On 17/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >I know it's a rare occurance, but I actually agree with Cotty on this one. ><vbg> > >I mean, there's published, and there's ~published~, if ya know what I mean. > >Geez, if you take their rules to letter, then I guess anyone who has posted >pics on Photo.net and such on-line galleries has published, too. I'd say it >has to be in print, in a reasonably widely circulated publication (not like >a church newsletter or something). Like Cotty says, if they should confront >you, shrug your shoulders and act surprised. Don't worry, no one here will >rat you out on the PUG thing... <vbg>
<gobsmacked> Frank and me agreeing on something?? And why not. Just going on from Frank's comments above - where do you draw the line? Presumably if you hang a pic on a wall and show it to one other person, then by some definitions floating about these pages, it has been published! I think that the competition rules need clarifying on this. Surely there will be mention of what they mean by 'published' in some small print somewhere? Trouble is, if you ask, you might not like what you find. And there is a distinct possibility that a prize could be revoked for breaking competition rules - so as Robb says, no tears. When in Rome..... One thing I would say, and this applies more to commercial competitions rather than those run by hallowed institutions (although not exclusively) is that you have to watch out for what rights are lost by winning such a competition. Often, the organisers achieve the right to publish the winning pics - and in fact any entered pics that may not win anything at all - in any way they see fit, and more importantly for no monetary recompense to the photographer! IMO this is devious and wrong. I simply would not enter a competition that expected this. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _____________________________ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
