A Word About Copyright Notices On Photos Submitted to The PFRE Photographer of The Month Competition

March 8th, 2012

I’ve had a couple of discussions in the last few days with people submitting photos to the PFRE Photographer of the month competition and as a result I’ve made a couple of refinements to the rules (currently in red):

  1. Copyright Notices: My sense is that when we restarted this contest last spring, the majority of people want the contest entrants be anonymous. As a result I’ve been stripping off the EXIF data that has information about the author and any watermarking data that would give away the entrant’s identity. Amanda Koehler recently correctly pointed out that the way that I’m stripping off EXIF data takes off all the EXIF info EXCEPT whatever is in the copyright field. Robert Barr also pointed out that having your copyright information in the EXIF copyright field can be very valuable in tracking a photo that is stolen and being used in a way you do not approve of. So I’ve decided to leave any EXIF info in the copyright identification field and leave it up to the entrant as to whether or not they want a copyright watermark. This means the degree of copyright identification is up to the entrant. I’ve put all this in what is now rule #5.
  2. Photographers from the same company: Because I have not been removing copyright identification from the EXIF data Amanda also noticed that there were two photos currently posted in the Photographer of the month flickr group that had the same copyright notice. This seemed to violate the one entry per photographer rule. I checked with the respective entrants and the two photos in question are by different photographers working for the same company and thus have the same copyright notice on them. If decided to allow this. I’ve added this to rule #7.
Share this

Trackback URI Comments RSS

Leave a Reply