Adorama backs down from "rights grab"

This is why I never enter a photo contest.
This and the fact that my photos suck, but mainly this.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #10330936
Regardless, I find ANYONE that hides a means of profiting from others work via a smoke screened method like a contest or give away, is nothing short of a con artist.

DING DING DING!!! We have a winner. That's exactly the point here.

Apparently, it is not kosher to discuss and/or warn people about scams that may be out and about. No, we all have to hunker down and refuse to help anyone and refuse to give them a 'heads up' in the name of 'personal responsibility'. Sorry, but that's just as irresponsible as the original scam.

It's easy to say "If you don't like the rules, don't enter."... just as easy as "If you don't like the thread, don't read it and don't respond.".

Some comments here assume rules are not being read by some. That may not be the case. Some of the wording I have read is convoluted and circuitous and after reading may not be fully understood. Whether or not the wording is intentionally confusing is another debate and an assumption.

Some people, including some readers in this thread, may not understand how a fuel injection rack or the hydraulic systems in an automatic transmission work. You can give them all the rules you want (instruction manuals) and they may still not understand. Nonetheless, when they take their car to a mechanic there is an implied trust that the mechanic will repair the car well at a fair price. The reason the mechanic does so is because he wants to build customer trust so the customer will return.

To me, that is the essence of the problem here. To be honest, I can fully understand an organization like the West Virginia Department of Tourism holding a contest containing a rights-grab. Photographers are not their bread-and-butter customers. They're tourists, but not necessarily the majority of their customer base.

But Adorama is different. Take a look at their website. They have labeled themselves "The Photography People." We are their customers. We buy stuff from them and they make great profits off us. There's an implied relationship of trust there. Perhaps it's just my perception, but when a company participates in a screwing of the very customers they depend upon, it's adding insult to injury. And most certainly, it shows very poor judgment on the part of Adorama's marketing and public relations department. There's just no excuse to do that to your own customer base.

Great post!


... IMHO there can also be no debate about the reasons for the convoluted wording,. this is the MO of a flimflam man going back to the turn of the Last century.. it's not from the petty fast talker, but the legalese....

The term is most used for your run of the mill gas station targeting con artists,.
But the root of the term coincidentally may apply more to this contest than an ordinary fast talking con;

I'm sure Adorama's contest rules were written by their legal department, rather than whichever department was running the contest.

As for "legalese," it's intent is to clarify and properly define the terms of a contract. It uses big words because of a quirk of the language; small words have big meanings, while big words have small meanings. The use of legal jargon minimizes the probability that the terms of the contract will be misinterpreted (often intentionally misinterpreted).

However, people in general almost always seek to gain an advantage in almost any transaction. Normal people do this by hiding things until it's too late. Lawyers, have carried this to a high art. It's called "obfuscation."

Rest assured that the courts are not fooled by obfuscatory contracts, and tend to favor the non-legal interpretations in such instances.

As for Adorama's contest rules, they are not obfuscatory, and should be understandable by anyone with a high-school education. They clearly stated that submission was a transfer of rights.

This means the choice is simple, enter the contest and transfer your rights, or don't enter the contest and retain your rights. Your choice.

Whether or not the transfer of rights clause is moral or not is another issue entirely. But it is legal.

And sorry, Adorama is a business like any other business. The fact that their business is photographic in nature is irrelevant. Nothing, repeat, nothing is implied by that fact.

If you wish to enter into a contract with them or any other business without reading it first, feel free to do so. But don't expect sympathy from me if you get burned by what you are too lazy to read.

20droger wrote in post #10345172
I'm sure Adorama's contest rules were written by their legal department, rather than whichever department was running the contest.

As for "legalese," it's intent is to clarify and properly define the terms of a contract. It uses big words because of a quirk of the language; small words have big meanings, while big words have small meanings. The use of legal jargon minimizes the probability that the terms of the contract will be misinterpreted (often intentionally misinterpreted).

However, people in general almost always seek to gain an advantage in almost any transaction. Normal people do this by hiding things until it's too late. Lawyers, have carried this to a high art. It's called "obfuscation."

Rest assured that the courts are not fooled by obfuscatory contracts, and tend to favor the non-legal interpretations in such instances.

As for Adorama's contest rules, they are not obfuscatory, and should be understandable by anyone with a high-school education. They clearly stated that submission was a transfer of rights.

This means the choice is simple, enter the contest and transfer your rights, or don't enter the contest and retain your rights. Your choice.

Whether or not the transfer of rights clause is moral or not is another issue entirely. But it is legal.

And sorry, Adorama is a business like any other business. The fact that their business is photographic in nature is irrelevant. Nothing, repeat, nothing is implied by that fact.

If you wish to enter into a contract with them or any other business without reading it first, feel free to do so. But don't expect sympathy from me if you get burned by what you are too lazy to read.

Agree with what you say. It's all about choices and legal contracts.

But I do not agree with the bolded part. Oh, technically I do. It is correct. But ethically, I do not. To form a business relationship it is up to both the customer and adorama to work to build a mutual trust. And adorama will have a hard time generating that trust by crapping in their customer's shoes.

It is bad business,. Bad business to piss off your only intended customers, ie: Photographers. The fact that their business is photographic in nature is a very strong reason NOT to go for such a rights grab, as it alienates there customers.

This of course is exactly why they changed their wording.. why do MUCH more harm than good?
That wording was well and simply bad business, and as soon as the heads of Adarama were aware of it's implications to their customer base, and thus their business, they changed it.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #10346077
It is bad business,. Bad business to piss off your only intended customers, ie: Photographers. The fact that their business is photographic in nature is a very strong reason NOT to go for such a rights grab, as it alienates there customers.

This of course is exactly why they changed their wording.. why do MUCH more harm than good?
That wording was well and simply bad business, and as soon as the heads of Adarama were aware of it's implications to their customer base, and thus their business, they changed it.

I really agree with this.

Screwing the customer is bad business. Writing the screwing into the small print is even worse, even if the language is not obfuscation.

I think all the people defending this are out of line. If you want to run a photo competion, fine. But if you decide that you want to collect rights to good photos in the guise of a photo competition then you are simply screwing people. You can be up front about it, but is it still a screwing.

I'm just tired of people saying the word "scam". There's no scam happening here. They tell you what the rules and conditions are for entering the contest. If you read them and are unable to understand them then you should stop right there and decide if it's worth seeking outside assistance (ranging from simply posting on POTN and asking for advice to getting an attorney to read and interpret the contract).

Why anyone would agree to something they didn't read or didn't understand is beyond me. Who is supposed to clean up your mess?

Mind you, I'm not saying that Adorama should or shouldn't run their contest the way they do from a business perspective. I actually tend to agree that the "Photography People" should know better. Nevertheless, the terms and conditions are right in front of you: READ AND UNDERSTAND THEM.

merlin2375 wrote in post #10346603
I'm just tired of people saying the word "scam". There's no scam happening here. They tell you what the rules and conditions are for entering the contest. If you read them and are unable to understand them then you should stop right there and decide if it's worth seeking outside assistance (ranging from simply posting on POTN and asking for advice to getting an attorney to read and interpret the contract).

Why anyone would agree to something they didn't read or didn't understand is beyond me. Who is supposed to clean up your mess?

Mind you, I'm not saying that Adorama should or shouldn't run their contest the way they do from a business perspective. I actually tend to agree that the "Photography People" should know better. Nevertheless, the terms and conditions are right in front of you: READ AND UNDERSTAND THEM.

I agree with you to some extent...to the extent that this is a good reminder to all of us that we should read everything. On the other hand, let's be honest, most of us don't. And this lets companies do underhanded things like this contest and get away with it. They're basically counting on people not reading it and profiteering from it, much in the same way scammers play on people's gullibility and trust.

Yes, we should read rules, but no, a rights grab should NOT be part of their rules. I mean, let's be honest...did you read word for word the agreement to sign onto this board? I know I didn't.

merlin2375 wrote in post #10346603
I'm just tired of people saying the word "scam". There's no scam happening here. They tell you what the rules and conditions are for entering the contest. If you read them and are unable to understand them then you should stop right there and decide if it's worth seeking outside assistance (ranging from simply posting on POTN and asking for advice to getting an attorney to read and interpret the contract).

Why anyone would agree to something they didn't read or didn't understand is beyond me. Who is supposed to clean up your mess?

Mind you, I'm not saying that Adorama should or shouldn't run their contest the way they do from a business perspective. I actually tend to agree that the "Photography People" should know better. Nevertheless, the terms and conditions are right in front of you: READ AND UNDERSTAND THEM.

My local newspaper police blotter frequently has old people being scammed. I bet that I could take a lot of these old people for a huge amount of money in a perfectly legal manner by getting some writing into small print and having them sign.

I'm sorry, but when you fundamentally know that you have language that is against the best interests of your customer in the small print and you know that they are not reading that small print then you are not operating in an ethical manner. You are screwing your customer and you should be ashamed.

Should the customer read the fine print and protect themselves? Yes!

Is taking advantage of the 90% of people who do not do so ethical? NO!

We can just agree to disagree, I'm fine with that. If you sign your name or if you click the "I accept" button it's YOUR decision and YOU must deal with the consequences. My $.02.

merlin2375 wrote in post #10346674
We can just agree to disagree, I'm fine with that. If you sign your name or if you click the "I accept" button it's YOUR decision and YOU must deal with the consequences. My $.02.

I think this attitude is sad. You think that whatever a company can get away with legally is then OK, customer be damned. Good service is nothing more than the letter of the law.

I design heavy duty trucks (class 8 ) and I am primarily responsible for emissions of toxic products to the air. My engineering team must meet the federal standards of course, but we also actually consider unregulated emissions that we know are bad as well. We spend much time and effort on controlling emission of known greenhouse gases which are not regulated and about which our customer knows nothing. Fundamentally, we live on this planet too.

But I guess we could skip it and just go for the cheapest solution. Why bother with ethics.

I think your attitude is sad. They're not "getting away" with anything. They're telling you what they want from you in order to enter the contest. The choice is yours. No one is forcing you to do anything. I call it personal responsibility.

You may not like the terms and conditions, I know I don't think they sounds good. So you know what, I just don't enter.