Someone suggested I share some of my photographs on a website. ; I thought it was a good idea too as it was local and might bring about some business until I read the Terms of Use which included this paragraph: Your submission of any content for display or dissemination on WEBSITE automatically grants to WEBSITE a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, non-exclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, disseminate, perform, transmit and display such content (in whole or part) and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed for the full term of any rights that may exist in such content. If you are not the owner of such content, you shall be deemed to have warranted that the owner of the content has expressly granted to you a similar license. Whoa....that is asking for way too much. ; For insistence, they could make a calender up using any photos uploaded to their website without having to worry about asking for permission or even compensating the person or persons who created them. I know the big sites like flickr and Facebook have had to change their Terms of Use when they have tried to do this. ; I have contacted the website with hopes they will alter this. ; Don't have my hopes up and many times these sites are put together by outside companies and the people the website was built for have no clue as to what was placed in the Terms of Use statement.
There are a lot of online photo contests that do the same thing. ; I think that's a rather sneaky way of getting free images.
I'd rather not say at this time as I am hoping they will change this once they are notified of what it means. ; It is a site local to my area.
Yes, and many (if not all) newspaper and television station websites have similar terms of use. Yet, they encourage you to upload your photos and information to them with their terms buried in back links when you sign up for the privilege of sharing your photos with their Internet, television and print subscribers. ; I stopped doing that once I read them. ;
I just had an excellent discussion with the person who worked to develop the website and he was not aware of the paragraph. ; It was a boilerplate which came with the package. ; He told me it was not their intent to do anything but use uploaded photos for the website. ; I pointed out whatever their intent was, it was not what was posted. He agreed. ; I told him to look at flickr's terms of use to find language which protects both them and the people who are nice enough to upload content to their website. If anyone has other examples, I would be happy to forward them. ; Once this little matter is cleared up, I will happily upload photos knowing I will keep my rights as the creator. ; Someday they may ask me for photos for a project beyond the website. At that time I can negotiate usage rights and payment.
Thanks, Michael, I have passed it on to them. ; That's the kind of usage terms a photographer can live with.
Yeah, those terms they have on their site wouldn't fly with me. ; I'm not Mr. Big Photographer who won't share my photos without a watermark and wants a contract everywhere I post, but that's pushing it way over the line for me. ; I don't mind as long as it's one that lets you retain rights to the photo, while allowing them rights to replicate or repost the photo in relation to a slideshow, promotion of a contest, etc. ; I'm even OK with some of the stronger language like Nat Geo's for their photo contests: That's fairly strong rights...but note they still refrain from taking the copyright, and only maintain the ability to use the photos in connection with the contest itself. ; I'm still OK with that. But letting them use it any time, in any media, for any reason, without regard to profit, at their discretion? ; Uh, no!
