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.
Apple isn't the only company that uses contests to rip off photographers.
"Apple believes strongly that artists should be compensated for their work. Photographers who shoot the final 10 winning photos will receive a licensing fee for use of such photos on billboards and other Apple marketing channels."
"Apple believes strongly that artists should be compensated for their work. Photographers who shoot the final 10 winning photos will receive a licensing fee for use of such photos on billboards and other Apple marketing channels."
Looks like they figured out the complicated legal situation after all.
Well, it's not actually a "prize", which likely avoids the legal quagmires, but it seems like a reasonable response to the criticism the contest received.
Comments
Fix it for you.
Updated this evening.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/01/share-your-best-photos-shot-on-iphone/
Looks like they figured out the complicated legal situation after all.