Canada Dry Motts is currently running a photo contest (“Art of Refreshment Photo Contest”) which seems to be only about getting free pictures for their advertising and marketing. You’d think that after all these years, with all the negative publicity other similar contests have garnered, companies would have learned by now.
This contest trades on the names of some famous artists who did ads for the beverage product over the past 50 years. Funny it doesn’t mention if any of these artists worked for free.
Canada Dry Motts is claiming all rights, exclusively, for all eternity, for every single photo entered in this contest. Even if a photo doesn’t win, the photographer has lost all rights to their submitted photo forever. Does that say “rights grab” and “we need free pictures to build up our library”?
Rule 6 of this contest includes:
In consideration of entering an entry into the contest, the entrant on behalf of themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, hereby assign to the Contest Sponsor all rights, interest and goodwill in the entry, including an irrevocable grant to Contest Sponsor of the exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, worldwide license and right to broadcast, exhibit and/or otherwise use the entry and every element thereof, in whole or in part, in any manner or medium now or hereafter known or devised, including but not limited to the possible use of the entry by Contest Sponsor in future advertising. All decisions regarding such use shall be at Contest Sponsor’s sole discretion.
All entries, upon submission, become the property of Contest Sponsor, and its successors, assigns and licensees. Contest Sponsor will have the exclusive right to make unlimited derivative works therefrom, to assign or transfer any or all such rights and to grant unlimited sublicenses.
Without limiting the foregoing, Contest Sponsor will have the right to use the entry in any packaging, merchandising, advertising, marketing, promotion or for any other commercial or non-commercial purpose. Entrant forever waives and relinquishes on behalf of themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns any and all rights, including but not limited to goodwill, in and to the entry.
And, in case that didn’t show their true intentions, it goes on:
Entrant acknowledges that, upon submitting their entry, Contest Sponsor owns and controls all rights, including but not limited to the copyright, intellectual property, goodwill in and to their entry and hereby irrevocably grants to Contest Sponsor the unconditional and perpetual right and permission to trademark, copyright (as appropriate), reproduce, encode, store, copy, transmit, publish, post, broadcast, display, publicly perform, adapt, exhibit and/or otherwise use or reuse (without limitation as to when or to the number of times used), the entrant’s name, address, image, voice, likeness, statements, biographical material and entry, as well as any additional photographic images, video images, portraits, interviews or other materials relating to the entrant and arising out of his/her participation in this Contest (with or without using the entrant’s name) in any media throughout the world for any purpose, without limitation, and without additional review, compensation, or approval from the entrant or any other party.
Yes, that last rule was actually one long sentence, (I guess the lawyers failed English class). It states that the contest sponsor can use every entrant’s name, address, likeness, etc. for anything whatsoever. But one might wonder whether this violates this country’s privacy laws.
The eleven prizes total $7,500 which is, no surprise, far less than the cost of licensing the photography properly.
I like to call out companies that put on these sorts of “contests”. The most common excuses are “people like it”, “it’s good expsosure” and “there’s a chance of winning prizes, how can you say there isn’t proper compenstation?”
I think the best ever I’ve received was from a liquor company that has the word “Iceberg” in their name, asking people to submit their best iceberg images. Their VP of marketing told me they often have children asking them for images of icebergs to use for school projects, and why should they let a little thing like photographers’ rights get in the way of helping kids get an A+ on their fourth-grade project.
(Why kids would think to ask a liquor company for help on their school project is beyond me.)
The underlying truth to almost all these I’ve come to realize is that they just get their lawyer to write them something is guaranteed not to get them sued. In the end, everyone loses because no photographer worth his/her salt would (should) contribute images to such contests.