Hi All.

One of my Diesel concepts won an honorable mention in the contest, but I have a concern.
It seems Diesel or their agency Anomaly may have used my idea and only compensated
me $100 for it. The following link appeared 3 weeks after I entered my concept:

http://thevoguecity.com/diesel-1000-shopping-spree-sweepstake

If there is a chance they actually swiped my idea and used it, then I hope
Josh and the rest of Zooppa team will investigate this thoroughly.

If we as members aren’t guaranteed by Zooppa that
our ideas will be protected from the companies that we are
creating for, then Crowsoursing is dead and companies
like Zooppa will become obsolete.

Thanks
Adam

That confessional booth is all you man. You deserve more than a hundred bucks!

Hi, i have checked the site and not seen your video. Maybe it has been moved?

When I read over the rules I read the copyright part very carefully. If I am not mistaken, when you enter a contest regardless of winning or not, you forfeit your rights to said work. That is how I understood the part (You release all copyrights to the advertiser of the contest…)

That’s not good enough. You really deserve more than that. Zooppa should be aware of this.

Hi Guys-

Certainly, it seems like Diesel could do more.

This is a fantastic idea – Adamlipton did a great job of really hitting the brief on the head with this submission.

I’ve written to the Italian office to see if we could get in touch with Diesel to at least do a press release that would credit him with the idea.

I know the Submission Agreement isn’t the easiest read, so I’ll try to reiterate our terms surrounding submissions.

Upon upload, you are granting Zooppa’s client a “non-exclusive license” to your submission. This license gives the client the right to use your submission in any way they see fit, which includes “derivative works”. This basically means that they can take your concept, and run with it. They can show your submission in any medium – television, print, online, wherever – or they can take an idea and shoot it professionally. Or in this case, actually build the confessional that AdamLipton drew up in his concept.

Since the license you are granting is “non-exclusive”, it actually means that you could grant another entity (company, individual, etc.) a license to use your idea.

However, if your submission wins, and you accept the prize, you are, in effect, “selling” your submission to the client. The non-exclusive license turns into an exclusive license, and you can no longer grant other entities a license.

These are Zooppa’s default terms & conditions of the submission agreement. These terms, however, are superseded by any language that appears in the brief.

Lately, we’ve had a number of clients requesting copyright upon upload, like AT&T. The copyright transfer language is in the brief, so it supersedes our traditional submission agreement.

In the traditional case of a grant of exclusive license, the Zoopper still has the right to post his work anyplace he chooses. This is not the case with the transfer of copyright. With the transfer of copyright, the creator of the work may still showcase his creation in an offline “reel” or “portfolio”, but can no longer post the work publicly.

These terms may seem harsh, but they are actually more lenient that those you’d be subjected to within a creative agency. Within an agency setting, everything you create immediately belongs either to the client or to the agency. The same thing is true for those who work in creative departments of companies.

I do my best to push back on clients with respect to the copyright transfer, but at the end of the day, if AT&T or Proctor & Gamble wants copyright, Zooppa is not in a position to walk away from the table.

Thanks, and I look forward to your comments.

Josh

Thanks Josh for the clarifications