Explotation - Microsoft Student Photographer contest

rjas · May 8, 2007

I know thousands and thousands of unsuspecting students will basically give their images to Microsoft and recieve nothing in compensation. A pretty good deal for Microsoft, only costs them $20,000 (the grand prize)

“All Entries become the property of Sponsor and Administrators and will not be returned.

By submitting your Entry, you grant Sponsor and Administrators an irrevocable royalty-free, worldwide right, in all media (now known or later developed) to use, publish, alter or otherwise exploit your Entry.

You hereby forever release the Sponsor and Administrators from any and all claims you might have in connection with their use and exhibit of your Entry as set forth above. You also agree to sign any necessary documentation to effectuate that license and release.

If you do not want to grant Sponsor and Administrators the foregoing, please do not enter the Contest.”

Dead Link Removed

roteague · May 8, 2007

That is more common than you would imagine. In this case, I think that Microsoft is trying to raise awareness of digital photography, rather than trying to get images for itself. Of course, they might actually come up with a worthwhile image or twof or their troubles.

Curt · May 8, 2007

It's the CORE of their philosophy, to own and license images. What was done with software will be done with art, photography and images of every kind. It's the future of control of the individual right of ownership. What was yours, dreamed by you, made by you, is now mine; but you can use it one time for a fee. The future is going to be: How do you keep control of your own creations in the present of corporate predatory feeding.

darinwc · May 8, 2007

isnt microsoft the one starting that huge stock photography site?
This would give microsoft full rights to make profits off of a submission you are likely to make 0$ from.

darinwc · May 8, 2007

roteague said:
That is more common than you would imagine. In this case, I think that Microsoft is trying to raise awareness of digital photography, rather than trying to get images for itself. Of course, they might actually come up with a worthwhile image or twof or their troubles.

When did microsoft start caring about 'raising awareness' about anything?

Sparky · May 8, 2007

Well said, Curt!! Couldn't agree more. I do agree that it's a common practice elsewhere, though. Even with the more 'reputable' competitions - the 'donors' (corporate body) get to write off the sums given out - which, in fact, is the very same money which is collectively known as the 'entry fee'. So- in fact, it can be seen as a 'reputable' form of lottery - where the organization putting it on doesn't really need to lay out a dime to pull it off.

patrickjames · May 8, 2007

Its called "crowdsourcing".

Patrick

catem · May 8, 2007

It makes me angry - it's more likely to be students who are misused by this sort of thing because they are eager to get their photos 'out there'.

No 'competition' worth entering assumes copyright from those who submit entries, apart from the right to use winning images to publicise the event itself.

Ryuji · May 8, 2007

I bet the entries will end up in a place like this:

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/clipart/default.aspx

Royalty-free photo library has killed many photographers. This is NOT like free software developers killed professional software engineers.

Bob F. · May 8, 2007

They appear to be somewhat confused. In the FAQ section they state:

Does Microsoft own the rights to images submitted to the contest?

As an entrant, you retain the copyright ownership of the images you submit. Submitting an entry does not assign or transfer any ownership or copyrights to Microsoft; those rights remain with the creator of the original work. However as a condition of accepting a prize, you agree to grant Microsoft the right to reproduce and display the image, credited with your first and last name, in print and on the web, for the purposes of promoting this contest.

Which is more in line, but until/unless they change the official rules, I guess their original rights-grab remains in force. So that's another slap in the face for MS's reputation then (as if that ever bothered them)...

Cheers, Bob.

markbb · May 8, 2007

can someone explain how microsoft could be exploiting anyone when they clearly state that entries will become their property?

Sparky · May 8, 2007

Because the people who submit probably won't be reading the fine print.

markbb · May 8, 2007

Then that's their own fault. Maybe this is a cultural thing, but I consider it my responsibilty to read any agreement before making a comittment, not someone else's.

firecracker · May 8, 2007

I don't know anything about the photo submission to Microsoft, but I have seen the same regulation/agreement/contract/policy in photo contests in many places, and I'm not terribly shocked by it. Last year I found the Japanese edition of National Geographic running the same sh-t, and the contest juries were not necessarily the ones specilized in the kind of photos that the magazine provides. So, it seemed just a lot of BS to me.

You don't want your work to be judged and/or presented by complete strangers who are only interested in taking away your rights and stealing your work...

gr82bart · May 8, 2007

markbb said:
Then that's their own fault. Maybe this is a cultural thing, but I consider it my responsibilty to read any agreement before making a comittment, not someone else's.

Hey! Get with the 21st century. There's no such thing as personal responsibility any more. My lawyer says it's always someone else's fault. Sheesh! That kind of philosophy won't get you anywhere today.

Regards, Art.

gr82bart · May 8, 2007

Honestly, this is the way I see this if I were a snotty high school kid. I could submit my image with the once in a lifetime possibility of have it seen by bajillions worldwide backed by one of the largest brand name corporations and brag about it to no end, or I could talk about the ethics of it all in a thread like this when I get old and cranky and nothing to show for it.

Easy choice.

Regards, Art.

Bob Carnie · May 8, 2007

good one Art

gr82bart said:
Honestly, this is the way I see this if I were a snotty high school kid. I could submit my image with the once in a lifetime possibility of have it seen by bajillions worldwide backed by one of the largest brand name corporations and brag about it to no end, or I could talk about the ethics of it all in a thread like this when I get old and cranky and nothing to show for it.

Easy choice.

Regards, Art.

markbb · May 8, 2007

So who's doing the exploiting in this scenario?

gr82bart said:
Honestly, this is the way I see this if I were a snotty high school kid. I could submit my image with the once in a lifetime possibility of have it seen by bajillions worldwide backed by one of the largest brand name corporations and brag about it to no end, or I could talk about the ethics of it all in a thread like this when I get old and cranky and nothing to show for it.
.

Dinesh · May 8, 2007

If you don't like the content of the fine print, don't enter.

Moopheus · May 8, 2007

markbb said:
can someone explain how microsoft could be exploiting anyone when they clearly state that entries will become their property?

It's exploitation in the sense that M$ is granting themselves a wide usage license for no compensation. By "property" they are referring to the actual entries, a file or physical print, which they aren't going to send back to you. Yes, you have to agree to it, but that doesn't make it less exploitative. M$ is still using its economic power to take other people's assets at little or no cost to itself; that's what exploitation means "unfairly or unjustly using another person or group for profit or advantage," as Merriam-Webster puts it. There's nothing the least bit fair about the arrangement. M$ is hardly alone in this; there's a whole world of scams out there for aspiring artists and writers desperate for publication or recognition. Taking advantage of another person's weakness like that might be legal, might be acceptable under the rules of commerce, but it's still a skanky thing to do. So we will call it what it is.

catem · May 8, 2007

gr82bart said:
Honestly, this is the way I see this if I were a snotty high school kid. I could submit my image with the once in a lifetime possibility of have it seen by bajillions worldwide backed by one of the largest brand name corporations and brag about it to no end, or I could talk about the ethics of it all in a thread like this when I get old and cranky and nothing to show for it.

Easy choice.

Regards, Art.

From the OP quote it would seem that you don't have to be the winner/s to hand over control of your image - you just have to enter.

gr82bart · May 8, 2007

catem said:
From the OP quote it would seem that you don't have to be the winner/s to hand over control of your image - you just have to enter.

Does that make a difference?

Regards, Art. (Drats! Keep breaking my own rule not to speak up in these threads ... dang!)

catem · May 8, 2007

It just means the bargain isn't to get world-wide fame.

If the original quote is correct, it's unnecessary, and it's bad practice. Big rich guys ripping off aspiring youngsters - who are the most at risk of being ripped off.

Quite simple really. Not good.

Anyway, who's calling who 'old and cranky'.

gr82bart · May 8, 2007

LMAO "Ripping Off" kids. LOL That was too funny.

Regards, Art.

roteague · May 8, 2007

Moopheus said:
It's exploitation in the sense that M$ is

I make my living working with and writing software for Microsoft systems. I find your reference to Microsoft as "M$" offensive.

Explotation - Microsoft Student Photographer contest

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency