Regarding my request for thoughts from you OM shooters:
Barry B. Bean wrote: "I don't have a problem with contest rules made clear.
I've been on
the other side of the coin, as the PD for a non-profit radio station"
Barry, I wouldn't have a problem either if this was a non-profit, but it's not.
That company can
damn well afford to pay for what they want.
George S. shared: "What is this company going to do, use an image for the
cover of their annual report?"
Well, yeah, they could. A montage of smiling people shots to soften up the
Wall Street
analysists... Honestly, I've seen annual report covers like that.
Simon E. wrote: "They would be better off offering some kind of reward for
usage. "
Exactly my point. Thanks, Simon.
Doris wrote: "Yes, it is something for nothing, and the time one spends
preparing a submission and
sending it might be better spent trying to actually sell a picture."
Good point, Doris.
Denton Taylor wrote: "I think it's one thing to use within the company, another
thing to offer
them
outside. And credit should always be given, at a minimum. IMHO."
That was one of the things that annoyed me most, they don't make any real
effort to get the
shooter credit. Since they don't give the shooter anything else (except for
the three winners),
the least they could do is make a stronger effort to have the photographer
credited. And how
about a note suggesting to whomever uses the image that they ought to let the
photographer know?
Thanks, Denton.
Tim Hughes noted: "more likely they just got the corporate lawyers to draft the
"agreement" and
left it at that."
You're may be right, Tim, since the rules allow "prints up to 8-1/2 by 11
inches" - obviously
wasn't written by a photographer or art director.
Siddiq wrote: "if entering, will do so more for the fun factor and friendly
recognition,"
And that is a good thing to offer your employees - but it is not an excuse to
treat them
unfairly. The images they select to offer for Corporation-wide use via the
intranet are good, I
looked - the P&Sers don't make that cut, but still don't get their prints back.
John Lind wrote: "Kodak usually does this a bit differently. If I remember
their rules correctly,
the only rights relinquished are for winning entries. I like that much better."
Me, too, John. That's fair.
Warren Kato wrote: "It is rare that corporations celebrate in any
way the creativity of its employess and kudos to those
that do. "
And that's the sad part, Warren. Here they made an effort to do that, but did
it badly.
Jay Maynard wrote: "I don't know how I'd feel if a picture I'd submitted had
been used without
credit on their web site's front page, but it wouldn't be unalloyed pleasure..."
The web site is a prime user, Jay.
Gregg Iverson said: "Some people are happy just to be published, I guess."
Gregg, we all were, at least for the first time, and they play on that.
Garth wrote: "So the problem again would be...?"
Maybe it just offends my sense of fair play, even if they do state what they
are doing up front.
Thanks for commenting, Garth.
George Anderson wrote: "I think you've got it right, Gary."
See there, Garth, George thinks I'm right!
John Petrush commented: "If that is agreeable to them, then fine and dandy."
OK, Garth, John agrees with you :-(
Joel Wilcox opined: "It has all the glamour and moral appeal of a wet T-shirt
contest."
Well said, Joel! I wish I had thought of the t-shirt contest analogy, though
on the whole, I
like wet t-shirt contests better....
Thanks, everyone. This at least allowed me to let off some steam. Now back to
the further
adventures of Vert and Toky!!!
Gary Edwards
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|