|
Do not shoot Them Crooked Vultures! Ridiculous rights grab!
 |
I was supposed to shoot these guys last night and arrived with no expectation of signing a release. It is the worst contract I have ever been asked to sign in my 5+ years of being a professional shooter. After having a a bad experience years ago with a contract I refuse to sign basically any contract before shooting a show. But this one takes the cake! It literally says they will register your rights with the US Copyright Office.
View it here:
docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B9VkAEgd4DJ8NjZjZDI5OTktNjIy...
I had no access to the publicist before and the publication did not look into it beforehand. I tried to talk to the publicist before the show upon arriving however she would not respond to my calls, voicemail or texts. So I walked, I have no problem with doing that even after driving 2 hours in the snow to shoot the show. Why shoot if its to give your work away to the band for free.
After re-reading the contract a few times, I feel like the band might as well gang rape you before the show, its despicable that these sort of things exist. I know its not the band in particular but it is their handlers and even sometimes the publicist.
What angered me even further was that the venue coordinator said, hey whats the big deal? Someone that shoots for the same publication as you signed a contract exacltly like this last week and did not have any issues with it.
Why are photographers on a whole such sheep and so stupid, when will people learn that you are the only one who should have rights to your work unless you get paid a Brinks truck full of money. Its called a copyright for a reason, because you decide who has the rights to make a copy!
Posted at 11:12PM, 15 October 2009 PST
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I totally agree with you. Especially about walking away. More people should do that.
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
it is exactly the same form I was sent for Sonic Youth playing London next friday (I asked to read it in advance).
I am not going either despite they are one of my favourite bands ever and I fought to get to be accepted in the pit.
We (photographers) should stop this until they stop considering us objects instead of individuals.
It is sad, but it is for our future. As simple as this.
Live on 35mm
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I wonder in practice what the point of this is? They'll never see the photos unless they are published. And if they are published how do they get hold of you to demand their photo? And what's to stop you telling them you've destroyed the file?
All this makes it even more ridiculous, they've got little to gain from this except the danger of photographers walking away (and you were right to do so in my opinion) and robbing them of possible press coverage. No one will ever publish a photo they've signed away so the band have also lost the possibility of free publicity that might come their way via the publishing of a photographers portfolio or a magazine perhaps published classic shots, and will they really be able to compile a good set of free shots they they can use from this rights grab?
F**kwits.
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
The amount of people that I've heard skip shooting this show is ridiculous, I can see them dropping it soon as they are getting absolutely no coverage in the press. (Although, they don't exactly need the press with the band members.)
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
It's good to see an increasing number of people standing up against these outrageous demands.
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Good lord. That's an insane contract!
I'm with the others - good on you for turning it down.
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Hmmm - I'm down to shoot them later in the year in Sydney, thanks for the heads up...
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I didn't think they were heading down here until Feb.
Shocking contract I won't be signing it.
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Yeah I like these posts too... They save me time, gas, money, etc.
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Well I guess now this makes sense....when my editor got the press release about the tour and forwarded it on to me, I sent an email to NLM asking whether or not there would be a rights-grab contract; it seemed like a sure thing due to the combination of NLM and previous history w/ QOTSA and Foo Fighters.
After a few followup emails, I never heard back so obviously I didn't shoot the show. I guess my gut instinct was correct.
I'd like to know what happened if anyone signed this, and did not send any photos to NLM.
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
WARNING!! last year i posted on FLICKR a release from this same PR firm and then the firm's owner bitched to the mods and wanted me kicked off of this group.
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
the joke is that they used the same form in the UK - ie asked UK photographers to sign a form that stated it was enforceable in California.
I didnt send any shots to anyone other than my outlet and never heard a thing. I may have even deliberately got the dates / venues mixed up, which i sometimes do for the most extreme rights grabs (of which this is up there!)
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Start packing a disposable film camera (or taket them with your cell phone) for shows that have contracts like this and then send those photos.
Originally posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
moemoephoto edited this topic 2 months ago.
|
 |
It's crap like this that makes me just stick to smaller bands and not deal with outrageous contracts like that.
It would be nice if one of the big name photographers wrote an article for Rolling Stone fighting against this kind of stuff. Would make for an interesting read.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Thing is the bigger bands, and I mean bigger bands, do not require releases. go figure
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
mccartney had a release, but then again he was handled by NLM. however, it was not a rights-grabber. but i'd say you are correct; of the larger profile bands I've shot, i think the only ones who even had standard releases were Muse and The Cure. nothing for neil young, radiohead, green day, judas priest, wilco, etc.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Muse didn't have one when I just shot them with U2. U2 doesn't have a release either. NIN did but it wasn't a rights grab.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
The bigger bands don't do it because they use more professional experienced PR firms who know what's best for their clients.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
courtney, what about the waiver for KISS?
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@ben<>
I don't feel that is totally true. Many times these are coming from management and not the PR firm. Plus many of these are very professional experienced PR firms and not all of their artists have releases to sign.
@tinnitus:
KISS was a rights grab but they haven't been collecting them at all the shows..
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Well guys I have to say I thank you for all your feedback, I went to sleep at around 3AM EST and woke up to all this and it actually put a smile on my face. Its important to me that people understand that I have no ill will towards anyone, but its the simple dynamic of the industry we all work in that I hate.
I am really happy though to see all of you agree with the action and will do the same for your own personal work. Its important that not only the 20 or so photographers above understand what a right's grab is but that the other hundereds and thousands of other people who photograph bands know what it is as well.
When you shoot a show and encounter one of these make it a point to explain it to the other photographers why you should not sign the release. There is an ever increasingly larger pool of photographers out there who are young and inexperienced that will sign one of these releases. You can spot them from a mile away at the venue check in and they tend to be the ones who want to chat the most about photography. I say chat them up, drop a bit of knowledge on them and make them understand that if they love doing this and want to keep doing it, they need to understand how it works. We all were in their position at one point, but in reality if they sign the contract and you don't it bolsters the continuous use of the contract. I have been to shows where as a collective group of photographers we threatened to walk and I am not talking about a show at the Topeka Kansas Dust Bowl (sorry Kansas folks, no harm meant). I am talking about shows at Madison Square Garden or other major venues in NYC. You know what happens when the press pool walks away, they suddenly want to bargin, you may not get the whole contract pulled, but crossing out the rights grab can sometimes be enough to sway the group.
In the end its up to you as an individual to start the movement in your town or city wherever it may be, like smokey the bear says, only you can prevent forest fires. Well in this case its more like Shooty the Photographer says, only you can prevent ridiculous contracts.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Also, to address what NelsonMuntzPhoto said about what Steve Martin the owner of Nasty Little Man had to say about the thread you started. I welcome his feedback on the topic. I think the reason he took issue with you in particular was there seemed to be some ill will on your part towards one of the folks that works for him. I don't have any of that towards him or his company.
I would like an answer as to why they are one of the only major PR firms today who almost always requires a rights grab contract when shooting their artists. His company represents some of the biggest acts in the music industry and thats a great thing. Clearly he knows what he is doing or he would not have obtained the level of sucess he has thus far. Hell, I am a huge fan of most of the acts on his roster, I even purchase their music as opposed to downloading it.
None of that excuses the idea thoguh that their company makes it extremely difficult to be a professional photographer in today's music industry. I don't want to publish photos of Thom Yorke picking his nose or Ryan Adams throwing a temper tantrum on stage. Both instances have probably happened at some point in their careers. But I also get that they have to protect their clients, I would just appreciate it if they would treat all of us with the same respect that we are required to treat them with.
Does not seem to be a whole lot wrong with that idea does there?
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
"shows where as a collective group of photographers we threatened to walk"
what show was that and did they actually walk? or did they change the contract?
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
natasha, it's been my experience that rigid waivers will be modified or even totally waived if there is resistance put up by major newspapers or national print mags.
however, the odds of this also happening for the smaller media outlet shooters is remote. think about it from the band's management perspective - if they let dailies and big mags walk, that will certainly decrease coverage of the event. however, there are plenty of times where papers still cover the event, but there are just no photos (or photos from another show). if the smaller blogs/websites don't cover it, it's a very small percentage of total traffic associated w/ that event.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Natasha, it actually slips my mind now which show it was at MSG, it was a year or two ago. It may have been Pearl Jam, but I don't think their contract is ever a rights grab, just a limit on publication. I know it happened, I did not initiate it, but when I do remember it I will post about it. Also, they changed the contract, per say by letting us cross out the rights grab. Its tough to make everyone literally walk away, we all have commitments to a publication and the PR outlets certainly know that.
It is nice though to shoot at someplace like MSG or Radio City because I believe in my heart that the folks that work with the press at those venues actually do give a crap. On many occasions they have gone above and beyond for the media when they did not have to and it's always something I appreciate from the folks that work there. They have regularly stood up to a band's manager or publicist if they were treating the press pool bad because they treat it like its their house and they are the only ones who call the shots. Its a refreshing aside from the norm.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@Eric: I have a current Pearl Jam contract and there are no right grabs. I doubt it was them unless they have changed their contract.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Earlier this year I balked at signing a Morrissey photo release form with a similarly ridiculous rights grab, and I subsequently wrote about the experience (http://blogs.philadelphiaweekly.com/music/2009/03/19/concert-photographers-of-the-world-unite/).
The next day I was contacted by one of Morrissey's people telling me I should have just contacted them before the show and shared with them my problems with the release form, and that they wouldn't have made me sign it. They also asked me to take down the blog (I politely refused). Which tells me that these contracts (in many instances) are more heavyhanded scare tactics than anything, and that in the end the artists and PR firms would rather have the photo coverage -- and avoid the bad press that comes from being so heavyhanded -- than force photogs to sign them. So photographers, I think, have more leverage than they realize, and no one, not even the novices or easily intimidated, should have to feel bullied by these release forms or fear threatening to walk away if presented with one.
An additional point: While photographing an arena show recently, I was chatting with a photographer from a major media outlet, and he said that his outlet has a policy of not signing any such contracts. They've still not been prevented from shooting any shows at all. So the big boys don't really have to worry about this sort of thing, so I doubt any of them will really be going to bat in any public way for the little guys, unless their sense of fairness compels them to do so.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Eric M. Townsend :
Steve Martin will say "Its the bands management NOT his firm" ...which no one believes.
I shot McCartney 4 years ago and there was no release NOW he does have one when he is represented by NLM.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Funny story... A band I really like was playing a show and I had already bought a ticket so the management said the would just leave a pass at the door.... When I arrived they told me I'd get to shoot the first 2 and there was a HORRIBLE rights grabbing contract waiting for me. So I obviously turned the photo pass down.
As I was walking my camera back to my car I noticed other people walking right in with a camera. So I followed suit and got to shoot throughout the whole night.
What sense does that make?
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@moemoephoto - I figured as much about Pearl Jam, it was not them.
@michael alan goldberg - Glad to see you put up a bit of a fight, all within reason and you have a right to do so. As far as photographers from dalies go, you are correct. They never sign and its common knowledge throughout the industry. Even some wire services don't sign and are not expected to do so. Its mostly due the fact that they are on salary and they sign a contract with their employer that states they can not sign contracts on their employer's behalf. Hence even if they did sign a rights grab it is invalid.
@NelsonMuntzPhoto - I agree with you, unless all the band's have the same management that cannnot be the case, it could clearly be as you said. Although with McCartney, the latest tour at Citi Field had a publication limitation, but not a rights grab. It was also not done through NLM though, it was through MPL Tours Inc. even though NLM facilitated the press.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
To contribute to the discussion (and to answer @Ben first comment) this is the explanation I got from an identical contract when I asked explanations...
"you can only shoot for stuff you have been commissioned for. Basically it's to stop agencies and photographers from selling on their photos, so unless you can prove who you are doing it for you won't be able to come, sorry."
...I answered and will put everything online when finished the e-mail exchange.
I am not rolling stones, but I always published these things to make photographers and the industry aware. It would be nice that photographers express their position in as many places as they can about this.
Here there is one other example of an e-mail exchange I had with a band management
'night
Live on 35mm
Originally posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
liveon35mm.com edited this topic 6 weeks ago.
|
 |
Enjoyed this discussion, just got a contract the A.F.I. people asked me to look over, made a new post.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I am not a liar. It's management's decision in every case. maybe your reading comprehension skills are not very good but you might notice my company's name is never on these. the artists' are.
here is a breakdown of my active clients' positions on photo contracts. could save you guys some time traveling to shows if you want to refuse to shoot anyone who requires them:
Ryan Adams - contract
AFI - contract
Arcade Fire - no contract
Beastie Boys - contract
Beck - contract
Andrew Bird - no contract
Foo Fighters - contract
The Get Up Kids - no contract
Jimmy Eat World - contract
The Mars Volta - contract
Mates Of State - no contract
Paul McCartney - contract
Nine Inch Nails - contract
Ra Ra Riot - no contract
Radiohead - no contract
Spoon - no contract
The Strokes - no contract
Them Crooked Vultures - contract
Tokyo Police Club - no contract
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
And just so you players know: A bunch of these artists you're mentioning do have the same management: Them Crooked Vultures, Sonic Youth, AFI, Foo Fighters, Ryan Adams and Queens of the Stone Age.
"NelsonMuntz," I complained because you and your loser friends were making personal attacks, many of which were lies, such as us working with "Smashing Pumkins" (sic) and my employees being yelled at by them.
You don't like the policies, don't shoot. There's nothing I can do about them and nothing you guys can do about it either. Some artists require them, some don't, and some don't allow photographers at all. Case by case.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
@smartnlm: I dont believe the issue is with contracts per se, but with contracts containing a rights grab. Seems ironic that parts of the music industry whine about people stealing "music" and then presents a contract to a photographer essentially stealing their work.
And what moron would think that the phrase "throughout the
universe in perpetuity" is anything more than pure fuckwittery? Are they afraid that the Daleks, Klingons or Vogons are going to "illegally" use a picture of the Beastie Boys on Omicron Delta II or suchlike.
"and nothing you guys can do about it either" - I think you're wrong there. If, like the Swedes, the papers stopped photographing and publicising the wankers with the shite contracts the lack of publicity would soon have an effect.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
smartnlm - you deal with artists who are very protective of their intellectual property rights.
Can you answer the question; why aren't these artists respecting the intellectual property rights of other creative artists?
As far as your statement that there is nothing you can do; I find that a little hard to believe. I have worked in PR for more than 10 years and if I explained to clients that making undue demands on the media may result in less coverage or negative coverage you can bet your bottom dollar that they'd take notice and make sure they tried to accommodate reasonable expectations from members of the media.
Originally posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
Black Shadow Photography edited this topic 6 weeks ago.
|
|
@smartnib
the question is only one, the answer still has to arrive to my ears.
"Why musicians and their management pretend photographers to give away the same rights they are so jealous to protect?"
Until someone will come up with a believable answer, I will keep thinking that in PR's mind photographers are seen as a bunch of annoying parasites writing e-mail to enter to gigs for free hence in no need of any respect. Which is not the best position for a PR to be to deal with his customers, is it?
Live on 35mm
Originally posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
liveon35mm.com edited this topic 6 weeks ago.
|
|
Part of the role of any publicist/PR person is to advise and educate their clients on the best way to deal with the media. I feel that any publicist who doesn't advise their clients that rights grab releases are not in the best interest of their clients is doing their clients a disservice.
What is the reason that the artists demand to own the rights of other creative people?
Can someone please explain why it is necessary for someone to over ride the relationship between a photographer and their client and expect the rights to work they don't pay for? Bear in mind the photographer's client is who he is shooting for not the artist they are shooting (unless that artist has contracted the photographer).
Originally posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
Black Shadow Photography edited this topic 6 weeks ago.
|
|
@smartnlm: I do like your involvement in these threads and I do hope that you continue to partake in these discussions because the fact is that these are issues and it is much better for both sides if this is a conversation rather than a complaint thread.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
@mochrum: the line "throughout the universe in perpetuity" is actually very common in contracts and has been for a long time.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
This thread is an excellent one and extremely constructive, so in that spirit I will offer up my couple of words of wisdom!
My wife (luckily for me) is a lawyer and has had a quick look at the contract here, and in her opinion (though she has stessed that it is hers only and needs more time to sift through it) In the UK at least, it would be totally unenforcable. Even if it was signed by you, if action were to be taken in court, they would deem it an unacceptable, unfair contract as no consideration whatsoever is given to the photographer.
They mention taking away your moral rights, then in the same clause offer to give you a credit (the credit being your moral right as author) so that falls flat. She laughed at "...the Photos are and shall be new and original with me and shall be capable of copyright protection throughout the universe, that they do not and shall not violate or infringe upon any common law or statutory right of any party, or
constitute unfair competition and are not now and shall not be the subject of any litigation." She said how can ANYONE be expected to know the lcopyright laws of every country on the planet, not even lawyers do, not even the courts, and you would never be expected to know when signing the contract five minutes before you shoot.
In a word, absolutely unenforcable, and a really badly written contract.
I've sent a copy to an Intellectual Property lawyer friend of mine also to see what he thinks, so will let you know
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
The only thing I would have to about the whole issue is, if a band has a contract, that is their deal, who cares, its not the end of the world, ...
but is it that hard for someone to let them know that they have that contract before hand so they do not waste their time taking off of work and driving to a show to photograph it only to receive a contract and have to go home, having the photographer lose money for gas and time, and also loose money for not providing coverage to their editorial they are working for...
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Steve-
why didn't you put which of your acts have "rights grabbing" contracts ?
don't you think something is wrong with a photographer shooting an act and handing over their rights for free?
I am sure you do not work for free.
ishotyourband - you are 100% right. You should be informed of all contracts before shooting an act. If you don't like it - sneak your camera in and shoot from the crowd.
I think most photographers do not mind signing a release - saying where the photos are going...even a 1 time run. We mind when it says you are signing over your rights and will not be compensated (and you do not find this out until you reach the box office).
Originally posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
NelsonMuntzPhoto edited this topic 6 weeks ago.
|
 |
I'm coming at this issue from a publication's viewpoint. When I receive access to any show, I request any contracts to be forwarded through prior. As the publisher I can then decide if I want to send a photographer. There have been a number of times where I declined the shoot due to the contract (Ryan Adams, Coldplay off the top of my head. There have been others).
Personally, I am not too concerned about a restriction on where the images will be published, but a rights grab I will pass on.
I feel that publications need to be more forcefully with these contracts. Basically my photographers are taking the images for my magazine, and if they turn up and sign something that then restricts what I can do with them, and what the photog can do with them, that sucks. Personally I don't mind what the photog does with the images, as long as they go into print first.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
So if it is the management that makes teh right-grabs.... Who gets the rights, the PR or the management or the band?
Do the bands know their own management do this?
Originally posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
moemoephoto edited this topic 6 weeks ago.
|
|
Also, I agree.... I don't mind contracts much, I just don't sell my rights along with my soul when signing them.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@moemoephoto: With Coldplay, it went to the record company if I remember rightly
Originally posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
The Lockup Garage edited this topic 6 weeks ago.
|
|
I have seen contracts that go directly to the band (band name LLC), the managament, the PR that were written directl in there...... But I have seen others that do not explicitely say but the PR firm is at the top of the contract.
A lot of teh times it is not eh management is what I am getting at.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
in the cases of my artists who make "rights grabs," they are often people who have been charged exorbitant amounts of money to buy their own images for box sets, merchandise, etc. so it is a two edged sword. think about how you'd feel: you give someone a free ticket, a photo pass, and 10-15 years later when you're putting your box set together that same person is extorting you for $50K for a rare image of your dead friend.
i realize this is a forum for amateurs and n00bs so this probably won't get any sympathy. you'll probably mostly think "well those guys are loaded and we're struggling geniuses" so you're the ones who are being wronged.
personally i don't care the contracts, "rights grabs" or not. i've had the arguments with the clients who use them. they're not going to change their minds. either they want to own those rights or they don't. that's what it comes down to, nothing more or less.
@moemoephoto: what would a PR firm do with the rights? i have no use for rights or live images. the artists own them. they don't go to us and never have.
if you guys want to blame me for it, then go right ahead. ignore this if you like but i'm an actual professional telling you how it works.
@nelsonmuntz: anyone who wants to know can and should ask to see the agreements in advance. i am doing this as a courtesy to you. i don't have to reply. learn to show some respect.
do you work for free? or is your argument that you want to be paid multiple times for the same job?
@ishotyourband: make sure to call or email and ask if you want to know what's in the contracts. if you're a vegetarian you don't drive 2 hours to a restaurant hoping there's something on the menu you can eat. so find out in advance. it's not my responsibility to let you know. sorry.
@blackshadow guy: hopefully the above explanation will shed some light on why some artists want those rights. if it doesn't, it doesn't.
as for your bigger picture advice on how not to do my clients a "disservice," don't worry about me or my clients. unless there's some other metric i'm incapable of measuring, they all seem to be doing fine in the media and career-wise.
anyone who has any problem with these contracts should just shoot artists who don't require them. they're not going away. you'd all be better served finding out who does and doesn't require them rather than bitching and trying to place blame.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Its an interesting debate and I understand both sides. Obviously I understand why we don't want to sign it as artists and I understand why the Management wants it. Both sides have equal claims to it. But I have learned not just NLM but the Management Co of these bands are actually great people to deal with.
@smartnlm is right, they don't have control over it. These bands are all under the same Mgmt co. A few times now I have sold images of the Foo Fighters after said management co came to me directly. They could have said we want those images now but they were great and while they didn't have to fight for me to get anything through this they respected my work and wanted to see me compensated. They are just protecting their back end and the overall image of their artists. Understandable. In the end however, you will hear nothing but good talk from me about them and NLM.
This is a tricky business because so much of it depends on access, to me it has been important to establish relationships that will continue to get me this access. It would be pretty easy for them to deny us any access to these shows, these bands don't exactly need thousands of photos of them any more. I know I may get lambasted by the other photographers on here saying "you are doing us all a disservice by dealing with them" but come on guys, we are lucky. We get access no one else does, why do we have to have such a sense of entitlement about it? I know it's a job but step back and look at it when you were just trying to break in. I know the rights grabs suck but I guess it is a matter of attitude and how you approach it. Maybe my story is the exception but I think it is a good practice to have that sort of attitude towards it as a whole.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
so joey, you're saying you were able to sell those Foo Fighters images? and all it took was a little professional negotiation and diplomacy? that's CRAZY! so it's actually better to enter into a direct dialogue with the parties who enforce these contracts than to bitch about how evil they are on flickr forums? WOW food for thought for a lot of people on this thread!
seriously, there you have it. as i said in the other thread, everyone here has a choice: there's more to being a professional than putting "PRO" next to your icon and username here. part of being a professional is developing and utilizing diplomacy, negotiation and communication skills.
so again you've all got a choice: you can go the nelsonmuntz path and talk shit about and post unflattering photos of the people you blame for your own lack of success or you can go joey's path and investigate how things actually work, develop relations, negotiate exceptions to these contracts. the latter is a little more difficult and time consuming than just flaming people on flickr but my professional advice is to put down the doritos bag and work on developing some of those relationships.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
also @eric m townsend:
you wrote: "Hell, I am a huge fan of most of the acts on his roster, I even purchase their music as opposed to downloading it."
so does that mean you usually steal most music by other artists? interesting language for someone who starts an anti-"rights grab" thread.
just sayin'.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I find it painfully ironic that we're being lectured about professionalism by a dude who insinuates we're "n00bs," "amateurs," eat Doritos (gross), and overall is about as rude as they come.
Seriously, man. How about you try to develop relations and utilize diplomacy?
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
@Steve said, "in the cases of my artists who make "rights grabs," they are often people who have been charged exorbitant amounts of money to buy their own images for box sets, merchandise, etc. so it is a two edged sword. think about how you'd feel: you give someone a free ticket, a photo pass, and 10-15 years later when you're putting your box set together that same person is extorting you for $50K for a rare image of your dead friend."
That's when management might be just as well served by a contract stating that it gives the artist the right to license the photos for the current stock rate at the time of their desired use. I've signed a number of those. I've even seen one of those from a venue (House of Blues).
"i realize this is a forum for amateurs and n00bs so this probably won't get any sympathy. you'll probably mostly think "well those guys are loaded and we're struggling geniuses" so you're the ones who are being wronged."
Please don't paint the over 19,000 members of this group with the same brush. We aren't all Nelson Muntz. We aren't all out to screw the bands. We aren't all "amateurs and n00bs". We aren't paparazzi. This issue is not simply about money... and discussing an issue of importance to concert photographers in a concert photography discussion group is not unreasonable. It doesn't mean that people aren't doing anything to address it offline, nor does it mean everyone in the discussion agrees with everyone else in the discussion... whether the reasons for their opinion or the way they express it.
"part of being a professional is developing and utilizing diplomacy, negotiation and communication skills."
I agree.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@smartnlm
Thanks for taking the time to address some of my questions and the concerns others have raised in this discussion.
One thing that hasn't been answered is; how can you expect a photographer to sign a contract that over rides the contract they have with their client?
Also another aspect that The Lockup Garage raised is that these contracts expect a photographer to give undertakings on behalf of the publication. None of the publications I shoot for (magazines and daily newspapers) have given me the authority to sign these undertakings on their behalf.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
"make sure to call or email and ask if you want to know what's in the contracts."
smartnlm, i tried numerous times to get a response from the rep @ NLM regarding TCV and the possibility of a waiver. never got any sort of response in return.
"anyone who has any problem with these contracts should just shoot artists who don't require them. they're not going away. you'd all be better served finding out who does and doesn't require them rather than bitching and trying to place blame."
this is disingenuous as i've seen shooters for major outlets have these sorts of contracts waived, but that courtesy isn't extended to everyone.
"so joey, you're saying you were able to sell those Foo Fighters images? and all it took was a little professional negotiation and diplomacy?"
i know that this isn't on NLM, but Macca's management didn't get back to me when i had a time-sensitive request in to make a photo sale to a magazine.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
"you give someone a free ticket, a photo pass, and 10-15 years later when you're putting your box set together that same person is extorting you for $50K for a rare image of your dead friend."
If you took that very same situation but switched it around and replaced "photo" with "song", I'm pretty sure that the passage of 15 years isn't going to make a band give away their music for free just because someone else "wants" to use a song.
Rights grabs are nothing more than a tantrum. "WAAA! But I WANT IT for my box set! That means I should be able to have it for free!"
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
wow,,, got home from work and now we are all dubbed as noobs. .
talk about putting the PRO in professionalism.
not everybody is attacking you, most are just stating their opinions on rights grabbers. and it just so happens the band is with NLM so of course NLM will pop into the conversation. That doesnt mean they are all attacking you.I couldn't say the same for you after that comment. calling everyone noobs..
Originally posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
ishotyourband edited this topic 6 weeks ago.
|
|
"do you work for free? or is your argument that you want to be paid multiple times for the same job? "
do you really not get the concept of different clients? it's one thing to be commissioned by a certain entity to produce photos for them; if someone else who hasn't paid for our time/skill/effort asks for the product, you are suggesting that we just give photos away for the asking?
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@xmeltingboyx: sorry but every time i address this stuff it's because someone is venting in a public forum, badmouthing my company, etc. instead of just getting in touch with me directly and professionally to voice a grievance.
people who think a PR company is trying to "grab" their "rights" are amateurs and n00bs.
@Mochrum Man: i would try to address what i can make sense of here... but you're "definitely not a "pro" however, and will thankfully never encounter (me) or any of (my) shite bands" so there's nothing to talk about really.
@miseryxchord: if you have suggestions as to how management might be better served, send them to me via email and they will be forwarded along. works better than badmouthing people in public forums (not that you've done that).
i don't mean to paint you all with the same brush but whenever flickr groups are called to my attention, it's because people in the group are doing a pile-on and blaming my firm for these releases. even if they've shot two of my clients without signing anything one week then were presented with a contract the next.
@black shadow: contracts are negotiable. i don't expect anyone to sign anything. if they don't want to, i'm fine with them walking. but if you do have a contract with a major publication, there are work-arounds as some people in this forum have noted.
@ tinnitus photography says: you were assigned and approved for a photo pass and didn't get an answer? sorry of that's so. we do like to take care of these things in advance when possible.
@grittypix: you should familiarize yourself with my roster before making this argument. many of my artists give music away for free.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@ishotyourband: sorry man, calling it as i see it. venting like this in a public forum is amateurish, especially when the "facts" being thrown around about my company are lies or errors like your own admitted "Radiohead and Spoon have required these releases." though to your credit, you admitted the error when i corrected you.
if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
@ tinnitus photography: i used to make a living as a freelance writer and was not allowed to repurpose different quotes from the same interview at various publications so we won't see eye to eye on that.
however if you'll scroll up you'll see that there have been exceptions made and that people who have made professional requests to use shots elsewhere have received permission to do so.
Originally posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
smartnlm edited this topic 6 weeks ago.
|
|
@Steve it's unfortunate that your people are the ones who have to present these contracts to the media. It puts you right in the crosshairs when they react. In most cases NLM is the only contact people have for covering these artists, and they're never in touch with or receive any response from the band's management... ergo, you end up the great Satan.
I will be happy to contact both you, and management for the band I'm concerned about shooting, about the contract I saw on Flickr yesterday (they won't be out here for months yet)... but I still find value in gaining insight from other people who've already had to address the same thing. There are some very well respected photographers in this group who regularly work through you and photo your clients. Amidst the complaints there can be very useful discussion here.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I contacted Steve off this board after his initial response, opened a private discussion with him but in reality our discussion pertains just as much to everyone else's concerns. So I am posting my response to publicly below.
************
Steve,
Honestly I understand where you are coming from. My mentality throughout the whole discussion was not to attack what you do directly, I apologize for coming across in that manner. You are correct that I should not blame the gatekeeper and that it is a naive mentality to take in the larger scope of things. I stated, but should have been more specific to the point, that your company does represent a number of artists who require contracts which ask for photographer's rights. The reason that makes you a target in as simple of a way I can state it is that you represent a very large successful group of artists who require these contracts. That by all measures is a very respectable thing and you deserve credit for that. But from other folks point of view its not as fun, that being my issue alone though and something I should not lead people into thinking you perpetuate.
As you said the group is filled with a number of amateurs or people starting their careers, but its not all people who just fell off the back of the truck.. Fortunately I am moving beyond that stage in my career and have found success and built a base of clients with contacts at a number of labels, management firms and major pr outlets. I am very thankful for that. From time to time though I do shift my mentality to trying to warn people of the pitfalls experienced in our side of the entertainment industry. Hence where the motivation for this particular line of thought came from, aside from being angry about the contract in general (it is the worst contract I have been presented with to date). But I think the discussion has moved beyond that now.
That being said, you have listened to our points, and we have listened to yours. However, during this whole exchange I feel you are simply forgoing the acknowledgment that our concerns deserve to a certain degree. We have come the the conclusion that you are the middle man per say, so you are correct that you deserve a pass on many of the things we are discussing. Some of the very important points we are making would be better suited in a discussion with management rather than yourself. So I will leave them at the door in the rest of what I have to say. It would be nice though if you actually understood why we have a problem with all of this and are not simply complaining to hear the sound of our own voices. It may not be your problem, but it does involve you in someway. Its not your decision that is required on the matter, but a better understanding of why the situation is the way it is will never be a bad thing for anyone involved. From all that you have said I have a much better understanding of how things stand on your end. It seems fair to me that now you have a better understanding of where we come from as well.
Much like musicians get royalties for their music, photographers are entitled to creative fees for the use of their work as well. If you don't understand the irony in that its simply ignorance to the point we are trying to make and overlooking one of the most important parts of how we make a living. My copyright lasts for 70 years after I die, which means if I live a long and healthy life that my grandchildren should receive royalties from my images when they are used. That means currently 125+ years of royalties are possible as a result of my work. The exact same amount of time your clients are granted. As far as I know my grandchildren will need to pay for your clients work someday, regardless of whether they are alive or not as a result of the copyright laws. When it comes to rights, we appear to be on common turf, respecting those rights is another story though. With the contracts that take rights from photographers we lose all the rights I discussed above, rights we are entitled to as are your clients and any person in the country who creates things for a living.
As photographers we need to be able to license our work. Its a big part of how most photographers make a living. Editorial fees are not enough to pay our bills and in some cases do not exist. I don't agree with photographers asking for $50k for one photo, but in another respect it does depend on usage. If you want to use the photo on a billboard for 10 years, $50k might actually be pretty small number. If my work is the visual aid in selling millions of dollars worth of someone else's work does it not seem fair I am compensated for that? Beyond this when you take issue with me having a problem with the contract that limits my rights you are taking issue with the fact that I am the gatekeeper of my work. An idea that creeps into the territory of becoming a hypocrite. You are one of the gatekeepers for your clients as are management and a record label but for many of us we are all of those things combined into one. So take that into account. You have one issue to worry about, we have them all on our plate 24/7. Its not your problem, but its the principle behind the reason why this discussion exists.
With much of the publishing industry in the tank and the internet lagging behind in pay rates it has an affect on all of us, yourself included. The internet is a great thing for all of us in the many regards as well. It allows you to reach a much wider audience for your artists. However it also allows the theft of the artist's music, which as you stated means you get paid less and in turn we also get paid less. No one is happy about this but we also don't purposely try and put a limit on the artists as they do to us in some cases. The power structure works from the top down and in this case we are already looking up so its appreciated when management and artists don't try and push us down another rung on the ladder with the types of contracts we are discussing.
I happily pay for all the music that I obtain, I am very clear on the fact that if I steal the work of the artists I photograph, I will not be photographing them for long. I also understand that if I listen to and admire the artist then I must pay for their work in order to allow them to continue to make the work I enjoy. An idea you are saying the music industry chooses to neglect when it comes to photographers. Furthermore, I tired to treat you with respect in this discussion, you are a smart man, I believe you understood what I mean in saying that I pay for the artists work. I would appreciate you not trying to patronize that. If you want to nitpick at other comments I made, that is your right to do so.
It could also be said you fail to realize that photographers are the ones who have created the image your clients rely on over the years. That may not be completely true in today's society because of things like YouTube and the internet in general where fans can help that image perpetuate. Now an image is easier than ever to present and grow on a mass scale to a large audience. So you may feel that you can forgo the use of quality photography as you said you don't have a particular interest in our work directly. In the end though you will always need the photos that the band provides you with to use on their behalf. I believe you would agree that bad photos do not help to get your band's promotional photos published. A bad photo will never make someone flipping through a magazine stop and take a second look at an article.
The best press release in the world can not compel the reader into the same thing a single photo can, even though the writing may be top notch. The old saying a photo is worth a thousand words will never die, but the amount of words the photo is worth may decrease because the photos will get worse and worse over time if photographers cannot make a livable wage. Photography is not what it once was in our world, its not respected nearly as much and that saddens me. Thats not your fault nor ours, its the fault of outlets like TMZ and US Weekly making everyone think that someone with a camera is a paparazzi. It still takes a great photographer to make a great photo, but in today's world the definition of a good photo has been redefined by just having an image in general. Its made even more interesting based on how much you paid for the image. The worst photo is the best photo if you get it for free according to many magazines and management companies. That is an idea that these rights grab contracts perpetuate.
In the end I suppose it all comes down to convictions, I am not a man of religious beliefs, but I still feel passionate about my convictions. One of those being that my work is created by me and I should be the one who gets to decide how it is used. In today's industry that is a conviction I am increasingly being forced to let go of and as you said I will probably have to continue on that path even further.We both have our point of view on the issue and you feel the way you do for valid reasons, as do I. We may never see eye to eye, but I do have a new found bit of knowledge thanks to your advice and I appreciate that. I enjoy learning, whether it be from my mistakes or from someone else who's life I may not quite understand. Its one of the reason I love my job, I get to learn something new everyday while being tossed into someone else's life, sometimes while kicking and screaming but nevertheless I do my best to keep an open mind.
Furthermore, in the end people in your position will always have the power. I can't shoot your bands unless you let me and after this exchange you very well may not let me do that. It again though is your decision. I use my real name on this forum for a reason, because I do my best to think about what I say before I hit the post button. I am not perfect, but I feel safe in saying what I did. I tried to make a point and gave you the respect you deserved while allowing you to make yours. Beyond that I can't control much else. I simply ask that just because you represent the upper tier of artists in the music industry you do not forget on a whole we all are trying to make a living. Some folks go about it in different ways than others, not all that I agree with but we work in the same industry and I have a wish that maybe someday we can all do things without stepping on each others toes while still making some income.
Eric
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
"in the cases of my artists who make "rights grabs," they are often people who have been charged exorbitant amounts of money to buy their own images for box sets, merchandise, etc. so it is a two edged sword. think about how you'd feel: you give someone a free ticket, a photo pass, and 10-15 years later when you're putting your box set together that same person is extorting you for $50K for a rare image of your dead friend."
Can they not easily fix this by having a band photographer or tour photographer who is on their payroll? Therefore any images he takes can be structured as work-product and/or shared copyright. Of course that is a lot more expensive than just getting someone to sign a copyright assignment. But, they'd have a lot more to choose from, and done in the style they like the most, where they look the best, and they could choose from thousands upon thousands of images. They'd never get that opportunity by approaching individual photographers who shot them 15 years earlier.
I also wish you had made the list of your clients to show which had contracts and which had ownership transfers. There is a big difference.
"i realize this is a forum for amateurs and n00bs?
Oh now that's just petty. :-( My feelings are hurt.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
The reason I follow this forum is for discussions about lighting on the different tours, or if shows are soundboard shoots, rights grabbers, etc. It gives everyone some type of information to use before you get to the venue and it gives photographers a general knowledge about their assignments.
I've benefited quite a bit from following this group over the past few months. And I'm sure that posting which bands have rights grab contracts has saved many people disappointing trips to venues, too. But informing each other can be done in a professional way, instead of having to slander and attack artists, management, or PR companies.
Instead of using this opportunity to talk to someone that runs a prominent PR company and to find out more about how things are run in the real world of the music industry, a lot of people have chosen a sorry route by flinging insults back and forth.
I don't have a case to plead with anyone, so this thread is obsolete to me. I know how the industry works, and I have my publisher backing me in everything, so I'm one of the lucky few. I've been in the position of being presented contracts, and I/everyone started off at pretty much the same point, so I understand and sympathize with the average photographer who isn't shooting for a major publication. I'm not going to tell anyone how to run their business operations, but being professional and communicating grievances, if there are any, politely and courteously have gotten me far more positive results than slinging insults in every direction when something doesn't go exactly how I want it to go.
So I hope we didn't scare Steve away...and I also hope we can use his involvement in this thread in a constructive way so that the thousands of group members and those who don't belong to the group but still read threads can benefit in some way or another from the information we gather in this discussion.
Just my two cents.
Originally posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
www.ivorkphoto.com edited this topic 6 weeks ago.
|
|
first @maryelle: sorry didn't meet to hurt anyone's feelings. but i am beyond tired of being tipped off that people are talking s**t here. you don't but you know who i mean.
yes the photographer on the payroll is a fix and so is a photo contract. but when an artist is just starting out there's neither room in the budget nor in the van for a tour photographer. at least that's been my experience. :)
@ Eric: we've already established a civil dialogue and i appreciate how much effort you're putting into these posts, however it's getting way off on a tangent.
let me clarify: i understand why many of you want these contracts amended or altogether gone BUT THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO GO ABOUT IT.
find out who can make the changes you want and open a professional dialogue with them. at least one person in this thread has done so and it worked.
you titled the thread "DO NOT SHOOT THEM CROOKED VULTURES!" you did not title it "WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT THESE FORMS." That touched off a thread that had people blaming my company for the agreements, calling me a liar and a "cnut" (!) etc. I'm a big boy and can take it but I am going to clear things up whenever these things are brought to my attention.
To clarify: You should get paid for the multiple usages. You should figure out how to work with the artists and managers to make the changes you'd like made. stirring up a frenzy amongst bitter folks who have never even attempted to do so will accomplish nothing.
i really hope this makes it clear because this is my final post on this thread: I DO NOT NECESSARILY DISAGREE WITH ANY OF THE POINTS EXPRESSED HERE--ONLY WITH THE WAY THEY ARE MADE.
speaking to some of your other points:
to say that "photographers are the ones who have created the image your clients rely on over the years" is a stretch. like saying that writers created their personalities too. you're reporters. at least on a concert photography level. i'm not belittling that--i went to school for journalism--but don't overstate your role.
also, to expect to make a living off concert photography is as risky a career path--if not more so--as expecting to make a living off of live music. in both cases, you'd better be truly exceptional if you expect these copyrights to generate significant income for successive generations of your family.
I will say that at least we are having a civilized discussion. Hope I don't come off too condescending. I suppose it's just strange to me to see some of the people in the forum making the same complaints for years but never doing anything constructive to change anything.
finally, a few people have contacted me directly to open a dialogue re: passing on some suggestions on amending these agreements to those who can do so. We'll see what happens.
Originally posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
smartnlm edited this topic 6 weeks ago.
|
|
"first @maryelle: sorry didn't meet to hurt anyone's feelings. but i am beyond tired of being tipped off that people are talking s**t here. you don't but you know who i mean.
yes the photographer on the payroll is a fix and so is a photo contract. but when an artist is just starting out there's neither room in the budget nor in the van for a tour photographer. at least that's been my experience. :)"
I was kidding about the hurt feelings. Really thought I typed a smiley there. :-D
True, probably no room or money for a photographer when they're just starting out. However, I don't think the solution to getting decent photography, and especially at the beginning when those people need marketing and publicity, is for bands to demand ownership of another's creative work. I am sure you and I both know artists who have railed very vocally about being forced to assign copyright over to a record label for their songs--and they at least got production, funding, marketing, distribution, advertising, art direction, etc., out of it! A photographer shooting some concert gets nothing except, maybe, a ticket.
And, in most cases, the photographer inside the barrier is providing content for a media outlet. Even some little blog is advertising. That is free publicity, which if a band had to pay for every time for every paper & site, would cost many times over what it costs to get some pictures, maybe, in 15 years for their box set. There has to be some kind of middle ground rather than just bands' blithely demanding full ownership and then getting very nasty about it when asked why they are asking another artist to give up copyright when they never would themselves in a parallel situation (e.g., radio station agrees to play their songs in exchange for ownership in perpetuity with no compensation to the band, ever, forever).
Thanks for taking the time to come here and speak.
"but being professional and communicating grievances, if there are any, politely and courteously have gotten me far more positive results than slinging insults in every direction when something doesn't go exactly how I want it to go."
THIS.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I'll take my publisher's hat off now.... I also shoot for my magazine. I suppose one of the perks of being the publisher is that I can pick the gigs I want to shoot. The 2 concerns I have, and we all have with these contacts is the limiting of use, and the possibility of not being paid if, for argument sake, the band grabs the rights and wants to use your image for the cover of their next live album.
Simple solution.
For the limiting of use, I can understand the bands not wanting images to appear on coffee mugs, etc, but rather than just limiting to the single publication, it should list what it can be used for. Things like licencing the images for editorial purposes should be allowed. Isn't that what the purpose of the shoot was for, regardless of what publication it is printed in? Also, things like fine art and personal books, I can see no issue with.
A case in point, I shot Sting last year and was presented with a contract that listed what the images could not be used for, things like making prints, books, re-licencing for editorial. I presented the publicist with an updated contract, asking for these to be removed. I did not get everything, but I am allowed to make prints with the images now.
With the straight out rights grab, I can see no purpose for this when all that is needed is a clause where the artist is allowed to purchase images for whatever purpose at the market rate. This would remove the case of a photographer asking for an outrageous amount. A fair rate would be exchanged, and everyone should be happy.
Am I stupid or is this the simple answer?
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@lockup
You and I are in the same boat. The paper I shoot for owns 23 newspapers in the state alone, with 30 getting started in New York and 20 more being started in Ohio. My images are available for 23 newspapers at any given moment...and that number is growing because our media company is growing. That's not counting potential magazines and other newspapers in the area that sometimes use my photos if their photographers can't make it to the event.
If you take the time to explain that you are shooting for more than one outlet, or maybe an agency, for the event, they will waive a lot of the clauses (if not the entire contract) for you. I haven't met a manager yet who wanted to stop us from publishing a review, photo and photo gallery in 23 different printed papers and working websites.
If I do come across one, I just simply won't shoot the show. It's our prerogative as photographers if we want to shoot or not, and what we will accept in contracts.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Just an FYI -- I have been in touch with Steve and have gotten a group of photographers together to work on creating a release that will hopefully be mutually agreeable for both the bands and photographers. This group consists of photogs from a few different countries and at a few different levels in their careers, also including photogs who are not a member of this group. Once we have everything put together, Steve has agreed to be a liaison and present our proposed contract to his artists' management.
Once we get some feedback, we will update everyone. Hopefully we can at the very least open some lines of communication with bands and make our grievances heard.
I would just like to thank Steve for being kind enough to agree to this, because after the way some of the folks here treated him, he certainly didn't have to be so facilitating. So thank you, Steve.
Originally posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
Carrie Musgrave | Livebabylive.com edited this topic 6 weeks ago.
|
|
@carrie -
Thank you for the update and for facillitating this.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
@Carrie sounds reasonable.
I've just kind of skimmed through the bickering on here.
One point that Steve made was about artists not wanting to have to pay $50k for an image to use in a box set.
My problem with that statement is why should an artist believe they have the free right to images they want to use on a marketed product? Signing a contract would give images away for free, that a band would in turn take, place on a product and sell to the mass markets. Then the band and their affiliates are clearly making a % off of those sales, why shouldn't the photographer be compensated?
I mean, when bands shoot images for their album artwork, their management hires a portrait photographer, right? That photographer is paid to initially shoot the band, am I correct?
Most concert photographers are NOT paid to photograph, they are paid for the product (images/photographs) that they produce.
So if a band wants to use an image of a live performance, theoretically they should look at the situation at hand as a studio photo shoot--- except ditch the studio and insert a concert venue. You want exclusive live photos, then pay for the work of the photographer. It's a service you didn't have, and now want, and it does have a value in the marketplace.
I definitely think there is a better way than ridiculous contracts that take away ALL rights.
I don't think a band should have the right to take away from someone's portfolio.
I feel like maybe there should be a contract in where the photographer must show their images to the band within 6 months of the show. In turn the band has an additional 6 months, 1 year from the concert date, to decided whether or not they would like to purchase shared licensing of that image. After which, if no licensing is purchased, the band relinquishes all rights, and the photographer maintains rights.
'Just a thought.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Interesting discussion!
I think what's been made crystal clear here is that ALL sides bear equal accountability and responsibility for making sure no one is exploited or treated poorly. I'm sure plenty of photographers have extorted artists for ridiculous money, and I'm equally sure (by virtue of some of the contracts I've seen) that some artists are trying to grab copyrights. Both of those things are absolutely wrong. We all just want to be treated fairly and have the hard work we do respected and protected.
I've had a working relationship with Nasty Little Man for something like 13-14 years now, and have had a fine association with the company and the people there past and present -- I've never had a specific contract issue like this come up with them, but I'm sure that if I did, I could have a very reasonable conversation with one of the NLM publicists and see if something could be worked out (which isn't always the case with every PR firm out there, as I have discovered first-hand).
That said, my issue with photo contracts that explicitly demand full rights for work that I have created and is mine is that clearly those contracts were thought out by someone (management, band, whomever) *before* they were sent to me -- and they are presented to me to sign as a condition for shooting the concert -- so I have to assume that that's the official word and that the intent in every word of that contract is serious and non-negotiable. Contracts are legal documents, and meant to be taken seriously as they stand, and aren't supposed to be merely a *starting point* for a conversation about what's allowed and what's not, you know? That's why I balked at signing the Morrissey release and wrote the piece that I did -- I assumed that contract was the final word on the matter.
Sure, sometimes a band or manager or publicist will understand my concerns and either not make me sign a contract, or at least cross out the offending parts while I honor the rest of the contract, and that kind of mutual respect and understanding is always appreciated. On that note, it's a bit easier for me to get through to publicists to talk about these issues because I've been doing music photography and journalism for 15 years and have built good, respectful relationships and consider many of the people I deal with as friends instead of just industry contacts. But the reality is it's very difficult for those starting out to get in touch with people in the music industry or get a return phone call (I remember very well how hard it was for me the first year or so I was doing this). There certainly can be a lack of respect for the "greenhorns," as it were. Bottom line: ALL sides could save a lot of time and trouble and frustration and anger and recrimination if these issues were resolved in the contracts themselves in the first place.
To that end, I'm very happy to hear that Carrie and Steve are leading the way to come up with something resembling a contract that's fair to all parties involved. I welcome the dialogue and would be happy to be part of it if desired.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I am based in the United Kingdom and on another forum of photographers (EPUK - not exclusively music photographers) we have been working on an alternative agreement together with the NUJ (National Union of Journalists), BAPLA (British Picture Libraries Assoc to which all the major agencies belong), and the MU (Musicians Union).
The idea behind the alternative agreement is, when handed a rights grab agreement, the photographer then submits the alternative agreement as one which he/she would be willing to sign instead of the band's.
The alternative agreement is in the stage of getting approval and ratification by the three bodies above so that their names/logos can be added to the bottom .. indicating that it is an agreement approved at the highest level by the musicians and photographers/agencies and constitutes a formal and binding legal document.
The guiding principle is that copyright belongs with the photographer and the photographer agrees not to licence any of his works for uses other than editorial use. All other uses can only be licenced with the written agreement of the band's legal representative.
Once the agreement is up and running we hope to submit it to all the PR agencies, the MMF (Music Managers Forum) as well as the BPI (the record companies organisation) for their endorsement.
In practice it is envisaged that the PR's will go back to the managements and say that the photographers (hopefully en masse) will not sign your agreement but here is one that they will all sign.
The whole idea of images being used on box sets and photographers charging 50k for the usage is a red herring excuse.
I licence images all the time and recently did a box set deal for one of the major bands currently touring the world and the label will not pay more than they deem to be a fair and reasonable price for the licence. I have never heard of anyone getting 50k for licences unless it is an all rights buyout and the highest I have been reliably informed was 30k for a session by the late Herb Ritts.
But, food for thought, if photographers had signed a rights grab agreement for the late Michael Jackson or Kurt Cobain .. their estates would now be writing to all the photographers demanding access to THEIR property and cease and desist letters would be flying all over the place. That would be the ultimate test of the rights grab agreements and whether it would be worth anything to the estates to pursue it. So, be very careful what you are signing !
The estate of the late Elvis Presley has purchased almost 99 per cent of images of the king ever taken. The Jimi Hendrix estate has tried and failed and I do not begrudge Gered Mankowitz the right to earn money in his old age when he is clearly no longer able to work. I have been approached by the estate of the late Kurt Cobain asking when/where my images were taken so that they could establish if I had signed an agreement for them .. apparently in the last year of his life, some photographers were given agreements to sign by his record company.
The wider implications for the rights grab agreement are in the future .. for formats and media yet to be invented .. and signing away now will be very shortsighted just to have a few shots of Coldplay for example, for your portfolio.
Look at bands who have re-formed and re-issued their back catalog on CD/DVD and soon BLU-RAY. Often with images taken when they were in their heyday. If the photographers had signed rights grab agreements their images can be used without any further remuneration. Those photographers, like the bands are now older and to say that they will earn 50k from a re-issue with a limited print run is mis-leading. Most times the re-issue is for 5000 and mostly sold through music clubs to subscribers at a discounted rate and the licences for those images in my experience do not run into thousands.
On a different level, a rights grab agreement is a 'restraint of trade' and inhibits the photographer to profit from his labour and/or the exploitation of his intellectual property.
One has to ask .. Is that modern day slavery .. expecting people to work for nothing and all the benefits and proceeds of their labour is then taken away to profit another ? Isn't that a violation of human rights and something which our society and civilisation has moved on from ?
I do not sign rights grab agreements on the basic human principle that it is a violation of my human rights and the fact that it will impact on mine and my family's livelihood. I do not want my children's children to lose everything fighting the estate of a dead rock star to establish ownership of my copyright.
There are no grey areas on the ownership of my copyright and I intend it to remain so. That is a choice I have made of my own free will ..
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Hi smartnlm,
You pissed me off with a few of your comments, and although you've addressed most of it later (such as your comments about us being amateurs and noobs) I still think for the most part your language comes across as unprofessional.
I am happy enough for you to come across as unprofessional but only should you not criticise us for doing the same.
I totally agree that being held to ransom for a photo of your dead friend etc. for 50000 is ridiculous. But that's a problem with ASSHOLES not with photographers. There is probably not a photographer in here that would consider that morally acceptable, and so such scenarios seem to be an exception rather than a rule.
Infact most photographers in here are fairly generous about their usage should bands approach them and their work with respect.
There are also few photographers on here, noob or otherwise, that haven't had their work stolen or exploited by people in your area of profession, or band management.
The point is there are photographers who are pricks, and there are management types in music that are pricks, but if we all start treating eachother like pricks then noone is going to end up happy.
Also, if you'd like for photographers to be more professional, you need to promote that by encouaging there to be value within the photographic profession.
Rights grab contracts, getting kicked out after a song, and being treated like dirt by management or talent is going to get to shooters over time - the time that they spent honing their craft only to go and shoot weddings for 5 grand instead of an all day music festival for nothing.
Until photographers are treated with respect and like professionals then I doubt there is any real room to complain that they aren't acting like pros.
Originally posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
letsmakeart edited this topic 6 weeks ago.
|
|
Oh and one more thing, you say that giving us contracts in advance isn't your responsibility.
If it is your responsibility to carry out the contracts in such a way that they are legally binding, whether you wrote them or not, on behalf of your client, then you are absolutely responsible for delivering them in advance whether you like it or not.
It would also be your responsibility to ensure all of the other requirements of a legally binding contract are followed eg. getting the photographer a copy of the fully signed contract etc.
I know it sounds like more work than you are doing now, but to use one of your arguments, there are plenty of bands out there that don't require contracts. If you don't like the associated work in making their contracts enforceable, feel free to work with them instead.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@IconicPix - Sounds like a great idea over in the UK. Also, completely agree about the long term. Its not about the now, its about 50 years from now.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
smartnlm: I have to agree with letsmakeart's comment..
"you are absolutely responsible for delivering them in advance whether you like it or not."
When you take the time to notify the photographer(s) that they were approved to shoot a show, it takes all of a few seconds to attach the pdf of the release you expect to have signed. Springing the release at the show is viewed by many photographers as underhanded, though I presume you already know that based on the replies everyone gave. The nature of some of the releases we're expected to sign doesn't do much to show otherwise.
I really can't wait to see what kind of contract is developed. It'd definitely be nice to have a new standard for the industry. I know I'd certainly keep a copy in my bag.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
To be fair, I'm not sure how it has been for others, but every release I've ever received for a band that Nasty Little Man reps has been sent to me in advance, attached to the approval email (which does not come from NLM, but from Live Nation usually).
In the past year or so, I haven't had one single release given to me at the venue, so things seem to be improving that way (at least here in Toronto). That said, we typically send all requests through the show promoters and they do the work for us, then get back to us with the approvals/releases. We usually don't have to bother going through PR or labels directly, etc.
Originally posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
Carrie Musgrave | Livebabylive.com edited this topic 6 weeks ago.
|
|
@Carrie -
I usually work directly with PR or the labels and anytime I have worked with NLM artists, I too have received the release in my confirmation email. That has been for individual shows as well as for festivals like voodoo experience last year.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@Carrie - I have had a 50/50 experience based on what you are saying. Most of the time I deal direct with the PR and I would say 75% of the time they pass a contract along ahead of time. Very often though the rights grab pop up at the venue from my expereience. Also, I have found that when the PR deals directly with the publication they fail to pass on a contract to the publication beforehand nearly every time. Since I am often not given the PR contact by the publication up front it makes it impossible for me to contact the PR company and ask questions. In the overall scheme of things I think it is gradually getting better. However, the contracts are also getting worse, so I can't say I think it still will not pose an issue in the future for some time to come.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Over here in aus most releases are sprung at the door, i've only had very big bands like nick cave for instance send me a release in advance.
Posted 5 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
@chris.rabior @carrie
Although I don't think I have requested anything from NLM since 2008 (NIN and Foo Fighters), I just looked back at my old emails and THERE IS a release/waiver ATTACHED... but yes there have also been times where I did not know in advance that I would have to sign anything...
99% of the time, i do all of my own requests and follow-up and never let LiveNation / Goldenvoice / Another Planet (top 3 local promoters here) do it for me.
I do it all myself so I can keep up on the chain of emails, as well as follow-up directly to the PR if I don't hear back from someone.
My local LiveNation rep told me that he's glad that I do my own requests and even complained about one or two other photographers that send them a list of shows and expect approval.
Them Crooked Vultures just announced a local show here in SF (Oakland) and I am still thinking about whether or not to request...
--
Alan
SF, CA
PhotographN.com
Posted 5 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
What is ironic in this whole discussion is that WE as people who take our craft seriously (even amateurs like me - who dont want to make a living off concert images) are continually challenged by the kid who can happily take his 12MP P&S camera into a show without any grief whatsoever, snap away and literally get similar if not same grade images (once pp'd) as us with out prog ger and "badged access."
No one asks these folks to sign anything.
In this age of pervasive social media, bands and promoters need to view images the same way that most bands now view taping of shows; empowering the photog/audience as a vehicle
Posted 2 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
HARHANJAM therawfilm.aminus3.com::
I have said that for years. I shoot 3 songs that are badly lit & have to sign a photo release. Guy in the front row with a nice P&S - shoots the entire show - especially when the lights get good and no release to sign. ALSO he can do whatever he wants (editorially) with them.
I also love how Britney Spears publicist makes you sign a 2 page release BUT do the paparazzis sign that also?? And their shots are more valuable than concert photos.
Posted 2 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
in case anyone wants to shoot Dylan:
www.beachamjournal.com/journal/2009/11/bob-dylan-opens-th...
Posted 2 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
ah ah ah, that's ilarious, Tinnitus.
I was once stopped few years ago with a film SLR in the front row, the security took it and gave me at the end saying it was too professional. (a basic camera with a basic 50mm lens no flash)
-
Next to me people with digital cameras and videocameras were recording the show.
When pointed to the security the guy told me, those are not professional.
here we are
Posted 2 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
@ Iconic pix... Gerard still works.. and he's still devoted to photography
Posted 2 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I know @JMaloney pretty well and know his story. If I recall it worked out nicely for him on a number of levels.
I shot the TCV show last night at The Wiltren and had a great time. I even got a few good shots. Including a killer one of Dave with sweat flying around his head the way it can at 1/100 sec when the light is just right. While they won't be going up at Getty Images ever, they will be @laweekly and I suppose that if anyone else is looking to publish any of my shots it would most likely be a matter of a few emails to sort it out. In the case of TCV, some of the band are friends of friends and I doubt that anyone in their camp is looking to get something for nothing from anybody. See @JMaloney s comment above.
As it is, I'm new to this group and generally only post my photos to the publication I'm shooting for (LA Weekly, Getty images and Spin.com), so I wasn't to concerned that I would be breaking any of the rules that I had to agree to to post this comment. But I had to agree.
The way I see it is if Rolling Stone wants photos of the show they're going to send someone. If their shooter gets stuck in traffic and can't make the show they're going to go to management or NLM to find photos and if you're not in the door you won't get the call. If you get the call and it runs double truck you may have a nice check on the way. Most likely though you'll have a nice start to dinner at your favorite steak house. Just saying.
Any way, I say shoot what you can and have fun. I certainly don't expect to get rich photographing concerts, but I do enjoy what I do. As a matter of fact, another release just came in for the Chris Brown show tonight as I type this and I have to say, I'll be signing it. It's another story to tell. I know, but someone out there will be interested in looking at those photos and reading that review just like any other. And, I'll get paid just like any other.
Best of luck!
Cheers!
Posted 2 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Tim.. you may get paid for now.. but you will have no future earnings.. and in the process your contributing to photographers losing control of their work.. for what half a steak..
my guess is your not a full time pro photographer therefore it probably makes no odds to you as you will have your income from elsewhere.. thanks in advance for your contribution in letting pr's managers etc labels even ruin a genuine profession..
Posted 2 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I've read all this with huge interest. Part of the reason I choose to shoot smaller bands/shows is because of the growing restrictions put on photographers. Whether on commission or for pleasure 'because we can', we're there for a reason....as a photographer who's job it is to capture 'quality' images from that show. It winds me up no end that I'm often not afforded the same liberties as the rows of people behind the barrier with p&s or low end dslrs, with zero restrictions on flash or length of shooting time. Those of us in front of the barrier are the ones expected, or expecting, to get quality shots yet at most turns we're faced with, sometimes, ridiculous rules that actually benefit noone ultimately...though I do understand why some of them are there...from a security point of view for example, as a dozen people in a photopit along with security staff can make their job more difficult. Anyway there are always going to be arguments for and against anything any of us can approve or disapprove of regarding this.
But then we're faced with restrictions of another kind, in the guise of these shooting contracts. I've only been presented with contracts twice I believe...both times were for Bullet For My Valentine, drafted by their management, and on one of those occasions I was sent the contract AFTER the show. It was quite a fair contract though, restrictive only in so much as photographers had to agree to use images only for specifically claimed publications/websites and agree not to sell them. Fair enough so I signed. I can understand why these contracts are presented to photographers...if they're at the show under commission and have no intention of selling images for personal gain or bootlegging purposes there shouldn't be a problem. Managers believe they are protecting their artists.
I'm extremely shocked to read about rights waiver contracts though. I've shot some pretty major bands over the last 3 years (the majority of them without contracts of any kind) and I'd never even heard of them till reading this thread. I think it's disgraceful, and totally agree with the majority view. I've fallen out with bands and labels over copyright to images....always stuck to my guns no matter the consequences, and I've never yet signed it over on a single one of my images. As far as I'm concerned they're my images and always will be. I am the one who set up the shot, fiddled with settings, composed the image, captured the moment. Who knows that what we take today might not become an iconic image in generations to come. My hard work produced that and I want the recognition for it, and to reap the benefits. There's no way I'd sign one of these contracts and I'm glad to see so many others who oppose this.
The idea of an industry recognised alternative that is fair to both bands and their representatives, as well as photographers is indeed interesting. I look forward to hearing more about that and how it turns out.
Originally posted 2 weeks ago.
(
permalink
)
Marianne Harris - marianneharris.co.uk edited this topic 2 weeks ago.
|
 |
Steve, may I make a suggestion that when addressing a serious topic you stop being so condescending and quit with references such as:
"you and your loser friends", "amateurs and n00bs"
Oh, and if you choose to use "sic" all over the place for poor grammar, spelling and punctuation it's advisable to ensure that your own is impeccable.
Now, some of your comments:
is your argument that you want to be paid multiple times for the same job
The "work" is not normally paid, rather the images are licensed at a cost. Copyright buyout (much akin to a rights buyout of music) is at a far higher price to a license to use.
Use Licenses are always limited (whatever creative outlet that be - music, photography, art, design etc) in the contract - be it by region, volume, type etc. If you want to buy out the rights to remove restrictions you pay a far higher amount (again, regardless of the format). This is something every musician and their management team understands.
Now, when it comes to where you take issue:
you give someone a free ticket, a photo pass, and 10-15 years later when you're putting your box set together that same person is extorting you for $50K for a rare image of your dead friend.
you're forgetting about the significant investment that you're paying of with the photographer. A photographer's image library is akin to a composers library in the music industry - or better yet, a labels collective discography. The costs over the years to maintain the archives of all are part of the costs you need to bear later on should you wish to buy the rights to an image.
The better comment is - had the band *not* given someone the marginal cost to the band of nearly-nothing they wouldn't be in the position to even think about licensing the image.
Anyhow, any number of photographers have contributed further on the topic.
Posted 7 days ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I've done it for free, for the pleasure of it. But I've had a rights-grab too. I'd walk if it happened again. I have the confidence that even if I do it for the pleasure of it and get access via a website... my images have inherent value and should be approached as such. Sure, maybe it's ok that commercial rights are managed. I don't know the Aus legislation with regards to that, but not being able to post on my own gallery or print for my portfolio? That's ridiculous and I gain ABSOLUTELY nothing. Why would I do such a thing??? I know where I stand more clearly and more of my own standards and personal rights. It's not on. Vote with your feet. Short term pain for long term gain I'm afraid. Very few other professions are expected to do so much for so little (as it's often a personal passion as well as a job). And as ridiculous as it may sound to some, if someone is prepared to pay $50K - then the image is worth it to that client
Posted 7 days ago.
(
permalink
)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
Concert Photography /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Concert Photography discussion threads
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
