Your film's subject must be "Waitlessness" with the duration of 64 seconds. Enteries are accepted from Oct 10-Nov 27th and selected films will be judged by the world between December 1st and 19th.

There will be 3 prizes. Grand Prize will be given a paid trip to DreamWorks with a special screening of the film, meeting with the artists and much more.

Visit www.64seconds.com for details.

~jr

I was just discussing this contest (and the terms) with some other members recently....

I was going to enter this but found the terms a bit restrictive....read them carefully before you enter. I'm not knocking the contest (good prizes etc) but I think they are asking for a bit too much with the terms.

from the site (no emphasis added):

"All submissions become the exclusive property of Sponsor, and none will be acknowledged or returned. Sponsor and Nero, Inc. shall have the right to edit, adapt, and publish any or all of the videos submitted, and may use them in any media with or without attribution or compensation to the entrant, his or her successors or assigns, or any other entity unless prohibited by law. SUBMISSION OF AN ENTRY IN THIS CONTEST CONSTITUTES ENTRANT'S IRREVOCABLE ASSIGNMENT, CONVEYANCE, AND TRANSFERENCE TO SPONSOR OF ALL RIGHT, TITLE, AND INTEREST IN THE ENTRY, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL COPYRIGHTS, AND ENTRANT'S AGREEMENT TO THE TERMS HEREIN."

I'm OK with giving folks the right to use the vid in promotions etc, but as I read this, you lose all rights to your video once submitted. They can edit, publish etc and you have no recourse.

Looks like a good contest other than that....

KB

Intersting that those terms apply to all entries, not just the winners. That means you can't enter your video elsewhere or use it for any other purpose even if you lose. That should really dampen enthusiasm. Confident entrants won't want to lose their rights. Unconfident entrants won't want to risk losing everything.

Heck, the winners may not even be credited, and if they try to claim credit for their work when it appears in public the Sponsor and Nero can refuse to acknowledge it.

Definately way too draconian.

Some of those are probably out already as it says that everything has to be non copyrighted and there are a bunch of songs and images I see in there that look like they were almost certainly not released (could be wrong).

plus
"all advertising and promotional agencies and their respective parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, sales representatives, distributors, manufacturers, licensees, agents, and their immediate family members and those living in the same household of each, are not eligible to participate in this Contest. All applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations apply."

There are guys in there that said they're ad agencies right in the explanation. (I'm guessing that these entries haven't been "qualified" yet like they say they will be)

Dave

The reason they put that clause in there is so they can display the winning works anywhere/any way they want to. It doesn't mean that you can't display your own work. It's not a work for hire, you're only giving up the right to that particular master. It's bad wording for sure, but no one can keep you from displaying your own work. I was initially concerned about the language, but after spending a little time talking to them about it, the language is technically not limiting to the creator. But it sure could have been made more clear, and certainly better wording could have been assigned.

Douglas, it's not my intent to dispute your word. I understand what you're saying and I believe you.

However, over the years, and in many areas, and through much unfortunate experince, I have dealt with contracts and contract law. It all boils down to this: If it ain't in the contract, it ain't! If it is in the contract, then it is. Regardless of what is thought, it's what's on the page (in the contract) that determines what is and isn't enforceable.

Contracts are two-sided agreements. A contract, more or less, outlines each side's understanding of their agreement. Any clause (or delcaration of understanding) that is included is enforceable. Whether or not the one or the other party decides to enforce that clause is the determining factor (a crap shoot that no one should be willing to take!). If a specific clause is not in the contract, it cannot be enforced. If a specific clause is in the contract, then it is most certainly enforceable!

So, in a nut-shell, a contract is the instrument that enforces the promises that each party makes to one another. Using the contract in question, if there is a "promise" (clause) that states you will relinquish all rights, then you have.

Therefore, and this cannot be over-stated, if any contract you are considering does not accurately reflect your understanding of what you are agreeing to, then do not sign it, because you will have to live by it, like it or not.