Weird contest: Flip Photobook Award

Flip Photobook Award
Flip Photobook Award

I’ve just added a few deadlines to our photo contest and call for entry calendar, but I wanted to draw your attention to one in particular, The Flip Photobook Award. I couldn’t help but laugh when I got an email about this new award from Sergey Novikov (previously on dvafoto). It seeks to recognize photobook presentation videos. Weird! But kind of funny and cool, too. The photobook flipthrough is an emerging genre of online photobook presentation, so why not recognize the good ones?

Entry is free, and videos from the winner and a number of finalists will be shown during screenings at the Moscow Photobook Festival in Spring 2017. That festival is new, and doesn’t have a website yet, but it will be held at the The Lumiere Brothers Center for Photography. They’ll be announcing the festival soon on their website.

Sergey also forwarded along one of the creative entries he’s already received for the competition (embedded below) for Roc Herms’ Yo Yo Yo:

Worth a read: Disphotic on photo contests that cost money

Members of the audience hold out dollar bills for stunt riders to grab during the performance of the Wall of Death traveling show at Evel Knievel Days in Butte, Montana, USA. - photo by M. Scott Brauer
Members of the audience hold out dollar bills for stunt riders to grab during the performance of the Wall of Death traveling show at Evel Knievel Days in Butte, Montana, USA. – photo by M. Scott Brauer

Photographer Lewis Bush, on his blog Disphotic, has a great little piece about the photo contest industrial complex, published in September of last year. Calling paid-entry photo contest the “cash cow” of photography, Bush raises a lot of valid points.

He writes, “to my mind any organisation that is overly reliant on artists and photographers to raise money for it relies on a questionable (and perhaps unsustainable) model. Equally the tired excuses that charging fees helps to filter out weaker work and keep standards high simply don’t really hold water, instead all these practices filter are those with money from those who don’t.”

He also does the math on just how much the Taylor Wessing prize generates through submissions alone, nearly 8 times the prize money they give out. And there are many more photo contests that charge substantial entry fees and don’t have nearly the size of prizes or possible exposure for the winners.

Check out Disphotic’s list of free or almost free contests and grants. And Disphotic should be on your reading list if it isn’t already.

It’s photo contest time, by the way, so make sure to check out our deadline calendar. I’ve just added a bunch of new ones this morning. Contest time means a lot of time spent considering which images to enter into which categories of which contests, but equal time should be spent considering whether a particular contest is worth entering.

Not all contests are a good idea to enter. We try to only list the best contests on our calendar, but occasionally a bad one gets through. Be careful to read the terms and conditions or rules of entry. Some contests are rights grabs. Smithsonian’s annual photo contest is a notable bad actor; National Geographic’s used to be bad, but I’ve noticed they just added language that they can only use submitted images in relation to the contest (though entrants still “consent to Sponsor doing or omitting to do any act that would otherwise infringe the entrant’s ‘moral rights’ in their entries.”). And some are just cash grabs with little return to the entrants even if they win, such as most of PDN’s contests besides their Annual.

Be smart about photo contests!

GuruShots changes contest terms in favor of photographers, removes rights grab

Screenshot of GuruShots website - 24 Feb. 2015
Screenshot of GuruShots website – 24 Feb. 2015

Kudos to for changing their terms and conditions to language that supports the rights of photographers. They’ve eliminated a rights grab and should be commended. I remain wary of the site as a whole, but they are now much more limited in what they and their sponsors can do with submitted photos. Read on for more.

We normally don’t highlight contests aimed at photo enthusiasts; our deadline calendar only lists contests aimed at working and student photojournalists, photographers, and artists. But when I heard about GuruShots in a PetaPixel post, I was intrigued enough to look at the terms and conditions of the site. It’s an investor-backed startup whose main business is running free contests. They’ve already had tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of images submitted, making them a serious player in the photo contest realm.

The adage is that if you’re not paying for it, you’re the product being sold. I figured the site was basically a way to monetize rights grabbing contests. The travel industry does this a lot: images submitted to an airline’s photo contests often end up in advertisements.

When I looked at the Terms for submitting to GuruShots, I wasn’t surprised to find a rights grab. Until last week, the language said that the company and its partners and sponsors had unlimited rights to publish and distribute submitted work.

When I encounter terms like this, I usually write an email to the contest organizer and explain why their contest is bad for photographers. Sometimes they respond well (as Filson did last year) and sometimes they say they won’t change (FeatureShoot’s Emerging Photographer contest last year) or don’t respond at all (National Geographic Traveler a few years back). In this case, GuruShots responded and changed their terms positively.

I wrote an email to GuruShots explaining the rights grab and sent a link to the Artists’ Bill of Rights, which provides guidance for contests. GuruShots’ CEO wrote back quickly wanting to know a bit more about the issue, so I gave some examples of how the terms could be changed. He said he’d talk to his legal team and work on a solution. Just a few days later, he wrote back saying that the terms had been changed. Now, the Intellectual Property section of GuruShots’ Terms reads that by submitting to a contest:

"you hereby grant GuruShots, as well as its partners and sponsors, the right to display the Content and the right to use the Content to promote the challenges(s) on social media and other websites." -GuruShots Terms, Intellectual Property section

By adding “to promote the challenge(s),” the company and its sponsors are much more limited in what they can do with submitted images than they were before. That is, they can only use them to promote the contest they were submitted to rather than as collateral for a marketing campaign, etc. This is standard for all good contests, and GuruShots deserves recognition for changing their submission rules to support photographers and their work.

There’s an open question of whether it’s valuable to photographers to participate in these contests. It remains to be seen how sponsors and partners will use images to “promote the challenge(s).” Social media usage of images by brands is still a viable way for photographers to make a living, so perhaps a brand’s post promoting the contest should involve a licensing fee. Imagine a photo on Coca-Cola’s facebook page with a link to go check out the contest. That’s probably not where I want my photo to be used without substantial payment.

I still probably wouldn’t recommend participating in GuruShots contests. Winning has questionable value to working photographers, and there’s still room for photos to be used to promote companies. Nevertheless, the terms are a marked improvement over what they were.

A lot of people look at our deadline calendar, and we strive to only show contests that are good for photographers. This means contests that are valuable to participate in, which have no or reasonable fees, and, importantly, that have submission terms and conditions that respect the rights of photographers. The Artists’ Bill of Rights is our guiding principle on that last point.