Hi Sibylle, It is indeed a long project, we're excited to see a lot of participation! But we do, of course know it means being persistent and thorough with our rating monitoring. All the best, Jess

Ich meinte eigentlich eher, dass der Zeitaufwand alle Einreichungen zu bewerten immens sein wird und die meisten da passen werden.

Platform does not support Prezi. But you can either upload images and chose the presentation layout or you just upload a PDF presentation.

you probably do not want to send people elsewhere to have to look at your concept. But its possible ...

Yes I would prefer to be able to post the Prezi here (the embed code is very like a video) Lets give it a try, we will all learn something for sure.

There we go. The Prezi will be visible by tomorrow evening.

Important question, here's the answer in both English and German:

You don not have to use brand elements, however if you do, we will not remove your idea from the platform. As long as no legal issues are raised and the submission is unique and original, the idea can remain within the project. If there are any legal problems, for the benefit of the creator & all parties involved, we will remove any copyrighted content. In the event of any legal issues, Greenpeace is here to support you.

Ihr müßt keine Markenelemente verwenden aber wir werden Ideen, die dies tun, nicht aus dem Wettbewerb nehmen. Solange es keine rechtlichen Probleme gibt und die Einreichung Schöpfungshöhe hat, können auch solche Ideen im Wettbewerb bleiben. Sollte es jedoch zu rechtlichen Schwierigkeiten kommen, müssen wir markenrechtlich problematische Einreichungen - auch zu Eurem eigenen Schutz - offline setzen. Sollten sich für Euch rechtliche Fragen dabei ergeben, steht Greenpeace hinter Euch.

You are welcome to illustrate your idea in both German and English, but it should be able to translate and work in German because the campaign will take place within Germany.

Great point- 'denking' different. We'd love to see you go for it :-)

Hehehe :) I will THINK about it :D

Hi Evgeni,

First, thanks for your comment. Critical questions are important to create dialog around these giant and crucial topics.

The links under the briefing provide a reference of why Greenpeace takes the stance on the environmental impact of cheap meat and GMOs.

McDonald's specifically in focus because following a big Greenpeace campaign in 2000 McDonald’s was one of the first companies to stop using chicken meat that has been produced with genetically-modified animal feed. However, this year they have returned to the use of poultry which has been fed with GMO animal feed and we'd like to ask them to return to their previous stance and forgo the use of genetically-modified animal feed.

Going after a brand is a strategy that can leverage the impact on the producers, which stand behind the brands that are usually unknown to the consumers.

Thanks, I have seen eng. links and have to say once again - You have no scientifical research, no references on scientific articles, that "cheap meat affects global climate change" - it is your fake.

Wait... what? There are numerous reasons why cheap meat - produced by massive numbers of animals - creates problems. Even if you disregard the toxic manure, the ecological nightmare of gen soy, and the cruelness against animals - just the fact that these animals constantly receive antibiotics has its ramifications.

I completely understand why targeting one company first makes sense. We all know about the problems caused by cheap meat, but it is more of an abstract thing... people might shun the chicken from a discount chain, but still go for products with meat or cold cuts. When you make it about one product - in this case the burger - people cannot hide behind abstract knowledge. Plus, I am still shocked that they changed policy after 14 years.

I dont say Gmo is good.

I only ask greenpeace not to make people stupid, they say that "cheap meal affects global change" - it isnt true, and no scientific research that proves it.

If you know some artickle about how chicken change global climate, in Science, Nature, etc, please show me!

i mean : they say cheap chicken make global CLIMATE change :)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2739143/Less-meat-key-food-security.html http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/21/giving-up-beef-reduce-carbon-footprint-more-than-cars

I am a huge fan of meat - but try and go for grass-fed where possible...

I personally hate McDonald's and all fast-food chains, but I think Evegni is right - if it is going to be agings GMO at all, there should be campaign that face the problem in all the areas, because all the products in the supermarkets are GMO, all the fast-food chains and etc. As well if they don`t use GMO they will need more plants and larger fields which means cutting forests down and more expenses (fuel, electricity, machines, time, water and etc.)...larger field more chemicals! GMO does not harm the planet in my opinion, but harms us - especially the fruits and vegetables on the market!

Copyright laws are obviously complex, but I know that US "fair use" allows for parody, satire, and product criticism (among other things) of brands and their trademarks. I am guessing somewhere along those lines, it must be allowed to use McD imagery to criticize McD.

We are talking about the European market in this case. Here the mayonnaise, oil etc. have to be labeled if they contain gen-soya or gen-corn. McDonald's would have to label it on the menu and inform the consumer, if their meals contained any genetically engineered products as such. However in animal products, you are unfortunately not required to state if the animals have been fed with GM animal feed. We would welcome it if they would label it! Then probably no company in Europe would use it, since no one wants to offer and sell stuff which is marked with "GM-food" on the label.

Mayonnaise might still be produced with eggs from gen-fed chicken, though... right? I know that everyone is buying free-roaming eggs, but don't really notice how much eggs are in their ready-made products... and those are neither free-roaming nor particularly happy chicken.

We don't know from which company and country McDonald's Germany orders their mayonnaise. It could be possible that the used eggs are also from chicken which are fed with GMO. But the German market of fresh eggs is GMO-free. The egg producers in Germany announced few weeks ago that they don't use GM-feed. They are a good example that GE-free feeding is possible and not necessary.

Just to clarify - since this is a public project, they can obviously use the sharing features of the site - but not save and upload images to their media channels. That would require prior licensing.

Hi CrossTheLime, It is a mandatory to include the originators name, but because the images exist in the public domain, the images are able to be shared. To be specific, it is stated in our Terms and Conditions here: §7.1.4

If it's in the terms and attributed.... sure. Though I would still think that regular sharing, where you get to the entry owner and site within one click, would show more appreciation for our work.

We do encourage the use of our share button :-)

Yes, please try and do actual attribution with link. Right now, it looks like this "Bildidee: Big Mess by Jere" - that for me is not a useful attribution that is fair to the designer.

P.S. Is it otherwise okay if we add our watermark/ designer name to the design? I hate having my work float around the internets without attribution... and when they upload, someone shares - bang, my image is all over the place without anyone knowing that it is mine.

Yes, ideed. It's your work and if you'd like to use your watermark, do so!

I am truly torn. 200 shares, which at least have my watermark. It would have been nice if they had linked my name to my FB. But basically, if Greenpeace doesn't buy the design, my work is down the drain - people are now talking about printing the poster (which then is without my watermark). Combine that with the reach the photo now had - it is done for. That chicken cannot be used or sold anywhere else. And I get nothing out of that "promo", because they didn't even link my account.

I would truly appreciate it if you could take a closer look at your TOUs, because a link to the designer's website or Facebook should be the least the client does when using our work.

Dear Cross the Lime,

thanks for sharing your concern! – I can understand your issue and will PM you.

Yours Jesko

I´m aware of this..., I choose red, because the red colour was used for about 40 years and I think everyone know this, and for this campaign it signs something like a "warning" , but the most reason for me is this article https://www.greenpeace.de/themen/mcdonalds-gruene-schminke

Completely valid remark! I actually think that with many posters, it works well... and people will still recognize it. It was just weird to see every entry with that color. :)

Hi pavlinak, gifs aren't a supported format on jovoto, but I can help you uploading another type of file. I'll send you a private message now!

Maybe is the language must be an english version too!!!

you can have some initiative, Cross the Lime...

I am already trying...! And yes, true - English... gotta change that, too, though I added the English version to the text part.

Great call to action CrossTheLime. There are still many many "rating-not-shown" ideas and we could all benefit from some critical feedback. Let's all jump in!

Yes, I couldn´t rate any works because they are in german, although I understand they must be in that language in the end . I'm working on my proposal in english, after I will figure out how to translated. The idea about the help of german speaking community members can work :)

Hi Alpha Tomasowa,

The price difference between GM-fed and non-GM-fed poultry is just a very small one - less than 1 Cent for one chicken burger. And it´s not a matter of a cheaper product for the consumer: McDonald´s hasn´t reduced the prices for their chicken products after having changed their policy.

Also worth considering; Non-GM feed isn´t more expensive because of higher production costs. It´s higher price is caused by the GM industry and the "genetic pollution" it causes. It could be at least the same price, if not cheaper (yields are the same, production costs can be lower; it´s the separation and controls needed causing the higher price). If you take into account the true costs of GM crop cultivation, which is the heavy collateral damage caused by destructive cropping systems (mainly pesticide use), a GM-fed poultry product should cost much more than the GM-free one.

Talking about solutions: Greenpeace´s vision is to feed the world with ecological agriculture as we are convinced that is the only suitable way to do it. This can not be seen as an "alternative", because the current systems are not a suitable way at all. This could indeed be the start of an academic exchange; the same is true for human diets, e.g. when thinking of meat consumption. We know that GE in animal feed can only be one aspect when looking at McDonald´s products - but it could be (as it was) a first step in a more sustainable production.

Apologies for not responding earlier.

I think it's fair to say that no corporation decreases price, because the nature of shareholding is to see an increase in profit per annum, so it's highly doubtful McDonald's would blaze the way in that regard - as with other corporations, it just seems they are looking on ways to maximize profit by reassessing what can be done cheaper. Similarly, on the scheme of things, it's also fair to say any monetary advantage multiplied by the level of their production equals substantial gains, as with other multinational economic entities.

On an ideological level, there is nothing to fault in Greenpeace's vision of a sustainable future, but on a practical level, the means are vague and adversely open-ended. As in this example, a lot is outputted to the producer and|or supplier, to the point of defamation, without taking into account the fundamentals of any economy - demand. To the average academic, that just looks like what it is, an easy cop out from addressing the real issue by putting blame on external and seemingly foreign, invasive elements of a world economy, as opposed to spotlighting the local consumer, who continues to buy regardless whether it is GM or not.

Though this is the opinion of a single person with a single lifespan of experience, but through my years of businesses with the government and corporations, I can easily point out that standing on the outside and pointing out faults without offering solutions only goes so far. This is more political than anything else, as the quality of meats is not criminal and not liable for court. So as is the logic with any political transaction, why isn't the position of Greenpeace to broker a win-win solution, work within the political framework, and together with McDonald's to offer a legitimate option to the consumers, as opposed to against? Obviously profits dictate capitalism and their corporations, so why isn't the media campaign something to satiate that need and build a framework for future cooperation - it isn't as if this multinational environment just appeared yesterday. I'm sure there are many professionals in your fold that could negotiate inside the system to that end.

Hi Alpha, Thanks for your reflected and solution oriented comment. Greenpeace is well known for driving high media attention to problems caused by multinational cooperation. In my opinion, this is one of their means to find solutions. Best wishes, Jess

Hello Jessica,

Thank you, too, and all the best.

You're very welcome! All the best, Jess :)

whats their Facebook page?

Saw it.

Dear Cross the lime,

no, there has been no clients choice or Jury decision been made yet.

Greenpeace features these ideas within their McGen campaign. There is no direct link to the submission to protect the creative in case of legal interferences.

As you told me in your PMs you see this critical and we will put this on the list for discussion with Greenpeace in the halftime feedback on wednesday.

Yours Jesko

See reply below.

I understand why entries have been uploaded to promote the contest... though I already had some question marks and been talking to Jovoto about that. Mine was one of them, and with 200-300 shares, that means my work is done for - can never sell this anywhere else.

But now, they took 3 entries and branded them, uploaded them, asking users to use them for a shitstorm on McD. So it seems obvious that those three are the campaign motives and jury choices.

Which is great (congrats to the winners), but means that the community can stop spending any more time on this project, despite the fact that it should still run another 2-3 weeks. I am just missing that announcement - if the choice has been made, it should be obvious that designers can spend their precious time on other endeavours where they can actually still earn money...

Dear Cross the lime,

no, there has been no clients choice or Jury decision been made yet.

Greenpeace features these ideas within their McGen campaign. There no direct link to the submission to protect the creative in case of legal interferences.

As you told me in your PMs you see this critical and we will put this on the list for discussion with Greenpeace in the halftime feedback on wednesday.

Yours Jesko

Have responded through private message, too, but think this needs to be public.

This goes beyond promoting the contest. They changed the images to fit their campaign. Uploaded them. And then asked their fans to use these images for a shitstorm on the McDonald's site.

That is a full-fledged campaign. These three designers need to be paid for their work.

And that means either the project needs to be abbreviated now, before any of us spend any more time on it, or there need to be 6 client's choices. The three images they are already using must be paid in any case.

And to just to clarify why I am convinced that this has nothing to do with usage as covered within the TOU.

AIM OF THE PROJECT: The aim of the campaign is to attract attention to the problem of genetically-modified animal feed via digital and analog channels and to thereby increase the pressure on McDonald’s, in order to encourage the fast-food giant to forgo the use of genetically-modified animal feed in poultry farming once again.

• Done. The have chosen three posters, and actively used them in an online campaign against McDonalds.

Your TOU: ...to use the ideas and associated works in any medium for the purpose of communicating and promoting the project and/or ideas submitted to the project.

Asking fans to post to the McDonalds site does not have the aim of promoting the CONTEST. It is solely there to fullfill the aim of the project, as described above.

Hi CrossTheLime, This is indeed a critical case and we completely understand your point of view. This is a this is a serious concern and we will try to contact Greenpeace over the weekend and if we can't manage we will discuss it first thing Monday morning- as soon as everyone will be back in the office. Thanks so much for clearly expressing your opinion - we'll get back to you as soon as we can. Best, Jess

Thanks for handling this, despite the weekend.

That of course still means the four entries need to be paid, no matter what. We are talking hundreds of posts on the McDonald's site. Meaning they end up with 7 jury choices in the end. To be honest, considering how much my chicken was used, because it was posted shortly before their Facebook post, I actually would appreciate being paid, too - a girl can dream.

Curious to see what the halftime feedback brings.

Just checked - they might have deleted the main Facebook post, but the altered posters, along with the exact same call to action, are still happy and alive. And are still being used, obviously.

Dear Cross the lime i think you have absolutely right from your side (by the way congrats for your entries). From my side i think that all this that happened is unfair for everyone

Any update?

We will post the feedback tomorrow morning. Best, Jess

What time zone...? :)

Sorry, but not good enough. Their behavior was a clear breach of contract. I still maintain that the designers need to be paid for this, on top of the agreed-upon prize pool.

Especially since they might have deleted their main Facebook post - like, two days after it started, which is pretty much the life span of any Facebook campaign - but they also KEPT the designs in their photo stream, with the exact same call for action.

Neither do I see any kind of apology in the feedback.

Fact is - Greenpeace is using the whole project as part of their campaign. They did not feature me or the other designers out of the goodness of their hearts, but from the start were counting on their fans to use these campaign motives as a kick-starter to their campaign.

So where does this leave us? What is the use of a contract?

No matter how much I appreciate the goals of the campaign, my sympathy is limited when an organization who rakes in almost 300 million euros a year expects designers to work for free,.

Dear Cross the lime,

We have been very proactively intermediating your concern. The post has been taken down on saturday 2pm, you find an apologize above posted by Jess in the name of Greenpeace. Greenpeace fully respects and values creative's work and featured ideas will always have a clear reference of the author. In no way Greenpeace intends to misuse creatives work and they heartily invite you for a personal talk. I will PM you.

Here in the briefing I would like to get back to goal of the project itself – to support Greenpeace in a meaningful challenge for all of us – to alarm that genetically modified animal feed is being used by big players in the global food industry – and change that for the wellbeing of us and our planet.

Yours Jesko

OK, can somebody explain the following: http://prntscr.com/4y0w8s http://prntscr.com/4y0ymg http://prntscr.com/4y0z9h

After reading back on Jovoto this is not the first time! "Did you align the creators before publishing this creation?"

We love our work, we like the projects, we choose to submit our idea's with the safe feeling of not being "used".

Don't get me wrong here, it's nice to spread an idea. But in this way it makes me believe they doing it over the back of the creators without a question if it's OK.. so where are the copyrights then? The example shown is about the creation of andreea but the links go directly to the project (and not to her design/contact/portfolio), that is closing within hours after that post. There was no purpuse of promoting the project and they seems to just using it for spreading their own awareness for GMO.

Let's hope that for those who got picked by the Greenpeace FB team for promoting their action against McDonalds, will recieve a reasable compensation. Otherwise we can't trust the full and real potential of Jovoto.

Dear njiwedu0b,

Thanks for your feedback-

In a jovoto public project ideas are allowed to be shared on social media under the condition that the creative's name is stated. In the examples listed above, the creatives name is declared, like in the template that was agreed upon for sharing ideas from this project.

Normally direct links to the ideas are included- The reason that the ideas were not directly linked is due to the specific legal circumstance of this project and was intended to protect any featured creatives.

On jovoto there are different modes of working. You may be more interested in the jovoto private projects, where you work under- well, less public and more private conditions. If you are interested in checking it out, just click on the button in your profile overview to upload your portfolio.

All the best, Jess

Hi dieseimer, We added the logo to the briefing in the added Materials section. All the best, Jess

What are you referring to?

steht unten

Geht mir genauso, seht immer nur da "loves your idea" kurz danach geben einem die Leute 0 Punkte. Zum kotzen.

Aber bei 100 votes muss das schon brutal zugegangen sein die letzten Stunden.

And we'll be doing a lot of thorough rating monitoring! Keep in mind this is may not be the final ranking - Please wait until after rating monitoring is done and the project is officially closed.

give us back the "Loved & disliked ideas"

ja, ich bin zwar neu hier, aber fand manche sachen das voting betreffend auch eher -sagen wir mal- nicht gerade transparent... mal sehen, was am ende rauskommen wird

Habe mich über ganz ähnlich heftige "Abstürze", nach teilweise nur 1 oder 2 neuen Ratings ziemlich gewundert.

Tja. Ich war wochenlang ohne größere Unterbrechung unter den Top 10. Schwupps, weg isses. ;)

Hi everyone, As Bastian says, the rating mechanism takes all ratings into account - and looking at your specific ideas, many of your ideas were not specifically bashed in the last hours of the project. It is more related to the overall amount of ratings coming in- which is rather why the rating of your ideas can change so drastically. We're working on monitoring the ratings from the entire projects (last hours included) and we'll have the official ranks as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience. All the best, Jess

IS there any Information when this will be announced?

First place deserved the first place. Great jury choice overall!

congratulations to all the winners

Hi Karan, For the moment you can use the 'popular' ranking function to see the community winners. To see the Client's Choice we will have to discuss if we can make that possible. Thanks for your input! Best, Jess

Thank you Jess ;)

Congratulations, well deserved!

SUPER CONGRAAAATS TEAM!!! BRILLIANT WORK!!! =D