Just to flag that they require 6 megapixel images, to be submitted through Flickr or manually - the manual submissions may end up on Flickr as well.

See http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0.../#comment-29543

6MP is too much for me; I can see every decorator feeding on the Nature Conservancy Flickr group. I will skip submitting my stuff - any thoughts?

Mark

That link to the NYT post left me speechless . . .

Wow! When did "journalism" officially die? I must have missed it in the Times obituaries.

I submitted to the inaugural contest and was an honorable mention for 3 photos (one of which was a peoples choice top ten) and a finalist in the Best Nature photo for a simple portrait of an immature Tricolor Heron. Incidentally I preferred the altered photo with the top two leaves removed but submitted the unaltered one per the rules. I also submitted the second year but the process had become more onerous to me since they now required the larger size submissions and I was not willing to upload 6mb photos to Flickr for all to use indiscriminately-despite the low likelihood of me ever earning real money for them. You can 'block downloads' on Flickr but we all know how useful that is. I emailed the photos the second year, an option then, and as I recall I was not convinced the process worked correctly. Could you plaster a copyright notice on them? That may very well be a kiss of death to their chances.

For even more onerous see this for Nat Geo's rules. In particular Section II paragraph 5. irrevocable permanent global rights . I guess a small version might be enough...
George

I am not ready to give in to the "free photos for the world" trend yet - and I do not think that it is in the best interests of photographers or photography to go gently into that good night.

Two things we all need to do, I think:

1. EVERY time we see contests with such terms we must speak about it everywhere we can. Photography instructors should discuss this with their classes. Photo bloggers should call the contest sponsors on this. Post it on your facebook and twitter accounts. We need to shine the light into these dark shadows.

2. Explain to people why these contest terms and conditions are so grossly bad. In just about all of the contests - even those sponsored by groups I otherwise support - the onerous terms apply to ALL ENTRANTS, not just the winners. And the terms virtually always assign an unlimited and free license to the sponsors and often to their affiliates.

3. In addition, if you read the liability terms you'll probably be horrified to know that if the sponsors/affiliates use your photo in ways you did not anticipate (and can no longer control) and this upsets someone... YOU will have accepted full legal and financial liability for the misuse and will have agreed to hold the sponsor/affiliate harmless. This is serious business.

Let's all get loud about this issue!

Dan

Here are a couple links to posts on this subject at my blog:

http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2009/07/15/tho...oment#more-4542

http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2009/07/07/pho...tests#more-4440

I am also amazed that even the organizations I consider to be "white hats" treat their photography contests as open season to build their own stock photo libraries. I've daydreamed about sending in an entry - heavily watermarked with a few choice words about rights grabs

Paul

It's absolutely outrageous that, of all places for the original article to appear, it shows up under the NY Times banner, supposedly the epitome of journalistic integrity (not even close IMHO). It's a sad day when they even bring up the issue and take a questionable-at-best legal position. WHat has happened to our world.

As to the issue of the web, and particularly Flickr, I have a Flickr site. I don't mind if strangers look at my images. But no one has access to my full-size files but me. I simply don't upload printable files. It's sad, because it would be nice to share full-size images with fellow photogs/artists, but there is no control over where the images go. I limit my resolution to something that would only look okay on screen. If someone wants something bigger-higher quality, they can pay for it. I sell 4x6's and up; why the heck would I give them for free to the world? And any contest where they want high-quality photos had better have some integrity (like an established magazine or organization) or be giving away an Aston Martin with odds no worse than 1-in-2.

The sad truth is that people have very little integrity. Look at the popularity of Napster/kazaa/Limewire. People would much rather get it for free whether it's legal or not. We need to take precautions to prevent this from happening. Thanks, Mark, for bringing up the issue for discussion.

Jason - good points.

Let me throw this in as a devil's advocate:
Looking at the music industry and also at the DVD distributors, taking precautions will only have limited effect - why not consider a new way of life where low-res images can be used as marketing materials. I put some brief thoughts on my blog (link below).
Honestly I could not care less if someone wants to download an image of mine for a 4x6 print. A low-res of 1200 pixels on the long edge would print OK on 4x6. I would rather have my small image hang on a wall for free than be frustrated and miss a marketing opportunity! Biggest issue will be how to track downloads and how to build a 'customer' database / relationship to follow up with.

Am interested in your thoughts.

Mark

Mark:

You make a good point. A 4x6 is good marketing, and it certainly isn't going to become a framed print to be displayed. I put sample images on the back of my business cards (sort of a "best of..." series). I would, however, at least like a quick inquiry seeking permission, and without a doubt I would agree wholeheartedly.

My own experience was finding one of my images turned into a desktop background and distributed over the web with others taking credit for my image. It was easy to prove it was mine, however, since it was a 4x5 from my view camera, and it had chemistry stains in one corner. It made me sick to my stomach to see others taking credit for my image that they stole.

Promotion is fine, and it's important for anyone trying to sell their photographs, but there's a lot of theft out there. And there's a very fine line between sharing and theft. The level of sharing you are comfortable with is very subjective. We just have to all be careful where and with whom we share our work.

Absolutely. And it would be great if you could come back to that downloader before the holiday period and say something along the lines of "hey - I see that you are interested in my images - have you thought of buying one of my pics to give to your family" etc etc. That type of image management will be key to distributing 'free' work.

Thanks,

Mark

this has nthing to do with the NC contest but along the same lines of 'FREE'

If you had taken that shot of the helo and plane crash in NYC this past week, and you knew you had it,, would you have Given it to the news casters or would you have sold it. I suspect the unsuspecting owners of that photograph probably gave that bit of tragic interaction away, not knowing what they had, but maybe i am completely wrong in assuming they were given away. it seems the news orgs get more and more of there content from the general public who happen to be there and again, i am making the assumption those are all free donations