Guardian Photo Comp

horgan_p

linky :

www.guardian.co.uk/guides/photography

one thing though : NO DIGITAL MANIPULATION.

gonna give it a go anyway.

elven

What do they want, a transparency? They don't even specify what constitutes manipulation. What a bunch of crap.

horgan_p

yeah , i know. i may have accidently slipped one or two pix in that i brightened up or sorted the contrast in and cropped.
i hope that isnt considered manipulation

elven

If it is, they shouldn't accept any digital pics because that's what your camera does to it depending on your settings...

/rant

heh, sorry, must have caught me in a cheeky mood...

Paulw

Generally, by no digital manipulation they exclude things like contrast, sharpness, levels and such. They mean no cloning and stuff like that. In some cases, they will even ask for the original file.

gandalf

Errr what are the prizes? Get published?

Thirdfox

Lol!

I the photoshop












not that I know how to do anything more than levels, contrast and curves anyway...

Covey

"In consideration of GNM agreeing to consider the entry, each entrant grants to GNM an irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide licence for the full period of copyright to publish or otherwise use the entry in so far as is relevant to this specific competition in any way and at any time and to sub-license such rights to any third-party. GNM will use reasonable efforts to assert the entrant's moral rights in the photograph. However GNM may cut, edit, crop or arrange the entry as it sees fit and shall be entitled to sub-licence such right to third-parties."

Erm all for the privelage of being published or be considered in the Guardian. I'd give it a wide berth myself.:mad:

rahtkennades

Right, but it does say: "...in so far as is relevant to this specific competition ..." I'm not sure what the context of the competition is, but surely that means they can't just wh0re it around as they please, right?

Yours, Naïf !

Covey

rahtkennades wrote: »

Right, but it does say: "...in so far as is relevant to this specific competition ..." I'm not sure what the context of the competition is, but surely that means they can't just wh0re it around as they please, right?

Yours, Naïf !

'fraid thay can and do. All big Media outfits looking to get content for free these dates and you don't have to come near winning to have this happen you.

Dubit10

ok

Thirdfox

Covey wrote: »

'fraid thay can and do. All big Media outfits looking to get content for free these dates and you don't have to come near winning to have this happen you.

I don't think a judge would look too favourably on that if the case ever went to court (the company would probably settle out of court long before the lawyers limbered up for battle).

The law does protect people and common sense still plays a large part of a judgment of the court (well that's what our lecturer says anyway )

If they want free content I'm sure they can find many people who are willing to give their pictures away for free for the chance of seeing themselves published.

Covey

Thirdfox wrote: »

I don't think a judge would look too favourably on that if the case ever went to court (the company would probably settle out of court long before the lawyers limbered up for battle).

The law does protect people and common sense still plays a large part of a judgment of the court (well that's what our lecturer says anyway )

If they want free content I'm sure they can find many people who are willing to give their pictures away for free for the chance of seeing themselves published.

The reality is you sign away your rights though not copyright (normally but not here moral rights also) and you can do diddly squeek about where and how they use it, resell it or licence it to.

The BBC amongst many others are at this for years.

I'm sure your lecturer can quote you all the cases where this catch all clause has proved to be deficient. :rolleyes: You read the terms and by submitting you're subject to those terms.

Thirdfox

But the clause explicitly state that the use is "relevant to this specific competition" - a corporation trying to be sly would quickly find themselves slapped down in court. e.g. I enter a best teapot photo comp and then find my image being used for a news item - no court will find it relevant to the competition that my image was used in that situation.

Covey

Thirdfox wrote: »

But the clause explicitly state that the use is "relevant to this specific competition" - a corporation trying to be sly would quickly find themselves slapped down in court. e.g. I enter a best teapot photo comp and then find my image being used for a news item - no court will find it relevant to the competition that my image was used in that situation.

"2) Entries must fit into one of the following categories: portraiture, landscape, fashion and parties, still life, sport and action."

Thats the relevance to the competition. So if you submit your dog getting amorous you might well fall outside this ( though they might argue sport, action or even still life covers that ). Anything else is open season if the occasion arises.

Why do you think they frown on manipulation?

liveforphotos

Covey wrote: »

"In consideration of GNM agreeing to consider the entry, each entrant grants to GNM an irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide licence for the full period of copyright to publish or otherwise use the entry in so far as is relevant to this specific competition in any way and at any time and to sub-license such rights to any third-party. GNM will use reasonable efforts to assert the entrant's moral rights in the photograph. However GNM may cut, edit, crop or arrange the entry as it sees fit and shall be entitled to sub-licence such right to third-parties."

Erm all for the privelage of being published or be considered in the Guardian. I'd give it a wide berth myself.:mad:

I NEVER enter competitions with entry conditions like this. Screw them.

Covey

Me too.:eek: