big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
.... I should have sent BA some of those.
you could have named them "Paint BAlls "
.... I should have sent BA some of those.
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'.... 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.
...
Personally, I'm happy to work for free for people I like, or for a good cause,
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!
Well don 't enter it then if thats how you feel! But on the other hand, if someone enters, knowing the possible consequences who are you to dictate to them?
It's really as simple as that.
Well don 't enter it then if thats how you feel! But on the other hand, if someone enters, knowing the possible consequences who are you to dictate to them?
It's really as simple as that.
I think you'll find it's BA who are doing the dictating.
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.Well don 't enter it then if thats how you feel! But on the other hand, if someone enters, knowing the possible consequences who are you to dictate to them?
It's really as simple as that.
Why do we have to assume people are stupid?
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?
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. .
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.
Can this trend be reverse; I do not think it can be,
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'.
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.
Giving BA copyright does not stop you printing out a copy for mum, it doesn't stop you leaving it on flikr.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But Bernie, it's not about if, buts and maybe's.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.
No, you see this is the problem, in your rush to join the hysteria you are assuming that BA WILL forbid..
If someone walks up to you in the street and politely asks for your mobile phone, he is still mugging you.
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.
Copyright owners generally have the right to authorise or prohibit any of the following things in relation to their works:
Copyright is infringed when any of the above acts are done without permission, whether directly or indirectly and whether the whole or a substantial part of a work is used, unless what is done falls within the scope of exceptions to copyright permitting certain minor uses.
- copying the work in any way. For example, photocopying, reproducing a printed page by handwriting, typing or scanning into a computer, or making a copy of recorded music
- issuing copies of the work to the public
- renting or lending copies of the work to the public. However, some lending of copyright works falls within the Public Lending Right Scheme and this lending does not infringe copyright
- performing, showing or playing the work in public. Obvious examples are performing plays and music, playing sound recordings and showing films or videos in public. Letting a broadcast be seen or heard in public also involves performance of music and other copyright material contained in the broadcast
- broadcasting the work or other communication to the public by electronic transmission. This includes putting copyright material on the internet or using it in an on demand service where members of the public choose the time that the work is sent to them
- making an adaptation of the work, such as by translating a literary or dramatic work, transcribing a musical work and converting a computer program into a different computer language or code
Copyright is essentially a private right so decisions about how to enforce your right, that is what to do when your copyright work is used without your permission, are generally for you to take.
Deliberate infringement of copyright on a commercial scale may be a criminal offence.
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):
.
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....
You're perfectly entitled to......
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.
But then you'd not be able to hang a copy on your wall.And if it was a decent prize I thought I had a chance of winning I would enter even with those T&C
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.
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.