Obama asks artists to work for no pay and no credit?
Discussion
9 replies
Posted by Cindy Garwood on October 12, 2011 at 9:35 PM
This was sent to me by one of my fellow photographer teachers. I thought I would pass it on. Read Below.
As any creative artist should know, your copyright and the ability to negotiate licenses and fees and limited time usage is extremely important. Many photo contests ask you to give up all of your rights, in perpetuity for no credit and no pay just for entering the contest. That is bad enough ... but to see this same situation in our political arena is startling and it seems to go one step further by asking you to agree to conditions and they don't list the conditions in their fact sheets.
Please take a look and write to the committee to voice your concerns.
After you copy and paste go to Article #9 on the List. Then read below and click on Calling All Artists Closing Date November 4, 2011
I'm not sure that link is correct. It doesn't appear to contain anything (at a quick look, anyway) that supports the concerns expressed in your post.
Ok, I see you revised the instructions in your original post to explain where to find the contest information. I'm kind of with Luke on this one. Also, it's perhaps more offensive to me that many of the contests listed on the website are sponsored by corporations looking, in essence, for free images for advertising use.
Posted by Cindy Garwood on October 12, 2011 at 9:50 PM
Phil, I copy and pasted it again.
Posted by Luke Ormand on October 12, 2011 at 10:46 PM
For what it's worth, I don't think the President actually reviewed the rules and thought about the potential implications so I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that Obama is asking artists to work for no pay/credit. "Obama for America" is asking for works to be submitted and frankly this is the same thing many websites and newspapers ask for (not to say it's "right" but it's standard practice). They probably justify it to themselves by arguing anyone who submits something is "helping America".
Posted by Jim DeWitt on October 13, 2011 at 12:01 AM
Can we have NPN be a politics-free zone? There are hundreds - thousands - of places to talk about politics; NPN is blessed in being one of the few places that I can talk about photography and nature and not have politics get dragged into the discussion.
If you'll agree, I won't ask why out of the 142 contests that allegedly violate the Creative Bill of Rights you picked the one involving President Obama and not, say, the BBC or the UN.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on October 13, 2011 at 12:44 AM
Couple of technical politics-free comments to clear up confusion:
Phil, if you go to item# 9, you need to click on the second tab, and then scroll down and click the blue "calling artists" button. That explains the situation.
Jim, your conviction is right, because the subject of Obama as our President is the tightest string on the guitar with both sides as convicted as ever. There ain't no fence-sitters in that arena! So love him or hate him, he's our leader, no sense it arguing here (no one has, just heading it off at the pass, lol!). But if it WERE a bad thing about to head through Congress, it would certainly be of more importance, what the BBC does won't affect Americans directly. But it's innocuous so no harm done.
Luke, you're right, it's pretty clear that he's wanting people involved, and whoever chooses to contribute certainly can, just like writing a donation check or whatever. No one HAS to submit any artwork, but Obama knows that his supporters certainly would be happy to, and there's nothing wrong asking for that. We can choose not to. (Politically correct disclaimer: I'm not endorsing Obama with my reply at all, just from a technical standpoint that call for artwork seems 100% voluntary.)
Oy vey, let's go out and shoot the Milky Way or something!
Posted by Cindy Garwood on October 13, 2011 at 6:38 AM
Thanks Paul for that.
I didn't want to ruffle any feathers about politics I would not care if it was the Dems or Repb in the Presidential seat right now. I posted it because one of my former teachers sent it and we are all "Artists". It was just a FYI Topic I thought maybe someone could benefit from reading, if not then it will not effect you.
Posted by David Bostedo on October 13, 2011 at 9:08 AM
But if it WERE a bad thing about to head through Congress, it would certainly be of more importance...
This has nothing directly to do with the US government. It's simply a campaign website looking for free work to be submitted, and is no different than many of the other sites listed on artists-bill-of-rights.org. I think the main point here, photographically speaking, is that all of the sites that are posted are looking for either free work, or "rights grabs". As Luke pointed out, that's pretty standard for many websites/contests/etc. It's usually not even done with any malice (i.e. it's done purely for legal reasons - grabbing all rights means you don't have to worry about getting sued for improper usage, so you don't have to track anything as far as who owns what).
So the important part, is that if artists want that to change, they need to not participate in any of these things that are rights grabs. The problem there, is that if enough non-artists participate anyway AND don't care about the T's and C's, then these kind of things will continue.
This just shows the pressure that professional photographers are under due to all the photographers (?) out there who are willing to give up their photos for free or give up their rights. How many other "businesses" are asked to give up their product for basically free. I don't care about the political deal of it being either party...so, no political flames for my post!
"This just shows the pressure that professional photographers are under due to all the photographers (?) out there who are willing to give up their photos for free or give up their rights."
That's the tightest string for me, and the heck with adding free political posts to the millions already invested in politics.
"Free for credit" photographers have done a greater disservice to photography than any politician could ever conceive.
Discussion
9 repliesAs any creative artist should know, your copyright and the ability to negotiate licenses and fees and limited time usage is extremely important. Many photo contests ask you to give up all of your rights, in perpetuity for no credit and no pay just for entering the contest. That is bad enough ... but to see this same situation in our political arena is startling and it seems to go one step further by asking you to agree to conditions and they don't list the conditions in their fact sheets.
Please take a look and write to the committee to voice your concerns.
After you copy and paste go to Article #9 on the List. Then read below and click on Calling All Artists Closing Date November 4, 2011
http://artists-bill-of-rights.org/competition-lists/rights-off-list
Ok, I see you revised the instructions in your original post to explain where to find the contest information. I'm kind of with Luke on this one. Also, it's perhaps more offensive to me that many of the contests listed on the website are sponsored by corporations looking, in essence, for free images for advertising use.
If you'll agree, I won't ask why out of the 142 contests that allegedly violate the Creative Bill of Rights you picked the one involving President Obama and not, say, the BBC or the UN.
Phil, if you go to item# 9, you need to click on the second tab, and then scroll down and click the blue "calling artists" button. That explains the situation.
Jim, your conviction is right, because the subject of Obama as our President is the tightest string on the guitar with both sides as convicted as ever. There ain't no fence-sitters in that arena! So love him or hate him, he's our leader, no sense it arguing here (no one has, just heading it off at the pass, lol!). But if it WERE a bad thing about to head through Congress, it would certainly be of more importance, what the BBC does won't affect Americans directly. But it's innocuous so no harm done.
Luke, you're right, it's pretty clear that he's wanting people involved, and whoever chooses to contribute certainly can, just like writing a donation check or whatever. No one HAS to submit any artwork, but Obama knows that his supporters certainly would be happy to, and there's nothing wrong asking for that. We can choose not to. (Politically correct disclaimer: I'm not endorsing Obama with my reply at all, just from a technical standpoint that call for artwork seems 100% voluntary.)
Oy vey, let's go out and shoot the Milky Way or something!
I didn't want to ruffle any feathers about politics I would not care if it was the Dems or Repb in the Presidential seat right now. I posted it because one of my former teachers sent it and we are all "Artists". It was just a FYI Topic I thought maybe someone could benefit from reading, if not then it will not effect you.
This has nothing directly to do with the US government. It's simply a campaign website looking for free work to be submitted, and is no different than many of the other sites listed on artists-bill-of-rights.org. I think the main point here, photographically speaking, is that all of the sites that are posted are looking for either free work, or "rights grabs". As Luke pointed out, that's pretty standard for many websites/contests/etc. It's usually not even done with any malice (i.e. it's done purely for legal reasons - grabbing all rights means you don't have to worry about getting sued for improper usage, so you don't have to track anything as far as who owns what).
So the important part, is that if artists want that to change, they need to not participate in any of these things that are rights grabs. The problem there, is that if enough non-artists participate anyway AND don't care about the T's and C's, then these kind of things will continue.
That's the tightest string for me, and the heck with adding free political posts to the millions already invested in politics.
"Free for credit" photographers have done a greater disservice to photography than any politician could ever conceive.