man & nature # 3 ~ the f***ing scumbags never quit
Monday, March 31, 2008 at 01:54PM 
After the sun goes down • click to embiggenFYI for those of you linking from adirondackbasecamp.com - you may want to read today's ... what you pay for entry as well.
On my recent entry, living large in the Adirondacks, Sean wrote : "Our last economic development officer kept suggesting that I should "donate" images to her very well funded (using my tax dollars) office ... I told her I would be thrilled to just as soon as my much anticipated "donation" of a 1Ds MkIII arrived from Canon. I'm still waiting for it."
It's hard to criticize too severely (but not without some vigor) someone for trying to get something for nothing while stating so in a forthright manner - that seems to be part of human nature - but when they do it with a slight-of-hand photo-rights grab photo contest they have stepped over the line. At that point they are nothing more or less than scam artists.
Copyright and use-right issues can be an expensive and tricky business when dealing with most professional photographers and with a substantial number of informed amateurs. Corporations and professional organizations, to include tourism organizations, are acutely aware of this. Rights-grab photo contests are their way of avoiding the issue.
What easier way to get pictures for nothing than to prey on and take advantage of the uniformed.
Although, greater legal minds than mine will have to grapple with the legality of this practice. What I do know is that copyright law states that:
§ 204. Execution of transfers of copyright ownership
(a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent.
Whether a mouse click check mark on an online Terms & Agreement statement qualifies as "in writing" and "signed by the owner of the rights conveyed", is probably open to question. Maybe it's legal, maybe not. I don't know, but, there's "legal" and then there's "ethical".
Some major corporations - HP and Adobe amongst them - have been caught with their hand in this cookie jar and been roundly castigated for it. For the most part, their response has been to issue a 'humble' mea coupa, then blame the lawyers, and then to promise to never do it again. There is little doubt that they didn't know exactly what they were doing. The only thing they didn't know was the amount of outrage that they would encounter.
That said, the practice is not about to go away any time soon. Sad to say, a tourism organization in the Adirondacks - The Adirondack Regional Tourism Council - has been conducting an ongoing photo contest with exactly the same MO. In order to merely submit a picture to the "contest", a person must agree to terms and conditions that state (in part):
... I agree that all photographs submitted shall become the property of The Adirondack Regional Tourism Council (ARTC). ARTC reserves the non-exclusive right to use any photograph(s) in publications or for promotional purposes...
In the pre-rights grab past, no such blanket conditions existed just to enter a photo contest. Winners were often required to grant use rights to the contest sponsor for promotional use relative to the contest but rarely, if ever, to the sponsor for use in their business advertising. It should also be noted that, even in the era of the rights-grab, there are still many photo contest sponsors who do not practice such scam-artist grabs. More power to them.
As an example, from the T&C of a photo contest sponsored by Nikon:
The organizer reserves the permanent nonexclusive right to publish, reproduce, display, distribute, and show on screen any winning photograph on Web sites, photo exhibitions, tradeshows, or any other media which is under the management of the organizer for the purpose of promoting the contest .... A separate agreement will need to be reached should the organizer, its subsidiaries or affiliates wish to publish a submitted photograph for purposes other than the promotion of the contest (my emphasis).
As for the people at the ARTC and those who convinced them to engage in rights-grab activities under the guise of a photo contest, I hope they all lose their jobs and have to beg on street corners. And, as long as I'm hoping for the best, I hope they all lose their jobs and have to beg on street corners for rest of their lives. Seriously. Hell, while I'm at it, I hope they're all young so that the rest of their lives is a really, really long time.
Any questions about where I stand on this issue?
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: TourPro wrote: "I will be the first to admit that the boilerplate agreement that folks are forced to 'agree' to is lame ... I'm all for rewarding people for their work, but with the changing technological landscape, new business models are a must."
TourPro also asked: "How would you counsel a business when it comes to User Generated Content?"
my response: before I answer TourPro's question, I want to address this notion - that, under the guise of a "changing technological landscape", the "lame" practice of forcing folks to "agree" to "boilerplate agreement"(s) that negates "rewarding people for their work", constitutes a "new business model"?
Bullshit. You can put any kind of spin you want on the age-old practice of getting something for nothing, but one thing it is not is a "new business model". Scam artists, operating under all manner of guises, and outright thieves have been doing that for centuries. Calling it a "new business model" is simply consummate huckser-ism at its best.
As for stretching the definition of UGC to include the self-serving mining of sites that have UGC content - discussion boards, blogs, social networking sites, experience or photo sharing sites - for out-of-site and uncompensated commercial gain, I don't buy it.
If the ARTC were interested in building an online site devoted to the sharing of Adirondack pictures, UGC, from which they gained a significant amount of PR value, I have no problem at all with that. IMO, that's a smart and ethical business practice. Then, "the masses of folks that just like to share the pictures they take" can, in fact, share them with their peers.
But, to cynically grab reproduction rights, without any compensation whatsoever, from those who are motivated to connect with peers, achieve a certain level of notoriety, fame, or recognition ("nice photo, dude"), or to simply express themselves, is, IMO, preying upon the desires of others.
To my knowledge, I have never heard one of those "folks" state that one of their life-desires was to take pictures, without being rewarded for their work, that others could use, BTW - for ever and ever, for commercial gain. Really. I've never heard anyone say that. Have you?
Reader Comments (8)
I feel your pain.
I will be the first to admit that the boilerplate agreement that folks are forced to 'agree' to is lame. I'm just happy they are taking Adirondack photos.
We want to make sure that we can use the pictures without fear. Personally, I would release them with a Creative Commons license for the whole world to use. But it's no skin off my nose.
As a professional photographer, I'm sure the democratization of the technology and means of distribution is disturbing. Isn't that the real issue here - Intellectual property rights? I'm all for rewarding people for their work, but with the changing technological landscape, new business models are a must.
I think your characterization of the ARTC "preying on the uninformed" is insulting to the masses of folks that just like to share the pictures they take. Have you seen the size of one such community like Flickr?
How would you counsel a business when it comes to User Generated Content?
I saw a "rights grab" contest where the promoters claimed that full rights transfer was required in order to allow them to use the images for a specified brochure (one of the prizes was publication in said brochure).
There are times when contest promoters need more education. Sometimes I think they're just lazy but then the devil gains by the good doing nothing.
"I think your characterization of the ARTC "preying on the uninformed" is insulting to the masses of folks that just like to share the pictures they take. Have you seen the size of one such community like Flickr?"
Sharing photos on a hosting site like Flickr or PhotoBucket is not the same as giving up control of usage rights to an entity whose sole purposes is to maximize the customer base (profits) of area for-profit businesses. In essence, their publications are giant advertisements.
What would be wrong with paying photographers, pro or amateur, for their images?
Wow, apparently this is a touchy subject.
I had a long thoughtful response, but it sounded too serious. Believe it or not, I've got to get back to approving photo submissions.
Mark: The "donation" discussion with the former EDO only occurred after I ignored multiple prompts on her part to enter my images into a photo contest she had organized (with a junky camera as a reward).
TourPro: I agree that new business models are needed. Unfortunately I'm going to have to wait for Canon to start handing out free bodies and L lenses and the local petrol stations to start pumping free fuel before I'm in a position to start giving away photo rights. It's that whole damn "trickle down" thing, y'know?
Basil Bunting, "What the Chairman Told Tom".
What about photos of a person, taken on a family outing, that then wind up in some magazine or travel guide? What about the use of the image of a woman and the dog who lives in her house?
I've often thought of running a similar contest for housing contractors in my city. "Build the very best house you can, I'll judge the submissions, and the winner gets the honour of having me live in it." Talk about a new business model!