Competition Rules

Some companies must think we are stupid. Then again people must enter.

I have come across a photography competition with a prize structure of

1st £150
2nd £60
3rd £30

In each of 2 categories. Fair enough but hardly generous.

Read the terms and conditions and this is where they really do take the mick.

"All entries become the property of xxx All entrants agree that xxx may use, reproduce,
publish, and distribute any of the photos submitted in this
competition in its 2010 annual calendar, and for any other
promotional use at any time, without any payment or fee."

Also the rules are hidden away. you have to take another click to read them. What a rip off.

the gits,

It's seen perhaps as a cheap way to get some images, but the only answer is not to enter.

Don't give away your material for nothing.

Watermark your shots and see what happens.

If they remove the watermark and publish isn't that theft?

It's even against publishing rule I believe... don't know if it falls under that

Even if some buys a photo from you and you put a frame around it they (buyers) aren't allowed to remove the frame without approval of the artist since the artist applied it and is part of the art he created.

So you aren't allowed to apply changes to someones work without approval.

I need to look up these rules...

Not so in the UK, and by submitting pictures to the competition you are accepting their terms - watermarks or no.

As JR says, don't enter.

The BBC is always soliciting for pictures. Does anyone know if they pay?

G

Yes George but they are never allowed to alter your image without your approval.
If that's in the terms you agreed to that they can alter it and use it for their own use then yes you're right.

Things may be different in the Netherlands, but if I buy a work of art in the British Isles I can do what I like with it.

And if it were Tracey Emin's bed, I would burn it.

G

George I felt Emin was a con artist until I started to read her articles in the Independent and then I could begin to see what she was trying to do and why she was taken seriously.

Most of her work still leaves me unmoved but she strives for better artistic work which can't be a bad thing.

Mike

You're quite right, Mike. I read one or two of her articles, and she came across as OK. Unfortunately, in an art world where we are expected to worship not golden calves but cows in preservative, there is little room for anything other than the emperor's new clothes - and probably Emin's old ones.

Quelle gaspillage.

G

No George somehow it isn't right though.

It's like you can say you own a painting but you can never say you make it.
An artist can always say that an artwork they created is his or hers so there for any act against the art is one against the artist... not a good explanation but i believe it went something like that.

Also if you buy an artwork with a frame then that frame is part of the artwork as well so can't be removed or altered.

I will look the regulations up about that, before I say something stupid which I might already have.

Stefan

You may be entirely correct as far as the Netherlands is concerned; I can only speak for here.

If you were to alter an artwork, then try to sell it as your own work, a buyer could sue you for misrepresentation, and the artist for damages (if he felt his reputation was being damaged). But there is no law in Britain to prevent you altering the work for your own purposes.

G

Of the bed or the talent?

I think she can also do more traditional work - I seem to recall one article where she described an exhibition of such. Seems to be quite fragile emotionally from what she says. She has certainly acquired an enviable degree of freedom (says the man who spent the whole day beating a computer database into submission to make ends meet).

Mike

Stefan - I think you might be talking about intellectual rights which protect some people against others modifying their work. I'm not sure if it applies to original artwork but I believe it does to design work. So if a graphic designer prepares work for a client they get the right to use it but not alter it and then use it without permission (and payment).

In this case you might be being asked to waive both copyright and intellectual rights which as I understand it is quite legal.

Mike

Mike thank you for that, it pushed me on the right track I believe it's called Moral Rights.
I'm reading into it at the moment.