multiple images, one with restrictions

Let me see if I can properly convey my thoughts here...

Let's say a photographer fires off 3-4 images of a subject and decides to enter "the shot" in a photography contest...

The photogrywins an award and part of the rules states that "the image and all rights to said image become the property of the contest sponsor (or some entity OTHER THAN the original photographer)"...

Does that or could that also apply to the other "near simultaneously" shot images? Would THEY TOO become the property (even if not submitted or in the possession of)the the "sponsor"?

I ask because years ago I submitted to and won (a gold medal!) from a Kodak sponsored contest. I had to relinquish the original negative to Kodak but still hold a couple others captured by my trusty AE-1 and its 2fps film winder. They are virtually identical since the subject (a human) was moving at a very precise and measured rate of speed for safety sake...

How would this apply in the digital world? How could a "sponsor" be certain they were getting the one and only copy of an image? With the ease of creating copies or transferring images, there wouldn't even be a need ro shoot "in continuous mode" to have multiple "copies" or images that are indistinguishable from each other...

You only surrender copyright to that one image. The rest still belong to you.

thats what i thought...

is it ethical to shoot a couple of rapid fire, give one up (possibly for publication) and then use the 'extra' as one that is available for sale to either other pubs or people?

seems like it could be borderline there. not illegal since youre not selling the image that is 'granted away' but one that is virtually identical...

They dont take posession of your process. if your process includes taking 20 shots with 20 cameras at 20 different angles all at the same time and you submit just one of them, than thats the one they would take posession of. Also they are not taking posession of the moment of action, so any other photos of that moment are yours to keep and do with as you please.

Ltdave wrote in post #14956140
thats what i thought...

is it ethical to shoot a couple of rapid fire, give one up (possibly for publication) and then use the 'extra' as one that is available for sale to either other pubs or people?

seems like it could be borderline there. not illegal since youre not selling the image that is 'granted away' but one that is virtually identical...

This goes a bit beyond copyright and more to the nature of the agreement with who you are selling the image to. Lets say you are a paparazzi and you snag a shot of a half naked famous movie actress barfing on her shoes. A magazine might want to purchase exclusive rights to the images, but with the provision that they get the rights to all similar images. That would be different than if you were a landscape photographer and you sell a scenic shot of a mountain to a company that makes granola bars. Its likely they want exclusive use of that image, but probably have little interest in what you do with substantially similar shots. This is more contractual in nature, than a copyright issue.

First, I won't enter a contest where I lose my ownership of a photo.

Second, they don't own the other shots that you take at the same time. Those are still yours.

However, that doesn't mean they couldn't sue you... Whether you would win or not would depend on the situation and the contract from the contest.

In my mind, if I turned over the copyright to a photo to get a big cheque in return, I would not use the other photos from that set for anything commercial.

It depend on exactly what the terms of the contest entry said.

If it said something along the lines of "any prints submitted become the property of Kodak and you grant them all rights to do x,y,z" then that means they own that one physical copy (so you can't sue them if they lose it or pester them to send it back). You still retain copyright in the image itself and can do what you want with the other copies.

However, if the terms stated that they get copyright in the image then you can't do what you want with the other copies. Copyright law isn't about copies it is about the image itself. Pressing the shutter release more than once doesn't create more than one image, it is just multiple copies of the same image, so all copies would be covered by the same copyright.

Ltdave wrote in post #14956140
is it ethical to shoot a couple of rapid fire, give one up (possibly for publication) and then use the 'extra' as one that is available for sale to either other pubs or people?

Perfectly ethical. That's how all agencies (including ours) do business, especially when it comes to shooting sport As matter of fact, in real life, same image is sold to different clients, since there's very very few images that got sold exclusively, since noone really wants to pay so much more for exclusive right.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #14957177
However, if the terms stated that they get copyright in the image then you can't do what you want with the other copies. Copyright law isn't about copies it is about the image itself. Pressing the shutter release more than once doesn't create more than one image, it is just multiple copies of the same image, so all copies would be covered by the same copyright.

Damn! So I can only sell one image of the sun, even if taken on different continents?

If the people running the competition want to be even bigger leeches then they need to change their T&Cs. "Entry to this competion gives us full rights to every image you have ever produced, or will produce in the future" sounds like something they'd like.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #14957177
However, if the terms stated that they get copyright in the image then you can't do what you want with the other copies.

Original question was not about same image. It was about other images from same sequence, and this copyright transfer doesn't apply to any other image out of this sequence except that particular one, which was submitted.

hollis_f wrote in post #14958775
Damn! So I can only sell one image of the sun, even if taken on different continents?

If the people running the competition want to be even bigger leeches then they need to change their T&Cs. "Entry to this competion gives us full rights to every image you have ever produced, or will produce in the future" sounds like something they'd like.

you know there are other sides to the agreement right? Namely, you. You can choose to NOT agree to the terms and not take the deal. Pretty simple really.

hollis_f wrote in post #14958775
Damn! So I can only sell one image of the sun, even if taken on different continents?

Huh? How would the OP "fire of 3 or 4 shots" from different continents?

primoz wrote in post #14958918
Original question was not about same image. It was about other images from same sequence, and this copyright transfer doesn't apply to any other image out of this sequence except that particular one, which was submitted.

Maybe I am misinterpreting the OP but that is certainly how I read the OP. "firing off 3 or 4 shots" (and in fact the whole question) implies that these are basically the same image captured multiple times rather than multiple different images.

I guess we need the OP to clarify.

I interpret it as they just want to be able to use that image - that's why they have the competition, or one of the reasons. It would suck for them if they couldn't publish their competition winner.

If you had another shot that was nearly identical and wanted to sell it, I don't see how that would bother them. Now, if you submitted an almost identical image to another competition, that might not be such a good idea, but whether it would be illegal or not, I don't know.

I think now they mostly just require that they have rights to publish the image (or whatever else they want to do with it) since they can't be sure of getting the only copy anyway. Most of the time I think common sense would prevail. while they are not going to want you to compromise the competition or their marketing efforts, I don't think they are going to want to seriously piss off the entrants either. That would kind of be shooting themselves in the foot and be counter productive to having the competition in the first place.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #14959445
Huh? How would the OP "fire of 3 or 4 shots" from different continents?


Maybe I am misinterpreting the OP but that is certainly how I read the OP. "firing off 3 or 4 shots" (and in fact the whole question) implies that these are basically the same image captured multiple times rather than multiple different images.

I guess we need the OP to clarify.

No Dan you have it right...

I go to take a portrait. I set the rebel ti the "portrait" setting (wont/don't, have 7d)...

Press shutter release and the camera fires three images. two of the images catch subject mid-blink ...

I submit / relinquish the rights ti the best image. How are the other two slightly less wonderful images regarded?

Thanks for everyone's thoughts!

If you fired off several shots and a publication licensed one of them (assuming exclusively) and then saw almost the exact same image on another publication they might lose on technicality in court, but surely wouldn't buy from you again.