Apple is clear about remuneration, so if you don’t like don’t submit photo. However, Apple should make a good faith contribution to the artist (pro or otherwise) since this in some small measure the profession.
It it is hard to imagine a better ad for talent than Apple’s ad campaign as many artists were aware in the iPod music ads. To imply the ads are not a terrific gift to the artists is foolish. I imagine those artists will be strongly letting clients and community know their success and talent.
There are at the moment of my typing ~81 posts, the overwhelming majority of which I haven't and won't get to, time being what it is.
But I find this post closely mirrors my own thoughts. The exception is wanting Apple providing remuneration. I don't.
First, how much use will the winner's photo see? While Apple launch a whole campaign on it alone, frequently using it in ads? I'm not sure that's the case. It's not as though Coke is hosting a contest for a new jingle/catch that will be used in every ad until the next great jingle/catch phrase comes along, and all without compensation.
I think that offering a 'prize' cheapens the contest as a whole, people doing this for monetary gain with no consideration of art for art's sake. There is no doubt that Apple can afford to offer a 'cash prize' like some AM radio station launching some ad campaign.
To me, this is similar to an actor winning a Golden Globe, SAG, Emmy, Oscar, etc. It's a recognition of their performance. Even though they are paid, professional actors, there's no 'cash prize'. There is, however, cachét, and that's arguably worth far more than direct remuneration.
So maybe a non-professional photographer enters Apple's contest and wins. It's not really a win because Apple doesn't give them money and gets to use the photo for a year? Hardly.
If they're a professional photographer, they've already got or had a job, and what 'prize' would be commensurate with their submission?
I see this as participating for the sake of the art and possible recognition of your talent. That would be enough for me.
As a photographer myself, I can totally understand why people would enter this - and I intend to enter some images myself. What photographer would NOT want the millions of people Apple will put the photo in front of, to see that image?
In what other way would an iPhone bring such value to a photographer? It's not like the quality is good enough for most (any?) stock agencies. How are you going to be making money from an iPhone shot any other way?
At least unlike a lot of other photo contests this has no entry fee, and Apple is going to publish the name with each photo. Even if it's a little hard to find, that's a lot of people that will find it, and your other higher quality work...
If I have photos with more serious cameras, how do I also have IPhone photos? It's because I either (A) use my iPhone when I have no other camera with me, or (B) even when out with a camera I often take a picture with my iPhone first to see if a composition I am thinking of looks good as a photo.
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?
ME: nope, just the notariety.
FRIEND: That’s so f’n lame...
ME: Sooooooo f’n lame....
Anybody who enters this contest and feels the result is 'Soooooo f'n lame' is an idiot. I know I shouldn't suger-coat it, but to call it what it is would be brutal.
Also, almost nobody enters this to win notoriety. THAT would be 'f'n lame' and probably stupid, much like using the word 'lame'.
In today's social media centric times, photos are a commodity.
Er... nope. In today's instagram era, 'Likes' are the commodity not the photos. Photos are free (to post).
In regards to the article above, I don't see anything wrong with the competition. People aware of non financial rewards, just like Instagram, they submit their photos for acknowledgement. To be chosen is the highest form of praise for them.
"@gruber BTW, I heard from a “friend” at Apple who said, “Another reason why this isn’t a contest with prizes? Legal. There are a whole other set of rules if Apple offers prizes and those rules differ from country to country. This way, Apple doesn’t have to worry about it.” Makes sense."
"@gruber BTW, I heard from a “friend” at Apple who said, “Another reason why this isn’t a contest with prizes? Legal. There are a whole other set of rules if Apple offers prizes and those rules differ from country to country. This way, Apple doesn’t have to worry about it.” Makes sense."
"@gruber BTW, I heard from a “friend” at Apple who said, “Another reason why this isn’t a contest with prizes? Legal. There are a whole other set of rules if Apple offers prizes and those rules differ from country to country. This way, Apple doesn’t have to worry about it.” Makes sense."
Oh no! If only Apple had a large multinational legal department to figure this out!
Oh wait. They do. And, Mr. King cited above noted this fact too.
I think the issue is, that even though the legal department could probably figure it out, you'd end up with a mishmash of different rules in different countries and the whole thing would become ridiculously complicated. It's possible there might even be countries where the whole contest would become illegal if there were prizes (I don't know, but it's at least a possibility) excluding people in those countries from participating. And so on and so on. My guess is that the legal department's legal advice was, "Don't offer prizes," and they followed that advice.
If you are selected as a winner, the exposure you get is the prize, particularly if one were just starting a career as a professional photographer, or hoping to.
The article is an attention-getting joke. Apple is running a contest clearly aimed at the average IPhone user, not soliciting submissions from professional photographers. Don't like the lack of prize money or Apple hardware or whatever for the winners (on top of the exposure), don't enter. Simple. Look around. Check out the photo magazines and their websites. Countless photo contests without cash remuneration or prizes with cash value to winners. Professional photographers trying to make a living aren't entering these contests.
As an artist and professional photographer, I find it rather bold to claim that you know enough about the reasons someone would enter this contest; to the point that you recommend nobody submit photographs. Many, many people enter competitions like this for the exposure, the claim to fame, because they are fans of Apple etc.
This hold especially true in the age of Instagram, where people submit art and photography to a platform that survives based on those submissions, with the hopes of being "featured" by Instagram, with no expectation of compensation in return. I see this competition as no different than that; especially given that not all photographers are interested in compensation in the first place.
A last point, if you recall when Apple first launched the "Shot on iPhone" campaign, they surprised contributors that were selected with a very high quality linen bound archival photo book complete with every selected submission, along with white gloves. It was a truly unexpected and very classy move.
I think this article just makes far too many assumptions about the motivations of people who would participate.
Wow, I’m surprised you claim you are a professional artist and photographer! I am also one. And the vast majority of my colleagues despise these competitions - - quick and dirty ways to get free work done.
National Geographic's photography competitions do have cash prizes for winners, but they also require an entry fee...which ultimately means that a significant % of the prizes are being subsidized by the entrants. Also, there are a lot of professional art/design publications that have competitions that require entry fees and award no prize beyond publication of your work. You're basically paying for your submission to be shown in a 'Best of' issue that is sold to the general public and that often has advertising sold against it etc. However, there is some value to having your work appear in those publications, just as there is some value to having your photo chosen by Apple for an advertising campaign.
Apple can be criticized for their approach, but I'm not sure it's really THAT different from a lot of creative competitions.
Apple isn't the only company that uses contests to rip off photographers.
"@gruber BTW, I heard from a “friend” at Apple who said, “Another reason why this isn’t a contest with prizes? Legal. There are a whole other set of rules if Apple offers prizes and those rules differ from country to country. This way, Apple doesn’t have to worry about it.” Makes sense."
Oh no! If only Apple had a large multinational legal department to figure this out!
Oh wait. They do. And, Mr. King cited above noted this fact too.
This entitled bullshit is why we can’t have fun stuff.
* Company decides to do something fun like a photo contest for amateurs * Bloggers give them shit for not spending an additional assload of money on having lawyers figure out all the tax implications and legal requirements to give away some nominal prize for an international contest. * Company decides it’s stupid to spend money to get grief and cancels contest for next year. * Everybody that would have had fun entering and the few lucky folks that would have won and seen their photo on a giant billboard loses.
Because bloggers need click bait and butthurt pros whine about how some contest, that they weren’t going to enter, somehow hurt their chances on some work that they weren’t in the running for because they aren’t good enough to be in a national ad campaign anyway.
Because letting an amateur photographer get to see their photo on a huge fucking billboard or on the side of a bus or on a TV ad is “abusive”, “rips them off” and has zero value.
National Geographic's photography competitions do have cash prizes for winners, but they also require an entry fee...which ultimately means that a significant % of the prizes are being subsidized by the entrants. Also, there are a lot of professional art/design publications that have competitions that require entry fees and award no prize beyond publication of your work. You're basically paying for your submission to be shown in a 'Best of' issue that is sold to the general public and that often has advertising sold against it etc. However, there is some value to having your work appear in those publications, just as there is some value to having your photo chosen by Apple for an advertising campaign.
Apple can be criticized for their approach, but I'm not sure it's really THAT different from a lot of creative competitions.
Apple isn't the only company that uses contests to rip off photographers.
Nobody who has ever won a NatGeo competition has felt “ripped off”.
Comments
But I find this post closely mirrors my own thoughts. The exception is wanting Apple providing remuneration. I don't.
First, how much use will the winner's photo see? While Apple launch a whole campaign on it alone, frequently using it in ads? I'm not sure that's the case. It's not as though Coke is hosting a contest for a new jingle/catch that will be used in every ad until the next great jingle/catch phrase comes along, and all without compensation.
I think that offering a 'prize' cheapens the contest as a whole, people doing this for monetary gain with no consideration of art for art's sake. There is no doubt that Apple can afford to offer a 'cash prize' like some AM radio station launching some ad campaign.
To me, this is similar to an actor winning a Golden Globe, SAG, Emmy, Oscar, etc. It's a recognition of their performance. Even though they are paid, professional actors, there's no 'cash prize'. There is, however, cachét, and that's arguably worth far more than direct remuneration.
So maybe a non-professional photographer enters Apple's contest and wins. It's not really a win because Apple doesn't give them money and gets to use the photo for a year? Hardly.
If they're a professional photographer, they've already got or had a job, and what 'prize' would be commensurate with their submission?
I see this as participating for the sake of the art and possible recognition of your talent. That would be enough for me.
'See that Apple ad? I did that.' Priceless.
At least unlike a lot of other photo contests this has no entry fee, and Apple is going to publish the name with each photo. Even if it's a little hard to find, that's a lot of people that will find it, and your other higher quality work...
If I have photos with more serious cameras, how do I also have IPhone photos? It's because I either (A) use my iPhone when I have no other camera with me, or (B) even when out with a camera I often take a picture with my iPhone first to see if a composition I am thinking of looks good as a photo.
Also, almost nobody enters this to win notoriety. THAT would be 'f'n lame' and probably stupid, much like using the word 'lame'.
In regards to the article above, I don't see anything wrong with the competition. People aware of non financial rewards, just like Instagram, they submit their photos for acknowledgement. To be chosen is the highest form of praise for them.
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2019/01/23/shot-on-iphone-no-prize
Oh wait. They do. And, Mr. King cited above noted this fact too.
If you are selected as a winner, the exposure you get is the prize, particularly if one were just starting a career as a professional photographer, or hoping to.
* Company decides to do something fun like a photo contest for amateurs
* Bloggers give them shit for not spending an additional assload of money on having lawyers figure out all the tax implications and legal requirements to give away some nominal prize for an international contest.
* Company decides it’s stupid to spend money to get grief and cancels contest for next year.
* Everybody that would have had fun entering and the few lucky folks that would have won and seen their photo on a giant billboard loses.
Because bloggers need click bait and butthurt pros whine about how some contest, that they weren’t going to enter, somehow hurt their chances on some work that they weren’t in the running for because they aren’t good enough to be in a national ad campaign anyway.
Because letting an amateur photographer get to see their photo on a huge fucking billboard or on the side of a bus or on a TV ad is “abusive”, “rips them off” and has zero value.