[petemc]

Just seen this on another forum. The BBC want pictures of the architecture in Manchester.

We've identified ten stunning buildings in Greater Manchester and we want you to be as creative as possible photographing them. The best ones will be featured in one of our galleries.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/cont..._feature.shtml

[neos]

Yes, but as discussed here:

http://www.thephotographyforums.com/...pic.php?t=1241

the BBC are rights-grabbing ******

The buildings we want you to photograph are:
Bury - Bury Market Hall
Bolton- Reebok Stadium
Manchester - Hidden Gem Church
Oldham - Gallery Oldham
Rochdale - Rochdale Town Hall
Salford - Shopping Centre
Stockport - Pyramid
Tameside - Hyde Bus station
Trafford - Imperial War Museum
Wigan - Haigh Hall

This is a commission.

[Matty]

hmmmmmmm

room for interpretation from there isnt there!

[Steve]

Its a shame their copywrite is so restrictive as I already have shots of most of those buildings/places. As it is currently though, I won't be submitting anything.

The BBC are indeed quite keen when taking copyright of submissions/entries.
When I worked there, there was a clause in my employment contract, that anything I created, the copyright was automatically owned by the BBC (whether created in work or not, just while employed by them).
Understandable when you think about it, but very very restrictive.
I suppose technically the BBC own some of my shots.

They'll have to see me in court to get them though. Not that any of them are going to win a Pulitzer, granted, but still....

That said...That Richard Fair chap who's after your shots of Manchester, is a thoroughly nice bloke

That link above by neos isn't working now we're on VB.
I'd love to photograph some of those locations, but if I make the cake, I'm certainly not going to let anyone else lick the spoon.

I suppose I shall be taking a few shots for the Picture of Britain, as the copyright with those entries stays firmly with the photographer. OK, the BBC do have the right to use it pretty much as they wish, but at least the photographer still owns it.

[TerraS]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/

Where you are invited to submit any contribution to bbc.co.uk (including any text, photographs, graphics, video or audio) you agree, by submitting your contribution, to grant the BBC a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive, sub-licenseable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, play, make available to the public, and exercise all copyright and publicity rights with respect to your contribution worldwide and/or to incorporate your contribution in other works in any media now known or later developed for the full term of any rights that may exist in your contribution, and in accordance with privacy restrictions set out in the BBC's Privacy Policy. If you do not want to grant to the BBC the rights set out above, please do not submit your contribution to bbc.co.uk.

Bloody hell. I knew it was restrictive, I just didn't realise how much!
I suppose the Picture of Britain isn't as bad though, as they do offer the disclaimer that you sitll hold copyright.

So looking at the above, you contribute something, and they basically can do what they want with it, even sell it on and claim as their own.

/shakes head. They won't be getting any contributions from me, that's for sure.

[Adrian]

As Steve says, this is a commission, and if it was paid then fine, but it isn't, so they're after summat for nowt. Again.

Forgive me but what exactly do you mean by "this is a commission".

Is this just a posh way of saying that you're doing some specific work for them. (But obviously dressed up as 'submissions for a gallery').
IE to save them employing someone on a proper contractual basis to provide the shots of the 10 places they want.

Or have I got the wrong end of someone elses stick insect?

[Hedgehog]

The subject of BBC photo submissions has been discussed at length in a variety of forums & it still sounds a little dodgy to me. If it was a competition where you could come out with something at the end of it then fair enough... you have a pic that otherwise is doing nothing but maybe hanging on your wall, & here's a way of getting people to see it & maybe win something... but a tight commision of tasks to perform for nowt? It would be interesting to get hold of a BBC rep to give their point of view & motives... to be fair this doesn't seem to be aimed at serious photography (they even give you a phone number to send mobcam pics to) more like interactive TV.

[Matty]

Originally Posted by Hedgehog

The subject of BBC photo submissions has been discussed at length in a variety of forums & it still sounds a little dodgy to me. If it was a competition where you could come out with something at the end of it then fair enough... you have a pic that otherwise is doing nothing but maybe hanging on your wall, & here's a way of getting people to see it & maybe win something... but a tight commision of tasks to perform for nowt? It would be interesting to get hold of a BBC rep to give their point of view & motives... to be fair this doesn't seem to be aimed at serious photography (they even give you a phone number to send mobcam pics to) more like interactive TV.

ive had mine on interactive, though i think we decided that it was dodgy when we discussed this before!

[Adrian]

Originally Posted by Bod

Forgive me but what exactly do you mean by "this is a commission".

Is this just a posh way of saying that you're doing some specific work for them. (But obviously dressed up as 'submissions for a gallery').
IE to save them employing someone on a proper contractual basis to provide the shots of the 10 places they want.

In a word - yes.

[Steve]

Something for nothing, not only do we fund them through the TV licence but now they expect us to give them programme and web content for free as well.

I am sure many will oblige them but I for one won't.

Originally Posted by Steve

Something for nothing, not only do we fund them through the TV licence but now they expect us to give them programme and web content for free as well.

I am sure many will oblige them but I for one won't.

I heartily agree.
Although I was a bit of a supporter for the TV license when I worked for them (hey it helped pay my wages ), I was a bit cheesed off that in a roundabout way, I HAD to pay my own wages
Since then though I've seen the light about the TV license after reading up on it.

What annoys me is that we pay towards making some (in all honesty) top quality programming.
Then when said programming comes out on DVD, or recordable medium, do license payers get a discount? NO! We pay the same as everyone else.
Thievin gits