Clark Lindsey points out a potential issue with the Lunar Landing Challenge:
Section 4 of the document, especially subsection 4.2, seems overly aggressive to me with respect to the X PRIZE Foundation’s clams to media rights. Apparently, a team has to give up the right to any income generated from their own videos, photos, etc. even for preparatory activities away from the place and day they attempt the competition flights. In fact, sounds like even posting a video on YouTube requires permission from XPF.
I don’t understand why XPF should get all of these rights just for managing the contest for NASA. I don’t see such rights going to the Spaceward Foundation in the rules (pdf) for the Power Beaming Challenge.
I agree. Since the prize money is put up by NASA, how does XPF have sufficient “skin in the game” to justify this clause? I’ve already received an email from one potential participant that this is a “deal killer.”
As I asked him, though, what does that mean? It seems to me that if you enter into this agreement, you believe that the expected value of the prize (purse times estimated probability of win) exceeds the potential revenues from media use of the event. If you believe that the latter is the main value, and not the purse itself, then you wouldn’t enter, but would instead simply perform the feat independently, video it, and make a big deal that you had done what was needed except unofficially, thus embarrassing NASA and the XPF, taking away the value of the competition itself, while generating more publicity (and perhaps potential customers) than actually winning the prize (see Prejean, Carrie).
On the other hand, if you consider NASA a potential customer for your vehicles, you might not want to do that. It is something that, to quote the “Fat Man” from The Maltese Falcon, “calls for the most delicate judgment on both sides. ‘Cause as you know, sir, in the heat of action men are likely to forget where their best interests lie and let their emotions carry them away…”
The real question right now is not expected value of prize money versus that of media rights, but rather how much better a deal than this the potential contestants can negotiate with X-Prize Foundation now.
XPF needs the contestants too – this apparent overreach on media rights has the potential to cause embarassing questions to be asked at the LLC prize’s sponsor, NASA, especially if the problem clauses aren’t modified and it causes significant numbers of potential contestants to boycott. XPF could lose considerable credibility as an administrator of such prizes in future.
I’d advise all parties concerned to regard this set of rules as a discussion draft – near-final, perhaps, but not yet carved in stone – and work out changes that better address the various interests involved. (In fact, if I was handling this for XPF, I might see wisdom in making clear that it was meant that way all along, and express regret over the miscommunication…)
Making a credible threat of doing this:
If you believe that the latter is the main value, and not the purse itself, then you wouldn’t enter, but would instead simply perform the feat independently, video it, and make a big deal that you had done what was needed except unofficially, thus embarrassing NASA and the XPF, taking away the value of the competition itself, while generating more publicity (and perhaps potential customers) than actually winning the prize (see Prejean, Carrie).
would assist efforts to negotiate a more favorable deal now.
I agree with this clause being a deal killer. It does not matter what the purse or potential monies from a media deal might bring, it is loss of control of data. You can’t use any pictures/video of your accomplishment to further your company or your career.
Having been burned in the past by just such a deal, there is no way I would enter one again. Joint ownership of the rights perhaps but not give them away. It just ain’t gonna happen.
Part of the problem is that NASA does not want to pay the prize management organization, forcing them to seek money wherever else they can get it. That ought to be reexamined in future competitions.
I suspect the media rights to the Space Elevator Competition are significantly less valuable. Watching a machine slowly climb up a cable is like watching paint dry compared to the rocket flights.
Yes, in fact a couple of years ago Robert Cringely gave a talk at NASA in which he said that his “Team Cringely” (about which, sadly, I haven’t heard anything lately) had concluded that media rights were worth more than the prize itself. That, and what they felt to be a number of pointless restrictions and requirements, are what drove them away from officially joining the competition.
Thanks for your post, Rand. I just added some further detail and explanation about this issue to The Launch Pad, the X PRIZE Foundation’s space blog. I think that this issue is not as harsh as it may have seemed at a quick read, so I tried to perform a more thorough analysis, with quotes directly from the Team Agreement itself.
You can find the post at: http://thelaunchpad.xprize.org/2009/06/answering-some-questions-about-media.html
Hopefully this addresses the concerns that you, Clark, and your readers have raised. If not, feel free to engage us in a dialog–we’re always more than happy to answer questions about our competitions!
That, and what they felt to be a number of pointless restrictions and requirements, are what drove them away from officially joining the competition.
LOL. Cringley’s only aerospace experience was an utterly incompetent attempt to build a homebuilt airplane on national teevee. It’s not surprising that he considers the media rights more valuable than the prize. One would require him to actually fly something; the other doesn’t. 🙂
Thanks for engaging, Will. We all hope that this can be worked out to the benefit of all parties involved.
Absolutely my pleasure, Rand. If you’ve got further questions, feel free to fire them my way. I always appreciate the chance to discuss our prize programs and to address any potential concerns. Best, Will