More on Photographic Competitions

I have spoken about Photography competitions before - but only about the local "League" ones. Today, I am going to talk about a competition run by a commercial entity here in Scotland.
The Whitelee Windfarm is currently "planting" huge windmills over the Eaglesham moor, about 20 minutes from central Glasgow. They are owned (apparently) by ScottishPower, and are making all the right environmental noises on their web site. I have no issue with this aspect of their operation.
What I do have issue with is the use of a "photographic competition" that is nothing more than a "picture rights grab".
Whitelee (or ScottishPower) have decided that getting amateurs to submit photographs in the hope of winning a £130 point and shoot camera is the best way to get images that they can then use for publicity purposes.

Nothing wrong with that, you say?
And I might have agreed with you if I had not read the "Terms and Conditions" closely.

Number 13 states:
"All entries must be the original work of the entrant and must not infringe the rights of any other party. The entrants must be the sole owner of copyright in all photographs entered and are responsible for obtaining all third party permissions to the taking of the photographs and use of those photographs in accordance with these terms and conditions. In particular, you represent and warrant that consent has been obtained from any clearly identifiable person appearing in any image to the taking of the image and the use of that image in accordance with these terms and conditions. Further, entrants must not have breached any laws when taking their photographs."

So, it needs to be your own work - fair enough. You must have had permission to enter and shoot on the land from which you took the photo, and if there is a recognisable person in the shot, you need a model release. And lastly, the photograph must have been taken lawfully.
Simple for a professional, onerous for an amateur.

Lets look at number 14:
"Entrants must not have offered any of their entries for sale or been paid for any publication of any of their entries. In addition, all images submitted must not have been published elsewhere or have won a prize in any other photographic competition."

So, basically, they are looking for new images that have not been published, even on your own website, or your flickr or facebook page. They want you to go out and get new pictures for them.

Lets see what no 15. says:
"Entrants will retain copyright in the photographs that they submit to the competition. By entering the competition all entrants grant to ScottishPower Renewables a royalty-free worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual right to use, publish, reproduce and exhibit any or all of that entrant's submitted photographs in any media format in any of its publications, websites and/or in any promotional or marketing material and to grant such rights to any third party to do same. This may include, but is not limited to, use of the photographs in accordance with paragraph 12 above. No fees will be payable for any of the above uses or for any of the rights granted by entrants hereunder. Entrants whose photographs are one of the Top Ten also agree to take part in post-competition publicity. While ScottishPower Renewables makes every effort to credit photographers, including in printed reproductions of their work, it cannot guarantee that every use of the photographs will include photographers’ names."


Basically, you give up all rights (except copyright) for any use of the image forever, while ScottishPower go on using it for nothing in any form (even ones not invented yet) - and they can assign the right to use it to third parties (i.e. anyone else they want) - and this not only pertains to the winners, but to all entries. On top of that, the top ten have to help publicise the windfarm, and it is not even guaranteed that you will get a mention!

Let's put this in perspective.
The conditions of this competition would not be accepted by a professional photographer without a substantial fee - the licensing provisions are simply too broad. They negate the use of the image for any other purpose that might earn the professional some income - nobody wants to use an image closely associated with another business.
So Scottish Power have decided it is cheaper (both in terms of publicising their Windfarm, and in getting some images that they can use for any purpose forever) to offer a pitiful "prize" instead of paying out £1000's per image to a professional.

Bottom line? You're legally responsible for everything about the picture - if you are not in the top ten you get nothing, and your pictures could still be used under the conditions stated above. If you are in the Top Ten, but not in the top three, you get a "goodie bag" with unknown contents. What's the bet it contains promotional material for ScottishPower?

If you want to enter the competition under those rules, then go ahead. I think you're crazy, but that's just my opinion.

Why do I care?

I have wanted to "do photography" for many years. I remember being fascinated by the strange numbers on the lenses of the old film cameras that I used to see in my grandmothers garage (they belonged to my dead grandfather). When I got a bit older I got an old box brownie (second hand) but we couldn't afford to get the photos printed. I used to use that camera to pretend to take pictures.
Fast forward to today. I can afford a digital camera and a selection of lenses and other gear, and I am taking more photos than ever before. Sometimes I even think I've got a keeper.

Now, I am not a "joiner" - I don't join clubs unless they have a purpose relevant to what I need ( I was a member of several Chess clubs, when I fancied myself as a decent Chess player - now the goddamn GNU Chess programs beats me all the time!) and I have never joined a sports club or Gym or for more than a few weeks ( all that sweat and effort! ).

But I have joined a photography club.
And I put my pictures in to be judged in the local "League" competition.
And inevitably they get panned - sometimes on technical grounds, but mostly on "artistic grounds".
And that's fair enough, for the technical reasons.

But what most annoys me is the "artistic grounds". We all know that beauty/art/whatever is in the eye of the beholder, and my head tells me that the judge is applying his criteria and his experience to a picture, and that it is nothing personal, but my gut tells me the bastard doesn't know what he is talking about.

And you know what - both reactions are correct!

My head is right - it is not personal - from the judges point of view, and my gut is right - it is very personal to me.

So, the bottom line is, I learn from the technical critique, and I get an insight into what another person thinks of my pictures "artistically" - and if I ever want to improve my pictures "artistically" according to someone elses criteria, then I can. But I won't. It's my "artistic" vision and I will continue to follow it. It might be judged to be crap by the world, but it says something to me ( and about me, for all I know!).
If you are going to "do photography" for your pleasure, then do it the way you want.