would you prefer BA to impose T&C that allow them to do whatever they want with your photograph, but prevent you legally from doing so unless THEY GRANT YOU permission?

 

[Diving Pete]

& I'm also in the A camp.

 

[Tintin124]

Pete,

Thanks for the kind comments about my work.

I don't view my work as worthless. I get a lot of satisfaction from producing it and showing it to family and friends. I use family and friends a lot as models, so the photos have an added sentimental value to them.

So worth something to me, but have little or no commercial value.

And realistically what is the commercial value of a photo? Answer - whatever someone is willing to pay for it. ie the market value.

So lets try and value a photo of mine. Take this one:

Media City by SteveGam, on Flickr

I took it as a series of photos of Media City for my photography evening class a while ago, and it helped me get a good grade. The tutor and other students thought this was my best photo from the series. So I got it printed and framed on the wall. People who saw it said they liked it. I entered it into the POTY competition on this forum and was pleased with a second place finish. The photo has done all that I wanted it to, and has more than repaid the cost of taking it. The photo owes me nothing. But if I did want to monetise it...how much would it be worth? Well on Shutterstock there are many many photos of Media city that are much better than mine. And the cost to buy one for a 250,000 print run? .... £6, so I assume the photographer gets £3?

So a commercial value of £3 for my photo seems reasonable? So not worthless, but of little commercial value.

And yes, I know that I could get repeat sales and that I couldn't use the photo again if I gave the rights away. But lets be realistic. I've read threads on this forum that to make any money from stock you need a portfolio in the thousands. And that the majority of photos will never ever be sold It's very hard to make a convincing and realistic argument that any of my photos are worth more than £3, and more probably nil.

Yes, Apple could swoop in and want to buy it for £x thousand, but that's about as likely as me winning the lottery tonight.

I agree that the BA competition prize is not worth winning for me, but its the prize rather than the T&C that stops me entering.

The T&C's wouldnt allow you to post your image as above. In fact you would no longer own the image Essentially.

 

[Steve]

The T&C's wouldnt allow you to post your image as above. In fact you would no longer own the image Essentially.

I understand that and that's fine. As I was saying the photo has served it's purpose. It owes me nothing. It has little or zero commercial value. I'm really not bothered if I have to delete it from Flickr and never use it again.

 

[TheBigYin]

I understand that and that's fine. As I was saying the photo has served it's purpose. It owes me nothing. It has little or zero commercial value. I'm really not bothered if I have to delete it from Flickr and never use it again.

And presumably be happy to take down your framed print and destroy it...

 

[Steve]

And presumably be happy to take down your framed print and destroy it...

No I would keep it on the wall. The point I was making was about the realistic consequences of entering. And while retaining a print on my wall would contravene the T&C it is not realistically enforceable to prevent me having it on the wall. Whereas it might be realistic to make me remove it from Flickr which I would not be bothered about.

I emphasise realistic here as several posts in this thread have made some fanciful claims about what an entrant could lose by entering. All I'm trying to illustrate is that imo the true loss is negligible or non existent

 

[StephenM]

I personally wouldn't be happy about breaking both the law and my word simply because I didn't think I'd be caught. But that's just me.

On topic - I wouldn't enter given those terms because BA are richer than me, so I see no need to give them anything for nothing. But then, I'm a Yorkshireman. Whatever the prize is worth, I suspect that BA wouldn't fund the competition unless they were making a profit from it, either from the publicity or the store of images they'll garner from the entrants (probably the former, but I don't know what they'll have submitted).

 

[Nod]

No I would keep it on the wall. And while retaining a print on my wall would contravene the T&C it is not realistically enforceable to prevent me having it on the wall.

Please excuse the snip of the parts relevant to my question which is would keeping a print made before the image was entered in the competition contravene the T&Cs or copyright laws?

 

[Bernie174]

Bernie,

Perhaps I might pose my question slightly differently

A. Would you prefer BA had imposed T&C's that allow them to do whatever they want with your photograph, and also let you do the same?

or

B. Would you prefer BA to impose T&C that allow them to do whatever they want with your photograph, but prevent you legally from doing so unless you sought permission from BA?

To be clear, I'm firmly in the 'A' camp.

You question is utterly pointless, as I already answered in saying I wouldn't enter because I don't like the T&C's.

However, I am not the rest of the population, and as I keep repeating because the simple and essential point in all this is constantly being missed, it is up to the individual what they do, if they are happy with the T&C's then good luck to them. If others aren't then don't enter it.

Like it or not, it's BA's ball, they can make up any rules they like, which they have. What they do to enforce those is a different matter, and frankly I am not convinced that they would be as prescriptive as some assume they will be. I'd also question some of the scare stories being touted. But thats a different subject. This is a large fuss being made by people who have decided that anyone who wants to enter this competition are somehow stupid, or find comprehension difficult. In actual; fact its about personal freedom to do what people like provided they agree with the terms, and not have that choice dictated to by those who've chosen to not do something.

 

[Furtim]

You question is utterly pointless, as I already answered in saying I wouldn't enter because I don't like the T&C's.

However, I am not the rest of the population, and as I keep repeating because the simple and essential point in all this is constantly being missed, it is up to the individual what they do, if they are happy with the T&C's then good luck to them. If others aren't then don't enter it.

Like it or not, it's BA's ball, they can make up any rules they like, which they have. What they do to enforce those is a different matter, and frankly I am not convinced that they would be as prescriptive as some assume they will be. I'd also question some of the scare stories being touted. But thats a different subject. This is a large fuss being made by people who have decided that anyone who wants to enter this competition are somehow stupid, or find comprehension difficult. In actual; fact its about personal freedom to do what people like provided they agree with the terms, and not have that choice dictated to by those who've chosen to not do something.

It's not utterly pointless, but I'll concede it's a point I'm failing to get across, so one last attempt before I move on.

I'm going to start with your last point.

In actual; fact its about personal freedom to do what people like provided they agree with the terms, and not have that choice dictated to by those who've chosen to not do something.

I agree 100%. But this is not the point I'm making.

Let's try an analogy. Something both true and close to my heart; my son has recently booked his driving theory test. He did so online. He Googled it, selected the top most result in Google, went onto an official looking site and paid £50 to book his test. Job done. He knew he was booking a theory test, his free choice, £50 seemed quite normal for him based on the other costs associated with learning to drive so he willingly parted with the cash.

Now my son can be a bit of a cocky sod, so suffice to say, no revision, so he failed his theory first time around.

Three months later, it's time to re-book, but he's a bit short of cash so I offer to pay. Off we go again, onto Google, search, but wait... I'm a bit more savvy than my delightful offspring when it comes to these things having spent many a year dealing with phishing sites. I notice the top result is a paid advert, and while it does take you to a very official government style site, I know it's not the official one. So I pick the official site of the list, and low and behold, it's a mere £25 for the theory test.

Now if I follow your line of reasoning, I should sit down, shut up and do nothing at all to raise awareness that the first site is essentially ripping people off. Sure it books the test for you, but it has no added value at all over the official site, it's just a paid for honey pot to grab £25 from people who don't know any better - but hey, it's their choice to pay £50.

These are not stupid people, they are just less knowledgable than others in the area of how much a test should cost and that these sites exist. Is it not the right thing to do to try to educate and inform people so they can make a better choice (better in this case being saving £25)?

This is the point I am making. With an understanding of what handing over copyright actually means, I consider BA's terms a bit of a rip off, and I think people should be made aware of what they are really giving up when then enter.

By acting as an apologist for BA you're just masking the issue. What BA might or might not let you do with the photo you used to own before you entered it is irrelevant. The point is BA, by taking copyright from a great many people who won't understand what it really means are no better than the example above. It's unnecessary and particularly bad form from a major corporation.

I repeat one final time - this is not about freedom to choose. It is only about raising awareness to enable informed choices to be made.

 

[Steve]

It's not utterly pointless, but I'll concede it's a point I'm failing to get across, so one last attempt before I move on.

I'm going to start with your last point.



I agree 100%. But this is not the point I'm making.

Let's try an analogy. Something both true and close to my heart; my son has recently booked his driving theory test. He did so online. He Googled it, selected the top most result in Google, went onto an official looking site and paid £50 to book his test. Job done. He knew he was booking a theory test, his free choice, £50 seemed quite normal for him based on the other costs associated with learning to drive so he willingly parted with the cash.

Now my son can be a bit of a cocky sod, so suffice to say, no revision, so he failed his theory first time around.

Three months later, it's time to re-book, but he's a bit short of cash so I offer to pay. Off we go again, onto Google, search, but wait... I'm a bit more savvy than my delightful offspring when it comes to these things having spent many a year dealing with phishing sites. I notice the top result is a paid advert, and while it does take you to a very official government style site, I know it's not the official one. So I pick the official site of the list, and low and behold, it's a mere £25 for the theory test.

Now if I follow your line of reasoning, I should sit down, shut up and do nothing at all to raise awareness that the first site is essentially ripping people off. Sure it books the test for you, but it has no added value at all over the official site, it's just a paid for honey pot to grab £25 from people who don't know any better - but hey, it's their choice to pay £50.

These are not stupid people, they are just less knowledgable than others in the area of how much a test should cost and that these sites exist. Is it not the right thing to do to try to educate and inform people so they can make a better choice (better in this case being saving £25)?

This is the point I am making. With an understanding of what handing over copyright actually means, I consider BA's terms a bit of a rip off, and I think people should be made aware of what they are really giving up when then enter.

By acting as an apologist for BA you're just masking the issue. What BA might or might not let you do with the photo you used to own before you entered it is irrelevant. The point is BA, by taking copyright from a great many people who won't understand what it really means are no better than the example above. It's unnecessary and particularly bad form from a major corporation.

I repeat one final time - this is not about freedom to choose. It is only about raising awareness to enable informed choices to be made.

David,

Not sure the driving test is a good analogy as that is an easily quantifiable loss of £25.00 by incurring unnecessary expenditure.

By entering this competition there is no expenditure. You are spending nothing, and are merely foregoing some unknown and unquantifiable notional income from the transfer of the copyright.

And this is my issue in this thread that some posters have made inflated claims of what you are foregoing, whereas in my opinion as stated above the true realistic 'loss' is insignificant and in all likelihood zero.

 

[Furtim]

David,

Not sure the driving test is a good analogy as that is an easily quantifiable loss of £25.00 by incurring unnecessary expenditure.

By entering this competition there is no expenditure. You are spending nothing, and are merely foregoing some unknown and unquantifiable notional income from the transfer of the copyright.

And this is my issue in this thread that some posters have made inflated claims of what you are foregoing, whereas in my opinion as stated above the true realistic 'loss' is insignificant and in all likelihood zero.

Steve, to my mind the loss is easy to identify. I'm not talking untold millions in potential sales, just the basics here; the image is no longer yours. You can't share it, print it, upload it, edit it. That loss of freedom is the unnecessary bit in my eyes.

 

[Steve]

Steve, to my mind the loss is easy to identify. I'm not talking untold millions in potential sales, just the basics here; the image is no longer yours. You can't share it, print it, upload it, edit it. That loss of freedom is the unnecessary bit in my eyes.

David,
Totally agree, and its up to people to judge what that means for them.

 

[Bernie174]

David

Its a terrible analogy, and 2 separate things, but they share 1 essential item in common. That is read the T&C's! One, the DVLA style web site is intended to make money for the owner, it has no other use, and I was under the impression those sites were being closed down.
BA do not, in spite of what you and some others think have any intention to rip you off, for them its a cheap way to gather photos that may, and most probably wont, be of use to them. BA aren't hiding the T&C's, they aren't trying to tell anything false. The web site you mention is doing its best to hide what it is.

Yes, BA's T&C's are a rip off but, only if, want to use a photo you've entered, and if and only if BA stick to the letter of the law. Neither of those 2 are a given, no matter what you assume. If you are happy with that then there's no rip off, simply because you are happy with the terms. in the same way as some people are happy to have someone fill in a form for DVLA or for a PPI claim and then pay them to do it.

And thats the point at which if you don't like the T&C's, of this, and many other competitions, you should be pulling the plug, if that prospect makes you unhappy. These terms would only be unfair of you were forced to enter and forced to accept them, neither is the case.

No, this entire thread has nothing to do with raising awareness, its been about a few dictating and trying to impose their will, based on what they think. The informative bit was done and dusted by reply 2. Since then it has had nothing to do with that.

 

[Furtim]

No, this entire thread has nothing to do with raising awareness, its been about a few dictating and trying to impose their will, based on what they think. The informative bit was done and dusted by reply 2. Since then it has had nothing to do with that.

Where in any of my posts do I attempt to dictate or impose my will on anyone? Seriously - stop spewing your opinion as fact.

Yes, BA's T&C's are a rip off but, only if, want to use a photo you've entered, and if and only if BA stick to the letter of the law.

This is just wrong. You give away the rights to your photo on entering the photo, regardless of whether you win.

That is read the T&C's!

Please do. It might explain the point above.

Can you honestly say you always understand the all implications of the terms and conditions imposed on any contract you enter into? For me the answer is a categorical no. I welcome the sage and worldly advice of others in pointing out potential pitfalls, and request that they continue to do so for my and others benefits in the face of the minority who seem to equate education with an attack on freedom of choice.

 

[photogav]

Having read through the entire thread, I am beginning to wish I never started it. My intention was to highlight the fact British Airways is asking you to give them something you own. If you know that and the implications then by all means enter the competition. I couldn't care less if you know what you are doing. My original intention was to make people aware who didn't know the implications. I didn't expect a slanging match between pros and amateurs about money.

If anyone (pro or amateur) was thinking about entering this competition I hope some of what has been said here has made you look at the terms and conditions and consider the implications carefully. MOST competitions DO NOT ask for copyright. Ask yourself why that is before entering. That is all I set out to do because it annoyed me when I saw a large business asking the general public to give them something.

And one last point. Quite a few people have mentioned their pictures are not worth anything. Perhaps you should look at how advertising is being done on social media (which is more than just Facebook). More and more 'reality' style pictures are being used, just the sort of thing that will be entered for this competition.

 

[Bernie174]

No, this entire thread has nothing to do with raising awareness, its been about a few dictating and trying to impose their will, based on what they think. The informative bit was done and dusted by reply 2. Since then it has had nothing to do with that.
Where in any of my posts do I attempt to dictate or impose my will on anyone? Seriously - stop spewing your opinion as fact.

What a shame you didn't read what you have quoted. Did I say 'You'? No.

It's not opinion either, its simply the way this subject has gone.

Yes, BA's T&C's are a rip off but, only if, want to use a photo you've entered, and if and only if BA stick to the letter of the law.
This is just wrong. You give away the rights to your photo on entering the photo, regardless of whether you win.

Oh, it's wrong is it? So, you have irrefutable evidence that BA WILL stick to the letter of the law? Please produce that then. If you can't, and lets be honest here David, you can't, then it's not wrong at all is it? A tad hypocritical, you tell me (see above) to not express an opinion as fact, then do exactly that.

↑
That is read the T&C's!
Please do. It might explain the point above.

Can you honestly say you always understand the all implications of the terms and conditions imposed on any contract you enter into? For me the answer is a categorical no. I welcome the sage and worldly advice of others in pointing out potential pitfalls, and request that they continue to do so for my and others benefits in the face of the minority who seem to equate education with an attack on freedom of choice.

I have read the T&C's, but I wonder if you have. Also I think, you along with others are confusing can and will, nothing in copyright law says will, it all says can. I realise that is difficult to accept, and thew concept harms your theories badly, but because a copyright owner can do something it does not mean they will.

Yes, I do read and understand contracts before I sign, or I don't sign. The reason being that you'd be stupid to do so. It's really not that difficult.

 

[Furtim]

What a shame you didn't read what you have quoted. Did I say 'You'? No.

I read every word. You said "this entire thread has nothing to do with raising awareness, its been about a few dictating and trying to impose their will, based on what they think". The key word here is entire. As a contributor to the thread, by inference, my posts have "nothing to do with raising awareness".

Oh, it's wrong is it? So, you have irrefutable evidence that BA WILL stick to the letter of the law? Please produce that then. If you can't, and lets be honest here David, you can't, then it's not wrong at all is it? A tad hypocritical, you tell me (see above) to not express an opinion as fact, then do exactly that.

You said "Yes, BA's T&C's are a rip off but, only if, want to use a photo you've entered, and if and only if BA stick to the letter of the law"; I said "You give away the rights to your photo on entering the photo, regardless of whether you win"

Your assertion that the assignation of copyright only exists if they "want to use a photo you've entered" is wrong.

The relevant part to the T&Cs are here (and surprisingly, yes I read them too)...

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.

...nothing in copyright law says will, it all says can. I realise that is difficult to accept, and thew concept harms your theories badly, but because a copyright owner can do something it does not mean they will.

What theories? I'm not a conspiracist - my point all along has been two fold (1) Not everyone has a great understanding of what assigning copyright means, so let's educate them, and (2) BA are being a tad greedy in requiring copyright to be assigned.

It has absolutely nothing to do with whether I think BA will come knocking down on your door in a 3am raid - not that they could anyway - it's a civil matter. I don't get why you feel the need to extend the argument into fantasy land to make your point.

Yes, I do read and understand contracts before I sign, or I don't sign. The reason being that you'd be stupid to do so. It's really not that difficult.

My question was "Can you honestly say you always understand the all implications of the terms and conditions imposed on any contract you enter into?"

By definition, "implications" are not explicitly stated in the T&C, they are inferred or implied. A great many lawyers make a great deal of money arguing contradictory interpretations of even the most basic contracts, so my point here is that your often quoted "read the T&Cs" is not 100% protection against entering into a contract that doesn't perform quite as expected.

But to draw my involvement in all this to an end - Bernie, "Yes".

 

[TheBigYin]

Well - after a good read of this thread, It's clear that there's a couple of opposing views, each with pretty much entrenched outlooks...

Out of interest I did a quick google for "BA Photo Competition Rights Grab" - it seems we're second in the charts with this thread.

View attachment 32225

For what it's worth - we get various emails from companies asking if they can promote their competitions on TP. The first question we ask in these cases are "What are the Terms and Conditions" - anything that is an obvious "rights grab" gets placed firmly on the "not on your life pal" spike, and the organiser generally gets an email telling them exactly WHY we wouldn't promote it, or allow it to be promoted on here - and, if a member mentions it on the forum, one or another of the staff will try and mention to "read the T&C's as it's a rights grab" - we don't actively post "watch out" notices, as that would give the competition free publicity (of a sort at least)

For the people who consider it an outrage that BA are behaving this way, I suggest that you actually follow the link that comes out on top..

http://artists-bill-of-rights.org/competition-lists/rights-off-list/british-airways-inspire-us/

where at the bottom of the page is a suggestion of what action you can take to inform BA that they're behaving in a manner that's frankly a little bit "off".

In short, if you think it's wrong what they're doing, WRITE TO BA, because that would be a better use of your time than arguing with people on here that will never see your viewpoint. If by doing so, we can create a bit of a PR nightmare for BA, all the better - they may desist from these rights-grabs in the future.

There's enough information in this thread to inform anyone who's not aware of the legal implications of the whole rights grab thing, and frankly, I can only see this thread descending into round after round of circular bickering, which in the end makes everyone involved look a little silly, and doesn't reflect particularly well on the forum either. Even the thread starter has said he's beginning to wish he never started it.

So... I guess what I'm saying folks is... If you want to vent your spleen any further - do it in the general direction of BA, and meanwhile, mind the doors.

 

[TheBigYin]

UPDATE to this Story...

HERE