I almost considered entering some of my stuff into the DAZ/Deviant Art contest at the last minute till I looked at the rights being given up by entering. "By entering a submission, contestant grants DAZ Productions, Inc. and its designees [NVIDIA, Inc. and deviantART, Inc.] a worldwide, non-exclusive, sublicenseable (through multiple tiers), assignable, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right to use, reproduce, distribute (through multiple tiers), create derivative works of, publicly perform, publicly display, digitally perform, make, have made, sell, offer for sale and import such entry in any media now known or hereafter developed, for any purpose whatsoever, commercial or otherwise, without compensation to the provider of the entry or any other party." I know my artwork isn't worth much, but it's not worth nothing. Those conditions wouldn't be quite so bad if they only applied to winning entries that are receiving some level of compensation. I'm not willing to let a company gain rights to the images forever to be used and sold in any fashion they want for nothing just because I entered the contest. The normal rights, at DeviantArt, for submitting images, is for the artist to retain copyright even though the site can use the images in many ways till they're removed from the site and they receive a notice in writing (not sure why they need the notice or what they consider a binding notice in writing). I don't know if the contest agreement supercedes the other agreement, but stating that they have the right to SELL the work indicates that they are assuming a greater level of rights than I want to give them.

You're right -- that is a bit harsh. I agree that this should not apply to images entered into the contest, but only to winners. Good thing you read it in full...

so what that's basically saying is "enter our contest so we can milk as much free content from our members as possible, so we can get more cash and you get squat."

"G's...I never hardly read these things. Only to be a good contestant, although every contest has their rules, I do follow, but the rights...wow!. I dunno if rules and rights are two different things, but the one sure takes the cake of one thing only. You must give up your hard effort. That is not nice what they are doing. Talk about greed in another area....wow! What is new?

Thanks for pointing that out to all of us. Just removed my entry.

Message edited on: 10/30/2004 01:54

"By entering a submission, contestant grants DAZ Productions, Inc. and its designees [NVIDIA, Inc. and deviantART, Inc.] a worldwide, non-exclusive, sublicenseable (through multiple tiers), assignable, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right to use, reproduce, distribute (through multiple tiers), create derivative works of, publicly perform, publicly display, digitally perform, make, have made, sell, offer for sale and import such entry in any media now known or hereafter developed, for any purpose whatsoever, commercial or otherwise, without compensation to the provider of the entry or any other party." Wow. I can certainly understand them wanting some rights stated up front to protect them from litigation, but that seems a bit excessive. With all of that thrown into the bargain, DAZ could opt to print t-shirts, make adverts, sell prints, or anything else whether you win, lose, or draw. I personally don't think the DAZ staff would take advantage of those rights, but my personal feelings aren't enough to make me sign a contract like that one. ;)

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, and say that I really don't think that Daz is going to "milk as much free content from our members as possible, so we can get more cash and you get squat." This is for their calendar, right? They're not going to make that much money off it... and please, don't say they will. It's a calendar -- they have good profit margins, but not great. And this is not going to sell millions of copies. The agreement is NOT a good one and I definitely wont enter it... but I'm fairly certain that they put all that crap in there to please their lawyers who are probably scared shitless at the thought of someone, down the road, getting their image into the calendar and then see, years later, a similar scene in a movie, and then suing the movie and Daz for ripping off their imagery. This really reads more like a blanket statement to cover our asses, rather than a straight rip off. Unfortunately, that doesnt ameliorate the severity, or the seriousness, of the infringement of creators rights that is represented by this agreement. I wont enter, and I dont think anyone else here should, either, until they SERIOUSLY consider the cost versus benefit of entering this contest. The cost is all rights to that image. The benefit is fame and notoriety of being included in an internationally distributed calendar. Just the sort of break that might help propel a young artist into the spotlight. You should do what you want, but still I wont enter.

I disagree, mitchell. I think a CYOA (Cover your own ass) statement would say, "By entering you are granting the limited right for DAZ to make use of your image for such-and-such specific purpose." Maybe their lawyers were the ones who put it in, and it's just intended to protect them in every case, and they would never use the massively unrestricted rights you're granting them. The problem I have is not that they need to protect themselves, it's that a clause should always be as specifically stated as possible. Because that clause is not specific, and there is no indemnity on DAZ' part that I am aware of (Meaning that DAZ isn't giving you anything in return), that statement actually does the opposite of protecting them. It runs the risk of invalidating the contract. Mind you, I'm not a lawyer, so if you're that worried about it, go ask one. That's just my "best guess" after reading any number of articles about contract law for the games/music/entertainment industries.

If they're taking entries for a calendar, then that's the only thing they should be using the entries for. I haven't even read the details of the contest, but that doesn't matter. I could see validation in the above license agreement for WINNING entries, even for say 2nd and 3rd place entries, (if there are any), but that license states that if ANYBODY enters ANYTHING in the contest, then Daz and its said affiliates are granted full use of anything they receive. THAT is what's wrong. So, if you submit something, and you lose, you don't get squat. You've basically just given daz a piece of your work and they can turn around and do anything they want with it. And no, they probably wouldn't use the submissions for other purposes, but if they wanted to they could. I don't really see much wrong with that license agreement applying to winners because in turn they are receiving the recognition, etc, that could give them the boost they need.

Do I understand it correctly (english is not my language) that DAZ don't get the ownership of the image?
It is still yours. So you can also still do the worldwide/T-shirt/movie/art/anything and make money on it?
If so, it wouldn't be too bad having DAZ showing it too giving you some extra commercial.
Or do I understand this wrong? :oP

The problem isn't with DAZ making money. I think we all agree that granting limited printing and publishing rights to a large Company is worth the exposure.

However, when an Artist gives a Company rights to reproduce the image FOREVER, without limit and without recourse to sharing in the profit made by future prints, then the end result is blatant exploitation.

Yes, an Artist can print the image themselves. But without the publishing connections and financial backing of a Company, the Artist is unlikely to get the work out to a large audience. If the Company holding printing rights floods the market with the image, then the Artist loses any chance for profit because the cost of privately producing the work would be more than the market value.

Nothing says this will happen. But that's what the "agreement" would allow.

It was this kind of agreement that left many of the original Motown artists penniless while the large record companies continued to rake in substantial profit from the singer's popular songs decades after they were recorded.

Message edited on: 10/30/2004 06:14

aeilkema-Removing your entry may not prevent your loss of rights. "By entering a submission..." is how the paragraph starts, it doesn't say you get your rights back if you later withdraw it.

Hmm, you could be right, we'll see what will happen. It may get me disqualified perhaps, for withdrawing the image, that would solve the issue too. Don't think they've done anything with the images yet, since one can still enter at the moment.

Message edited on: 10/30/2004 09:57

DAZ isn't responsible for the language in the agreement because their content license arrangements haven't been unreasonably broad. DeviantArt is likely responsible for what's here because the site is owned by somebody that was once heavily involved in the recording industry which, as noted, has a history of excessively broad contracts that leave artists with nothing. Maybe you're comfortable with DAZ's integrity, but do you feel like granting DeviantArt and graphics card maker NVidia with the rights to go so far as to sell your work? That's the part that bothers me most because it doesn't sound as if it's just a matter of letting the images be used on whatever they want, but it appears they are taking the right to unilaterally sell the rights to somebody else forever and ever. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not exactly sure that is what is being said, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. It does seem that this is written such that these images can go anywhere without any additional compensation, be it collections of artistic images, royalty free clip art collections, record covers, book covers, and anything else they can think of later or whoever they sublicense them to, or sell them to, can think of.

Do I understand it correctly (english is not my language) that DAZ don't get the ownership of the image? I don't know. This is a standard contract agreement used by a number of online sites, but the agreement is written in a way to grant the greatest latitude to the organization using the agreement. It's not clear what rights the artist retains if the agreement grants the contest agencies the right to sell the work without compensation. I guess we'll have to wait for somebody with more of a legal background to provide a reading as to what rights are retained by the artist with this type of arrangement. These kinds of contracts probably arose from overly zealous artists that kept constantly suing the companies that were trying to promote them. Now, the agreements are so broadly written in the favor of the owner of the agreement that they can and probably have been frequently abused. For example, I see nothing in this agreement that would prevent the contest owners from going to a bulk clipart company and selling every image put in the contest as royalty-free clipart.

Of course, in the past I would have suggested discussing this at the DAZ forums, but I've since learned that this is a waste of time. It's a very unfortunate comparison between DAZ and here. People will complain bitterly about unfairness or dubious practices at any site, but at least here there's a very good chance of a forthright response and even a remedy. If the artist has any problem with the terms, the artist still has the remedy of the legal system if s/he objects to those terms. However, by agreeing to those rules, whether or not they have any merit, the artist may find there's no remedy after the fact.

The way I read it, they get a "non-exclusive" right to use the image. So the artist does not lose his or her rights to also use the image. If Daz starts making millions of dollars selling copies of the image, then the original artist could legally under cut DAZ. Or sell the rights to someone else for even more millions of dollars.

Still have to check the laws of origin for Deviant Art and Nvidia, but, essentially this is what it means.

By entering the contest, you give DAZ, Nvidia, and Deviant Art the rights to use the image, in any way they want, forever, and not recieve compensation for it from any of the three of them.

They do not own the image. But they can do anything they want with it, forever. This includes allowing other companies and persons to use the image or portions of the image without asking the original author or crediting them.

It is not exclusive, no. However, given that they do have that right, it is also legally within their power to sue for abrogation of those rights' value (say, by undercutting them) -- notably allowable under California and Utah law.

These rights are, essentially, a variation of "work for hire" rights. The only difference is that under a standard work for hire contract the artist does not keep the rights to the image (which I know all too well since the overwhelming majority of my work is under these terms).

In short, if you you enter this contest, you are giving away your art, without even the ability to be properly credited for it should it be used by someone other than the sponsors.

Funny, though: this looks a lot like a first time author's contract.

Message edited on: 10/30/2004 15:22

This contract is illegal and immoral under the laws of many states. To give away ALL your rights for a chance to win something (maybe) is a lottery. The various professional graphic artist's guilds have campaigned against this practice for decades. You may still own some sort of moral rights (under international law, which can not be stripped from you no matter what agreement you sign), but it is an empty shell after you give away all rights to any sort of reproduction or derivation or use in perpetuity. Anybody who enters a contest such as this, where they are giving away their time and sweat and skill, to receive nothing in return, is being taken advantage of. No matter what good intentions you may assume on behalf of the parties, a contract concerns that which is written and agreed to. If you later end up going to court, a judge will point to this paragragh and ask if you read it. I wouldn't line my cat box with an agreement such as this. Carolly

ynsaen, I know some people in the publishing business, authora and publishers/editors, and this certainly isn't a standard clause, even for first-time writers. At a minimum, there'll be a reversion clause, a time limit. I don't know what's typical in the art market, but this stinks.

I did a Google search on a quote for part of the agreement and found that it does indeed seem to be a standard clause on many websites. I couldn't find anything to explain under what conditions such a license agreement would make sense. For an art contest, it's inappropriate. I wonder how many people, that entered the contest, did so without reading the couple of paragraphs that were above the upload button? I decided to post a similar thread at the DAZ Commons to see if they want to say anything about the agreement. I don't know if they would want to contact whoever exercised that claus to have it reworded more along the lines of the usual DAZ contest agreements. This is a good reminder to read the terms of agreement before uploading images to any sites because many have details, in the fine print, that grant them great license over the works on their sites.

The same language appears in almost every photo contest of any note. That language is also the reason I never enter them. (not that any of my stuff is that good anyway)

It seemed to be a common kind of agreement, but that doesn't mean it's any good. It's unlikely that anybody will be exploiting the contest artwork, but the language fully allows that. What if some beginning artist becomes famous in the future either for their art or some other creative endeavor? They could suddenly see their contest entries being trotted out for various promotions that they have no control over. This would be something akin to models having to deal with nude photos shot early in their career resurfacing once they're famous.