|
Billboard and PDN present: Summer Music Moment Photography Contest
 |
Here's some info about an awesome new contest for amateur (and professional!) photographers, music fiends and concert-goers alike. Check it out:
We're looking for YOUR Summer Music Moment! Show us the crowds! Show us the artists! We're looking for the moments, the music, the scene through your eyes.
Billboard and PDN have joined forces to produce the first annual SUMMER MUSIC MOMENT photography contest, the ultimate music photography contest for amateur shooters. The SUMMER MUSIC MOMENT photography contest is the premium source for music lovers and photographers alike.
Prizes will be awarded in the following categories: Performance, Crowd, Place and Spontaneous Moment with one grand prize winner amongst all.
For more information and to enter, visit
www.billboardphotocontest.com/
Posted at 11:25AM, 15 July 2008 PST
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Nice, thanks for the heads up.
Chad
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Sweet.... I will have to send in a picture! Thanks for the info.....
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I don't really feel like paying $15-35 to enter something I probably wont win. Good luck everyone else!
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
At least they don't try to grab your copyright, which is nice:
"Will my images be sold?
No. You retain copyright to your photograph and the Sponsors may not sell your photo entry for a fee. All entries may be posted online so that viewers may view all competing entries. And winning entries may be used in connection with the Contest and promotion of the Contest for a period of 24 months from the date winners are notified."
However, this thing about signed releases sounds impossible to me...
"If the Photograph includes other people, you must be prepared to provide a signed written personal release from all persons who appear in the Photograph submitted, authorizing use of the Photograph as provided below in "Third Party Releases/Licenses." If you are unable to provide all required personal releases, upon request by Sponsor and in the form provided by Sponsor, then your entry may be disqualified. You do not need to send the release with your entry. If you win, we will contact you if personal releases are needed."
"THIRD PARTY RELEASES/LICENSES
Upon Sponsor's request, each entrant must be prepared to provide a signed written personal release from all persons who appear in the photograph submitted, authorizing Authorized Parties to reproduce, distribute, display and create derivative works of the photograph entry in connection with The Summer Music Moment Photo Contest and promotion of The Summer Music Moment Photo Contest, in any media now or hereafter known, including but not limited to: publication in PDN and/or Billboard magazines showcasing the winners; The Summer Music Moment Photo Contest live gallery; the Summer Music Moment Photo Contest Web site and on PDNOnline.com and billboard.com; and in exhibits and promotions related to the Summer Music Moment Photo Contest. In addition, upon Sponsor's request, each entrant must be prepared to provide a signed written license from the copyright owner of any sculpture, artwork or other copyrighted material that appears in the photograph entry, authorizing Authorized Parties to reproduce, distribute, display and create derivative works of the photograph in connection with The Summer Music Moment Photo Contest and promotion of The Summer Music Moment Photo Contest, in any media now or hereafter known, including but not limited to: publication in PDN and/or Billboard magazines showcasing the winners The Summer Music Moment Photo Contest live gallery; the Summer Music Moment Photo Contest Web site and on PDNOnline.com and billboard.com; and in exhibits and promotions related to the Summer Music Moment Photo Contest."
Ummm...signed written personal release from all persons who appear seems at odds with the "Crowd shots" category.
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
"a signed written personal release from all persons who appear in the photograph submitted"
Seems like you would need one from every person in the photo, even the artists themselves.
Good luck getting a model release from an artist saying their likeness can be posted everywhere without compensation.
Originally posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Crickontour edited this topic 4 months ago.
|
 |
bah... music artist are public domain. you dont need their permission!
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
You do need a model release if the contest is going to use your winning image of a person to advertise the contest.
Originally posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Kathryn Yu edited this topic 4 months ago.
|
 |
Yeah, that part totally confused me also. And what the hell is Julie Greenwald doing judging the "professional" category?
And if do you need to match ALL the criteria to be considered a "professional" entrant or just some of the criteria?
Soooo confused.
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Yeah, if you count Flickr as "online publishing," then we're all professional?
How do you define a "professional" photographer?
A professional photographer:
* Earns more than 50 percent of his or her income from photographic sales.
* Is a member of such professional photo organizations as the National Press Photographers Association.
* Publishes photographs in books, magazines, newspapers, or online regularly.
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Seems to me like a lot of the entrants didn't read the "model release" part. There's quite a few photos of high-profile artists up there.
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Kathryn: Actually you don't. If you have a valid editorial use of an image, you can use that image to advertise said editorial use. That's how, for instance, magazines re-use editorial images on subscription ads, posters, etc.. Joe Montana and Joe Namath both sued over this, and both lost.
The recent diCorcia case involved not just the sale of the image as fine art, but advertising use of the image to advertise the gallery showing and the book. All passed muster.
A good reference at: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter12/12-b.html
BUT
Even getting sued and winning is expensive, Joe Namath on a subscription ad is worth the risk, so are $10k prints in a gallery, some photo contest isn't.
Also, I've seen situations where releases are in the rules, but no one checks them. It gives deep pockets a way to deflect a nuisance lawsuit onto the probably-not-worth-suing photographer.
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Hmmm, If I wanted to be evil, I've got a "crowd" shot taken accidentally while going down under a wave of stage divers. Not great, but O.K. There's half a face peeking between the tangle of arms, legs and torsos, but editing it out would be trivial.
Whoever won, I'd just complain that they didn't follow the rules, and indignantly demand they adhere to their own rules. They collect an entry fee and then award a prize in defiance of the posted rules, that's fraud :-)
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I personally do not think that they will make you get releases, that is just a "save their ass" clause, if anyone sees the photo that won and ask if they had a release to use it.
But technically, shouldn't the legit photopass cover the release as permission to shoot.
Originally posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
ishotyourband edited this topic 4 months ago.
|
 |
stupid rules regarding the releases, who the hell has that? The only way I'd be able to enter was if I used an image from a band where I know the people in it and can get a release later.
And I think you're right there ishotyourband. They can't give you a pass then complain that they were photographed. But they can complain how you use it i guess.
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
"Upon Sponsor's request, each entrant must be prepared to provide a signed written personal release from all persons who appear in the photograph submitted, authorizing Authorized Parties to reproduce, distribute, display and create derivative works of the photograph entry in connection with The Summer Music Moment Photo Contest and promotion of The Summer Music Moment Photo Contest, in any media"
So - for example - the photo from the crowd of Tim McGraw is unlikely, as is the photo of Katy Perry. Billboard and PDN will most likely be posting (hopefully) great photos of indie bands whose management will (a) agree to it and (b) agree to it in the short time frame between notification and publication.
OR -- Billboard will publish any photo they want and (to CYA) simply point to the rules an entrant agreed to saying they have access to that release.
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
But technically, shouldn't the legit photopass cover the release as permission to shoot.
Some photo passes are very specific to use and reproduction, limited to the publication which sponsors you for the pass, or for direct promotion/review of that event.
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Thanks for the links and thoughts, Roger.
From the Stanford link, we should note this paragraph though:
Unfortunately, there is no definitive test that tells you whether your intended use is informational or commercial. Below are summaries of cases that straddle the border between informational and commercial uses. Cases with similar facts may seem to have different results often because a judge has broad discretion in making a determination.
Until there's a ruling specifically on photo contest usage, I would be careful. The Namath case was OK because the use of his image was "representative of the magazine's contents" and the Montana case was OK because the posters were "contemporaneous" with news coverage. Not sure how applicable those are to photo contests as I'm not a lawyer.
What has always troubled me with the Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia case is that the lower court ruled in favor of the artist's right to expression.
But when Nussenzweig appealed, the Court of Appeals (the higher court) threw the case out based solely upon the statute of limitations. They never actually commented in their decision on the "right to privacy" issues.
Only the concurring opinion by Tom/Malone mentions it, and specifically calls out why the two of them found that the image is "a matter of legitimate public interest to readers" and that "inclusion of the photograph in a catalog sold in connection with an exhibition of the artist's work does not render its use commercial."
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Kathryn: Yeah, diCorcia's not precedent anywhere, even if the appeals court had ruled on the merits it would've only been NY precedent. But it's still an interesting glimpse at a reasonable course of judicial thought on the matter.
ishotyourband: No, a photopass is permission to take, not permission to use. They're almost always legally separate. This is about "misappropriation", use for gain without consent, not permission to take, not some literal invasion of privacy.
Originally posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Roger Krueger edited this topic 4 months ago.
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
Concert Photography /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Concert Photography discussion threads
Flickr Blog |
About Flickr |
Terms of Use |
Your Privacy |
Copyright/IP Policy | Report Abuse
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
|
Italiano
|
Português
Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Save to Delicious