Beware: Some photo contests and campaigns are little more than rights grabs

Recently, the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife (NJDFW) conducted a “Photo Campaign” to solicit free photo submissions of wildlife for their photo library. They asked for images of New Jersey's “fish, wildlife, habitats, and the recreation associated with them.” They particularly noted that they were “committed to the principles of equity, diversity and inclusiveness, and encourage entries from people of all ages, abilities, and backgrounds.”

That sounded great to me as I read the announcement. Then the hammer fell, or rather it was smashed down hard.

Update on Taylor Swift's contract for concert photographers

In my article last month about music superstar, Taylor Swift, I wrote a highly critical piece about Swift and the contract she required photographers of her concerts to sign. I called Swift a hypocrite?

In late June, Swift wrote an open letter to Apple Inc. explaining why she was holding back her album “1989” from Apple Music, the new Apple streaming service.

In the letter, Swift decried Apple Music's free three month trial policy, during which they were not going to pay royalties to the musicians, writers, producers and others for playing any music. Swift said of Apple's decision,

“I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company [Apple]. …Three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing.”

Most people in the arts including me, and the general public thought Swift was dead-on. Soon after Swift made her letter to Apple public, the company announced they changed their policy and would pay the royalties after all.

Farewell to Facebook, at least for galleries and samples

Facebook has been in the news lately, and for many, the news hasn't been good.

Privacy issues continue to be in the news, as Facebook continues to adjust and readjust user privacy settings, requiring users to constantly reassess Facebook privacy policies, settings' options, and how Facebook has changed user settings from prior user choices.

Lately Facebook not only added their own email service, but without consulting their users, unilaterally changed their users' default displayed contact email address to users' new @Facebook.com email address, without so much as a simple notification of the change.

While it's true it's easy to change the default contact address back to the old one, I would ask why that should be necessary, why Facebook would decide to “tamper” with their users' contact address at all, and why Facebook didn't contact a single user, letting them know they made the change, and if not desired, how to revert back to their original address.