.
  Lightstalkers
* My Profile My Galleries My Networks

National Geographic's 2007 international photo contest

National Geographic’s 2007 international photo contest .

Visit ngphotocontest.com for details and official rules.

by Adrian Coakley at 2007-07-23 14:19:09 UTC (ed. Mar 12 2008 ) washington DC , United States | Bookmark | | Report spam→

Looks like this is another contest to stay away from. By entering, you give up perpetual, royalty free license for National Geo to use the images in any media “including commercially using and exploiting the entries to fullest extent possible”…. See the relevant text below or at http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/photo-contest/rules.html

“By entering the Contest, all entrants grant a royalty free irrevocable perpetual non-exclusive license to Authorized Parties, to use the entries and a name credit in any media now or hereafter known, without restriction, including commercially using and exploiting the entries to fullest extent possible at any time following submission. Entrants consent to the Sponsor doing or omitting to do any act that would otherwise infringe the entrant’s “moral rights” in their entries. Display or publication of any entry on an Authorized Party’s website does not indicate the entrant will be selected as a winner. Authorized Parties will not be required to pay any additional consideration or seek any additional approval in connection with such use or exploitation."

by M. Scott Brauer | 23 Jul 2007 21:07 | Seattle, WA, United States | | Report spam→
Pretty much par for the course these days and not many entrants will care.

I was on a local board in a thread about a local insurance company having a photo contest for its annual calendar. I pointed out the fine print (similar to this) and all the responses were the same.

“so? At least this way I get my name out there”.

I just gave up.

by Kenneth Armstrong | 23 Jul 2007 21:07 | Sault Ste Marie, Canada | | Report spam→
Yeah, true….there are tons of people who will enter the contest regardless of the rules.

However, I think it’s valuable to point out problems like these in rules so photographers who care about their work and it’s use are fully aware of the terms they agree to by entering these contests. Sometimes, the contest organization doesn’t know that their terms and conditions are disagreeable. In fact, people pointing out egregious terms like these on lightstalkers in the past has resulted in contest organizations changing their rules to more fair usage of winning and nonwinning entries (usually just to future usage in direct context of promoting the contest).

by M. Scott Brauer | 23 Jul 2007 22:07 | Seattle, WA, United States | | Report spam→
and the licensing does not apply only to winners, but to all entrants; that’s really over the top.

by [former member] | 23 Jul 2007 22:07 | New York, United States | | Report spam→
woah there.. so even submitting an image, I give up my rights to the image?

How does this work if I hold the model release form for an image?

by Joel Aron | 23 Jul 2007 23:07 | San Francisco, California, United States | | Report spam→
answered my own questions by reading their rules.

no thank you on that one!

one can guess that they target the weekend tourists that feel they may have a shot they want to see in NG?

imho, personally, I would rather have an assignment from them, instead of a $1000 digital camera as a prize.

by Joel Aron | 24 Jul 2007 00:07 | San Francisco, California, United States | | Report spam→
The true purpose of a contest like this is to aquire royalty free images AND the copywrite to it. It is a sly and

cunning plan of corporate minded people to save as much money as possible and gain as much as they can for

their own coffers. I find it sad that NatGeo would put such rules in a contest of their own. For an organization

that prides itself on the quality of their photography, this contest says they feel photography has no value.

I guess because there is no tangible physical “slide or neg” and the photo is just one’s and zero’s the photo is

worthless. Sad. Very sad…

by Scott Robert Collins | 25 Jul 2007 04:07 | Montreal, Canada | | Report spam→
The true purpose of a contest like this is to aquire royalty free images AND the copywrite to it. It is a sly and

cunning plan of corporate minded people to save as much money as possible and gain as much as they can for

their own coffers. I find it sad that NatGeo would put such rules in a contest of their own. For an organization

that prides itself on the quality of their photography, this contest says they feel photography has no value.

I guess because there is no tangible physical “slide or neg” and the photo is just one’s and zero’s the photo is

worthless. Sad. Very sad…

by Scott Robert Collins | 25 Jul 2007 04:07 | Montreal, Canada | | Report spam→
Sad…i’m speechless! I know the story..

by Danilo Balducci | 26 Jul 2007 09:07 (ed. Jul 26 2007) | L'AQUILA, Italy | | Report spam→
I’m a bit shocked that National Geo would be doing this, but then nothing surprises me anymore.

I was shooting something not that long ago (really mainly for myself) and I had a rather surprising phone call
the other day from an organisation (quite wealthy as well) that wanted to get a hold of some of these shots. It was then backed up by an email saying well just send the photos here.

Naturally I replied with ‘Whoa Baby’ its not quite as simple as that, credit usage etc. have to be sorted.

They rang me back and said ‘well we don’t feel we have to pay for photographs’ of course I told them very politely to F%$# off but I actually couldn’t believe what she said after I had explained in the initial email photojournalism is how I make my living.

I wonder what she would say if her bosses said to her ‘Well we don’t feel we have to pay you to work’

by lisa hogben | 26 Jul 2007 11:07 | Sydney, Australia | | Report spam→
2000 photos per minute are uploaded to Flickr… that’s nearly 2.9 million images per day. We live in a new world now, and photographs are cheaper than chips in the eyes of those who think in the reductionist frame of the bean counter. That’s the reality – it’s what’s occuring here with the Nat Geo competition and what’s going on in the heads of the people hitting up Lisa for free works…

So we need to forget about the old model and pretty quickly come up with both new models and new ‘forms’ of photojournalism to carry this practice beyond the next, say, three years (talking end of the decade here). Otherwise what we broadly know of as photojournalism and a method of making ‘a living’ will dissolve into the image torrents of the multitude.

by Ed Giles | 26 Jul 2007 11:07 | Sydney, Australia | | Report spam→
I get the impression that this is not really a contest for pros anyway. Certainly all pros should steer well clear.

by Paul Treacy | 26 Jul 2007 11:07 | Alexandria, VA, United States | | Report spam→
That’s kind of the point, Paul. They, all of a sudden, need a whole lot less ‘pros’ than they used to…

by Ed Giles | 26 Jul 2007 12:07 | Sydney, Australia | | Report spam→
Yeah Ed

“At the end of the decade there is gunna be a lot of refugees”

But what model is going to replace this kinda attitude?

I mean these knuckle heads approached me for something they wanted and expected to get it for free. Saying literally ‘they didn’t feel they had to pay for it’ A commodity they wanted but they felt they didn’t need to pay for it.

I think the problem is that unique photographs are not seen as product by a lot of people. So they don’t see the value in them. And unfortunately while world wide solidarity to get people to boycott competitions with these kinds of clauses would be a dream there is always some poor sod who needs the money, kudos, ego boost that will lean over and take it (in whatever orifice you would like to put here)

Until the whole idea of quality replaces quantity our commodity is rapidly devaluing in a very fundamental way.

by lisa hogben | 26 Jul 2007 12:07 | Sydney, Australia | | Report spam→
Yes, it is… as for a model there’s a lot of potentials but I don’t know how many of them involve just photos with captions…

by Ed Giles | 26 Jul 2007 12:07 | Sydney, Australia | | Report spam→
Please note some contest rules have been clarified.
You can find the updated rules at the following link- ngphotocontest.com

by Adrian Coakley | 30 Jul 2007 14:07 | washington DC, United States | | Report spam→
how come? is it just that NG has not realized until now, the moment of reading some posts on LS, what on earth they are doing?! but errare humanum est

by G. Muj | 30 Jul 2007 17:07 | Dubai, United Arab Emirates | | Report spam→
Does this not lower the quality of the magazine seeking images for contests in this form?

If your methods alientate your very source of a particular market, it would seem that wisdom (or is it common sense?) dictate that you try to avoid putting stipulations that would cause professional photographers to steer clear of your projects…

As for Lisa’s situation, why even explain why you need to be paid for the work you do? It’s not up for debate. You have a service and if they require the use of that service, then currency is the currency of the trade. I wouldn’t even bother telling them why you should be paid. I reckon those same people wouldn’t be doing THEIR job if those companies or publications gave them that chock of bullshit.

by [former member] | 30 Jul 2007 19:07 (ed. Jul 30 2007) | | Report spam→
Is this the updated rule?

By entering the Contest, all entrants grant an irrevocable perpetual non-exclusive license to Authorized Parties, to reproduce, distribute, display and create derivative works of the entries (along with a name credit) in connection with the Contest and promotion of the Contest, in any media now or hereafter known, including, but not limited to: Display at a potential exhibition of winners; publication of a book featuring select entries in the Contest; publication in National Geographic Magazine or online highlighting entries or winners of the Contest.

by [former member] | 31 Jul 2007 01:07 | New York, United States | | Report spam→
The weird thing among all the rights-grabbing fine-print stuff we read about is that I have yet to see a website or media company publish materials that were obviously worth all the legal effort. Readers/viewers aren’t as stupid as the general media believes (this is the problem with the general media), and the notion that there are legions of wannabe-PJs just dying to get their name into print is just silly. Yeah, maybe there’s an eighth-grade kid who would be proud to have a shot in a famous magazine, but most people operate under the rule that undergirds human civilization: “You want it? You pay for it.”

NG would like to believe it has midwifed some of the world’s most stunning and iconic images. The Afghan Girl wasn’t shot by an amateur who just happened to be vacationing in Kabul—and any amateur who snapped such a picture certainly wouldn’t submit it to some contest when he could make real money from it elsewhere.

No, “citizen journalist” contestants aren’t going to supplant McCurry, Harvey, Abelard, et al. The contest is just a ploy to garner more readers because someone said that interactivity (web 2.0) is the key to site traffic, which is the key to advertising dollars. If thousands of people submit images and NG puts them online, the result will be however many thousands of page views, which can be taken to the bank.

It was never about the pictures.

by [former member] | 31 Jul 2007 03:07 | New York, United States | | Report spam→
Actually preston that does sound very logical…

by lisa hogben | 31 Jul 2007 05:07 | Sydney, Australia | | Report spam→
Preston makes a good point but right now what these guys are doing is playing with these new tools to see how much money they can make/save. Either they’ll end up with a zillion crappy photos coming in with the contest and none of them any good, or they’ll end up with a zillion crappy photos coming in with maybe 1% of them being, well, pretty darn good.

Jul 18, 2007: a steam pipe explodes in NYC and the first pictures on the AP wire are from someone’s camera phone… now, there aren’t going to be people running about in Darfur or Chad with camera phones transmitting pictures as soon as something happens, but in places that are both affluent enough for there to be a high level of dissemination of digital-imaging technology and where the network connection is strong and ubiquitous (like NYC) we are going to see this happen more and more. It’s important to note (at the risk of sounding like a technological determinist) that the higher resolution gets in these cameras the less it matters about perfect composition… images just get cropped into shape.
-puts up virtual shield and waits for barrage of abuse-

Also, as a side note the NG photo editor did just post here on LS the other day asking for pros to submit images to the NG FTP site for consideration for the big double-page spread in the magazine. So I guess that at the same time the bean counters over there are jumping on top of the flickr-like multitude out there they’re also starting to use places like Lightstalkers as sites to source high-quality content, which is very very interesting. Models like this (a collection of high-level practitioners in one virtual space, kind of like DRR or Photoshelter but LS is much more community-oriented and open) could well be the saviour of things like high-quality photographic journalism…

by Ed Giles | 31 Jul 2007 06:07 (ed. Jul 31 2007) | Sydney, Australia | | Report spam→
slightly off topic… but can anyone think of another product/service that has completely lost it’s commercial value (if… this is the
way photojournalism is headed… ) the only context i can think of is music or film with piracy issues… but then there are still big
corporations whose survival depends on selling their ‘products’.. whereas photographers are individuals trying to make
their living from their work, without corporate money to protect their rights…

by julia s. ferdinand | 31 Jul 2007 12:07 | chiang mai, Thailand | | Report spam→
Well, no doubt all the big agencies/wires (commercial photo bodies/archives of all kinds, editorial, commercial stock etc etc) are working pretty hard to mitigate the unathorised spread of their copyrighted works over the web, just the same way the record companies and movie studios are working to stop the spread of their products through networks like Limewire and Bittorrent. Just type “Steve McCurry” into Google Image and see what you get… my bet is most of those images weren’t paid for. As for individual photographers you’re totally right, Julia…

What about the collapse of ‘Life’ magazine in 1972, folded as a weekly publication due to the shift of its audience (one interested in short-term visual news and reportage, just what ‘Life’ catered to) to television?

by Ed Giles | 31 Jul 2007 13:07 | Sydney, Australia | | Report spam→
The Italian NG contest this year is experiencing serious problems regarding the winning pic in the landscape section. The image is clearly manipulated and was published on the web before the contest. They have already withdrawn the image but much perplexity still remains in the photographic community.

by alfa | 06 Sep 2007 09:09 | Torino, Italy | | Report spam→

Get notified when someone replies to this thread:
Feed-icon-10x10 via RSS
Recommended
Icon_email via email
You can unsubscribe later.

More about sponsorship→

Participants

Adrian Coakley, Picture Editor Adrian Coakley
Picture Editor
Washington Dc , United States ( DCA )
M. Scott Brauer, Photographer M. Scott Brauer
Photographer
Boston, Massachusetts , United States ( BOS )
Kenneth Armstrong, Freelance Photographer Kenneth Armstrong
Freelance Photographer
Sault Ste Marie , Canada ( YYZ )
Joel Aron, VFX Artist / Photographer Joel Aron
VFX Artist / Photographer
San Francisco, California , United States ( OAK )
Scott Robert Collins, Photographer Scott Robert Collins
Photographer
(www.scottrobertcollins.com)
Goa , India
Danilo Balducci, photojournalist Danilo Balducci
photojournalist
L'aquila , Italy
lisa hogben, Visualjournalist! lisa hogben
Visualjournalist!
Sydney , Australia
Ed Giles, Photojournalist Ed Giles
Photojournalist
Sydney , Australia
Paul  Treacy, Photographer Paul Treacy
Photographer
(Photohumourist)
London , United Kingdom ( LGW )
G. Muj, designer / ex photog / G. Muj
designer / ex photog /
Doha , Qatar
julia s. ferdinand, photographer julia s. ferdinand
photographer
Chiang Mai , Thailand ( CNX )
alfa, alfa
[undisclosed location].


Keywords

Top↑ | RSS/XML | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | support@lightstalkers.org / ©2004-2014 November Eleven