TravelTales, Inc. "Advocacy Campaign"

It seems that there are lots of contradicting rules and the haphazard manner is evident in which the TravelTales' "Advocacy Campaign" contest mechanics was drafted, please note the following clause:

7. By entering, you represent and warrant and agree that:

• You retain ownership of the Entry(ies) you submit, however, by entering you, on behalf of yourself and any Third Party Participants, grant Contest Entities and any organizations affiliated with the sponsorship, fulfillment, administration, prize support, advertisement or promotion of the Contest, the perpetual, fully-paid, irrevocable, non-exclusive license to publish, reproduce, prepare derivative works of, distribute, display, exhibit, transmit, broadcast, televise, digitize, otherwise use, and permit others to use and perform throughout the world the photograph and Entry in any manner, form, or format now or hereinafter created, including on the Internet, and for any purpose, including, but not limited to, advertising or promotion of Contest Entities and Contest all without further consent from or payment to you, including those Entry(ies) which were not selected.
• By submitting an Entry, each entrant understands and grants to TravelTales, Inc.  permission for his/her Entry to be posted on traveltalesinc.com in perpetuity throughout the world for viewing by visitors to the Website. Contest Entities are not responsible for any unauthorized third party use of any Entry. Entries will not be acknowledged and will not be received or held “in confidence” and a submission does not create a confidential relationship or obligation of secrecy between you and TravelTales, Inc.  or any of its affiliates.
• By submitting an Entry, entrant warrants and represents that he/she consents to the submission and use of the Entry in the Contest, and to its posting on traveltalesinc.com.

So join at your own risk. Or you might want to read Introduction to Rights and Licensing. 

New Reader's Digest Contract

Got a copy of the email below and thought it would be of great benefit to the photographic community if this issue would be raised publicly.

Dear XXXX,

I thought you would be interested to know that the powers that be at Readers Digest Publishing in Australia are now forcing a new contract on photographers. We normally work with their Singapore Office and they are telling us that any assignments we accept for our photographers must be under these new terms. This includes assignments for Readers Digest magazine and Discovery Channel Magazine and presumably any other of the RD stable of publications whether put together in Australia , Singapore or elsewhere.

The agreement is one of the worst we have ever seen and we will not be able to work with RD until they change this contract. We strongly urge you not to work under these terms. We are aware that times are tough, but they will only get tougher if publishing houses get away with enforcing contracts like this.

Please feel free to disseminate this information to your photographer friends and on blogs and other discussion forums. Only when they can’t find photographers to work for them will the think about something more ethical and reasonable.

We copy below the new agreement with some opinions and comments about why it is so bad – comments are in BLUE CAPS pasted into the agreement. Please note we are not lawyers and our comments are only opinions and purely for informational purposes – it is up to you to make your own decisions as to what you feel is acceptable in a contract.

Kind regards,

Peter Charlesworth
Director
OnAsia
www.onasia.com
We Focus on Asia

Note:
Republished with permission. The comments (text in Blue) made by OnAsia are only opinions and purely for informational purposes – it is up to you to make your own decisions as to what you feel is acceptable in a contract.
======

THE CONTRACT:

DATE:

NAME OF PHOTOGRAPHER:

ADDRESS:

This contract, when executed by both parties, shall constitute an agreement between Reader’s Digest Asia Pte. Ltd. (“RDA”) and yourself with respect to certain photographs (the “Photographs”) to be created as follows:

1. You agree to deliver the Photograph(s) listed in Schedule A in compliance with the delivery date(s) set out in said Schedule.

2. You hereby grant, license, and assign to RDA, its subsidiaries, affiliates, parent company and licensees the following rights in the Photographs:

a) Exclusive worldwide rights to reproduce and publish the Photographs in any magazine, periodical or other publication as well as the right to reproduce and publish the Photographs in any Read­er’s Digest anthologies, compilations and promotional materials. AT EDITORIAL RATES THE NORM FOR ASSIGNMENTS HAS BEEN AND SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE FOR ONE TIME USE BY A SINGLE PUBLICATION UNLESS A REASONABLE FURTHER FEE HAS BEEN AGREED FOR MULTIPLE USES.

b) Exclusive rights to distribute the Photographs through the Internet, mobile phone and other commercial on-line services or through any other method or media, including without limitation, motion pictures, television programs, video programs and other audiovisual productions. IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THIS MEANS THAT NEITHER YOU (NOR YOUR AGENT) CAN RELICENSE ANY OF THE IMAGES YOU SHOOT ON THESE ASSIGNMENTS FOR TWO YEARS (SEE 4 BELOW) – EFFECTIVELY THE MAIN ‘LIFE’ OF THESE IMAGES. SO YOU WILL LOSE PRETTY MUCH ALL RESALE VALUE – ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS YOU CAN AFFORD TO TAKE ASSIGNMENTS AT LOW EDITORIAL RATES. THIS CLAUSE IS AMBIGUOUS AND IT IS OUR READING THAT YOU WOULD BE GIVING RD THE RIGHT TO MARKET AND SELL YOUR IMAGES TO ANYONE EVEN PUBLICATIONS/ CLIENTS OUTSIDE OF RD FOR ANY USE INCLUDING ADVERTISING WITH NO FURTHER REMUNERATION TO YOU.

c) The right to archive the Photographs in any manner, method or media, now or hereafter known.

3. You agree that RDA may modify the size or other elements of the Photographs, which it shall do with care.

4. RDA shall have the exclusive right set out in section 2 herien, for a period of 24 months which shall commence from the date of publication of the photos and thereafter the rights set out in secton 2 shall be read as non -exclusive for an indefinite period. EVEN AFTER THE TWO YEARS RD CAN CONTINUE TO LICENSE (SELL) YOUR IMAGES IN PERPETUITY WITH NO REMUNERATION TO YOU.

5. You warrant that you have the full power to grant such rights set out in Section 2 herein, that the Photographs are original, and do not infringe any copyright or other rights of any third party, or contain any matter that is libelous or otherwise in contravention of the law. BE VERY CAREFUL WHEN SIGNING A CLAUSE LIKE THIS, IT IS OUR OPINION THAT IF YOU ARE SHOOTING AN ASSIGNMENT FOR A CLIENT, THEN IT IS UP TO THE PUBLISHER TO SATISFY THEMSELVES THAT THE IMAGES DO NOT INFRINGE ON ANY RIGHTS. NOT MANY PHOTOGRAPHERS CAN AFFORD TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND THIS ONE SIDED CLAUSE MIGHT OPEN THE DOOR TO AN ACTION AGAINST THE PHOTOGRAPHER SHOULD THE MAGAZINE END UP USING AN IMAGE IN A LIBELOUS MANNER ESPECIALLY AS THEY CAN, WE BELIEVE, SELL THE IMAGES TO OTHER CLIENTS AND LOSE ANY CONTROL OVER HOW THE IMAGES MAY BE USED.

6. In consideration of the rights granted hereunder, upon acceptance of the Photographs at our sole discretion, RDA will pay you the sum set out in Schedule A. SHOULD RD OFFER YOU CORPORATE STYLE RATES FOR THE ADDITIONAL RIGHTS THEY ARE DEMANDING ABOVE (RIGHTS THAT WE BELIEVE ARE WAY IN EXCESS OF MOST CORPORATE ASSIGNMENTS WHICH NORMALLY DO NOT CARRY RESALE RIGHTS) THEN FOR SOME PHOTOGRAPHERS THIS MAY BE WORTH SIGNING. BUT IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT ANY RATE INCREASE FOR THEIR ASSIGNMENTS WILL BE MINUMAL, CERTAINLY WILL NOT APPROACH ANYTHING LIKE THE VALUE OF WHAT THEY ARE DEMANDING IN THIS AGREEMENT.

7. If the Photographs are not accepted because the article that they illustrate has been cancelled, RDA will pay you a kill fee representing up to fifty percent (50%) of the due amount for the Photographs as set out in Schedule A. THIS CLAUSE ALONE MAKES THIS CONTRACT COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE IN OUR OPINION – THEY CAN SIMPLY DECIDE NOT TO RUN A STORY AND ONLY PAY YOU 50% - THEY DO NOT EVEN MAKE IT CLEAR WHETHER THIS INCLUDES ONLY PAYING 50% OF THE EXPENSES! ASK THEM WHETHER WHEN THE READERS DIGEST CORPORATE TYPES GO SHOPPING AT TESCOS AND BUY A CASE OF RED WINE, THEY SAY THEY WILL ONLY PAY HALF IF THEY SUDDENLY DECIDE THEY PREFER WHITE.

8. If the Photographs are not accepted because they do not meet professional standards or if they do not meet the expectations or descriptions of RDAU specified in Schedule A, you will not receive any form of compensation or kill fee. THIS IS NOT A CLAUSE WE LIKE TO SEE IN ANY CONTRACT AS IT IS AMBIGUOUS, ONE PERSON’S IDEA OF WHAT IS USABLE IS ANOTHER’S FULL PAGE PICTURE. IF A PHOTOGRAPHER REALLY MESSES UP A SHOOT BOTH SIDES WILL KNOW IT AND THE PHOTOGRAPHER WILL PROBABLY CONCEDE THIS AND NOT CHARGE OR RESHOOT FOR NO ADDITIONAL FEE…BUT NEVER GOOD TO HAVE THIS AS PART OF A CONTRACT. BUT PROBABLY NOT A DEAL BREAKER.

9 RDA will reimburse reasonable expenses upon presentation of appropriate receipts or documentation. Any expense exceeding $100 must be approved in writing in advance by RDA.

10. this agreement may not be assigned by either party without prior written consent of the other party, except that RDA may assign the agreement to any successor publisher of Reader’s Digest magazine.

11. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of Singapore .

READ, ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:

READER’S DIGEST ASIA PTE. LTD.

By:_________ _________ _________ _________ _____
Date:_______ _________ _________ _________ ______

PHOTOGRAPHER

By:_________ _________ _________ _________ _____
Date:_______ _________ _________ _________ ______

IFJ on Author's Rights

As everything news and information-related appears to be “going digital,” the exploitation of intellectual property rights is a topic for virtually every government, major company and economic forum worldwide. Journalists are among those who must have intellectual property rights too!

These rights are called authors' rights. Authors' rights are currently best protected in continental Europe.

The IFJ authors' rights programmes call for journalists to be recognised as authors of the work they create, have control on further use of their work and receive an equitable remuneration for it. In this sense, we oppose the Anglo-American copyright system which deprives all staff and most freelances of these rights.

Authors' rights are not only economic rights. Journalists, photographers and media professionals also need strong legal protection of their moral rights, including the right to be named as the author and the right to protect their content from being used in a detrimental way or context. The rights for individuals to exercise control over their work is crucial to maintain ethical standards, which define and guarantee quality journalism. This is another reason to oppose the Anglo-American copyright system, through which authors can be, and are, coerced into signing away their moral rights.

Continue reading here:
http://www.ifj.org/en/pages/authorsrights

Download:
IFJ Guiding Principles on Authors' rights
IFJ/EFJ Authors' rights manual

Copyright? What Copyright?

Gloved and hunched over scanners, librarians from some of the biggest libraries in the world have spent the last five years digitising each and every page of millions of books — five million of them still under copyright.

They did it to democratise information, they said, to preserve the corpus of human knowledge for generations to come. They did it without permission from the copyright holders.

They did it for Google. Or, more specifically, for the Google Books Library Project, a virtual database containing the scanned pages of millions of the world's books.

Originally, back in 2004, the partnership between Google and America's great libraries was conceived to digitise the 15 per cent of library books that were in the public domain — golden oldies like Wuthering Heights and David Copperfield. In America (and Australia, thanks to the Fair Trade Agreement), a book enters the public domain 70 years after the author's death (in Australia it used to be 50), or if it was published prior to 1 January 1923.

That left 85 per cent of library books unscanned — 10 per cent of which are still in print and on bookstore shelves, and the remainder of which are "orphans" (books out of print but still in copyright). But because Google are uppity little nerds who consider the world as theirs to metatag, they decided to scan them all, regardless of legal status.

Arm-in-arm with librarians, Google declared they would have 15 million books digitised in under a decade. In other words, almost half of the 32 million books that humans have published.

Using the Elphel 323 — a digital camera that can scan 1000 pages per hour — librarians and Google began to scan the full texts of every book in five major university and public libraries: Stanford, Harvard, Oxford, the University of Michigan and the New York Public Library. Google archived the entire text of each book, indexing it to be responsive to search requests. Users got a few lines of text as their search result — a "snippet" — which Google claimed was "fair use", the same way a review might quote a few lines of a film or book.

Continue reading at newmatilda.com

Relevant links:
A Photo Editor

Things You Need To Know About Rights-Grab Photo Contests

It seem that contest photo organizers/ sponsors had found a 'cheap and economical way' to 'harvest' a great deal of creative work, usually images for absolutley nothing - a library of FREE images. These are rampant nowadays not just in the Philippines (from private companies to government agencies) but even abroad. A clever ploy targetting photographers especially the amateurs who are naive and do not understand their rights and the potential value of their work. This, in a way, can 'harm' photography in general because when sponsors/ contest organizers get a collection of free images, they are less likely to buy nor hire/commission a photographer to shoot photos for commercial application - somewhere, a photographer loses a sale.

Yet, no matter how clever their mechanics/ contest rules may be, there will always be loopholes and gray areas which you can detect if you examine the contest mechanics very closely. When joining a (photo) contest, please take sometime to read carefully and understand the specific clauses particularly on the following:

Copyright Ownership/ Policy

As authors of original works, photographer entrants should own copyright of their entries, irregardless of winning and non-winning entries. Think twice if you see any of the following clause explicitly expressed in the rules:"All photos submitted as entries to the photo contest shall be owned by ...."; "..... shall retain the copyright of the photographs."; "All entries shall automatically become exclusive property of .... and may be used, copied, reproduced and/or reprinted by.... into any size or medium for exhibition, advertising, promotion or whatever purpose." 

File Submission

Photographer's entries are submitted independently of the digital files or film negatives except in the case of winners, where the sponsors/ organizers may request high resolution file/ digital scans of the winning photographs for verification purposes. Contest organizers has the prerogative in disposing non-winning prints. These maybe returned (via mail by enclosing self-stamped envelope) or destroyed if unclaimed. It is also understood that mere possession of unreturned/ unclaimed entries, both print/ digital files (low resolution) does not transfer authors copyright to the organizer/s. Please be warned should you read the clause "Original negatives and data files should be submitted together with the entry" or "All photos submitted as entries to the photo contest shall be owned by ...."

Terms of Use

Organizers has the right to use the winning photographs for marketing and promotional purposes directly related to the photo competition. It is also the duty of the organizers to give appropriate citation/credit to photographers of winning entries. Please be watchful though for a clause such as this: ".... you hereby grant ...., its subsidiaries and branch offices the perpetual right to exclusively, royalty-free and without limitation freely use, modify, edit, copy, reproduce, distribute, translate, create derivate works from, alter and publicly display or publish such content, for whatever purposes, in any form or medium, either on this web-site or elsewhere, whether promotional or in other activities or events arranged by .... or any of the above stated parties, whether locally or world-wide."

Attribution

Being the author of creative work, you have the right to require that the authorship be attributed to you, the right to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification, or derogatory action which would be prejudicial to your name and reputation.

 

What photographers lose in joining these contests?

Photographers loose all their rights, including economic and moral rights and also future income generated from licensing, etc. 

In conclusion, make sure that all rules and guidelines are clear, fair and justified. Should you encounter unclear and misleading guidelines similar to the clauses stated above, better think twice - it's not worth your time and effort. You may as well join IPR-Photo should you be interested in issues such as these.

Source: Dennis Rito

Opportunistic Photo Contests Abound

"Opportunistic" photo contest still flourish and these are being targeted to photographers who are new in the craft and are not aware of their rights. Some contest organizers even have the guts to stipulate an exclusivity clause stating that all entries shall become the property of the contest organizers - just like the "Me and My Adidas Originals" Photo Contest, which in their mechanics states: Entries become exclusive property of Adidas Philippines, Inc. and maybe used for any advertising, promotional, publicity or retail purposes.

What does it mean? It means that even if you don't win, Adidas Philippines, Inc. can use the images without renumeration to the photographer. Now, isn't that unfair (Adidas by the way is a multinational company who have the budget to pay an entire tri-media campaign but it's surprising to see them resort to this kind of usury)?.

Photographers especially the new ones should think twice of joining this kind of photo contest because by joining this, you are not only hurting yourself but the other photographers as well - and this will just be a vicious cycle unless photographers should assert their rights.