|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/18/2011 08:08:42 PM · #26 |
They are all inspired by Cobain. Sorry to go off topic. I am easily provoked & dont suffer friends too well. |
|
|
|
10/18/2011 09:21:26 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
They are all inspired by Cobain. Sorry to go off topic. I am easily provoked & dont suffer friends too well. |
not according to Grohl.
If you're going to spout such nonsense, at least you should be able to show somewhere that the guy writing all of the Foo Fighter's songs says something like, "All of our songs are about Kurt Cobain."
Message edited by author 2011-10-18 21:25:45. |
|
|
|
11/05/2011 12:27:23 PM · #28 |
This isn't an issue specific to the Foo Fighters, regardless of what you think of their music or their status. It's becoming increasingly prevalent. The list of bands requiring photographers to sign a "rights grab" contract is growing by the day and it's being done by all kinds of acts - big, small, grunge, new age, whatever. And it's an issue that's going to snowball because there isn't much support for papers to replace photos with stick drawings in order to back their photographers' rights and because when a freelance photographer with standards turns down the gig, there are 20 more in line behind him, completely willing to give away all of their rights.
Bands aren't just asking that you don't commercially profit from the images you take at a show. They are claiming ownership. A photojournalist (none of whom are making $150,000 to shoot a show by the way...try $50), goes to the show, shoots some photos and now the band can use them in perpetuity for whatever they want. Advertising. Websites. Billboard. Trading cards. For free. And don't think you're getting credit. In fact, you can't even use those images in your own portfolio. When I leave a concert having heard a song, I don't suddenly have the rights to start selling and profiting from that song. When I photograph a building, the building owner doesn't automatically own my images and have the right to use them for display, advertising, sales, etc. There's absolutely no reason that a band should gain ownership of a photographer's work simply because they want to. But it's an extremely difficult situation to overcome.
And it's not just one that affects photographers. A newspaper or other publication's responsibility isn't to act on behalf of performers and it's not to be bought off by big acts who want to manage their image. Once you've sold tickets at $50 a pop and filled an arena full of people, you're no longer entitled to privacy during your performance. Requiring that journalists submit their photos for review (and in some cases, submit their REVIEWS for review) completely negates the purpose of having a review in the first place. It's a dangerous, dangerous downward decline that's easily shrugged off by people who don't want to think about it much. |
|
|
|
11/05/2011 12:56:11 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by mk:
This isn't an issue specific to the Foo Fighters, regardless of what you think of their music or their status. It's becoming increasingly prevalent. The list of bands requiring photographers to sign a "rights grab" contract is growing by the day and it's being done by all kinds of acts - big, small, grunge, new age, whatever. And it's an issue that's going to snowball because there isn't much support for papers to replace photos with stick drawings in order to back their photographers' rights and because when a freelance photographer with standards turns down the gig, there are 20 more in line behind him, completely willing to give away all of their rights.
Bands aren't just asking that you don't commercially profit from the images you take at a show. They are claiming ownership. A photojournalist (none of whom are making $150,000 to shoot a show by the way...try $50), goes to the show, shoots some photos and now the band can use them in perpetuity for whatever they want. Advertising. Websites. Billboard. Trading cards. For free. And don't think you're getting credit. In fact, you can't even use those images in your own portfolio. When I leave a concert having heard a song, I don't suddenly have the rights to start selling and profiting from that song. When I photograph a building, the building owner doesn't automatically own my images and have the right to use them for display, advertising, sales, etc. There's absolutely no reason that a band should gain ownership of a photographer's work simply because they want to. But it's an extremely difficult situation to overcome.
And it's not just one that affects photographers. A newspaper or other publication's responsibility isn't to act on behalf of performers and it's not to be bought off by big acts who want to manage their image. Once you've sold tickets at $50 a pop and filled an arena full of people, you're no longer entitled to privacy during your performance. Requiring that journalists submit their photos for review (and in some cases, submit their REVIEWS for review) completely negates the purpose of having a review in the first place. It's a dangerous, dangerous downward decline that's easily shrugged off by people who don't want to think about it much. |
Thank you- My thoughts exactly... |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 05:11:50 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 05:11:50 PM EDT.
|
