Contest Agreement

[ConsAreLiars]

Every "real" contest includes some conditions regarding the use of submitted photos and the rights to use winning photos. (Often that means that they "own" it.) I don't know exactly what we need, but I think it would help all those who participate if we were more explicit about what we expect regarding entries. The basic rules are clear -- "Do not post copyrighted images without the consent of the copyright holder."

But the implications may be less clear -- I read it as meaning "If you post images, it means you intend to share them with others." And a part of that sharing, thanks to F. Gordon and Intheflow, is that the photos get memorialized on Demopedia and any other DU Photography Forum-related site that is willing to host them. Others may have made different assumptions.

Basically, this just means that if you do not want people to see, cache, save, or mirror your photos, don't put them up on the web.

Another assumption is that No One is authorized to use these photos for profit of any sort. The rights to commercial use, if any, belong to the creator of the image, and participation in this contest in no way compromises that right.

As I see it, when the a part of the conditions of a contest is that your image will get broader distribution by being copied onto another site, and if you do not want it copied onto another host, then do not enter the contest.

That said, it would be helpful to have a "Contest Agreement" statement posted (and pinned) in this forum, so that nobody who enters can claim ignorance regarding the use of that photo on Demopedia or other sites that record this contest's entries and winners.

Others can probably put this in fewer words or add to it, but I think it would be helpful to make these assumptions explicit. The Creative Commons License I described earlier is one way to make this explicit, but a general statement regarding submissions to these contests might serve as well.

I'm saddened by the proprietary impulse that showed itself here, but think it is a good warning that some assumptions about the kind of sharing involved in this forum need to be made explicit.

[GOPFighter]

1. Copyright

Good idea, ConsAreLiars. As I understand it, every photograph - published or unpublished - is automatically "copyrighted" for 70 years beyond the death of the photographer (however, unless you register the photograph with the government, it may be hard to take legal action to enforce the copyright).

Since 1988 copyrighted photographs no longer need to exhibit the little c in a circle (©) copyright symbol.

It would appear that photographs that are posted on DU, including the contest, cannot be used for other purposes without the photographer's permission. That being said, it would seem that anyone who posts a photo in a public contest on the Internet understands the risk that their photo will be copied and used for other purposes. Also, I doubt few would complain about having their photo included in a gallery of past entires, etc.

However, I think it's about time we include a "contest agreement." For the contest, I think we should explicitly state in the post announcing the contest that by submitting a photograph in this contest, the photographer is giving permission for that photo to be included in the Demopedia's gallery of contest entries, and may be used to publicize future contests or commemorate past contests.

[Ms. Toad]

2. Looks good.

The law in copyright is that copyright rights not expressly granted remain with the owner of the protected work, and no one else can exercise those rights without the owner's consent absent a few very limited exceptions. (Fair use, the most commonly cited exception, is risky to rely on. It has been found not to apply even in cases where common sense would dictate the use is a fair use - for example someone who made a single copy of an article he found interesting for future reference). Adding a simple license grant as a condition of entry creates the express grant needed to resolve the question of whether the contest entries can be reposted elsewhere or not.

If we want the broadest participation in the contest, we can also add a sentence that allows an entrant to disclaim the license so that anyone who wants to enter but still wants to control all the rights to his/her work can do so. (That means whoever moves the images to the Demopedia's gallery would then need to watch for a disclaimer.)

That kind of license/disclaimer would also work as part of the "about" info for the forum with respect to images posted in the forum. F.Gordon captured some of the images that weren't formally part of the contest for the contest galleries - if there had been a disclaimer in the description of the forum, that would have eliminated questions about those images as well.

From a personal standpoint, I enjoy the free flow of ideas and images. Legal reality aside, I find it sad that this question has created tension and misunderstandings that couldn't be resolved amicably without the intervention of the moderators, and that resulted in all of the galleries of past contests disappearing.

I'm all for a simple unobtrusive solution like the one suggested.

[ConsAreLiars]

4. I think the "default standard" regarding all photos posted here

is close to what GOPFighter suggested:
----------------------------------------
By submitting a photograph in this forum, the photographer is giving permission for that photo to be included in the Demopedia and in other collections intended to showcase the photographic work of DUers or otherwise serve the DU community in some manner.

If the photographer wants to restrict or prevent this form of re-distribution of that image, the photographer MUST include a "Copyrighted, no copying allowed" statement with each posting of any such photo.

Further, any such restrictions will disqualify such photos from inclusion in any DU Photography Forum contest.
----------------------------------------

The contest disqualification is a practical matter, as I see it. I know I would not want to be responsible for trying to interpret and remember each original poster's intent. Further, it seems that if participants in the forum don't want their photo included in the contest archive, then the obvious solution is simply not to submit a photo to the contest.

[Princess Turandot]

8. I disagree about the contest eligibility..

and I would leave out the.."serve the DU community in some manner" from the above. It's too broad and its interpretation lies with the person who takes the picture.That's where any problem would be, not with storing photos in Demopedia.

This is a photography group and the pictures are being entered into a non-prize-winning contest which does not convey rights to the entity organizing the contest, as would be done with a professional contest. Giving permission to put the photo into a Demopedia gallery or a DU photographers gallery is very specific. I don't know
why people who want to enter should be barred from doing so because someone they don't know wants to use one of their photos w/o asking for permission. That of course will happen anyway, given the nature of the internet.

But I think it's plain wrong to punish the photographer by banning them from the contest because of someone else's bad manners.

I think you should eliminate the sentence on 'serving the DU community in some manner'and replace it with one that says 'any other use requires direct permission of the owner of the photographer by copyright law. Please post any such request on the Photography group board or PM the owner.'

Are the DU admins concerned that they are going to have a legal problem if people take other folks' photos w/o permission?


Whatever you do, I would add a sentence about not stealing bandwidth.
Someone could set up a geocities 'gallery' and include links to other people's server space. In cases where people buy server space for their own use, that can add to their cost.

[GOPFighter]

5. The contest galleries are gone??

Yup, I guess they are. Too bad!

I've pointed friends to the galleries and they all had high praise for the works that were displayed.

[alfredo]

3. Thanks for setting that straight.

[NashVegas]

6. Sharing Implications

Look, I'm not Margaret Bourke White or anything, but when I post a photo to the DU forum, it's to share with readers of the *DU forums.* Period.

The same rules that apply to DU regarding fair use apply from DU. This is also the rule for any original essays posted to DU.

If someone wants to DL something I post for their own use, ie, on their own computer or what have you, I've no trouble with that. But DUers should take it as common courtesy to ask other DUers' permissions if we want to use their work on a separate host. And they'd sure as hell need to get release if they intend to do anything even remotely commercial with it.

[intheflow]

7. Yikes!

I leave for an extended long weekend and come back to find controversy in what had been a peaceful oasis in the sometimes stormy DU sea.

When did F.Gordon delete the galleries? I saw the exchange between him and lwfern, which seemed amicably resolved, but now that thread's missing from the Photo Group, and F.Gordon is MIA.

What is going on?!?!?!

:shrug:

:wtf:

:cry:

BTW, I like the idea of asking Elad to post "loose" photo contest rules permanently, right under the "Welcome to the Photography Group" announcement at the top of the group. The regulars in the group have worked through this stuff already. It's so frustrating to have to revisit it month after month for those who only hang out here around contest time.

:banghead:

[Ms. Toad]

9. Exchanges later in the thread,

(before it disappeared) were not so amicable and ended with F. Gordon commenting that all the contest galleries were now down. :(

[ConsAreLiars]

10. The core of the problem, as I see it

is that some who post photos here now need to be assured that their photos are not copied to another location. Since there was no record of anyone objecting to this practice until just recently (to my knowledge), this issue is a new one that needs to be dealt with if the Demopedia Photo section is to include photos, since the Demopedia system cannot be used for direct image storage.

F. Gordon had kindly offered his gallery space as a "permanent" server for the photos, and hosted them there, thus allowing the Demopedia Gallery to exist as a place for our photos to be displayed (via a link to F. Gordon's gallery space on Mugwump).

Mugwump displays only photos it hosts.

As an alternative, someone might want to build a web page based gallery consisting only of links to the original photo location instead of using a service like mugwump, but no one has done this yet. A further consideration is that many (most) entries are submitted via temporary web links to what are often used as temporary storage sites on the web, sites like photobucket, and any such gallery would soon have a lot of broken links. Finally there is some ambiguity about whether even thumbnails would be permissible to every individual who might post a photo here.

I don't have any stake in this, other than not wanting to be the target of someone's righteous indignation for failing to be psychic, and in wanting to see the Demopedia Gallery function resurrected because I think it is a good way to present DUers to the world as a bit more that politics junkies.

I don't have the kind of proprietary concerns that do seem to matter so much to some, but I think they are entitled to make any demands regarding reproduction that they wish. And they are entitled to know in advance if a thread or contest is intended to be a building process for a collection of photos that will (of necessity) be hosted on another server that the one they posted from so they can keep their photos out of that thread or contest.

(edit: it's always SOMEthing!, and I intended to reply to #7)

[Ms. Toad]

11. Aside from broken links,

the law is mixed on whether it is permissible to pull images alone into another website (rather than linking to the original page in which the image was posted). That means that linking to images would still leave a gallery host at some risk in the event someone who doesn't share the common unspoken expectations of the group objects.

As suggested, a solution which protects any generous soul who might step up to offer to host galleries of future contests is to post a limited license grant in the contest announcement, and perhaps in the introduction to the group as well since the galleries included some photos which were not formally entered in the contest. I like the version in the original post. Without something like this (or the not trivial task of obtaining individual consent from each entrant), any host depends on the collective understanding of the ever changing group - and when that understanding fails as it did with this contest the legal default is not particularly friendly to the gallery host.

F.Gordon was very generous with his time in creating a collection of the contest entries for the benefit of this group, and despite his clear statement in at least two threads about how to remove an image from the gallery it still blew up in his face. It makes me very sad that a wonderful group resource is now gone - and I hope it is only the galleries that are gone and that F.Gordon will be back after a short breather.

Having lurked here for a while before posting it was my clear expectation that my entry would be posted in the gallery, whether or not all of the legal Is were dotted and Ts were crossed. That was fine with me. Putting on my work hat, however, I have to concede that lwfern is correct. S/he would not be if the unwritten expectation of the group had actually been written down. Let's fix that so there aren't any future misunderstandings!

[ConsAreLiars]

12. So, maybe something like this?

(First, let me say that as someone who thinks the phrase "private property" is the biggest and most dangerous lie ever perpetrated and perpetuated, I am not the best person to address the kind of proprietary concerns that led to the dismantling of the gallery.)

But it may help to pin something like the following at the top of the forum:
---------------------------------------------------------
"READ THIS before posting any photographs in this forum."

"All photos posted in this forum remain the property of the photographer, and all the rights associated with the copyright to that photograph are retained by the owner.

"However, some threads or contests may be intended to collect images to be presented in Demopedia through a linked gallery or other file storage service. Posting photos in threads identified as having this purpose gives consent to copy the image file to such a location, but such permissions are limited to that usage only. Ownership of the photo remains with the photographer, and such hosting permissions in no way reduce the copyright rights of the owner."
---------------------------------------------------------

Maybe someone can do a more concise version, and there are undoubtedly pages of legalese that say the same thing, but I think something like that may help prevent future misunderstandings.

[Blue_In_AK]

13. How did you get so smart, Cons?

:) I think that's a very nice disclaimer.

[ConsAreLiars]

14. Well, my natural inclination would be to post something

more like "If you don't want to share your photos freely then get the hell out of this forum," but, on the other hand, over the years, I've learned that good people come together with a great range of views about all sorts of things, and we are stronger for that.

I think also that there is some misperception that if you want to "protect" your copyrighted image you cannot allow others to copy the image. Absurd, but there are ill-informed novices who do worry about such things. I think they deserve to have their concerns addressed so they can participate without that worry, and so tried to phrase the disclaimer to address that issue.

And, most importantly, I wanted to make it possible to rebuild the gallery without collecting notarized permission statements from everyone and hiring 6 lawyers to make sure that every comma is correct.

[RagingInMiami]

17. Maybe you should add ...

"But this does not prevent somebody from pulling your photo off DU and attempt to sell it on another website. It would be impossible to monitor this. Enter at your own risk. And good luck with your entry."

[RagingInMiami]

15. That's perfect

Now if we can just get back to enjoying our photos.

[Princess Turandot]

16. I think that sounds very reasonable...nt

[F.Gordon]

18. My take on all of this

It bothers me that it has to come to this, but I understand why you have proposed it. For me it distracts from the free flowing exchange that has represented the ‘soul’ of this group. That we have to “lawyer up” this place is a bit depressing. I suspect that a number of people are reading this thread and thinking… “All I want to do is share some photographs, enjoy the work of others, learn a thing or two, and have fun. What the hell is all this legal crap???”

As I see it even the most well thought out iron-clad contest agreement will still be flawed. I could spell something wrong, I could refer to an image as “untitled” that the artist :eyes: has given a specific title to reference that particular piece of work, the reference to an image as being an “exhibition” or “bonus” piece could be seen by the artist :eyes: as having a negative influence on the “value” :eyes: of their work, or I could forget to change an “offensive” default setting in the gallery. I could go on, but I think you get my point.

There are a few reasons I’m hesitant about ever starting the Demopedia galleries again….

1. After attention was focused on my site by a certain thread I began having little unwelcome “visitors”. Since I linked that site for friends and family I didn’t want to worry about what they may or may not find there when I didn’t have a chance to keep an eye on it. This really pissed me off. I not only had to delete the contest galleries, I eventually had to delete the entire site. Not fun. :(

2. I fear that no matter how this is handled….. “contest agreement”... whatever ... eventually someone will come along and I’ll have to go through all this stress and bullshit all over again. They could claim that they never read it, they could claim that they misunderstood it, they could claim ....

3. My little gesture of goodwill has disrupted the ‘soul’ of this group. Like others, I have the same thought: “All I want to do is share some photographs, enjoy the work of others, learn a thing or two, and have fun.” I don’t want to do anything that will cause this group to run from the good vibrations that this place usually swims in.

4. I don’t want anyone to not enter the contest because they are uncomfortable with the “contest agreement”. I think I caught a whiff of that sentiment on this thread.

Just a few more things and I’ll shut up.

Were DUers photographs being sold on my site? No. I made zero dollars from that site and no images were ever sent to the main host for prints. I didn’t even get any referral fees. Was there a shopping cart in the contest galleries? Yes, but I wasn’t even aware it was there. As I told another DUer, it was the default setting for every gallery. Since I hadn’t sold anything on that site this feature wasn’t even on my radar and I never even thought to disable it until it was brought to my attention.

I do have an idea for re-starting the galleries, but I have to look into it more, and I have to regain my confidence that it would work along with the “contest agreement”. But for now…. Can we just start sharing photographs and move on from this? Now where are all the perty flower pix? Who has perty flower pix? I want to see more perty flower pix. :P

Thank you ConsAreLiars for putting so much thought and effort into this. Give me some time to cool down and begin thinking rationally again and I'll try to come up with something.
:hi:

[Blue_In_AK]

19. Glad to see you back, F.

I went way out on a limb last night and posted some perty flower pix, fearlessly, with no thought of repercussions. :) I hope you like them.

[Ms. Toad]

25. Me Too!

(Glad to see you back, that is. Maybe I'll even post some of my flower pictures)

[TahitiNut]

20. Not to muddy the waters, but ...

There's really no assurance whatsoever that the person (the one behind the screen name) who submits/posts a photo actually has the copyrights.

Even "under laws" and with "agreements," any civilized society is based predominantly on trust. (That's why a violation of trust should be such a big deal.)

:shrug:

(We now return to our regularly-scheduled discussion.)

[F.Gordon]

21. Exactly

I hate kicking this thread again, but you've said what I have been wanting to say.

One very nice mod suggested that I contact EarlG and discuss the “permission issue”. I decided not to and just let things be. Beside, the “issue” is a little complicated. A permission given to me by busheatsdonkeypoop has ZERO validity. I have no way of knowing whether there is one or more people using the busheatsdonkeypoop user name, and I have no way of knowing whether busheatsdonkeypoop actually “owns” the photograph.

Also, if you’ll indulge me, I’d like to make another point. In my post above I write…..

I fear that no matter how this is handled….. “contest agreement”... whatever ... eventually someone will come along and I’ll have to go through all this stress and bullshit all over again. They could claim that they never read it, they could claim that they misunderstood it, they could claim ....

Now, everyone go read Elad’s pinned post. See where it says….

Do not post copyrighted images without the consent of the copyright holder.

Here is my point. I know I could find probably a minimum of 10 posts/threads in this group where both copyright and DU rules were violated. No worries people. I’m not going to waste my time searching them out and clicking the alert button on them. I'm not that kind of person. I just mention this to back up my previously mentioned concern.

Since my Crystal Ball was still in the shop for repairs I truly didn't see the Steamroller that was barreling toward me. Believe me, if I had I would have never done any galleries for this group.

[RagingInMiami]

22. Didn't busheatsdonkeypoop get banned?

[Blue_In_AK]

23. If he wasn't, he should have been. :-D n/t

[superconnected]

24. this sucks because some of us LIKED the gallery

Kelly

[ConsAreLiars]

26. Actually, no copyrighted data image data is ever copied to DU's

server, since images here are always simply links to other websites. This is different than copying copyrighted text into a message which actually gets copied onto DU's server. Jpg links are just that - links, and no more a copyright violation than a link to nytimes.com. The user's browser simply goes the link and displays that image along with the text message. This is seen all the time with images from

As for the "post no copyrighted stuff" advise, well, it's all copyrighted unless it has a public domain type license. I assume that meant "don't post stuff unless it is OK by copyright rules," such as some images in pay-per-view sites.

As for people submitting work as their own that is not, well, that would be deceitful, but not DU's responsibility other than to tombstone once discovered.

Trust is essential, but avoiding misunderstandings is easier when expectations are both realistic and made explicit.

As far as I can see, the "heads up" notice I put together above seems to be a fair statement of the "fair use" of images in this forum.

(edit for coherence))