Posted by Brad Mangas on January 28, 2011 at 12:35 AM
The state of Kansas will celebrate 150 years of statehood the end of this month, with much hoopla going on a prominent art gallery in a major Kansas community is conducting a Kansas Art Competition which includes photography. The entry process is typical of this type of judged competition and all who enter are bound by the copyright, sales and reproduction agreement. The following is a section of that agreement. I had planned on partaking in this competition until I read this section. I would be interested in others opinion of this. Is it something that you would have no problem with? Thanks for your time.
Exclusive License of Reproduction Rights: Artist hereby grants to XYZ Gallery and their respective agents and other designees the sole and exclusive, irrevocable worldwide right and license to reproduce the Works (“Reproductions”) at their sole discretion and no cost to Artist, including but not limited to advertising and promotional uses, a limited edition series of prints, books, posters, note cards, magazine covers, and calendars for sale, gifting, or other transfer of ownership. This license shall exist in perpetuity. In order to protect the value of the Reproductions, Artist forever agrees that he/she will not reproduce the Works or create derivative works based on the Works, and other than this license to the XYZ Gallery Artist will not license or otherwise permit anyone else to reproduce the Works or create derivative works based on the Works. XYZ Gallery shall have the privilege of publishing, advertising, announcing and using at their discretion, the name and image of the Artist in connection with the Works or Reproductions.
Posted by Max Waugh on January 28, 2011 at 12:45 AM
The way it's worded, it makes it sound like the gallery gets the right to do whatever they want with your work:
"irrevocable worldwide right and license to reproduce the Works"
...and you suddenly can't do anything with your own work:
"Artist forever agrees that he/she will not reproduce the Works or create derivative works based on the Works"
Oh, but you may get a photo credit.
This is awful.
Max
Posted by Lon Overacker on January 28, 2011 at 1:39 AM
Brad,
That is one syllable short of saying you have signed over your ownership of your submitted image.
It's fairly common for the receivers or organizers of contests to retain the rights for "advertisement and promotion" of the event or contest. But words like "limited edition," "forever agrees he/she will not reproduce" You are basically assigning ownership rights to XYZ.
Also, very important. In many cases like this it's not just for the winning or published images, it's for ANY IMAGE SUBMITTED. You may not even win or get recognized, but it's possible that you've given them ownership simply because you submitted.
I would write to them. Clearly this should be an endeavor that is for the public good or interest and clearly the entrants are not being treated fairly. Buyer beware! Let us know if anything comes of this.
Lon
Posted by Jim DeWitt on January 28, 2011 at 1:57 AM
Don't sign it if you want to still own your photo.
Posted by Bill Chambers on January 28, 2011 at 9:58 AM
There's NO WAY I would touch that - seems like a giant rip off to me. You do all the work, the gallery makes all the money.
Posted by Walt Sterneman on January 28, 2011 at 10:44 AM
I agree that you should write to them. If they realize that no photographer that can produce anything of value would consider signing this, they may back off.
Posted by Luke Ormand on January 28, 2011 at 11:36 AM
That's morally rephrensible plain and simple. Are they asking for organ donations as well?
Posted by Bill Maile on January 28, 2011 at 12:08 PM
That's definitely the worst example I've seen. Holy smokes, I wouldn't expect that out of some rinky dink contest or cheesy studio, let alone a prominent art gallery. What are they thinking?
Posted by Nancy de Flon on January 28, 2011 at 12:13 PM
I wouldn't go anywhere near this unless they could be persuaded to change tactics. Could it be that they don't realize that no artist worth their salt would agree to such terms? If the image has that kind of sales potential, what photographer in their right mind would sign away all rights just for winning a contest?
Posted by Brad Mangas on January 28, 2011 at 1:09 PM
You all have confirmed my opinion as well. I really didn't have to pose the question here to know how wrong such an agreement was but I did want to bring this to light for all of us. Together we have strong voice over such agreements and for that I thank you.
I have just sent what I hope is a respectful email to this gallery explaining my opinion and disagreement of such "rights" abuse.
Posted by Bill Chambers on January 28, 2011 at 2:11 PM
Brad, you might want to sent them a link to this thread so they will get an idea what other photogs think about their ill-conceived rule.
Posted by John Tobias on January 28, 2011 at 2:25 PM
I have no problem with this personally! I would simply add with any submission that the gallery owes you $1000-$10000 (your choice depending upon the images) for any accepted images payable within two weeks subject to liable and the full extent of prosecution for copyright law infringement if they use your images without explicit permission by you without full payment and that they can jump in the friggin' lake for even thinking of taking control of your creative rights and add that this is an addendum to their written License of Reproduction Rights that they agree to forthwith by accepting your offered images! I would add that their email program's acceptance of your email containing your images constitutes acceptance of your written contractual differences and additions to their Exclusive License of Reproductive Rights. Therefore, they owe you Yea amount of dollars for their email program's acceptance of your email containing your images! That should certainly generate an interesting response from them!! Be sure to have your name and copyright all over any images you send them in a manner that they cannot be removed!
Posted by Luke Ormand on January 30, 2011 at 5:28 PM
Hey Troupe - didn't you see this section?
3. Royalty Payment to Artist. If SouthWind Gallery elects to use the Artist’s image for a
series of limited edition prints, the Artist will receive ten percent (10%) of the sales
price excluding sales taxes and shipping/handling charges. Payment shall be made
quarterly, no later than the 15th of the month after the end of the quarter. Artists will
receive no royalty for images used for promotional purposes in any form
Come on, they are going to give you 10%!! What more could you ask for?!?!
Luke, I haven't been to the Kansas website to read the conditions. But, I Am going to cut and paste Troup's response into a word document....if I ever come across unpalatable rules!
Brad, tell us what you decide...and then post the image here for us to see. We are not "all seeing" but we can watch out for an "unauthorized" use of you photo....tell us what is "authorized"....the paragraph that Luke read and any agreement you make with them.
Posted by Brad Mangas on February 6, 2011 at 12:49 PM
I know this is a big sore spot for all photographers I have no intention of starting a firestorm against this particular gallery, I'm not the kind that will burn bridges. I wrote them and got a good reply back. They asked how the contract could be worded in which I would agree with. So there is an effort on their part to cooperate with needs of artists. The ending date to enter the competition was Feb 1, so obviously I did not enter. Their reply was professional, courteous and acceptable to me but what is still not acceptable is that a photographer has to take the steps to get an initial agreement changed just to be somewhat fair to begin with.
In addition, we all must be professional when dealing with such situations as to maintain credibility to photographers as a whole. Business's first and foremost will protect themselves from losses and seek ways to increase profits I have no problem with that, but we need to stand up for our own protections and profits as well, that is where a cooperative relationship with others will benefit both parties. Together we can make a difference. I appreciate everyone's replies and concern with this. Nice to know we don't have to fight this battle alone.
I agree about writing to the Gallery, though, just to see if they know what their own lawyers drew up for their contest rules. If they're aware, then I'd join the unanimous vote of your fellow photogs and KEEP your prize winning photos to sell to many sources, as you deserve for the work you've done and the artist you are. That's the lousiest contest entry agreement I've seen yet. CHEAP, underhanded way to get lots of photos from unsuspecting photogs. I say, if they're going to act cheap let them reap cheap images in their contest and you STAY AWAY.
Discussion
21 repliesExclusive License of Reproduction Rights: Artist hereby grants to XYZ Gallery and their respective agents and other designees the sole and exclusive, irrevocable worldwide right and license to reproduce the Works (“Reproductions”) at their sole discretion and no cost to Artist, including but not limited to advertising and promotional uses, a limited edition series of prints, books, posters, note cards, magazine covers, and calendars for sale, gifting, or other transfer of ownership. This license shall exist in perpetuity. In order to protect the value of the Reproductions, Artist forever agrees that he/she will not reproduce the Works or create derivative works based on the Works, and other than this license to the XYZ Gallery Artist will not license or otherwise permit anyone else to reproduce the Works or create derivative works based on the Works. XYZ Gallery shall have the privilege of publishing, advertising, announcing and using at their discretion, the name and image of the Artist in connection with the Works or Reproductions.
"irrevocable worldwide right and license to reproduce the Works"
...and you suddenly can't do anything with your own work:
"Artist forever agrees that he/she will not reproduce the Works or create derivative works based on the Works"
Oh, but you may get a photo credit.
This is awful.
Max
That is one syllable short of saying you have signed over your ownership of your submitted image.
It's fairly common for the receivers or organizers of contests to retain the rights for "advertisement and promotion" of the event or contest. But words like "limited edition," "forever agrees he/she will not reproduce" You are basically assigning ownership rights to XYZ.
Also, very important. In many cases like this it's not just for the winning or published images, it's for ANY IMAGE SUBMITTED. You may not even win or get recognized, but it's possible that you've given them ownership simply because you submitted.
I would write to them. Clearly this should be an endeavor that is for the public good or interest and clearly the entrants are not being treated fairly. Buyer beware! Let us know if anything comes of this.
Lon
I have just sent what I hope is a respectful email to this gallery explaining my opinion and disagreement of such "rights" abuse.
Sandy
Troup Nightingale
LOL!
Sandy
http://www.contestwatchers.com/kansas-150-art-competition/
If you go on the read the "complete official rules", the statement listed above appears.
Come on, they are going to give you 10%!! What more could you ask for?!?!
Brad, tell us what you decide...and then post the image here for us to see. We are not "all seeing" but we can watch out for an "unauthorized" use of you photo....tell us what is "authorized"....the paragraph that Luke read and any agreement you make with them.
In addition, we all must be professional when dealing with such situations as to maintain credibility to photographers as a whole. Business's first and foremost will protect themselves from losses and seek ways to increase profits I have no problem with that, but we need to stand up for our own protections and profits as well, that is where a cooperative relationship with others will benefit both parties. Together we can make a difference. I appreciate everyone's replies and concern with this. Nice to know we don't have to fight this battle alone.
I agree about writing to the Gallery, though, just to see if they know what their own lawyers drew up for their contest rules. If they're aware, then I'd join the unanimous vote of your fellow photogs and KEEP your prize winning photos to sell to many sources, as you deserve for the work you've done and the artist you are. That's the lousiest contest entry agreement I've seen yet. CHEAP, underhanded way to get lots of photos from unsuspecting photogs. I say, if they're going to act cheap let them reap cheap images in their contest and you STAY AWAY.