Potential pitfalls in Lonely Planet photography contest

Terrible

Not able to supply opting out information on the application form? What a load of rubbish. They know exactly what they are doing. I would like to see them add this option in to the application and stick to their word. I would love to buy this new copy of the book, scan it in fully and distribute it for free... Then they may see the light once their sales start falling...

I think you should re-read this...

What is so objectionable about these terms and conditions? Usually I'm one to 'stand up for your rights' but it seems all they are doing here is defending their right to use it in the way advertised? Isn't it reasonable in a competition that says "get your image published" that you might very well have to agree to having your image published?

Are competitions that state the person must be over 18 ageist? Are ones that say you must be a resident of a certain country fascist, or Nationalistic? No, it's a valid T&C to protect the legal ground it stands on.

The T&Cs state quite clearly 'in conjunction with this competition' - so where is the statement coming from that they are 'grabbing' a license to use it "in their guidebooks"?

It's guidebook, singular. The one you are entering to be a part of.

Can you image the issues it would cause Lonely Planet if the license WASN'T irrevocable? The photographer could force a guidebook in circulation to be withdrawn, by withdrawing his allowance to use it. OR be a complete **** and state he now demands £5000 for 'further rights' and write his own blank cheque because they have no alternative but to comply.

As someone who has signed MANY stock imagery license forms I can tell you a license is ALWAYS irrevocable. ALWAYS worldwide. And usually perpetual. At least they've been kind and said 5 years - which I imagine is the life of the guidebook?

Not one picture, but all

Anouk, the main issue is not so much that the winner will get published, but that Lonely Planet may use any pictures submitted to the competition (whether it wins or not) in their guidebooks (not one guidebook, but any Lonely Planet guidebooks) as well as their sites, etc.

Some photographers might be fine with that, but a lot won't be. That's why it needed to be highlighted.

Possibly ...

Oliver, I do see your point. But isn't that just to allow them to display the ones that entered? i.e. 'Here are images submitted for the competition' on their website?

Clearly, if they are looking to print ONE winner, they aren't then going to announce multiple winners? It would seem at odds with what they're trying to do.

Their use is 'connected to this competition' so they couldn't then just use these images in 15 publications to bolster their stock library. I can't imagine Lonely Planet would need to do it, anyway!

I've sent them an email, to ask them to clarify this. Because I don't think they'd have anything to gain from doing this.

Surely they could instead just look here : http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons and choose CC-BY , under the search term 'Bristol' ?

The motive is unclear. Why do either party, especially Lonely Planet, want to 'grab' a huge stock library of Bristol photographs? It would seem if they were doing such a thing they'd have a broader theme!

Just my $0.02

You think this is bad - look at Cornwall Today

Just got back from Cornwall & picked up a copy of Cornwall today - for their readers competition this is one of their conditions:
"All submitted entries become the property of Cornwall & Devon Media Ltd upon receipt and we reserve the right to use entries for commercial purposes. Cornwall & Devon media Ltd also reserve the right to publish any entry in any form and at any time, including on our websites, free of charge. Photographs will be credited to the photographer and credited appropriately."

Why do they need the second sentence as immediately they receive any entry it becomes their property to do with as they like?!?

As you would expect, they are not interested in discussing their T&Cs.