Competitions for image collections – the new future?

I almost fell off my chair today – while reading the newspaper (The Age), I noticed a little advertisement on the bottom of one of the pages pointing me towards the “Clique Photographers Association” – it reads like it is a membership club for amateur photographers where you can enter competitions to win prizes. Sounds innocent enough on the surface…

Why did I almost fall off my chair? Well, the site wants people to join the club, submit images that Clique and Fairfax Media can use without restriction (including editing), and they want you to PAY for the privilege ($50 yearly entry fee). I’m sorry, what? Is it just me or does that seem like a couple of very large media companies want amateurs to do their legwork for them, get them to pay for memberships as well, and the images can be used for anything?? Amazing, where do I sign up??

——–
** Update 11th Dec: ** It would appear the lovely folks over at Arts Law are on the case, having reviewed the T&Cs of a number of competitions and rated them on fairness to artists. Guess what – Clique (along with Australian Photography + Digital Magazine) fared the worst, stating that their broad license and no restriction on duration are “unlikely to be necessary to achieve the competition organisers’ desired outcomes”.

I would (perhaps cynically) suggest that both competitions who rated the worst are run by media companies where their unrestricted licensing and broad purpose conditions suit the “desired outcomes” perfectly, if we are to assume that the intent of the competitions is something more than innocent fun for amateurs. If you can get away with having amateurs pay you to submit images for any use desired, why not try it on??

You can read the Arts Law competition assessment here

** Further update: ** Gets worse – thought I would quickly see which famous pro shooters are advocates of artist rights and support copyright protections for artist works. Who better to start with than a shooter I’ve always admired, Chase Jarvis (search through my posts, there’s more than a passing reference in there!). Everyone’s blog is searchable these days, so a quick search for “copyright” uncovered this unfortunate result…

(ii) You grant to Sponsor [Chase Jarvis Inc] the non-exclusive license and right to use, copy, distribute, perform, display, create derivative works of, edit, alter, adapt, exhibit, post, reproduce and adapt the Content and to include the Content in promotional, publicity, social media and any other materials related to the Contest in perpetuity and throughout the universe in all media and using any technologies now known or later invented. In no event shall this grant of rights be deemed to transfer ownership of the Content to Sponsor. The Content may be used alone or combined with other materials at Sponsor’s sole discretion.

Seriously Chase? The “universe”, on “later invented” tech?? I think that’s possibly the broadest I’ve seen yet… At least Chase isn’t getting comp entrants to pay for entry (that I know of). The shine on my admiration just dulled a bit…

——-

The great thing about the Clique model is that the “competitions” can be for images that are on topics they need some current content for – why pay any of the stock agencies if you can run a competition to get a stack of potentially suitable images with very low investment. The “prizes” are largely provided by sponsors or are already basically free/low cost to Fairfax (a framed print and a portfolio review??) – so Fairfax have to outlay very little investment to get this entire thing off the ground.

The Clique Terms and Conditions can be found here, but the bit you want to read is:

each participant grants the Organiser (and its related bodies corporate) an irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide licence to deal with participants’ images (in any format):
b. for any implied purpose associated with the Program…

In Australia there is often confusion between economic and moral rights as they pertain to copyright – basically, you can assign or transfer economic rights under terms like these (“Sure you can use my images and I won’t ask you for money in future”), but you can’t assign or transfer moral rights (“hey, that photo was taken by me, where’s my credit?”). So, while photographers entering the Clique competitions have to be OK with possibly never being paid for their work just to try and win a sponsored printer worth around $650, there is nothing at all mentioned in the Terms and Conditions about getting attribution when the image is used for “implied purposes”:

For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing licence entitles the Organiser to reformat any image for the purpose of publication or display.
You will not bring any claim against the Organiser for infringement of your moral rights in the image.

The Fairfax Terms and Conditions are much less friendly (if that’s even possible) and you need to agree to both sets when you sign up:

By uploading, transmitting, posting or otherwise making available any Material via the Fairfax Network, you:
(a) grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, licence to use, reproduce, edit and exploit the Material in any form and for any purpose;

Fiarfax also try to take it a step further, and it’s hard to tell if their terms are simply out of date or they are trying to go that little bit further:

(e) unconditionally waive all moral rights (as defined by the Copyright Act 1968) which you may have in respect of the Material.

I’m not even sure if it’s possible to set terms to waive all moral rights, perhaps decide for yourself with reference to copyright.com.au (or get a lawyer to advise!).

Interestingly, Clique does not appear to be open to Professional (accredited) photographers, by specifically stating on the first page of the terms that it is only open to amateurs (although the FAQs allow it). The crux of the problem for CLique (and others) is that their terms are simply much too broad for the intended outcome, making it seem like the competition is a front for some other intended outcome. If it’s really a competition, drop the duration down to 12 months and restrict the use to be purposes only related to the competition!! All other uses (including derivatives and undefined purposes) just make it look like you are harvesting content from suckers!!

I hope all photographers, amateur or professional, make sure they stay informed of their rights and be particularly diligent when signing on to participate in “competitions” – always read the fine print, and ask yourself who’s really benefiting from your hard work.