nikon you copyright grabbing idiots

everyone should read this and complain now, its disgusting.

http://www.epuk.org/News/shock-as-nikon-backs-opodo-reflections-competition

I read the article and thought idiots for entering.

Nikon is just getting their name out to people who want to be published and win stuff. Any series Pro worried about rights is not going to enter.

Any consumer or pro-sumer wanting a little exposure (no pun) will happily waive rights to enter and possibly win.

That way Nikon gets its name in front of these people as well. Lots of industries do this and it attracts a certain type.

I think we should cut Nikon some slack, they are facing great competition in the coming months and this will only be better for US.

All this talk of losse of revenue, loss of rights, loss of this - times move, where was the internet 15 years ago.

Ok so you caught me in a rant mood, I fully accept the flames coming but have been a Canon man for 20 years and moving to Nikon this year for the D200 I have seen all this before and thought better things will happen.

Bring it on but underneath my rant there is I am sure wisdom. Well that is what i told myself

As far as I can read from it the only place they can use the photos are in direct connection with that one competition. That doesn't sound unreasonable at all. And only the price winning or commended pictures. I thought the reason most people take part in contests like this is to get fame and glory. Letting the organizer show the material sounds like a good way to achieve this. After all that's all its about. And they cannot sell it, so you don't loose any money either.
--
IVer Erling Årva
Nikonian
Good equipment isn't everything - good pictures are!

Yeah, well, go protest outside the UK nikon distributor, which is a separate entitiy in charge of Nikon's UK sales and importing, and NOT the same Nikon corporation that makes our cameras....

You weren't reading the same article. It clearly states that:

"The terms of the competition provide Opodo with an instant royalty-free photographic library, allowing it to use every photograph submitted to the competition forever without paying the entrant. The term ‘transferable’ would also allow it to sell its licenses to other companies. The value to Opodo of having such an asset could be estimated in the millions of pounds, making the eleven-month competition immensely profitable."

Iver Erling Årva said:

As far as I can read from it the only place they can use the photos
are in direct connection with that one competition. That doesn't
sound unreasonable at all. And only the price winning or commended
pictures. I thought the reason most people take part in contests
like this is to get fame and glory. Letting the organizer show the
material sounds like a good way to achieve this. After all that's
all its about. And they cannot sell it, so you don't loose any
money either.
--
IVer Erling Årva
Nikonian
Good equipment isn't everything - good pictures are!

Click to expand...

AFS said:

Yeah, well, go protest outside the UK nikon distributor, which is a
separate entitiy in charge of Nikon's UK sales and importing, and
NOT the same Nikon corporation that makes our cameras....

Click to expand...

Nikon UK is a wholey owned subsidiary of Nikon Corp so in a way Nikon Corp is approving this robbery. The competition is obviously aimed at snapshooters not true amateurs or pros but the conditions stink all the same.

This is a case where the much maligned Amateur Photographer magazine ought to be brought in to the act - they have a long record of campaigning against this kind of competition.
--
Dave
http://www.rosser.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.pbase.com/dgrosser

no text

When WIndows sponsered a similarly worded contest, the forum outcry was over the top here......

And because Nikon is at the helm on this everyone seems tolerant...

This is a practice normally frowned upon and a stain on Nikon UK's blue dress if you ask me.

Roman
--

Photoshop is like bondo. Use it to smooth out and polish your work, not to compensate for your lack of body work skills.

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

Kodiak wrote:
Re: You don't like? Don't enter NP.

Ditto.

--
http://www.pbase.com/bigconig

Oppodo should be getting grief more than Nikon, but I agree it is short-sighted of Nikon to get involved.

If you don't like the terms . DON'T ENTER THE COMPETITION !!!

These terms are nothing new. Lots of photographic competitions have similar terms.

If you don't like the terms then don't enter the competition - it really is that simple!

Yet another tempest in a tea cup.

Some folks need to get a life.

Bud

Yes I think Roman is correct, and thank you brummie for addressing this issue.

All be it I am new to this forum, I am not new to business practices and protests. Those whom feel this copy right contract is "ok" are promoting this kind of issue. You must think through what you are promoting.

The words in Nikon's contract clearly state that they can "Transfer" === SELL the image- this means to anyone. THINK about that. The picture that you took of your wife and you standing on the beach at sunset could end up with a Viagra logo across it in a magazine saying- "Impotency, the sun will rise again" or something of that sort. It could end up ANY WHERE.

Giving away images means you have NO control over them. Also, since this is digital, they could readjust your image in anyway they see fit. Your captured image, and anyone in said image is now for sale to the highest bidder with NO royalties to you. Actually- depending on how the picture was used by who purchased it, it might violate actor/models union laws.

AFS- "Yeah, well, go protest outside the UK nikon distributor, which is a

RomanJohnston said:

separate entitiy in charge of Nikon's UK sales and importing, and
NOT the same Nikon corporation that makes our cameras.... "

Click to expand...

AFS, think about the word "transferable"- UK nikon distributor can "transfer" any of these images license for free right over to Nikon. The buisness seperation is an illusion.

Brummie- Thank you for bringing this to our attention, it's an education for me to be very carful as I begin to enter some pics into contests. Thanks again.

The last time I got flamed and I'm sure I will again. The Microsoft contest only allowed three (3) entries.

The winners will surely take monetary advantage of Nikon and the publicity. It you don't think it is a fair risk, then don't enter. It is that simple!

Bud

If a flood of award winning photos gravitate to one company who pays nothing for them and is allowed to sell them forever in a bank, what does this mean for the future of Stock Photography markets? Don't look good to me. I think it's a foolish decision made by Nikon and can bring no good to their customers chances of making money with the products they produce.

--

'When trying to make art, don't make the camera do all the work.' from CBS Videographer Darryl Barton at NPPA boot camp.

Right on Ray- there are much bigger consequences for these practices than some are seeing.

Tickfight said:

Yes I think Roman is correct, and thank you brummie for addressing
this issue.

All be it I am new to this forum, I am not new to business
practices and protests. Those whom feel this copy right contract
is "ok" are promoting this kind of issue. You must think through
what you are promoting.

The words in Nikon's contract clearly state that they can
"Transfer" === SELL the image- this means to anyone. THINK about
that. The picture that you took of your wife and you standing on
the beach at sunset could end up with a Viagra logo across it in a
magazine saying- "Impotency, the sun will rise again" or something
of that sort. It could end up ANY WHERE.

Click to expand...

Actually there is another "interesting" item in the terms and conditions - you the photographer are asked to ensure that all people in the picture have effectively signed a model release. I think that means that if your picture is used in a libelous way you, not the competition organiser, are liable, they will have used the picture in good faith on the assumption that you had obtained the neccessary permissions.

Tickfight said:

Giving away images means you have NO control over them. Also,
since this is digital, they could readjust your image in anyway
they see fit. Your captured image, and anyone in said image is now
for sale to the highest bidder with NO royalties to you. Actually-
depending on how the picture was used by who purchased it, it might
violate actor/models union laws.

AFS- "Yeah, well, go protest outside the UK nikon distributor,
which is a

Tickfight said:

separate entitiy in charge of Nikon's UK sales and importing, and
NOT the same Nikon corporation that makes our cameras.... "

Click to expand...

AFS, think about the word "transferable"- UK nikon distributor can
"transfer" any of these images license for free right over to
Nikon. The buisness seperation is an illusion.

Brummie- Thank you for bringing this to our attention, it's an
education for me to be very carful as I begin to enter some pics
into contests. Thanks again.

Click to expand...

--
Dave
http://www.rosser.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.pbase.com/dgrosser

You buying into a hyped article by the media. Do you allow the press to dictate your emotions?
--
David

Dear david,

its not a hyped media, article, if you look at the website you will that, its a front for a editorial photography list based in the uk, closely linked with lists in the USA. There are some major big hitting photographers on the list, from, former picture editors of the telegraph and guardian, to very famous ones, who I will not mention, its not a press article its there to support photogrphic pros, and no other. Its also a closed list, of which I am a member.

I suggest you understand the wider picture, Im not having a go at you, but the full implications were well explained by tickfight. It really is that bad.

cheers

brummie