**Updated – A reply from Mark Tedeschi**
**Updated – June 20, 2010**I tweeted Mr. Rudd, strangely, I expect no reply…
**UPDATE – June 18, 2010** : There has been no word from the board of this contest as yet, I will push for a reply.
This is an open letter to the NSW Parliamentary Plein Air Photographic Prize, I have sent it to committee member, Mark Tedeschi, who I respect as a photographer..
Begins
Dear Mark,
I look after one of the globe’s larger photography forums and have been forwarded the competition details for the NSW Parliamentary Plein Air Photographic Prize. I wonder if you could just clarify a point for me?
Point 14. Copyright: Photographers retain copyright in their photographs. However submission of an entry gives to the New South Wales Parliament and the organising committee permission without any fee to exhibit the finalists’ works at the New South Wales Parliament and at any other venue within New South Wales to which the exhibition is transferred during the 12 months after the closing date for entries. Submission of an entry also gives the New South Wales Parliament and the organising committee a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable permission to reproduce finalists’ photographs without fee and without payment to any featured person for the purposes of marketing and promoting the competition, the exhibition, and any future New South Wales Parliamentary Photographic Prize or similar competition. This permission extends to publication and reproduction for the above purposes in the media, on catalogues, posters, postcards, publications, on the internet (including on the competition website and the Parliamentary website), in any New South Wales Parliamentary publication, and in any other publications (printed or digital) including newspapers, magazines and journals. Where possible, photographers will receive credits with each use.
This sounds a whole lot like a “rights grab” and for the photographer having to pay $30.00 to enter an image, it’s certainly sounding alarm bells with me.
Can you clear up why the rights are listed in this way? Is it a typical over cautious lawyer that doesn’t understand how photographers feel about rights?
Very keen to hear back on this point, please feel free to forward this to someone that can answer if you’re not able to do so.
Best regards,
Simon
Simon Pollock
www.gtvone.com
UPDATED – Thanks to Jolyan Turrall and Gordon at Pro Imaging International
BEGINS:
Thanks for telling us about this contest. In order to analyse the
statement at paragraph fourteen I have listed it below but divided it up
into its components parts, each of which I’ve numbered for ease of
reference later.
*/14. Copyright:/*/ /
/1. //Photographers retain copyright in their photographs. However
submission of an entry gives to the New South Wales Parliament and the
organising committee permission without any fee to exhibit the finalists
work at the New South Wales Parliament and at any other venue within New
South Wales to which the exhibition is transferred during the twelve
months after the closing date for the entries. /
/2. //Submission of an entry also gives the New South Wales
Parliament and the organising committee a non-exclusive, perpetual,
irrevocable permission to reproduce finalist’s photographs without fee
and without payment to any featured person for the purposes of marketing
and promoting the competition, the exhibition, and any future New South
Wales Parliamentary Photographic Prize or similar competition. /
/3. //This permission extends to publication and reproduction for
the above purposes in the media, on catalogues, posters, postcards,
publication, on the internet (including the competition website and the
parliamentary website), and in any New South Wales Parliamentary
publication, and in any other publications (printed or digital)
including newspapers, magazines and journals. /
/4. //Where possible, photographers will receive credits for each
use./
Paragraph 1 is time limited and passes the Bill of Rights (BoR).
Paragraph 2 is not time limited and fails the BoR. The BoR sets a
maximum usage period to promote a competition, or future recurrences of
the same competition (as in an annual recurring competition), at five
years. This is to ensure that the photographer’s right to exclusively
license their image is returned to them. A time limit also prevents the
building of libraries of images that can be freely used for ever.
Paragraph 3 is not time limited either and fails the BoR for that reason
at least. With regard to your point about the usage mentioned in
paragraph three, usage is qualified in that paragraph by saying it is
for the “/above purposes/”, i.e. as in paragraphs 1 and 2, and as the
purposes in paragraphs 1 and 2 are defined as “/marketing and promoting
the competition, the exhibition, and any future New South Wales
Parliamentary Photographic Prize or similar competition”/ I feel this
usage passes the BoR, but it does need to be time limited. If you feel I
am wrong please say so.
Paragraph 4 is not really acceptable; it should say “/Whenever Your
image is displayed or published You will be credited. Failure to
publish a credit due to error or oversight shall not be deemed a breach
of this condition.//”/
/I hope this helps the discussion along, if there are any views
conflicting with ours we’d be glad to hear them. Feel free to publish
our email to you as part of the discussion./
/I can’t say we’ll list this contest, as usual we are limited by
resources but you can be sure we are fighting away behind the scenes,
almost continually in discussions with one or more organisers seeking to
get rules changed and to win hearts and minds. /
/Our aim is to expand this campaign and we are always seeking means to
do so, we hope to prevail in the long run. In the meantime you and all
your colleagues can help immensely by always checking T&C’s and
forensically picking them apart, complaining to organisers, tell them
exactly what the problem is (in non confrontational language – always
keep the moral high ground) and that they should be guided by the Bill
of Rights./
