I'm not a professional photographer so my opinion is probably different...but the bragging rights alone of saying my photo won and was a national ad campaign would be all the thanks I needed. The ultimate "my hobby is better than yours". lol
But, Apple is and always has been, about people. Real people. Regular people.
It’s always had both - professional and ‘regular people’.
Although the professionals have been pretty much shoved out the door with Tim at the helm.
Either way, it’s a crappy contest to have no prize. Even elementary schools hand out ribbons. The ‘notoriety’ thing is pure garbage. Can you imagine how that conversation goes;
ME: My photo won the Apple contest and was used for a global marketing initiative as the face of Apple’s multi-billion iPhone industry...
FRIEND: Holy shit, that’s awesome!!! What did you win?
ME: notariety
FRIEND: ??? But you’re not a photographer so that means nothing - you didn’t get a phone or anything?
So don’t enter the contest. This is too much about nothing. You are, perhaps unaware that EVERY photo you store on Google is usable by them without your consent and no remuneration. You seem to have failed the one thing necessary for any editorial comment: knowledge about your subject.
Your whataboutism is noted. We're aware that every photo that you store on Google is usable without renumeration, and it is one reason, amongst many others, that we don't use the service. It isn't relevant to the point, at all.
Google has clearly stated that Your photos remain yours and yours alone. Google does not claim any right to use any uploaded of your Google Photos for promotional purposes or monitization, nor have they done so. Not even once. Those that claim otherwise haven't taken the time to check the facts.
That is partially incorrect. While the terms have changed in the last few years, they were originally this:
"When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps)."
They were added to later, either 6 or 7 months later, I can't seem to find the exact date in my notes and logs, with this:
"Some of our Services allow you to upload, submit, store, send or receive content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours." So, I stand reminded of the revision. However, I am not filled with a great deal of confidence about it.
So don’t enter the contest. This is too much about nothing. You are, perhaps unaware that EVERY photo you store on Google is usable by them without your consent and no remuneration. You seem to have failed the one thing necessary for any editorial comment: knowledge about your subject.
You are unaware that you're incorrect. Let me help you.
Google Photos are private by default. Only you can access them. This means you can choose to share them if you like, but this can't be done without your permission. Period.
Heads should roll at Apple for this. Forget questions of fairness. It's an obvious own-goal from penny pinching by such a rich outfit.
Anyone smart would have gone the other way: "The biggest photo contest in history!" First prize $5m. Five runners-up $1m each. The ROI pay-back from attracting big names and huge publicity would have been immense.
Numpties.
The reason why the photographer’s name is practically hidden is because Apple wants to get the credit for the photo taken. The prize should be six figures. This is similar to Apple telling us they care about their customers and then ripping us off for their wares. ‘Of course we’ll sell you an all-too-fragile lightning cable for €25, without a plug. Of course our XR clear plastic case costs €45. Of course.’
Of course!
You can always switch to android who sell your personal data without paying you a penny.
It’s a dang shame that you guys can only think about money instead of the fact that you’re cool picture is around the world Shows how greedy everybody is gotten.
Greed? It’s called exchange of goods. It’s basic social economics. Basic capitalism. Usually people here on this forum are all about the capitalism, but that’s only for corporations, right? People defend corporations for making profit hand over fist, denying ethics any place in the discussion. But when it comes to non-corporate entities, suddenly asking for money as compensation is greed?? Your worldview is broken.
Your comment shows just how little you respect the notion of compensating individual people for their work. What could possibly be your motivation to mock people for desiring compensation be given to the creators of content being used for marketing, to make millions in sales of the product at the center of the campaign? What could possibly be the benefit to you in promoting this antisocial ideology? It’s especially egregious when their work will generate tons of profit for the corporation using the content without just compensation.
This contest nonsense is a common cost-cutting, exploitative tactic: exchanging worthless “exposure” for use of valuable content that would otherwise cost money to acquire.
Abusive tactics like this is part of the reason that many designers and photographers can’t live off of their expertise anymore. The economics of exchange, in the realm of visual arts, have been broken. Designers and photographers are treated as “elitists” because they want just financial compensation for their expertise. Expertise itself is treated as arrogance. It’s basic anti-intellectualism. Good job supporting anti-intellectualism.
It isn’t greed to ask for compensation from a corporation that makes a massively disproportionate amount of income compared to the people who’s content is used without compensation. This article is providing the service of pointing out this egregious disparity between the value of the outcome for Apple and the compensation given to those from whom they acquire their marketing content.
So don’t enter the contest. This is too much about nothing. You are, perhaps unaware that EVERY photo you store on Google is usable by them without your consent and no remuneration. You seem to have failed the one thing necessary for any editorial comment: knowledge about your subject.
Your whataboutism is noted. We're aware that every photo that you store on Google is usable without renumeration, and it is one reason, amongst many others, that we don't use the service. It isn't relevant to the point, at all.
Google has clearly stated that Your photos remain yours and yours alone. Google does not claim any right to use any uploaded of your Google Photos for promotional purposes or monitization, nor have they done so. Not even once. Those that claim otherwise haven't taken the time to check the facts.
That is incorrect. While the terms have changed in the last few years, they were originally this:
"When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps)."
They were added to later, either 6 or 7 months later, I can't seem to find the exact date in my notes and logs, with this:
"Some of our Services allow you to upload, submit, store, send or receive content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours."
I am 100% correct.
Mike, what does that last paragraph mean to you? BTW that paragraph has been been included on Google's Cloud privacy policy since before the Google Photos service was ever introduced in mid-2015. All the text preceding that is boilerplate language AFAICT in order to cover cases where for example you have asked Google to share a particular image with one of your contacts, or Google reviews and organizes your photos as part of their user services (photo-tagging), or perhaps completing some other request you yourself made. But your photos were always private and always yours to control.
I believe your memory of that last paragraph having been added 6 months months later is faulty. Google expressly stated within days of the service rolling out "Google Photos will not use images or videos uploaded onto Google Photos commercially for any promotional purposes, unless we ask for the user's explicit permission". It was added almost immediately as I recall as needed clarification due to all the misinformation circulating about that Google was going to be using your photos for ads and you had no control over it. That was never the case and as circumstantial evidence for that there's never been a single proven instance of them monetizing or marketing a Google Photos uploaded image without express permission from the that photo's owner. And that owner is YOU.
I would suggest that in the interest of truth and accuracy if you believe otherwise you should do two things: First contact Google directly for clarification. Secondly find any instance of Google using one of their users uploaded photos for an ad, or selling it to a 3rd party, or even for promoting Google own services without your express permission, show they are not being honest about it.
Don't take my word for it, go to the source. Otherwise you're not doing readers any favor if what you thought was true is not but you add to the misreporting anyway by just not checking where the truth is. We generally trust what you say and it's not in anyone interest for you not to continue deserving that trust. Verification isn't that hard. You should do it.
EDIT: I've noted you've gone back and edited your comments, now acknowledging that you had been unaware Google does not claim a right to usurp your intellectual property rights and use any Google Photos images for marketing (ie ads) or promotional purposes. Those photos are not Google's property. They are yours.
It's true that a lot of people on this blog can't relate as they aren't artists. Wait until AI takes away the job of "Stockbroker" and "Fund Manager" - but hey! you get to work for free and maybe one day they will reward you with a little red heart emoji since you were right on the direction of the market! You should feel happy that for a moment you were right! You pick up 15 more followers!
It's true that a lot of people on this blog can't relate as they aren't artists. Wait until AI takes away the job of "Stockbroker" and "Fund Manager" - but hey! you get to work for free and maybe one day they will reward you with a little red heart emoji since you were right on the direction of the market! You should feel happy that for a moment you were right! You pick up 15 more followers!
All work will eventually face automation if the cost of automation makes it the better business alternative. That’s just economics.
So don’t enter the contest. This is too much about nothing. You are, perhaps unaware that EVERY photo you store on Google is usable by them without your consent and no remuneration. You seem to have failed the one thing necessary for any editorial comment: knowledge about your subject.
Your whataboutism is noted. We're aware that every photo that you store on Google is usable without renumeration, and it is one reason, amongst many others, that we don't use the service. It isn't relevant to the point, at all.
Google has clearly stated that Your photos remain yours and yours alone. Google does not claim any right to use any uploaded of your Google Photos for promotional purposes or monitization, nor have they done so. Not even once. Those that claim otherwise haven't taken the time to check the facts.
That is incorrect. While the terms have changed in the last few years, they were originally this:
"When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps)."
They were added to later, either 6 or 7 months later, I can't seem to find the exact date in my notes and logs, with this:
"Some of our Services allow you to upload, submit, store, send or receive content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours."
I am 100% correct.
Mike, what does that last paragraph mean to you? All the text preceding that is boilerplate language to cover cases where for example you have asked Google to share a particular image with one of your contacts, or Google reviews and organizes your photos as part of their user services, or perhaps completing some other request you yourself made.
I believe your memory of that last paragraph having been added 6 months months later is faulty. Google expressly stated within days of the service rolling out "Google Photos will not use images or videos uploaded onto Google Photos commercially for any promotional purposes, unless we ask for the user's explicit permission". It was added almost immediately as I recall as needed clarification due to all the misinformation circulating about that Google was going to be using your photos for ads and you had no control over it. That was never the case and as circumstantial evidence for that there's never been a single proven instance of them monetizing or marketing a Google Photos uploaded image without express permission from the that photo's owner. And that owner is YOU.
I would suggest that in the interest of truth and accuracy if you believe otherwise you should do two things: First contact Google directly for clarification. Secondly find any instance of Google using one of their users uploaded photos for an ad, or selling it to a 3rd party, or even for promoting Google own services without your express permission, show they are not being honest about it.
Don't take my word for it, go to the source. Otherwise you're not doing readers any favor if what you thought was true is not but you add to the misreporting anyway by just not checking where the truth is. We generally trust what you say and it's not in anyone interest for you not to continue deserving that trust. Verification isn't that hard. You should do it.
You left off the bottom of the quoted paragraph, the part about "standing reminded." Anyway, in the interim and to educate myself more given that I didn't remember the revision clearly, I did talk to both a lawyer and a contact inside Google.
From the former, regardless if Google did or did not use any photos from a user, that initial version of the terms of service absolutely gave Google permission to use contents in advertising without explicit permission from the user. Cue internet drama in 2015.
From the latter, the add-on paragraph about getting explicit permission was added 112 days after the first terms were published. She was unaware if any photos were used for advertising, but I suspect that they weren't. It's great that it appears that they didn't, but in 2015, Google had a passel of attorneys write this, and the omission of the explicit permission part at the time of publication is fairly glaring.
Apple (unfortunately) had become too greedy, too lazy and the premiums I was gladly paid for in the past decade have no value these days. They really ditched the little pros (such as myself) with their price hikes across the board. I guess my next purchase to replace my iMacs/macbooks will be crappy PCs. At least I won't pay the Apple tax
Why isn’t Apple giving the winners something to generate excitement? Mac Pro, iMac, IPad, iPhone, AirPods, etc. It doesn’t need to be cash...
No an exciting contest at all...
Because they are greeeeeedy! I loved their products when they were good bang for the buck, but today's Apple is more like HP and DELL and the likes, they care of bottom lines and share holders.
So don’t enter the contest. This is too much about nothing. You are, perhaps unaware that EVERY photo you store on Google is usable by them without your consent and no remuneration. You seem to have failed the one thing necessary for any editorial comment: knowledge about your subject.
Your whataboutism is noted. We're aware that every photo that you store on Google is usable without renumeration, and it is one reason, amongst many others, that we don't use the service. It isn't relevant to the point, at all.
Google has clearly stated that Your photos remain yours and yours alone. Google does not claim any right to use any uploaded of your Google Photos for promotional purposes or monitization, nor have they done so. Not even once. Those that claim otherwise haven't taken the time to check the facts.
That is incorrect. While the terms have changed in the last few years, they were originally this:
"When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps)."
They were added to later, either 6 or 7 months later, I can't seem to find the exact date in my notes and logs, with this:
"Some of our Services allow you to upload, submit, store, send or receive content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours."
I am 100% correct.
Mike, what does that last paragraph mean to you? All the text preceding that is boilerplate language to cover cases where for example you have asked Google to share a particular image with one of your contacts, or Google reviews and organizes your photos as part of their user services, or perhaps completing some other request you yourself made.
I believe your memory of that last paragraph having been added 6 months months later is faulty. Google expressly stated within days of the service rolling out "Google Photos will not use images or videos uploaded onto Google Photos commercially for any promotional purposes, unless we ask for the user's explicit permission". It was added almost immediately as I recall as needed clarification due to all the misinformation circulating about that Google was going to be using your photos for ads and you had no control over it. That was never the case and as circumstantial evidence for that there's never been a single proven instance of them monetizing or marketing a Google Photos uploaded image without express permission from the that photo's owner. And that owner is YOU.
I would suggest that in the interest of truth and accuracy if you believe otherwise you should do two things: First contact Google directly for clarification. Secondly find any instance of Google using one of their users uploaded photos for an ad, or selling it to a 3rd party, or even for promoting Google own services without your express permission, show they are not being honest about it.
Don't take my word for it, go to the source. Otherwise you're not doing readers any favor if what you thought was true is not but you add to the misreporting anyway by just not checking where the truth is. We generally trust what you say and it's not in anyone interest for you not to continue deserving that trust. Verification isn't that hard. You should do it.
You left off the bottom of the quoted paragraph, the part about "standing reminded." Anyway, in the interim and to educate myself more given that I didn't remember the revision clearly, I did talk to both a lawyer and a contact inside Google.
From the former, regardless if Google did or did not use any photos from a user, that initial version of the terms of service absolutely gave Google permission to use contents in advertising without explicit permission from the user. Cue internet drama in 2015.
From the latter, the add-on paragraph about getting explicit permission was added 112 days after the first terms were published. She was unaware if any photos were used for advertising, but I suspect that they weren't. It's great that it appears that they didn't, but in 2015, Google had a passel of attorneys write this, and the omission of the explicit permission part at the time of publication is fairly glaring.
Thanks for checking Mike, as I was sure you would.
So we're now in agreement that Google cannot use your private Google Photo images for marketing and such nor lays claim to ownership of them contrary to what some folks think including some generally well-informed AI members?
I only ask you that because there's a segment of users here who don't trust what I have to say, but they do trust you.
So don’t enter the contest. This is too much about nothing. You are, perhaps unaware that EVERY photo you store on Google is usable by them without your consent and no remuneration. You seem to have failed the one thing necessary for any editorial comment: knowledge about your subject.
Your whataboutism is noted. We're aware that every photo that you store on Google is usable without renumeration, and it is one reason, amongst many others, that we don't use the service. It isn't relevant to the point, at all.
The major point is that if you don't like the terms don't enter. This is pure clickbait and anti-apple FUD.
It's true that a lot of people on this blog can't relate as they aren't artists. Wait until AI takes away the job of "Stockbroker" and "Fund Manager" - but hey! you get to work for free and maybe one day they will reward you with a little red heart emoji since you were right on the direction of the market! You should feel happy that for a moment you were right! You pick up 15 more followers!
I like my guy but seriously an AI could do what he does for me for his 50 basis points. But given he's as cheap as some of the robo-advisors I keep him around...because I like my guy.
To a great extent, index investing has removed the need for personal stockbroker or professional fund manager. And folks make 6 figures running financial blogs...for now anyways.
Apple announced from the outset that photo winners won’t get prize money or other compensation beyond the personal satisfaction of winning the contest and the publicity that comes with it. All of that makes it an amateur competition. Professional photographers are not coerced into joining this crazy, uncompensated competition.
On a related matter, people who write comments below online articles are providing expertise and insights to publishers without compensation. So perhaps it is time for Appleinsider, the Washington Post and other publishers to start paying for those heretofore free contributions.
If the forums made us money, then we'd consider it. They do not, and they take money and time away from the publication as a whole. Also, we aren't using them for promotional purposes, so your metaphor falls flat.
In reality, the forums do make you money. The comments are why many show up. You also send out notifications concerning subjects the user has posted on returning them to the article, which equals more ad views. If you disabled comments on all articles your site would lose many loyal members. So your comment is not completely true.
99.4 percent of our traffic on a hit basis, not a number of users basis, has no forum presence, nor hit the forums at all. Comments attached to the stories on the homepage don't load unless the user scrolls down enough to see them, or gets close to, which, charitably 99.1 percent of our users don't do. Also, our best estimates suggest that 80% of the forum-goers have ad-blockers on, and it is likely far more than that.
You're welcome to draw your own conclusions from those numbers. But, the only one that can really be logically drawn is that my comment is completely true. Generating money is not the same as turning a profit on the investment, or even breaking even.
Has the site considered ditching the “forums” (which don’t even work correctly on iOS devices, which is whack), and simply implementing comments directly onto the article pages? Ex the Verge, etc... Then every single commenter is hitting your story page, rather than dividing your hits.
Comments
It’s always had both - professional and ‘regular people’. Although the professionals have been pretty much shoved out the door with Tim at the helm.
Either way, it’s a crappy contest to have no prize. Even elementary schools hand out ribbons. The ‘notoriety’ thing is pure garbage. Can you imagine how that conversation goes;
ME: My photo won the Apple contest and was used for a global marketing initiative as the face of Apple’s multi-billion iPhone industry...
FRIEND: Holy shit, that’s awesome!!! What did you win?
ME: notariety
FRIEND: ??? But you’re not a photographer so that means nothing - you didn’t get a phone or anything?
ME: nope, just the notariety.
FRIEND: That’s so f’n lame...
ME: Sooooooo f’n lame....
"When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps)."
They were added to later, either 6 or 7 months later, I can't seem to find the exact date in my notes and logs, with this:
"Some of our Services allow you to upload, submit, store, send or receive content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours."
So, I stand reminded of the revision. However, I am not filled with a great deal of confidence about it.
Google Photos are private by default. Only you can access them. This means you can choose to share them if you like, but this can't be done without your permission. Period.
Terrible rant. I almost thought I was at the Verge or some other anti-Apple site that blows everything up 10x. So much hypocrisy too.
The one that made me laugh was the "TELL ME WHAT EXPOSURE WILL DO FOR YOU" part.
Then proceed to bash Apple for NOT putting photographers names on the photos!! (exposure)
Apple made it clear photographers will not get paid so how are they getting "robbed"?
Of course!
You can always switch to android who sell your personal data without paying you a penny.
Edited for clarity.
Your comment shows just how little you respect the notion of compensating individual people for their work. What could possibly be your motivation to mock people for desiring compensation be given to the creators of content being used for marketing, to make millions in sales of the product at the center of the campaign? What could possibly be the benefit to you in promoting this antisocial ideology? It’s especially egregious when their work will generate tons of profit for the corporation using the content without just compensation.
This contest nonsense is a common cost-cutting, exploitative tactic: exchanging worthless “exposure” for use of valuable content that would otherwise cost money to acquire.
Abusive tactics like this is part of the reason that many designers and photographers can’t live off of their expertise anymore. The economics of exchange, in the realm of visual arts, have been broken. Designers and photographers are treated as “elitists” because they want just financial compensation for their expertise. Expertise itself is treated as arrogance. It’s basic anti-intellectualism. Good job supporting anti-intellectualism.
It isn’t greed to ask for compensation from a corporation that makes a massively disproportionate amount of income compared to the people who’s content is used without compensation. This article is providing the service of pointing out this egregious disparity between the value of the outcome for Apple and the compensation given to those from whom they acquire their marketing content.
Mike, what does that last paragraph mean to you? BTW that paragraph has been been included on Google's Cloud privacy policy since before the Google Photos service was ever introduced in mid-2015.
All the text preceding that is boilerplate language AFAICT in order to cover cases where for example you have asked Google to share a particular image with one of your contacts, or Google reviews and organizes your photos as part of their user services (photo-tagging), or perhaps completing some other request you yourself made. But your photos were always private and always yours to control.
I believe your memory of that last paragraph having been added 6 months months later is faulty. Google expressly stated within days of the service rolling out "Google Photos will not use images or videos uploaded onto Google Photos commercially for any promotional purposes, unless we ask for the user's explicit permission".
It was added almost immediately as I recall as needed clarification due to all the misinformation circulating about that Google was going to be using your photos for ads and you had no control over it. That was never the case and as circumstantial evidence for that there's never been a single proven instance of them monetizing or marketing a Google Photos uploaded image without express permission from the that photo's owner. And that owner is YOU.
I would suggest that in the interest of truth and accuracy if you believe otherwise you should do two things: First contact Google directly for clarification. Secondly find any instance of Google using one of their users uploaded photos for an ad, or selling it to a 3rd party, or even for promoting Google own services without your express permission, show they are not being honest about it.
Don't take my word for it, go to the source. Otherwise you're not doing readers any favor if what you thought was true is not but you add to the misreporting anyway by just not checking where the truth is. We generally trust what you say and it's not in anyone interest for you not to continue deserving that trust. Verification isn't that hard. You should do it.
EDIT: I've noted you've gone back and edited your comments, now acknowledging that you had been unaware Google does not claim a right to usurp your intellectual property rights and use any Google Photos images for marketing (ie ads) or promotional purposes. Those photos are not Google's property. They are yours.
Many regular people will enter for the fun of it. Though I agree Apple could offer some merchandise or gift card as a prize to make it more enticing.
From the former, regardless if Google did or did not use any photos from a user, that initial version of the terms of service absolutely gave Google permission to use contents in advertising without explicit permission from the user. Cue internet drama in 2015.
So we're now in agreement that Google cannot use your private Google Photo images for marketing and such nor lays claim to ownership of them contrary to what some folks think including some generally well-informed AI members?
I only ask you that because there's a segment of users here who don't trust what I have to say, but they do trust you.
A $100 gift card is the most you could hope for.
To a great extent, index investing has removed the need for personal stockbroker or professional fund manager. And folks make 6 figures running financial blogs...for now anyways.