Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 8361296" data-attributes="member: 6802765">Note that legal boilerplate (i.e. the same contractual terms in similar contracts across an industry) arises to protect the attorneys, rather than to protect the company. There are any number of ways contest terms might be structured to adequately protect the company's interest (and no, you won't get attorneys listing examples here, because that would be providing legal advice), but it's in the attorneys' interest to use wording that someone else has used before--if the language ends up being ineffective at protecting the company, using "standard" language makes it easier for the attorneys to escape blame. That doesn't mean that the boilerplate language is any good or even useful--often it's just an exact copy of whatever language was used first, plus whatever extra provisions have been added over time as later attorneys try to add more and more protections for their clients.Using the boilerplate is certainly not required. A company that wants to can retain an attorney (or use in-house counsel) to develop customized contest language that strikes the company's preferred balance between protecting themselves and respecting the rights of the entrants. A company that chooses to go to that effort (and expense) won't use the boilerplate, because the boilerplate isn't trying to strike any sort of balance at all.I'm having a hard time following what you see as the out-of-pocket expenses in running this contest. Using the lopsided boilerplate language minimizes attorney fees (quite possibly to zero, if DDB or its parent has an attorney on staff or if they didn't consult an attorney), they're not likely engaging an outside PR firm for something of this scope, advertising is probably limited to standard social media channels, and the prize (a digital license) has a marginal cost of zero. So as I see it, the total probable out-of-pocket cost to DDB (and/or its parent) is or is close to zero. There are opportunity costs, including staff time and (potentially) lost sales to the contest winner who now doesn't need to buy the product, but that's it.In exchange for that lack of expenditure, they get immediate commercial use the winning entry and the potential future commercial use of any or all of the non-winning entries. (Even if current management doesn't intend to make use of their license to the non-winning entries, they still have value that future management, a corporate successor, or a bankruptcy trustee can access.) That seems like a much better deal for the company than paying a single artist for a single piece of work.(Also, you appear to be using the term "spec" in a way I am unfamiliar with. The work produced for the contest is "spec" work because it was made by the artist with the hope of later payment. Contracting a freelance artist for work-for-hire is the opposite of spec work. Maybe there are regional differences in the use of the term?)That's a factual claim. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't, but if you're going to rely on that claim to support your assertion that the boilerplate language is justified by legal risk, it would carry for more weight if you presented data to back it up. The same goes for your claim that such contests are becoming less common.</blockquote>

Verification