Adorama backs down from "rights grab"

merlin2375 wrote in post #10346747
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.

They should title the contest:

"Adorama wants full rights to your best pictures, will give worthless prize in exchange". Then see who enters.

Why not be upfront about the goal of the contest? Anything less is subterfuge.

JeffreyG wrote in post #10346761
They should title the contest:

"Adorama wants full rights to your best pictures, will give worthless prize in exchange". Then see who enters.

Why not be upfront about the goal of the contest? Anything less is subterfuge.

Or perhaps you'd prefer "Photographer wants to enter contest for free, retain all rights, but win something cool and extremely valuable (something with an "L" in it preferably) with absolutely no strings attached". Anything less is subterfuge, as you call it.

merlin2375 wrote in post #10346786
Or perhaps you'd prefer "Photographer wants to enter contest for free, retain all rights, but win something cool and extremely valuable (something with an "L" in it preferably) with absolutely no strings attached". Anything less is subterfuge, as you call it.

Fine by me.

... and they both go to their mutual corners! Whew!

To be honest, you're both right. It's legal, BUT it's unethical.

CyberDyne said it best and most succinctly: it's just bad business.

As I have said from the start, it's bad public relations when a company like Costco does a rights grab. But when a business that depends upon photographers such as adorama does a rights grab, it's bad public relations PLUS bad business. You really can't crap on your customer's foot and expect them to smile back at you.

But Cyber also said something that is very noteworthy and deserves thought when he said "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."

That very well may be what is going on here. Adorama may simply have contracted out to somebody to design a contest. That vendor may have created the TOS on their own. As soon as the powers that be at adorama became aware of it, they may have (essentially) agreed with us when in a board room it was exclaimed: "Wait a minute. Photographers are our business. We can't screw them like that. Have them change the wording."

So to be fair, adorama deserves at minimum to be given the benefit of the doubt.

Who is worse, the ignorant or those who take advantage of the ignorant?

A free market only works properly when everyone has all the information to make an informed decision. Information is power.

Stregone wrote in post #10350128
Who is worse, the ignorant or those who take advantage of the ignorant?

A free market only works properly when everyone has all the information to make an informed decision. Information is power.

True.

But then, the gullible and the lazy are both the legitimate prey of the fiscal predator.

If you think it's ever okay to sign a contract without reading it, well, I know a Nigerian prince who can use your help.

Adorama... does not shock me.

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.

By clicking the Submit Reply button below, you agree that all property listed in post signatures belong to the community of this site.

Do you think it would be OK if POTN threw that at the top of each pasting page? I mean, you clicked submit, but I bet you didn't read the whole page before doing so...

I love conspiracy theories as much as the next person, but this wasn't a conspiracy or an attempt by Adorama to 'grab' photographers' images.

We simply don’t have people on our staff with the skills and expertise to set up a competition like this!
Designing and setting up of the competition was outsourced to a specialist company; who appear to have used a standard set of terms and conditions – which one could imagine they simply cut and paste from the terms and conditions they’d provided for another competition organizer.


Our mistake was in not reading through the fine print thoroughly ourselves.....

.

Thank you Helen Oster for stepping up and letting us know that Adorama as well as the rest of us are guility of not reading the fine print. And, modifying the contest rules when made aware of the legalese issue.
I have respect for company's that will step up and admit their mistake and not hide behind the attorneys door.

CannedHeat wrote in post #10347224
...

That very well may be what is going on here. Adorama may simply have contracted out to somebody to design a contest. That vendor may have created the TOS on their own. As soon as the powers that be at adorama became aware of it, they may have (essentially) agreed with us when in a board room it was exclaimed: "Wait a minute. Photographers are our business. We can't screw them like that. Have them change the wording."

.....

The added irony here is that while some are stating that everyone involved in the contest should be full aware of the trap they are walking into when they click "i agree" and that if they get fooled they are simpletons....

...The irony is that at the same time the company that created the contest read it about as carefully as us simpleton participants.. and it's their contest!

It is however one of the very common traps of the modern legalese. These boiler plate statements are out there being adopted left and right, and the powers that be (and I don;t mean the legal teams, I mean the powers that be) may not understand the implications, and end up looking bad.
Facebook has been going through this for some time now,.

So I don't know what's worse in this case for Adorama,. Being the architects perpetrators of this rights grab, or being unaware of it? Either way, it's bad business
But I'm glad Adorama was guilty of making the same kind of mistake I'd make as opposed to having ulterior and frankly distasteful motives.

itzcryptic wrote in post #10353097
By clicking the Submit Reply button below, you agree that all property listed in post signatures belong to the community of this site.

Do you think it would be OK if POTN threw that at the top of each pasting page? I mean, you clicked submit, but I bet you didn't read the whole page before doing so...

The percentage of people that actually read the forums rules, including a section specifically on "legalese" and rights,. is infinitesimal.

we know because we have to enforce those rules and easily 95% of infractions are due to lack of having read the rules or understanding them.

IF we had something in there saying that "all your photos are belong to us" in perfect binding legalese,. very few people posting there precious photos would actually know this. (we don't)

HelenOster wrote in post #10354037
I love conspiracy theories as much as the next person, but this wasn't a conspiracy...


Our mistake was in not reading through the fine print thoroughly ourselves.....

Helen, as many of us know you have been a good member of this community. You have chimed in and helped folks who had problems with, or complaints about Adorama. We are always, and remain, thankful for your presence and participation.

That being said, I think your description of this thread as a "conspiracy theory" is just a wee bit trite and conveniently dismissive of thoughts expressed herein.

Not a single participant has expressed an idea or thought that even remotely resembles a conspiracy theory. The entire thread can be summed up in two simple thoughts:

1. Some pointed out that Adorama held a photo contest that originally required photographers to give up their rights to their pictures.

2. Others pointed out the rules were clearly stated and that entering was a choice.

BOTH points of view are clearly stated in fact and BOTH points of view are absolutely correct. Neither is a "conspiracy theory."

I find it ironic that you state Adorama's mistake was in not "reading through the fine print" because you, as a representative of Adorama, did that again in this thread. That same thought (that Adorama had contracted consultants) had already been expressed in this thread and actually went on to suggest that Adorama should be given the benefit of the doubt.

So the only suggestions I can make is that when Adorama contracts a vendor to perform a task that represents Adorama's name and reputation, that Adorama should carefully check the work of that vendor (I.e., "read the fine print") and that you, when responding to threads, should also "read the fine print."

tporter762 wrote in post #10354418
.
Thank you Helen Oster for stepping up and letting us know that Adorama as well as the rest of us are guility of not reading the fine print......I have respect for company's that will step up and admit their mistake.....

Thank you for appreciating and understanding....

CannedHeat wrote in post #10356792
Helen, as many of us know you have been a good member of this community. You have chimed in and helped folks who had problems with, or complaints about Adorama. We are always, and remain, thankful for your presence and participation.

Thank you.

CannedHeat wrote in post #10356792
That being said, I think your description of this thread as a "conspiracy theory" is just a wee bit trite and conveniently dismissive of thoughts expressed herein.

Not a single participant has expressed an idea or thought that even remotely resembles a conspiracy theory.

Well, we could debate the semantics of the English language for hours (and as a Brit I know only too well that British English and American English are different beasts!)
However, where I come from, a conspiracy means 'a secret plan to do harm'.
This thread has referred to a scam (trick, swindle, fraud); con (deceive); screw (extort); flim flam (cheat); sneak (convey secretly); unethical (lacking morals).

Now if anyone had said that the person responsible for releasing the rules of the competition without reading them through carefully was careless, (unthinking); naive (foolishly credulous); gullible (easily deceived) I couldn't disagree. NB It wasn't me.......

Maybe it simply confirms that we’re all human, with similar characteristics
- and susceptible to weakness.

Will anyone at Adorama ever mess up ever again? Undoubtedly.

Will we mess up when organizing a competition like this in the future? I'd be inclined to think not!

HelenOster wrote in post #10357495
Well, we could debate the semantics of the English language for hours (and as a Brit I know only too well that British English and American English are different beasts!)
However, where I come from, a conspiracy means 'a secret plan to do harm'.
This thread has referred to a scam (trick, swindle, fraud); con (deceive); screw (extort); flim flam (cheat); sneak (convey secretly); unethical (lacking morals)...
...Maybe it simply confirms that we’re all human, with similar characteristics - and susceptible to weakness.

Will anyone at Adorama ever mess up ever again? Undoubtedly.

Will we mess up when organizing a competition like this in the future? I'd be inclined to think not!

Good on ya Helen.
You go girl!!

Can I now move a motion.

Everyone seems to have had their say and Helen, on behalf of Adorama has apologised.
Now, let's all move along.
Nothing to see here.