Quite short, but some interesting bits in there.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2008/oct/13/television-wildlife
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2008/oct/13/television-wildlife
Ray Mears interview in The Guardian
- Thread starter Wallenstein
- Start date
Only problem is the competition they are running.
Rule 6. In consideration of the Promoter granting entrants a right to enter the Promotion, each entrant automatically grants to the Promoter and Millets an irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide licence to use, reproduce, alter, adapt or sub-licence their submission in any media in perpetuity.
They or Millets can use any picture entered for whatever they like, whether you win or not.
Total rip off. :bluThinki
Rule 6. In consideration of the Promoter granting entrants a right to enter the Promotion, each entrant automatically grants to the Promoter and Millets an irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide licence to use, reproduce, alter, adapt or sub-licence their submission in any media in perpetuity.
They or Millets can use any picture entered for whatever they like, whether you win or not.
Total rip off. :bluThinki
I'm not sure how Ray's view of the "quiet contemplation" of the woods would fit with the fireside antics of a typical BCUK meet though. 
I'm not sure how Ray's view of the "quiet contemplation" of the woods would fit with the fireside antics of a typical BCUK meet though.
Oh I don't know.... every time I've been to a meet there's always been a few little lulls in the antics and conversation where everyone seems to just want to sit quietly contemplating their surroundings
That or everyone is gathering energy for the next round of antics
No it's not. That is the way some competitions are run but no photographer with any sense will accept it.
Lets look at what it means.
Rule 6. In consideration of the Promoter granting entrants a right to enter the Promotion, each entrant automatically grants to the Promoter and Millets an irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide licence to use, reproduce, alter, adapt or sub-licence their submission in any media in perpetuity.
Rule 6 Translated. In return for the chance to win a prize, you give us and the company giving the prize the right to use your pictures anywhere, any time without paying you a penny for that right. In addition we can sell your image to anybody else too and keep all the money we make by doing that.
Any pictures worth a look will go straight into a picture library and earn Bovril and Millets a considerable sum of money. They certainly will not have to pay for pictures for their own advertising for a while.
Reputable competitions and organizations request rights for using the pictures in connection with the competitions, have to pay for further uses and certainly do not gain the rights to sub-licence your work to other people.
Any photographer with an ounce of sense will boycott such unfair practices and alert others to do the same as well.
Probably should have been more specific and said that it's SP for this kind of submission competition.
I'm referring more to these kind of promotional competitions, as opposed to major photography contests etc. (I'm almost certain the number of the former far outweighs the latter) - they nearly all have a clause that relinquishes rights to the organiser, it's pretty much why they exist.
And, in general, these contests are normally aimed at those that don't normally make money off their pictures - people that are more than happy to relinquish rights to one snap for a chance to win a prize.
Sure, while it seems to you to be 'rip-off', it's only a 'rip-off' if you are someonw who's not prepared to give away rights, in which case you have a simple choice.
if they use that crappy phone camera pic of me griining my monkey face off on pen-y-fan with frozen snot dribbling down my beard to sell beautiful women bovril i'll be gutted! i was going to flog it to like er, gucci or armani or lidl or whatever and retire!
Similar threads
