Photo of the season contest

Jason Groff better do this.


Super stoked on this!!

Anyone else not really get the bracket voting? I haven't been paying attention to the contests.. and how many submissions per person?

Yea how many can we put up?

Only one.

The bracket voting is pretty simple really.

There is one "seeding" round where everyone enters and it is voted on a 1-10 scale. Just like the old contests. Only difference here, is that there is a set "Upload period" where you can only upload, not vote. Once that is finished, voting opens up for a set amount of time.

The reason we did this is too many people were gaming the system where if you uploaded at the last second and got voted 10 by 3 people you could win a contest.

THEN, the system enters into the bracket part of the contest.

We have a set number of people that can qualify into the bracket system, either 64, 32, 16, 8 or 4.

Say we're using 64 - in the seeding round whoever placed in the top 64 by user votes during the voting period makes it into the brackets... everyone else is simply eliminated.

To properly seed the brackets, the first person is put against the 64th, second against 63rd... and so on all the way down.

Then each round has an upload phase (no voting) and a voting phase, where you can pick one entry or the other. Whoever gets picked m ore than the other person moves on.

Its pretty simple once you look at the whole thing and get your mind around it. Check out the Online Jib Academy - https://newschoolers.com/ns/cult/contest/id/3922/cid/1/ - which is moving into the final phases.

Before you upload anything worth any money...

"You hereby grant us a revocable, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully sublicenseable and transferable, license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the any submissions."

I'm just making sure people know, not passing any comment. This should be more blatantly stated on the entry page.

Kangbang will get an awesome photo.

Whats with all the shady skiing contests lately.. No I dont care if its the standard, our photos are our photos. Im sure you can alter the rules to a one time use where we retain all rights.

Last part of that is "You may revoke this license at any time by contacting our copyright agent at copyright@newschoolers.com."

This is standard stuff for uploading photos to the internet I'm afraid. Facebook owns your shit too, just like any other site you put it on. You also have the right to revoke that too, and we will delete your photo.

We're pretty darn fair though and always have been. If we ever use someone's photo for something, we compensate them accordingly.

This is supposed to be fun!

Then dont make us jump through hoops to be a part of it. You and I both know full well that no one will email your "copyright agent" and bargain with them.

Like he said, it is standard. EXACTLY like facebook. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.

Like I said, I dont care if its the standard. And truthfully, hes wrong. Facebook does not claim your photos, they keep a copy of them, but they are fully yours with all rights, they do not claim to own any distribution rights like NS is.

Slavery was once the standard too Mr. Sheep.

Goddamn you guys like bitching. If the rules piss you off then dont enter the contest.

so can you upload a new photo through each round of the bracket? similar to being able to change your video in SJA??

Actually this is the standard for just about anywhere you look, whether you "care" or not. Take a look at the rules from the National Geographic Photo Contests below. Theirs states almost the exact same thing ours does. Though we give you the option to revoke the use at any time. You will be credited in any work displayed, and you are allowed to watermark your photo for this contest.

LICENSE

By entering the Contest, all entrants grant an irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide non-exclusive license to Authorized Parties, to reproduce, distribute, display and create derivative works of the entries (along with a name credit) in connection with the Contest and promotion of the Contest, in any media now or hereafter known, including, but not limited to: Display at a potential exhibition of winners; publication of a book featuring select entries in the Contest; publication in National Geographic magazine or online highlighting entries or winners of the Contest. Entrants consent to the Sponsor doing or omitting to do any act that would otherwise infringe the entrant’s “moral rights” in their entries. Display or publication of any entry on an Authorized Party’s website does not indicate the entrant will be selected as a winner. Authorized Parties will not be required to pay any additional consideration or seek any additional approval in connection with such use. Additionally, by entering, each entrant grants to Authorized Parties the unrestricted right to use all statements made in connection with the Contest, and pictures or likenesses of Contest entrants, or choose not to do so, at their sole discretion. Authorized Parties will not be required to pay any additional consideration or seek any additional approval in connection with such use.

If you feel your work is too good to be submitted to a free, fun photo contest then just do not submit. These rules are not written to be malicious in any way, its just standard procedure in web submissions.

There are some SICK! entries already, this is going to be good!!

Garrrrrrrr......

http://www.facebook.com/terms.php

"You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:
For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).
When you use an application, your content and information is shared with the application. We require applications to respect your privacy, and your agreement with that application will control how the application can use, store, and transfer that content and information. (To learn more about Platform, read our Privacy Policy and Platform Page.)
When you publish content or information using the "everyone" setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).
We always appreciate your feedback or other suggestions about Facebook, but you understand that we may use them without any obligation to compensate you for them (just as you have no obligation to offer them)."

Come on, why bitch about stuff thats clearly available. This is how it works.. you upload to the internet you grant the site to use the photo. You delete it or ask us to delete it and its gone. Simple, and the way the internet works.

If you don't know this fact, then you are one of the people they talk about when privacy groups are complaining that people don't understand their rights on the internet well enough!

Just sounds official. Dead honest that email forwards to me, and I have a nuke tool where I can totally eradicate any trace of your content.

Send an email to that shit and blammo I will eliminate any trace that your photos (or you if you really are angry) exist.

ABSOLUTELY!

You have 1 day on every round of the bracket system to upload a new photo. Thats where it gets exciting!

This is a good contest, and NS isn't an evil empire. Enter, and support fun!

Hell how about this... if you don't win we will immediately nuke your photo. If you do win... we will nuke it after giving you the homepage for a week.

So strategy comes into this... Hmmm

Wait, so you have to enter more than one photo into this contest to be a winner? You have to enter a new photo every round?

You don not HAVE to, you can leave the existing photo in place, or if you feel you need to step up your game, swap it out with each round as you advance

So the strategy comes in when you decide whether to put your banger into the qualification round, or save it for down the elimination tree.... but if you don't put in a banger you might not make it into the tree...

This format really interests me. It gives more a strategy to a contest instead of upload, wait, hope to win, etc.

excited to see how this will play out

got some sick shots for this!

sorry this might seem really dumb, but where do you enter the photo?

At this link: https://newschoolers.com/ns/cult/contestenter/id/5147/cid/5/

Then don't enter the contest. As a photographer, you can bitch all you want when someone willingly, or unwillingly lifts your photo without your permission. But as soon as you click upload...without reading the Terms of Agreement, is just silly...

So, as a photographer, you are telling me that it is okay for someone to take my work and that I should not bitch about it? Then I guess you won't mind taking a quick look at my flickr, I took a few shots of your site and posted them as my own.

The tag team duo - whats the point of that line if its revocable? Yes you are giving us the option to back out thus making you fair and simple, but you still include the line that claims our work as your property. Do you even need the license to post a shot as a winning shot? And I was ignoring it before but since it keeps being brought up, your rules are similar to Facebook, but like I said before, I don't care if it is the standard. Its only the standard because many corporations are greedy and like the option of free work, and because the number of people who understand AND care, is greatly outweighed by those who don't understand and couldn't possibly give a flying fuck.

I just don't understand why there is a need to claim our work, state that you do not owe us anything if you use it, and also state that you can transfer your ownership of my work to whoever you deem worthy. Seems a bit excessive if you ask me.

Oh and btw, subliscensable is not spelled subliscenseable.. you might want to fix that in your official rules.

Shit, and also, who is supposed to be entering this contest? I thought, based on the rules, that it was the photographer and whatever shot he/she took. Not the rider. If its the riders that are supposed to be entering, which I have seen plenty of, you are claiming ownership of a shot that the rider may or may not of had permission to use..

why don't you take down the police tape and stop investigating this. its a contest that was set up for the fun of it, why must you pick and pry at everything dealing with it. Its a photo contest, not a murder case.

Actually thats not that deep of a question. Its pretty simple really.. should we be entering this as photographers, or as riders.. or does it matter.

I'm referring to some of the other posts in the thread as well...

If you don't want your work shared you just don't upload it to User Generated Content sites!

The reason isn't because of greedy corporations... if you don't grant us the licence to show your work then we can't allow you to publish it on the site. Get it?

If we dont' have the right, it can't be ANYWHERE on newschoolers... including your own gallery. This website is owned by newschoolers, as is all pages on it. Without any rights we have nothing.

Especially add in the fact that there's things like "top rated sections" where your photo is displayed somewhere else than the original upload location.

So the reason the legal-speak is there, is by you uploading it you have to grant us permission to use it. Then you can revoke that permission by deleting the photo. You do have the ability to delete that photo right where it stands on the site, and thusly revoke permissions to use it.

If you want to make it as a photographer, then utilize stuff like this with your B-roll to get well known. Then contact the news department, and try to sell us your photos... which we do buy from time to time. Magazines do the same thing.

Then, you receive money for your photos and you actually sell the rights to them. I'm sure there's different types of rights you can grant as well Dependant on the price.

But yeah - bottom line if you don't want your photo to be used, don't give it to someone for free. Greedy corporations and your buddies alike.

Doug you do an excellent job of avoiding certain points, and no writing a book doesn't fool me that you only addressed one of three points. And even that one point, I even mentioned that may be needed.

Why do you need to state you owe us nothing if you use it. Yes I understand you owe me nothing by allowing me to enter the contest, but what this line contains is that you also could use this for other projects and give me no compensation.

Why do you need to include the line that says you can give my work away to other companies if you please.

Who is supposed to be entering this contest, the photographer, or the rider.

I also liked that you included the line, we could buy your stuff in the future. No you won't companies/magazines never buy prints of no name kids, regardless of how sick the shot is.

I figure if I write like this, disregarding all sorts of layout and paragraph structure you will address all of my other points.

I'm saying that it's just as much the photographer's responsibility to know what he or she is getting themselves into as far as making sure to read to the T.O.A. If you don't like it, don't enter.

You hit the nail on the head when you said:

"Its only the standard because many corporations are
greedy and like the option of free work, and because the number of people who understand AND care, is greatly outweighed by those who don't understand and couldn't possibly give a flying fuck."

...which is why these kind of contests exist.


What I had meant in my original post was that you'd have every right to complain/file suit if someone used your work without your permission. As soon as you're hitting upload and "agreeing to the terms & agreements of this contest," then any counter argument is moot.

"I figure if I write like this, disregarding all sorts of layout and paragraph structure you will address all of my other points."

First off, ending your post like this makes you look like an asshat, to the point that any self respecting editor would immediately write you off and never do work with you in the future, bringing me to your next point.

"I also liked that you included the line, we could buy your stuff in the
future. No you won't companies/magazines never buy prints of no name
kids, regardless of how sick the shot is."

Really, I'm pretty sure that's how I got my start with Newschoolers...covering no name kids at no name local events. I'm pretty sure Schmuck has never turned down a good piece of work and photos, regardless of the location/person.

Your other points, to which I actually agree, has nothing really to do with Doug & Newschoolers but rather the entire corporate legal jargon. When it comes down to it, its a means of protecting their (and I'm speaking about corporate culture as a whole, not specifically Doug or Chris) collective asses, removing the liability of a copyright lawsuit, transferring it to the person uploading the photo.

Would it be cool to omit those lines entirely from the terms and agreements, sure but in today's sue happy world, it's not likely to happen. Just as you, the photographer, need to know how to protect yourself (and photos), companies need to know how to protect themselves, hence these contests exist with these kinds of legal releases.

Bteam, This isn't me being all apologetic for this kind of contest, its just that the option of "don't enter" is plain & clear. Getting into it this kind of discussion, and coming off like a dick (relying on a call out on Doug's understanding of paragraph structure) is really just self defeating since NS is probably going to be your best shot, no pun intended, in the "industry" of ski & action sports media to get 1) published and more importantly 2) compensated accordingly.

(Your post)- So, as a photographer, you are telling me that it is okay for someone to
take my work and that I should not bitch about it? Then I guess you
won't mind taking a quick look at my flickr, I took a few shots of your
site and posted them as my own.

(My response) No it is absolutely not OK for someone to TAKE your work. Were you to have your own website where you post photos, and your terms state that the content on your website is specifically owned by you, you own it. I would NEVER go to your site, download photos and post them on Newschoolers. But that is by no means being argued here... what we're talking about is when you GIVE photos to newschoolers (or any other UGC site) - when you upload, you are giving that photo away.

(your post) The tag team duo - whats the point of that line if its revocable? Yes
you are giving us the option to back out thus making you fair and
simple, but you still include the line that claims our work as your
property. Do you even need the license to post a shot as a winning shot?

(My response) Remember - the work as soon as you post it once is our content. We still need the licence for it to show up only once on the site. As soon as you are uploading it, you are granting that right. So the part about backing out is so that you can revoke the rights after you have posted it. So to answer your question yes we need the licence to display the photo as a winner, because we need it to even have the photo on the site once anywhere.

(your post) And I was ignoring it before but since it keeps being brought up, your
rules are similar to Facebook, but like I said before, I don't care if
it is the standard. Its only the standard because many corporations are
greedy and like the option of free work, and because the number of
people who understand AND care, is greatly outweighed by those who don't
understand and couldn't possibly give a flying fuck.

(my response) Don't think of it as the standard then, think of the actual logic of the situation. If you put your photo on SOMEONE ELSE'S WEBSITE you are giving it away. In order for a magazine to put a photo in their mag, they have to get the rights. If you simply sent them photos with a letter that said "put this wherever" then they would be able to do that. People should understand this fact, especially photographers. Pro photographers don't upload their best stuff to User Generated Content sites because they want to be able to re-sell it.

(your post) I just don't understand why there is a need to claim our work, state that you do not owe us anything if you use it, and also state that you can transfer your ownership of my work to whoever you deem worthy. Seems a bit excessive if you ask me.

(my response) I don't want to say this too many more times... we are not claiming your work, you are giving it to us. We do not owe you anything when you give us something. If your work is amazing and we give it to someone without asking and you have such a horrible problem with it, we will take it down off of our site, and off of their site... or wherever else it is. Its not excessive at all... because we give lots of opportunity for people. We are extremely fair about getting exposure for photographers, as well as offering compensation if we use a photo for some purpose other than displaying on the site. If you don't want to give your photos away - don't post them on someone else's website!

(your post) Oh and btw, subliscensable is not spelled subliscenseable.. you might want to fix that in your official rules.

(my response) whoops fail... we'll fix that.


(Your Post) Doug you do an excellent job of avoiding certain points, and no writing a book doesn't fool me that you only addressed one of three points. And even that one point, I even mentioned that may be needed.

(My response) Jesus buddy... I'm not trying to fool you here. In actual fact, I'm trying to help educate you. Its sad that so many people post content on the internet without realizing what they are doing! This is why facebook invades your privacy so dearly!

Also you really have me wrong if you can't see that I'm trying to help you with the strategy of becoming a successful photographer. We pay people real money for photos, videos and stories here ALL THE TIME. As Dan Brown said, we're one of the best ways to get started. Being strategic with UGC is the way to go... if you really have what it takes to be a pro photographer, you should only ever upload your B-roll stuff to UGC. Use that as a way to get your name out there, then proceed to contact people at our site, mags, other sites, etc... suggesting that you have much better things to show them. You can email photos or share them with the disclaimer of "rights not granted" and if its awesome we will buy it.

Case in point... had instead of you getting really angry about a contest that will be fun for everyone simply emailed me a photo that was dope enough to be worthy of the cover, I would have sent you money and you would have been happy. However, I would have only done this if it really was worth the money.

You could have even done a better job of getting money had you suggested a cool shoot or event to go to that you could cover and get really good photography... then we would have gladly paid you for your photos.

(your post) Why do you need to state you owe us nothing if you use it. Yes I understand you owe me nothing by allowing me to enter the contest, but what this line contains is that you also could use this for other projects and give me no compensation.

(My Response) OK fair enough - you are absolutely right that this states if you enter this contest we could do absolutely anything we want with this photo. Hell we could blow it up and run it in an international magazine or billboards across the USA. This is because you grant us the right to your photo when you upload it.

Of course, you also have the ability to revoke that right immediately. So if your photo showed up on billboards across the USA and you were pissed, you could demand it be taken down, or that you receive compensation. By the way the law works, you'd either get your compensation or we'd have to take everything down... NO MATTER WHERE we put it.

Now again... there is also reality. In which we are a really good group of people running a website that cares about this industry. If we are going to use your photo like that we are going to compensate you, but to protect ourselves in a sue-happy world (thanks DB) we put blanket statements into our TOS. You never know when someone is going to get really angry about their photo rights which they gave away to you by uploading it to the internet.

(your post) Why do you need to include the line that says you can give my work away to other companies if you please.

(my response) Because we syndicate content to other websites, like our parent company's site www.grindtv.com. Its like YouTube - you have to grant rights to your video because people can embed it on other sites. In a contest like this one, were it to be run by a company they might want to post the winners on their site.

(your post) Who is supposed to be entering this contest, the photographer, or the rider.

(My response) Either! Whoever has a sweet photo, of which they possess the rights to. PHOTOGRAPHERS - be clear with your riders whether you are granting them the rights to post photos of themselves. RIDERS - be clear with your photographers because they can do whatever they want with your photos, and you have no rights. You absolutely do not have the right to post a photo because you are in it.

Actually on that note... do you make sure that you have rights from your riders to have them in your photos? This is also important, as someone has to grant the rights to be in a photo. DB - maybe help me on specifics of this? I mean do you compensate your riders if you get compensation for your photos?

(your post) I also liked that you included the line, we could buy your stuff in the future. No you won't companies/magazines never buy prints of no name kids, regardless of how sick the shot is.

(My Response) Hahahahhha.... come on man, at least do research! We are probably the single best place for new photographers to make a name for themselves. Newschoolers.com is built on a foundation of promoting amateur riders, and getting people started on their careers. If your shit is good enough we would absolutely buy it!

Quick tip though - arguments like this in public where you take such a hostile tone aren't a good way to come off as being professional. We're more than willing to discuss whats going on, and you don't have to attack us so much to get answers. You will get much further in the industry if you act with professionalism.

(Your Post) I figure if I write like this, disregarding all sorts of layout and paragraph structure you will address all of my other points

(My Response) You're right you did get me to respond. Sorry for not being more clear in my earlier responses, I was simply trying to make shorter posts and only address what I thought was pertinent.

__________________________________


NOW AFTER ALL OF THAT -

To anyone who is watching this whole argument unfold I BEG of you one simple thing - don't get turned off of posting stuff because you lose some rights.

Its an incredible strategy to get noticed if you post things on a website like newschoolers.com. What the[b]team is correct about is that traditionally, nobody gave the ams the time of day. You could submit your photos to magazines all day long and they would just get thrown in the garbage.

If you are smart about using a mixture of posting stuff on the internet to build a name for yourself, but retaining rights to those select few photos that you might be able to sell... then you can work it into a successful career.

Read between the lines on a situation like this. Sure the legal jargon states you give us the rights to your photo... but you can revoke it at any time if you want simply by clicking a tiny X next to the photo... so how much do we really own? At what risk are you truly at if you can revoke those rights so easily?

We here at Newschoolers.com support the ams out there in a BIG way. If you have content that you think would fit in one of our pro positions, please don't hesitate to reach out to any of the staff. We do listen, and we're ALWAYS looking for new talent.

Holy long post. This needs to be preserved for all future contests.

"DB - maybe help me on specifics of this? I mean do you compensate your riders if you get compensation for your photos?"

That's a slippery slope too, I think it's safe to say that compensation for a rider appearing in a photo is usually dealt with in their contracts with a sponsor by way of a photo incentive which usually boils down to "Hey, go out and get photos, and if they appear in a magazine, whether it be an ad or as part of an editorial spread, we'll pay you X."

For my commercial work, any models that I've employed on a shoot has been compensated and has signed a release that gives me their permission to use their likeness in any way I see fit. Just as photographers have to manage their photo license, so to do models... Editorial work generally does not require image releases or compensation.

For anyone looking to get more information on the "business" side of photography, they should definitely check out Best Business Practices for Photographers by John Harrington.

Actually as you talk about this, I know that most events you partake in the waiver you sign has a photo release portion built into it. Athletes sometimes give their rights away at a contest.

Technically though one should have a talent release form for each athlete correct? I mean if we got fully legal and all that?

Perfect. I feel like after this thread is over it shoud be moved to M&A and stickied in case anyone else wanted to get learned in all the legalities regarding photography, regardless of if I look like an ass.

Which by the way wasn't just me being an ass, but more of a calculated move.  I understand perfectly well how to act professional and polite and all of that. But if it takes me making smart ass comments to get the answers for questions I asked multiple times, then so be it. I don't put much value into message boards and maintaining an internet persona, if any of you knew me you'd probably chuckle.

As far as NS actually backing AM's and AM photographers, thats awesome if what you say is true, but Ive never noticed it, and to your defense I've also never actively looked. Maybe NS is the exception, but if you submit to most sporting magazine's, it will be completely disregarded unless the rider is a known name.

Well thanks Doug for actually answering, but it still irks me that the only way for photographers to protect themselves is to not release any of their best shots. It seems like through legalities, it makes it extremely tough for an AM photographer to make it anywhere. You wouldnt ask a highschool basketball star to take it down a notch so that they can get a scholarship or make it to the NBA, but thats exactly what is asked of photographers.

Though my intentions are still the same as they were when I first posted in this thread, to enter the contest. But I doubt I will win regardless of if I have the best shot or not. BTW - Ive already noticed a couple of shots that I don't think I can hold with. Fuck the midwest with our 400ft vert, no natural snow, and seasons ending for the most part 2 weeks ago.

ya im not uploading something that i lose all rights to, we work hard for our shots, and deserve compensation for them if they are used

Absolutely, if a photographer is looking to sell the photo commercially, then yes, technically, they should.

I'd go even further to point out that in obtaining a photo pass for major events, you're agreeing to said events terms on photo use...you're only "allowed" to use the photos for editorial use, if I remember correctly, most photo waivers that photographers sign at the events include something like "commercial use is strictly forbidden." The event is granting you a license to shoot their event. It's probably included within that language that the resort is also granting you a property release.

I'm willing to bet that both photographers & companies and espn are probably turning a blind eye to that. I think there's more inherent value in having the photos out circulating, whether in editorial spreads or even ads, than not. But then, I've only used photos from these events for editorial use, never commercial, so I can't speak for other photographers. Photographers in general, are pretty secretive about their business practices, and rightfully so, they don't want to get undercut by some upstart photographer who will do the work at half the day rate and a photo credit. (More on this in a second)

To that end, Toronto based photo (and NS contributor) had a good series of posts on Twitter earlier this year about it.

"@pippinlee -Does the taboo nature of price talking in the photo industry create barriers to those who want to enter but are uneducated? lose-lose?"

"Great services such as Fotoquote cost money & create barriers that leave people uneducated, and the industry on all ends suffers. #photobiz"

"Hard to ignore that such variance in pricing occurs because people often don't know better. Eliminating education barrier is a step forward"

"Purely speaking of those that have great value in their work, but don't understand the market value because of barriers."

I think it comes right back around to the issue of granting a license and having the possibility that the photographer would not be compensated accordingly. BTeam mentioned, and rightfully so, that in adhering to the Terms & Services, you could then take that photo and use it for whatever end means to which Doug countered that included within the language was the right to remove the content whenever the photographer wanted. Yeah, it'd be super shady for Doug to take photos submitted for this and make an ad banner out of them for say, Salomon or Windells. The photographer would have every right to be pissed. Do I think Doug would do this? Absolutely not. I know him on both a professional & personal level and have had no problems working with him and Newschoolers.

To a lot of aspiring photographers looking to make a name for themselves, this seems like an enticing contest, and maybe it is...perhaps Joe Smith uploads a photo of his buddy in the park and the creative director at that resort will see it and want to use it and the two would work out a rate for the use of the photo. So now Joe's made some money on an image that would more than likely just sit on his harddrive or in his facebook album.

Or maybe it won't.

Most working photographers will be irked by this contest & others like it (WME Heli Photo Contest) because it could be conceived as a devaluation of their own work...it gets down to the point, why would companies pay for work when they get it for free. This is what I believe Pippin was making in his posts, "Hard to ignore that such variance in pricing occurs because people often don't know better." Companies can have these kind of contests because aspiring photographers don't recognize the value in their work.

And for photographers not to have this conversation out loud, to not speak about the White Elephant is probably just as detrimental.

Ignorance is bliss when you're looking to make a name for yourself as a photographer. Sometimes photo credit is all you'll ever want...but it doesn't pay rent.

This isn't me calling out Newschoolers, this is me just pointing out that state of affairs and ways companies are able to benefit from crowd-sourcing. No one passes on Free. I wouldn't. In a perfect world, these contests would include a cash equivalent to the rights that the photographer would be granting... and in the same world I'd have a fucking awesome unicorn that would fly me around the world on its back and shoot lasers out its eyes. C'est la vie.

I'll also state it again, the option is plain & clear, don't upload a photo to the contest if you do not agree with it.

I took a picture, it was very hard. I demand lots of money for it. Give me lots of money because I bought an expensive piece of equipment!

I hit a baseball really far. I shot a basketball through a hoop a couple of times. I caught a football. It was very hard. I demand lots of money for it.

You honestly can't be that stupid can you?

(you) Perfect. I feel like after this thread is over it shoud be moved to M&A and stickied in case anyone else wanted to get learned in all the legalities regarding photography, regardless of if I look like an ass.

Which by the way wasn't just me being an ass, but more of a calculated move. I understand perfectly well how to act professional and polite and all of that. But if it takes me making smart ass comments to get the answers for questions I asked multiple times, then so be it. I don't put much value into message boards and maintaining an internet persona, if any of you knew me you'd probably chuckle.

(me) Yeah I mean I'm glad that we can help assist with this type of a thing. This information isn't hidden though, and people getting into photography seriously really should educate themselves on the legal sides of what you're doing. I mean when we were running Newschoolers as a tiny business, we had to educated ourselves on the internet laws. Please, no matter what you do in life, don't be ignorant of the laws, rules, and industry that surrounds it. People have been doing this shit a long time before us newschool skiers came about, so there's lots of good resources to look towards.

Calculated move? Come on man, though it was calculated to try and get this information, in no way did you have to interject so much attacking negativity into your posts. I'm a reasonable guy, and you have dudes like DB here jumping in to help clarify as well. You could easily have posed this question without hostility.

Hell the reason that people complain about internet forums is because of hostility like you did in your post. Just remember, hostility does not draw out good responses in general. I decided to give you a pass on your hostility, and simply answer a question that needed to be answered. I would be more than happy to answer this question if posed in a friendly manner as well. Look at my track record, I'm always here to help.

(you)As far as NS actually backing AM's and AM photographers, thats awesome if what you say is true, but Ive never noticed it, and to your defense I've also never actively looked. Maybe NS is the exception, but if you submit to most sporting magazine's, it will be completely disregarded unless the rider is a known name.

(me)Here's a good example from your home region - https://newschoolers.com/ns/content/readnews/id/1448/

Also look at this side of it... if without a site like Newschoolers all am photographers would be doing with their photos is sending them to magazines to be ignored... then there is merit to at least being able to build a name for yourself through posting photos on here.

Newschoolers is a place for ams to show their work, whether athletes, journalists, photographers, videographers... etc.

(you) Well thanks Doug for actually answering, but it still irks me that the only way for photographers to protect themselves is to not release any of their best shots. It seems like through legalities, it makes it extremely tough for an AM photographer to make it anywhere. You wouldnt ask a highschool basketball star to take it down a notch so that they can get a scholarship or make it to the NBA, but thats exactly what is asked of photographers.

(me) Hmmmm.... College athletes? I mean don't they either have to get a scholarship or PAY to go to college? Don't people take internships at companies like Conde Nast if they want to be serious journalists? Hell I volunteered as a digger at High North for three years in order to become head digger. Skiers? Do they get paid to go to contests while trying to make it to the big leagues?

Sadly life is FULL of times when you have to take a few hits to make it to the next level. If it was so easy to go from a highschool kid thinking about getting into photography right to the senior photo editor at the New York times, don't you think everyone would do it?

The main issue with stuff like this is its SO easy to get into photography these days, and there's a thousand kids out there who got a fancy camera for Christmas and call themselves a photographer. When websites like us or magazines have such a flood of talent, its important to look at ways to sift through this. Believe me - we get a lot of people contacting us pretending to be a professional photographer... same with the mags. Lots of am shots don't get chosen because they are... well... amateur.

Now, I'm going to go to Dan's post because he's making some fantastic points on this issue.

(Dan)I think it comes right back around to the issue of granting a license and having the possibility that the photographer would not be compensated accordingly. BTeam mentioned, and rightfully so, that in adhering to the Terms & Services, you could then take that photo and use it for whatever end means to which Doug countered that included within the language was the right to remove the content whenever the photographer wanted. Yeah, it'd be super shady for Doug to take photos submitted for this and make an ad banner out of them for say, Salomon or Windells. The photographer would have every right to be pissed. Do I think Doug would do this? Absolutely not. I know him on both a professional & personal level and have had no problems working with him and Newschoolers.

(Doug) I can also add to this fact that the part that says the photo rights can be revoked at any time means it is thusly revoked from absolutely anywhere it exists - no matter if I have given it to someone else or sold it to Wired magazine for a million dollars. YOU THE PHOTOGRAPHER are protected by this legal language. Lets even say I was a totally shady bastard, and ski magazine came up to me and was like "I'll pay NS $1,000 for that winning photo." and I'm all "Fuck yeah for sure man no worries." THEN, I just simply sell it to them and don't pay you anything. I have the rights to your photo afterall.

However, as the language in your contract, you send an email to copyright@newschoolers.com all "Hey man... I saw my photo in Ski magazine. I revoke your rights to that photo. Those rights are then systematically revoked from Ski Magazine. Since the photo is already published in print, we would have to come to an arrangement - I could offer to pay you $750 (Less a $250 brokerage fee for NS because your photo never would have made it there without us) and you could choose to accept that deal. We would develop a wicked working relationship and be off to a long and fruitful partnership. You could also say "I demand $2k or I revoke the rights" to which I either pay you or revoke the rights... which I can't so I'd have to pay you. Of course, if you were this much of a dick you'd lose chances of getting to work with us again.

So your rights are protected. You transfer the rights temporarily to us when it goes on the site, but in the end you still own the final rights. Remember to read both sides of that language, not just the part that says your granting rights. Since you can revoke them and it is a non-exclusive relationship you still own the master rights to the photo... you have just granted us rights to use it for as long as you see fit.

(Dan) To a lot of aspiring photographers looking to make a name for themselves, this seems like an enticing contest, and maybe it is...perhaps Joe Smith uploads a photo of his buddy in the park and the creative director at that resort will see it and want to use it and the two would work out a rate for the use of the photo. So now Joe's made some money on an image that would more than likely just sit on his harddrive or in his facebook album.

Or maybe it won't.

(Doug) Yeah that is definitely both sides of it. However remember that submitting to magazines also has a downside... which is that your photos just get constantly thrown in the trash. Especially for a budding amateur with less than pro equipment and very little experience. The chances of simply having your photos never go anywhere is the flip side of maybe getting paid a few hundred bucks for one of them.

On here, though your chances of getting paid in a contest are low (you get prizes instead of money most of the time) but your chances for exposure are high. Look at a guy like Tom Wallisch. One time he was just some kid posting edits on Newschoolers for fun. His entire career was built off of getting popular on here and then getting noticed in the industry.

(Dan) Most working photographers will be irked by this contest & others like it (WME Heli Photo Contest) because it could be conceived as a devaluation of their own work...it gets down to the point, why would companies pay for work when they get it for free. This is what I believe Pippin was making in his posts, "Hard to ignore that such variance in pricing occurs because people often don't know better." Companies can have these kind of contests because aspiring photographers don't recognize the value in their work.

(Doug) The prize does matter. I mean in that contest, you're probably talking about the cash equivalent of between $5k and $10k. Heli skiing aint cheap. You're right though, that working photographers hate the devaluation of photography that has happened with the internet. I think this has been basic supply and demand... there's so many more photographers out there these days, that if you hold a contest like this with a good prize, you get entries. The game has changed... gone are the hayday when magazines paid top dollar for photos... just like gone are the days where people are satisfied looking only at a magazine with 50 pages of content per month. They want to burn through hundreds of photos every day.

Don't get me wrong, I love good photos. If I could, I'd pay all you photographers top dollar for each photo! However... then Newschoolers would only have what... 50-100 new photos per month on it? We need a middle ground.

Also note that with the ability to revoke your photo rights (which also does not apply if you sell that photo) you could enter a contest with a good prize, and if you don't win, pull the rights, photo dissapears, go try to sell it to a magazine.

(Dan)And for photographers not to have this conversation out loud, to not speak about the White Elephant is probably just as detrimental.

(Doug) TOTALLY - This is a big issue... but not only for photographers, for all people who create media. Hell its a big issue for us... think of the number of companies that think it is their given right to come on newschoolers and promote their wares for free. Luckily, we let some of the smaller guys work with us to do it so we can help the little guys get that exposure they need to get started.

(Dan)This isn't me calling out Newschoolers, this is me just pointing out that state of affairs and ways companies are able to benefit from crowd-sourcing. No one passes on Free. I wouldn't. In a perfect world, these contests would include a cash equivalent to the rights that the photographer would be granting... and in the same world I'd have a fucking awesome unicorn that would fly me around the world on its back and shoot lasers out its eyes. C'est la vie.

(Doug) All good man, I'm loving the discussion. Crowd-sourcing is cool, but honestly what you find in the end is that you get a lot of garbage. Sure there's some gems in the mix, but it doesn't replace pros. Thats why we pay people who make it through the crowdsourcing mess... if you can truly float to the top, then we have a program for paying professionals for their work.

____________________________________


My final point and I want EVERYONE TO READ THIS:

Do you pirate software, music, movies... anything?

Did you buy that $1,899.00 copy of Creative Suite 5 that you use for your photos?

Is you iPhone full of music purchased on the iTunes store?

Is your operating system licensed?

Is EVERY piece of software on your system you use licensed?

Is EVERY movie you've watched in the last 5 years from a legit source where you paid for it?

Is EVERY TV show you have watched in the last 5 years coming through your digital cable provider?

Because if the answer to ANY of these questions is "Oh crap... I used the pirate bay... there's no way I could afford that." Then you are absolutely doing the exact same thing to someone else you are complaining about.

The Internet has upended absolutely every business model out there. Shit is the wild west, and everyone is trying to sort out what the new rules are going to be. Its so easy to get free stuff, that everyone is doing it!

Hell, if you pirated that copy of Photoshop you use, then you're WAY worse than us. At least in a photo contest we give something to the winner... its not like when you steal software you send a few photos to Adobe as a thank-you.

No, not really. He brought up some good points, perhaps not in the best of ways, but still contributing more to the overall conversation than your post.

Mature answer KapitolPhoto ill be sure to vote for you.......

Doug you are a gentleman and a scholar, it's wicked to see you laying it down again. Haven't seen that for quite some time, maybe just because I rarely frequent this site anymore. Every post you have ever made is why you are who you are. Cheers.

You know whats hard to say? That this thread is pretty much the best thread I have seen in a while. It was so nice to browse (I know nothing about law and am horrible at media so I didn't read word for word) a thread and not see stupid retarded 4 chan bullshit everywhere. No meme pictures, no omgzzZZ, no cccc combo breakers... all that shit. The best thread that can be made on this site is genuine old school fighting ? That sucks, but it is what it is.

Best of luck to everyone in this contest, im excited to get hard over some banger shots!

I will admit, though I do not like the tone which bteam used, this did spiral into a pretty rad discussion. I'll give him props for bringing it up and getting this going. :)

I must say, I do agree with what you are saying. The key to this particular thread is we're actually having a solid conversation using as many facts as are possibly available to us.

Its super easy in web forums to divulge simply into the lulz... becuase well lets face it... lulz are funny. However, it doesn't get the conversation anywhere.

I for one actually don't mind the 4chan type bullshit - as long as it is balanced with quality discussion when quality discussion should pop out. I do think you're correct that we have found a huge influx of people posting, which has buried that quality content... but it is still there. You always had to sift through a gazillion threads on NS to see the really good stuff. The site and the way its built creates an environment of rapidly flowing conversation in the forums... which if you don't keep up on regularly becomes a wall of noise when you jump back in.

I sometimes like to say that newschoolers' forums are a lot like twitter.... lots of random nothing blasted into the ether, but if you're crafty you can find a ton of quality content.

I sort of think that we need to put in some automatic filters for people just like yourself. Not uninterested in whats going on here, but just no longer have the time to sort through everything in order to get to the good stuff. Thats an idea I've had in the back of my mind forever... but have not as of yet figured out an elegant way to do so.

You can bet your bananas that I'm going to be roaming around this place and trying to spread the "open your mind" gospel more lately. I stepped out for a bit there to really focus on developing the business side of Newschoolers, as the rapid growth we have been experiencing for years has been extremely difficult to manage. Having done most of what needs to be done there though, its time to return to the day to day and get back in the mix.

To be honest, I'm absolutely blown away at the amount of stuff going on in here. I mean I remember when you were more active (what like 3-4 years ago?) and man, those were different times. I mean Newschoolers in my mind is still Newschoolers... there's just like 5X as many people visiting it. :)

Any suggestions for what might convince you to swing by more often?

Right on

I like how you split bst that needed to be done. A few things I have been saying for years:

1. if you make a fs thread and you don't have pictures it is automatically deleted (other stipulations should be added too. If it is not a banger sale - its no good - and one item can constitute banger, it just needs a photo, quality description, etc....) In primetime now the front page (of FS) is active within 30 minutes... a few years ago even in prime time you could atleast get a few solid hours out of the first page. It's just one way to atleast keep quality sales moving fast. It just causes such a useless flow. Less time on home page, "must bump" reaction, so the increase in bumps increases front page flow of said bumps, and because other people are bumping, you have to bump again, etc... and the front page just gets SPAMMED with bumps. Catastrophic distress. Eliminate dumpster diving threads, less need to bump because more time on home page. I think I explained this so it will make sense.

2. And while we are on pictures, I have been saying this FOREVER, and it still blows my mind why you haven't done it.. is why you haven't changed the default while uploading photos to private. I'm puling this number out of my ass, but I really think a solid 75%+ of the photos are garbage, being generous, and its goes back to the same thing - more garbage to sift through. Photos would become much more of a community atmosphere if you changed this. More comments, more everything, because members wouldn't have to dumpster dive through it. You know? Suddenly the 40 photos when you click are of shots, steezy mofos, bangin art, ... not 10 pictures of different angles of the hot doggers you are trying to sell.

sparks notes: more members more dumpster diving, lulz.