MuttleMcTuttle 21 Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 It's wise to read all competiton rules carefully, and if you don't like their terms, don't enter. Personally I think it's fair if the competition organiser uses the shortlisted & winning pics in their magazine, or website, or whatever, to promote the competiton, but for all entries to be stuck in their image library for future use, with no payment to the photographer doesn't seem right to me Even worse, when they claim the rights to sell the images to other publishers worldwide... just not on really. Hence I don't enter many photo competitions, and I'd advise anyone how has a really stunning pic not to give it away for free... The fairest competitions are run by the photography mags who seem to realise how upset photographers are about this sort of thing! However, there is quite a lot of money to be made from competitions, and if you genuinely don't care about photographers rights, enter at will The problem is that a lot of people are in the habit of giving images away for free, and regional newspapers and small publishers are now quite horrified when you ask for payment. They think everyone is so thrilled to have their pics printed for free. A lot of little newspapers don't even give you a credit... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ghillies 209 Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 16 weeks trudging around..bought the camra/lens what ever... charged it umpty nine hundred times....god knows how much fuel patients and perseverience.. oh look...some ones madw quite a few quid on it, then sold it on....the person who made it got diddly squot? hmmm have you got loads to throw away like that? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MuttleMcTuttle 21 Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 What is really really annoying is when someone nicks one of your pics off the internet and enters it into a competition in their name, or uses it on their website... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kay 3,709 Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 I can fully understand why people watermark there images & use scaled down versions rather than the full size , i dont know what you can do to protect yourself ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
vulpicide 0 Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 I can fully understand why people watermark there images & use scaled down versions rather than the full size , i dont know what you can do to protect yourself ? CONDOM! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Foxgun Tom 75 Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 (edited) I left the organisation last year, Ian Clark was given photographs by me which included images of a lad who was a kid at the time along with my friend who is a falconer!!! These photographs were not intended for pubication anywhere or to be used without my express permission, they were also used out of context?!! and neither Ian Clark or SACs had permission to use them in the promotion of SACs or its magazine, A terse one line statement saying I had left the organisation and that!! I was no longer associated with SACs appeared appeared in an earlier edition of the magazine. and then Ian Clark and SACS In a subsequent issue of the magazine had the audacity to, reproduce the photo I had taken of a friends young son and it appeared without my permission or any acknowledgement to its scource or to the owner of the image??, Ian Clark was contacted and a message left on his answer machine in relation to the issue of copyright? his response was not to reply or even acknowledge my concerns?? The crux of the matter is SACS is already lifting images they have no right to? and publishing them without giving a sh!t!! Imagine?? anyone stealing photo's, using them!! and then asking people to join a photography competition? or letting people know some-one is no longer associated with the organisation but then procceeds exploit an image taken from the same individual for gain in promoting an article the image had nothing to do with Tom Edited September 20, 2009 by Foxgun Tom Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MuttleMcTuttle 21 Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 You could always try sending them an invoice for using the images, but I wouldn't hold out much hope... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
vulpicide 0 Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 But like the Murphies you'r not BITTE R Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Foxgun Tom 75 Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 (edited) Believe it or not? I'm not bitter!! just a wee bit sad that an organisation that had a lot of potential and loads to offer!! is being used like this (using photo's of chlidren, without the consent of the people involved??) in a totally unprofessional manner and even though it has a management commitee its used as the plaything of one man? who's got it by the balls co's the office is situated in his back garden and its got nowhere else to go?? Tom But like the Murphies you'r not BITTE R Edited September 19, 2009 by Foxgun Tom Quote Link to post Share on other sites
vulpicide 0 Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 Believe it or not? I'm not bitter!! just a wee bit sad that an organisation that had a lot of potential and loads to offer!! is being used like this (using photo's of chlidren, without the consent of the people involved??) in a totally unprofessional manner and even though it has a management commitee its used as the plaything of one man? who's got it by the balls co's the office is situated in his back garden and its got nowhere else to go?? Tom But like the Murphies you'r not BITTE R Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SEAN3513 7 Posted September 20, 2009 Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 there are moral issues and the matter of decency, which seem to have been overlooked in the pursuit of making money !!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hannah4181 260 Posted September 20, 2009 Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 What annoys me is that people don't realise how important a photographers copyright is, its viewed by many as "just a photo" . . . . but as rightly pointed out by a few already, when its your living its more than "just a photo"! Not so long ago i donated some images to an organisation to use on their website, only to find a few weeks later that they had had them printed on these awful tacky mugs and mouse mats, and had them for sale in their online shop! Needless to say they didn't have them on their for long, or any more images to use! I do think though that sometimes photographers are their own worst enemies, i would never publish an image online that i didn't want re producing. The best 1's never get web coverage. Its common sense. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Irish Lurcher 1,013 Posted September 20, 2009 Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 I left the organisation last year, Ian Clark was given photographs by me which included images of a lad who was a kid at the time along with my friend who is a falconer!!! These photographs were not intended for pubication anywhere or to be used without my express permission, they were also used out of context?!! and neither Ian Clark or SACs had permission to use them in the promotion of SACs or its magazine, A terse one line statement saying I had left the organisation and that!! I was no longer associated with SACs appeared appeared in an earlier edition of the magazine. and then Ian Clark and SACS In a subsequent issue of the magazine had the audacity to, reproduce the photo I had taken of a friends young son and it appeared without my permission or any acknowledgement to its scource or to the owner of the image??, Ian Clark was contacted and a message left on his answer machine in relation to the issue of copyright? his response was not to reply or even acknowledge my concerns?? The crux of the matter is SACS is already lifting images they have no right to? and publishing them without giving a sh!t!! Imagine?? anyone stealing photo's, using them!! and then asking people to join a photography competition? or letting people know some-one is no longer associated with the organisation but then procceeds exploit an image taken from the same individual for gain in promoting an article the image had nothing to do with Tom Well Mr Ian, think you should reply Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PuBS 1 Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 (edited) I left the organisation last year, Ian Clark was given photographs by me which included images of a lad who was a kid at the time along with my friend who is a falconer!!! These photographs were not intended for pubication anywhere or to be used without my express permission, they were also used out of context?!! and neither Ian Clark or SACs had permission to use them in the promotion of SACs or its magazine, A terse one line statement saying I had left the organisation and that!! I was no longer associated with SACs appeared appeared in an earlier edition of the magazine. and then Ian Clark and SACS In a subsequent issue of the magazine had the audacity to, reproduce the photo I had taken of a friends young son and it appeared without my permission or any acknowledgement to its scource or to the owner of the image??, Ian Clark was contacted and a message left on his answer machine in relation to the issue of copyright? his response was not to reply or even acknowledge my concerns?? The crux of the matter is SACS is already lifting images they have no right to? and publishing them without giving a sh!t!! Imagine?? anyone stealing photo's, using them!! and then asking people to join a photography competition? or letting people know some-one is no longer associated with the organisation but then procceeds exploit an image taken from the same individual for gain in promoting an article the image had nothing to do with Tom Well Mr Ian, think you should reply SACS has just trumpeted how NOBS are their very best mates and joined their insurance deal already dealt with on here. SACS should feel at home as NOBS were involved in the publishing of a book on Picking Up - for sale at £16.95 from NOBS but 30% cheaper from Tesco and Amazon!!!! - in which a photograph to which I am informed copyright had not been ceded appeared. The publisher apparently refuses to reply to questions on this matter and also the fact that an old photograph (I sincerely hope) depicts an illegal form of shoot transport, and one which is in breach of HSE regulations and common sense. I know several photographers and they are very careful about their copyright - after all it is their living! Edited September 21, 2009 by PuBS Quote Link to post Share on other sites
vulpicide 0 Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 I'm glad I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.