1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Cottages.com competition on AP website

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Chester AP, Jul 27, 2021.

  1. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    The judging panel includes AP's editor, which is why I bothered to read the whole article, and immediately became wary because of the claimed 'up to' value of the prize (presumably a 'sleeps 10' cottage in Cornwall, or similar, in August) and because it is 'subject to availability' (so the best places and weeks will probably already be booked).


    I read the terms and conditions and found this near the end of the list (item 19 of 21), so I shall not be rushing to compete. Ideally there would be an alternative prize of no holiday cottage, but payment at the going rate for 'worldwide license to use your photograph(s) in perpetuity for the advertising and promotion of Cottages.com'.

    Giving permission for cottages.com to use your image for future campaigns (by ticking the relevant box at point of entry), means you grant us the irrevocable, royalty-free worldwide license to use your photograph(s) in perpetuity for the advertising and promotion of Cottages.com and you consent to us using your name for such purposes if you win. Credit will be given where possible, but this is not guaranteed.

    What do other Forum members think about this?
  2. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    That last sentence should read "if you think you'll be credited can we interest you in a bridge for sale?" ;)
  3. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    I thought AP's policy was "copyright remains with the photographer"
  4. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Nothing in that says that it doesn't.
  5. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    That's why I didn't make that point, although a clear statement of it is conspicuously absent.
    It looks to me like a cheap way (how many entrants are likely to want a large cottage in high summer to get the maximum 'value' prize?) to collect lots of images without any initial cost or much effort. I remain cynical...
  6. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    I don't disagree with that take.

    What possibly concerns me most is the fact that the rules, that you have to confirm having read to enter, aren't actually accessible. Or at least I can't access them on 2 laptops or my phone. https://woobox.com/t5tygt/rules
  7. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    As already stated, nothing says that it does either. Despite the wording of the terms, I don't suppose they would be terribly happy if you used the winning entry in a way that was detrimental to their interests but if you retain the copyright you can do just that if you so desire.

    I can't access them either.
  8. Gezza

    Gezza Well-Known Member

    You presumably do retain copyright as there is nothing to say you don’t. All you will have done is granted them a licence.
    I suppose if you don't want a holiday cottage then simply don’t enter.
    If you feel uneasy about entering then maybe don't enter.
    Unfortunately the horse has already bolted. Advertisers and magazines don't really have to be underhand these days as all they have to do is mention the chance of a name on a page/screen and people are queuing around the block.
  9. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Without an explicit claim on copyright, it remains with the author. The wording is very clear about a "licence", so it isn't a copyright grab. They don't need copyright for what they want to do, an irrevocable licence is more than good enough.
  10. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    I used the link from the AP website on my desktop W10 PC.
    Perhaps it's a devious plot to ensure that only a minority of potential entrants can read the small print.

    What surprised me was, having read the section I quoted, was that AP's editor was part of the team.
  11. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    I doubt it. Cock-up is always far more frequent than conspiracy - not surprising when you consider how competent people are in general. ;)

Share This Page