NadarDrone wants your best image to use for free.

[Dave Pitman]

To be fair, they say they will pay $100 to the winning photographer. They are taking a page out of DJI's play book. Trying to get a bunch of good photographs to use for any purpose forever and maybe you win a couple of bucks.

Really? If a photograph is good, it sure is worth a lot more than $100. Not sure why folks would give their work away like that.

Anyone familiar with them? Just another clearing house or a real service company?

https://www.nadardrone.com/2018-summer-drone-photo-contest/

Sponsor reserves the right to disqualify contestants. By entering the contest, entrants grant Sponsor a royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual, non-exclusive license to display, distribute, reproduce and create derivative works of the entries, in whole or in part, in any media now existing or subsequently developed, for any educational, promotional, publicity, exhibition, archival, scholarly and all other standard Smithsonian purposes. Any photograph reproduced will include a photographer credit as feasible. will not be required to pay any additional consideration or seek any additional approval in connection with such uses.

 

[R.Perry]

I have some photos they can buy for a $100 bucks each.

 

[Meta4]

Really? If a photograph is good, it sure is worth a lot more than $100. Not sure why folks would give their work away like that.

This phrase puzzled me: and all other standard Smithsonian purposes
The whole paragraph (maybe all the conditions?) has been copied and pasted from a Smithsonian contest.
Not sure if they intended to collect all entries for nothing or not.

Anyone familiar with them? Just another clearing house or a real service company?

Their website looks like a legitimate drone service company.

 

[Dave Pitman]

This phrase puzzled me: and all other standard Smithsonian purposes
The whole paragraph (maybe all the conditions?) has been copied and pasted from a Smithsonian contest.
Not sure if they intended to collect all entries for nothing or not.

What I meant by this (no idea about the Smithsonian reference) is:
Why would someone give a lifetime license to possibly one of their best photographs in hopes of winning $100?

The reason why I asked about their legitimacy is the whole idea of why they want other's work. That seems odd for a service provider.

 

[Meta4]

What I meant by this (no idea about the Smithsonian reference) is:
Why would someone give a lifetime license to possibly one of their best photographs in hopes of winning $100?

The reason why I asked about their legitimacy is the whole idea of why they want other's work. That seems odd for a service provider.

This article discusses this kind of contest quite well: What to Enter: Photo Competitions for Nature Photographers
I would tend to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they simply copied all the conditions from a Smithsonian contest, possibly without even knowing exactly what the implications of that paragraph are.
But I'm not giving images away ... I know what my best are worth and it's a lot more than the prize offered.

 

[Dave Pitman]

This article discusses this kind of contest quite well: What to Enter: Photo Competitions for Nature Photographers

According to the article the first thing to watch out for is sponsors trying to grab rights to your work beyond the scope of use for the contest itself.

In general, I encourage photographers who are just starting out to enter contests widely. You have little to lose and a lot of exposure to gain. That said, there are a few things to keep in mind:

1. Beware of contests that are designed for rights-grabbing, as discussed above.

 

[AIA.AI]

I joined there network and than a few days later they asked me for videos and photos, so they can have for there website, as a portfolio of some sorts. I told them I was not going to do that unless they wanted to purchase. Anyone ever do work for them? These 3rd party start ups are flooding the internet.

 

[GadgetGuy]

According to the article the first thing to watch out for is sponsors trying to grab rights to your work beyond the scope of use for the contest itself.

Exactly! These so called "contests" are just a way to legally steal all your submitted images and video because by merely entering the contest, everyone gives the sponsor all rights to all images submitted, not just the winning entries!

 

[Outta Control]

I have some photos they can buy for a $100 bucks each.

You know once they pay you the $100 you are surrendering your rights to those images for commercial use.

 

[R.Perry]

You know once they pay you the $100 you are surrendering your rights to those images for commercial use.

You are right on. It is my understanding that once you enter the contest any photos you send become their property, so if you don't win, you don't even get the hundred bucks but they can make bank on your free work. Now a real good deal.

 

[Meta4]

You know once they pay you the $100 you are surrendering your rights to those images for commercial use.

You are right on. It is my understanding that once you enter the contest any photos you send become their property, so if you don't win, you don't even get the hundred bucks but they can make bank on your free work.

While I'm not defending their scheme to grab lots of good images for free, it's not true that the photographers would surrender their rights to use the images.
The wording in their conditions is:

By entering the contest, entrants grant Sponsor a royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual, non-exclusive license to display, distribute, reproduce and create derivative works of the entries, in whole or in part, in any media now existing or subsequently developed, for any educational, promotional, publicity, exhibition, archival, scholarly purposes.​

They are claiming non-exclusive license rights which means they would have the rights to use the images but not own them. The Photographer would still retain ownership of the images and be able to license them to other users.
There's a big difference between exclusive rights and non-exclusive rights.

They have removed the reference to all other standard Smithsonian purposes but kept the rest of the conditions they copied from the Smithsonian contest, so it would appear that acquiring lots of good images for free is their intention.

 

[Outta Control]

While I'm not defending their scheme to grab lots of good images for free, it's not true that the photographers would surrender their rights to use the images.
The wording in their conditions is:

By entering the contest, entrants grant Sponsor a royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual, non-exclusive license to display, distribute, reproduce and create derivative works of the entries, in whole or in part, in any media now existing or subsequently developed, for any educational, promotional, publicity, exhibition, archival, scholarly purposes.​

They are claiming non-exclusive license rights which means they would have the rights to use the images but not own them. The Photographer would still retain ownership of the images and be able to license them to other users.
There's a big difference between exclusive rights and non-exclusive rights.

They have removed the reference to all other standard Smithsonian purposes but kept the rest of the conditions they copied from the Smithsonian contest, so it would appear that acquiring lots of good images for free is their intention.

I can certainly guaranty you that if this goes sideways and in civil court, you will hear a different story on this. I've asked this issue before with a patent and copywrite attorney, who specializes in media, when I did sports photography.

If you don't care about your photos then by all means go for it but this is part of your livelihood then error the side of caution. Just because they have a properly formatted document or legal verbiage doesn't mean you can't sue or be sued.

 

[Meta4]

I can certainly guaranty you that if this goes sideways and in civil court, you will hear a different story on this. I've asked this issue before with a patent and copywrite attorney, who specializes in media, when I did sports photography.

If you don't care about your photos then by all means go for it but this is part of your livelihood then error the side of caution. Just because they have a properly formatted document or legal verbiage doesn't mean you can't sue or be sued.

1st .. I'm not giving away any photos to participate in a sucker competition that's a scheme to acquire images for free.
I know the value of my work and it's a lot more than the prize on offer.
I wouldn't recommend anyone enters.

2nd .. there's a big difference between exclusive rights (the owner of exclusive rights owns the image and all rights to it) and a non-exclusive licence where the photographer still owns the image and is able to further licence its use to other parties.

 

[GadgetGuy]

1st .. I'm not giving away any photos to participate in a sucker competition that's a scheme to acquire images for free.
I know the value of my work and it's a lot more than the prize on offer.
I wouldn't recommend anyone enters.

2nd .. there's a big difference between exclusive rights (the owner of exclusive rights owns the image and all rights to it) and a non-exclusive licence where the photographer still owns the image and is able to further licence its use to other parties.

Agreed! The first point is the best advice. However under your second point, you are now potentially competing against the contest holder, and they can still give your work away to anyone they see fit for free! Don't enter!

 

[JakeB826]

If it is the same company I've seen looking for pilots on Indeed they offer a stellar package of up to 0-10 hours of work an month and you get to sign a non-compete stating that any work you do will be under their name, including any work that you do on your own and get on your own outside of them providing it. So you get to be an independent contractor responsible for all of your own gear and expenses PLUS the right to give them part of your unaffiliated work on top of the huge cut they take of anything they "might" kick your way. Helluva deal I tell ya. Might as well send them all of your best fun time work too! They are one of the ten other "#1 Drone Service Provider in the Country!" scams that have never actually provided any work or services to anyone.

Sad thing is people fall for it, many of whom are just decent folks trying to get into a new business.

 

[GadgetGuy]

If it is the same company I've seen looking for pilots on Indeed they offer a stellar package of up to 0-10 hours of work an month and you get to sign a non-compete stating that any work you do will be under their name, including any work that you do on your own and get on your own outside of them providing it. So you get to be an independent contractor responsible for all of your own gear and expenses PLUS the right to give them part of your unaffiliated work on top of the huge cut they take of anything they "might" kick your way. Helluva deal I tell ya. Might as well send them all of your best fun time work too! They are one of the ten other "#1 Drone Service Provider in the Country!" scams that have never actually provided any work or services to anyone.

Sad thing is people fall for it, many of whom are just decent folks trying to get into a new business.

Well said! As P.T. Barnum said, "There's a new sucker born every minute!"
Buyer beware!