Avoid those fun little photo contests

I was going over my Twitter feeds today, and I noticed a familiar post from PennLive (they operate several newspapers across Pennsylvania). It said, "Enter your macro shots into our community photo contest."

Sound like fun?




A while back, when I was but a neophyte in the photographic world, I was interested in putting my work "out there" for fun. I didn't understand the conecpt of intellectual property, copyright infringement, and value for work done. It took a while, but I started to learn and understand how things are done from a legal standpoint. I wondered about the license terms for "contests" like the one that PennLive runs, and I asked them about it, and they pointed me to their User Agreement.

Buried deep down in that User Agreement, you'll find the following:

"Except as expressly provided otherwise in the Privacy Policy or in this Agreement, you agree that by posting messages, uploading text, graphics, photographs, images, video or audio files, inputting data, or engaging in any other form of communication with or through the Website, you grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, translate, enhance, transmit, distribute, publicly perform, display, or sublicense any such communication (including your identity and information about you) in any medium (now in existence or hereinafter developed) and for any purpose, including
commercial purposes, and to authorize others to do so."

Seems pretty harmless, doesn't it? It's not.

Sure, I understand when a publication wants to protect itself when people send them content. They can't control what happens to photos after they publish them, and they don't want to be caught in the middle of a copyright dispute. So rather than get specific about the subject, they just throw a "we can do whatever we want" clause in there. Unfortunately, such protection often turns into a shameless rights grab, and this is exactly the case here. This statement above allows PennLive to use your works however and whenever they feel like it. No restrictions. No time limit. No remuneration to you.

They can build a nifty little stock photo collection. At some later date, when a story comes around that needs a little extra photographic illustration, they can pull YOUR WORK from that stock. For free. They don't have to hire a photographer, they don't have to pay a microstock company. They don't have to give you a cent. Since you gave them the rights in the "contest," what was yours is now theirs.

If a client wants to place an ad on PennLive, and one of your photos helps sell the product, PennLive can use it and not pay you a dime for your work. What was yours is now theirs.

They can also modify your work however they see fit. Distort it. Change it. If you don't like what they did with your photo...too bad. Tough. What was yours is now theirs, and you willingly gave it up.

Oh...and while they are publishing your photos, they can also use this clause to allow them to send out (hey...and sell!) information about you. That's your identity. For any purpose. Forever. And they can legally authorize others to use your information as well.

Still sound like fun?

Of course, they could modity this agreement. It could just be restricted to the "photo contest" and for things related to it. Basically a small change in the wording would protect both the submitter (you) and PennLive. But then again, it would restrict them from being able to use all of your stuff for free. So don't hold your breath.

Regarding Photographer Competition

Lately I've seen a lot of whining from professional photographers regarding the state of their business. The "uncle with a camera" factor is causing a lot of stress. The market is shifting, and some of these (admittedly talented) people are failing to understand what they are seeing.

Anyway, Seth Godin posted a little parable that hits this issue square on the head.

The Sugar Cane Machine

Ebay Feedback

The feedback system on ebay is broken. Buyers and sellers are forced, almost by default, to gush about their transactions, even if they are less than thoroughly pleased.

Okay...first, the back story. A couple of years ago, I was shopping for optical triggers for my off-camera photo flash work. I came across this guy's offering, which was a hotshoe-mounted trigger with a 90-degree swivel built into it. It seemed like a great idea at the time, and it was relatively inexpensive, so I bought two.

After a couple of uses, I noticed that while the triggers worked okay, my heavier Canon flashes were causing a lot of stress on the swivel joint of the trigger, and I worried about their longevity. I figured that other potential users needed to know that it might not be good for heavier flash units, so when it came time to leave feedback, I wrote, "Arrived quickly, but is not great. Swivel doesn't support flash units very well." I gave it a neutral rating, because I felt that if the product wasn't up to par, I shouldn't give it a thumbs up.

The seller's response - along with a neutral rating for me - was "They work fine for everyone else."

Why would he give me a neutral rating? Retaliation because I had the gall to give him less than a glowing review? It wasn't negative, just an attempt to inform other potential buyers.

I figured, "Okay...whatever. Move on with life."

Fast forward two years, to last night.

I found a small item (a diffusion sock for a beauty dish) for sale, and I didn't realize that it was being sold by the very same vendor who I apparently dishonored way back when. When I went to buy it (using the "buy it now" option), I was greeted with a message saying that I was blocked by the seller. I fired off a private message to him, asking why I was blocked. His response: "you gave me neutral feedback."

Seriously? Over two years ago? After I complained, he told me that he would remove the block. If it weren't for the fact that he was the only person selling this item (or at least at this price), I would have told him to go pound sand. But he removed the block, and everything went down as expected. But it gave me some insight into how poorly the Ebay feedback system is designed.

When you make a purchase, and you leave feedback, you are faced with three options: positive, neutral, or negative. I can certainly understand why a vendor would not want negative feedback. It hurts future business. And maybe neutral feedback is almost as bad. If I was a seller, I would want to resolve problems causing such feedback, so that it can be removed. But the system is set up to discourage buyers from leaving anything but glowing, raving positives...which leaves my questioning the validity of any of the feedback I see on Ebay.

Iran reveals some of its rocket technology

This kind of gives me the chills.



If someone at NASA were to kiss a bible, and all of Congress were to recite the Lord's Prayer after unveiling this kind of technology, I can't help but think that there would be a major uproar.

Saving industries: can it be done?

Seth Godin has a nice take on the changing paradigms of the print/news industry. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to apply his thinking to other businesses, such as photography.

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/02/who-will-save-us.html

Gotta love spam designers

Comcast, in it's altruistic glory, just reminded me via a semi-spammish e-mail that I can download a copy of the McAfee anti-virus product for free. The graphic that they used for the e-mail? A photo of a dog, hovering over a MacBook Pro.

I'm wondering if I should remind them that, one, they don't offer the McAfee product for Macs, and two, the MBP running the Apple OS doesn't require said product (unless, of course, the MBP is running a Windoze OS).




This isn't the first time I've noticed the MBP used in an ad to represent the "typical" notebook computer. It's a neat, sexy product, and I don't blame the ad agency designers for using it. But maybe they should have even a little bit of tech savvy, and not make such an obvious goof.

Refining My Photographic Direction

In an effort to enrich my photographic experience, I signed up for a weekend-long "workshop" put on by one of the local Model Mayhem cronies. I've attended a few other events put on by this guy, and having very little being taught or discussed with regard to technique, they hardly qualified as workshops. But while they haven't been exactly geared toward my needs, I've always been able to cull something useful from the experience.

That all changed this weekend. Or so I thought.

The event took place at a local bed and breakfast, and it drew photographers and models from quite a distance. My idea was to get some nice shots of models (either male or female) in natural situations inside the B&B. Something soft and cozy that might be attractive to show a potential client.

When I arrived on Friday evening, I set up in one room, hoping to get a casual bedroom type of look. I wanted to try some specific looks with some new lighting techniques...but I couldn't find an available model for quite some time. After hanging around with some of the other photographers, it was apparent that my casual shoot wasn't going to happen. My vision simply didn't fit with what the rest of the attendees were looking to accomplish. Frankly, some of the work being done there almost reminded me of a low budget soft core porn shoot. The models put on the sleaziest outfits they had, caked on lots of makeup, and then the photographers proudly placed them in provocative positions in various locations around B&B. Beds? Yep. Bars? Sure. Pool table? Naturally.



To let you know, I'm definitely no prude, and I don't hold it against the attendees for doing what they like to do. I guess I just misunderstood what the weekend was about, and I should have realized that my aspirations don't match up with the folks who normally attend such functions. This activity just wasn't for me. I guess I could have flagged down a model and asked her to take off all the makeup and put on something cozy for a more traditional portrait session...but I didn't. It was clear that the interest level here was in having sexy looking models in unconventional situations, not natural looking everyday beautiful people.

In frustration, I packed up my gear, and drove home.

The next day, I struggled to think about how I could get something useful out of the event. I decided that I should return to take a photojournalistic approach, and walk around the B&B taking candid shots of the other attendees. I didn't take many shots, though, before I once again started feeling like I wasn't fitting in. So like the previous evening, I packed up and left.

I meditated on the whole experience for a while. I was angry that I paid for a "workshop," and came away from it with nothing. No images, no experience.

But then I realized something else. This was an "a-ha!" moment for me. I'm not a glamour photographer. I don't want to shoot nudes, and I don't get much value out of photographing half naked models in bizarre situations. Rather, I get much more satisfaction from creating artful images with normal, every day subjects. I'd rather follow in the footsteps of Henri Cartier-Bresson than Richard Fegley. In that light, I've refined my goals.

So the event helped me realize who I am, and who I want to be. What ended up seeming like a wasted experience actually served to help me define myself. And I culled something out of the weekend by walking away. Twice.