No Confidence Vote for the PDN/NGS Contest

I can't imagine that PDN, and the NGS would allow a contest that includes a blatant rights grab, but our friends over at PhotoAttorney brought to our attention this egregious contest requirement for PDN's The Great Outdoors Rights Grab Photo Contest:

Entries may be published by Sponsors and/or their designees, licensees or affiliates (the "Authorized Parties") in magazines, on websites, or in any other medium, at Authorized Parties' discretion. By participating, all entrants grant a license in the Entries to the Authorized Parties, and acknowledge that any Authorized Party may use the entries and a name credit in any media now or hereafter known, without restriction, including commercially using the entries to the fullest extent possible worldwide in perpetuity. Authorized Parties will not be required to pay any additional consideration or seek any additional approval in connection with such use.

Come on folks, what gives? PDN is such a supporter of photographers rights, and well, NGS, while certainly not interested in compensating photographers for re-use (a la Fred Ward v. NGS) aleast celebrates photography in their publications, so, I ask again - WHAT GIVES?

(Continued after the Jump)

I can only imagine that that both of them hired some contest competition company to manage/run their contest, and no one bothered (except Carolyn!) to read the small print.

Let's let PDN have a moment to re-do their rules to be more friendly. Certainly Microsoft did when called on the carpet (5/9/0 7 Microsoft's Oversight Correction), and others have returned to a position of respect for photographers rights.

So, let's see it PDN/NGS - fix the rules, and tell us how this happened in the first place. We have placed our trust in you in the past, please make this right.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.