Lowell Photography Contest

I am from Nepal. I am also very very interested to participate your photo contest. Could you suggest me about this. Is it possible to participate as an international photographer.
Thanks for your valuable cooperation.

RD - Unless you can travel to Lowell and shoot scenes from Lowell, highly unlikely that you'll be able to participate.

It's nothing a long lens and space mirror can't fix...

Just to clarify... Pictures should be taken from within the map's boundaries. Does that mean specifically within the border of the national park outline? Or anywhere on the entire map?

Ruth,

Photos taken anywhere on the entire map are acceptable. We wanted to conduct a contest that didn't limit photographers to the federal boundaries of the park - a great deal of national heritage exists in and around the City of Lowell as well.

I look forward to your entry, Ruth.

-Jonathan Parker
National Park Ranger
Lowell National Historical Park

Teresa and Jonathan, can either of you explain the significance of "this contest does not take your copyright"? I was unable to get that answered at another thread:

http://www.boston.com/community/photos/raw/2009/08/national_parks_photo_contest.html

As with the Globe's National Park contest a few months ago, this contest makes no mention that if a rejected image is used in the future, credit would be given to the photographer. If no credit is given, the photographer gains nothing, while an organization would gain something from using the image. By allowing others to use an image (with or without consent) for their benefit only, a photographer is giving up the copyright.

Let's look at it another way. Suppose an organization says it will use a rejected image in the future, but does NOT state that the photographer retains the copyright. What is the implication? Does that mean the photographer has given up all the copyright by submitting to such a contest? Does that mean that if the photographer should use the image for other purposes, the organization can take legal action against him for copyright violation? I think the answers to both would be a resounding NO!

Thus, I find it difficult to see any meaning behind "this contest does not take your copyright".

A contest should make it optional for the submitters to decide whether they would allow rejections to be used in the future or not. For those who do, they should at least be informed when, where and how if an image is used. And credits should be given. That's the minimum you can do to show your respect for a photographer's rights.

I don't mean to single out the National Park Service or Globe.com for their rules. In another post, I referred to another site's forum thread which listed many other offenders. These are great organizations with worthy causes that photographers would have loved to support if not for their ridiculous and inconsiderate rules.

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=36847

Fairnsquare,

I agree with many of the points raised in your post, and I'd encourage you to call me so we can discuss these concerns. This is the inaugural contest and there may be room for improvement in our current copyright rules. I'm a former professional photographer and can relate to your concerns. I can be reached at (978) 970-5048.

Here is the official language in our rules regarding copyright.

"By entering the Contest, all entrants grant an irrevocable perpetual non-exclusive license to Lowell National Historical Park and it's Authorized Parties, to modify, reproduce, distribute, display and create whole or in part derivative works of the entries in connection with the Contest, Lowell National Historical Park, the National Park Service, the Department of Interior, or other Park Part ners/Stakeholders in any media now or hereafter known. Works will be produced with or without the winner's name, photo, likeness and biographical information, subject to applicable law, and without the further consent of, or compensation to, the winner (and/or his/her parent or legal guardian, if applicable). All entrants retain ownership and copyright of images and is not restricted in the future use/sale/distribution of the image(s)."

Jonathan, thanks for offering me the opportunity to speak with you in person. However, I prefer to continue our discussion here, for a few reasons.

This is what a blog is for - letting everyone to share their views.

I raise this issue, not for personal reasons, but for public awareness. Everyone concerned can learn something about these rules.

For the record, I have given away plenty of my work and copyright. BUT I know exactly what and why I am doing in every situation.

High resolution files: Upon request, I have given print publishing rights to worthy non-profits for PR purposes, with agreement that credit would be given.

Large framed prints: To family and friends who express an interest. And also to worthy non-profits for fund raising auctions, with agreement that credit would be given.

Small prints and low resolution jpegs: To subjects in my street photos for their unrestricted personal use, and with agreement that credit would be given if they are published.

But I would draw a line when it comes to calls like yours. These rules show absolutely no respect for a photographer's work and rights. I can't help but wonder who come up with these rules and why. My guess is that there are two potential explanations.

The rules makers are well aware of the terms, and intentionally made them that way. The purpose is to collect a large body of copyright free images to be used in the future by the organization. In such cases, the "contests" are nothing but fraudulent fronts. (While I don't believe that this is the case for NPS or RAW, there are plenty of online calls falling into this category. Changing their rules would allow NPS and RAW to separate themselves from the frauds.)

The other reason why such rules are made is unintentional, but is due to negligence and inconsideration. Many rules makers are not photographers (who care about their work and rights), and have no clue that such rules can be offensive. They have either adopted these rules from other calls without reading or thinking through, or they are following orders from the organizations' higher ups.

There are numerous complaints from photographers that their online work are used without their consent. But that's crying after spilled milk. Every photographer who cares about his work and rights should take responsibility to protect them. Read the fine prints and think twice before submitting or posting anything online. Speak up for your rights when you come across inconsiderate or fraudulent calls.

After speaking with a number of photographers regarding copyright and license issues, we've amended our contest rules to be more progressive and flexible to the individual entrant. Thank you for all the feedback.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT, USAGE LICENSE, AND RELEASES
By entering the Contest, all entrants grant a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to Lowell National Historical Park and its Authorized Parties, to reproduce, distribute, display and create whole or in part derivative works of the entries. However, all entrants retain ownership and copyright of their entries and are not restricted in the future use of their images.

If an entrant's image is not a finalist/winner and the entrant does not want their entries used/archived/published by Lowell National Historical Park, they may elect to "Opt-Out" of this license condition on the official contest form.

This thread has caught the attention of many national and international concerned photographers:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=36847&st=14