DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
DPChallenge Forums >> Business of Photography >> Bands demanding all rights for concert photos
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 29, descending (reverse)
AuthorThread
11/05/2011 12:56:11 PM · #1
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...
11/05/2011 12:27:23 PM · #2
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.
10/18/2011 09:21:26 PM · #3
Originally posted by blindjustice:

Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:

God, this thread has become stupid. Go back to school lamebrains.


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.
10/18/2011 08:08:42 PM · #4
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:

God, this thread has become stupid. Go back to school lamebrains.


They are all inspired by Cobain. Sorry to go off topic. I am easily provoked & dont suffer friends too well.
10/18/2011 07:14:33 PM · #5
God, this thread has become stupid. Go back to school lamebrains.
10/18/2011 06:59:24 PM · #6
Originally posted by blindjustice:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by blindjustice:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by blindjustice:

They may be stoner metal, hardcore pop or some.variation now, and you can say wahtever you want, but Nirvana was grunge, the foo fighters were grunge.


No. they. were. never. grunge.


Grunge.


I read it on the internet, it must be so!


were talking on the internet.

What is your explanation that the drummer from the most prominent "grunge" band, Nirvana, who made an album soon after Nirvana's demise, that was essentially the next album of Nirvana, loud quite loud, Cobain wrote or inspired some or all of the songs, was not grunge. Senseless.


Cobain didn't write ANY Foo Fighters songs. Grohl did. Which songs does Grohl say are inspired by Cobain? None.

10/18/2011 05:25:40 PM · #7
Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by blindjustice:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by blindjustice:

They may be stoner metal, hardcore pop or some.variation now, and you can say wahtever you want, but Nirvana was grunge, the foo fighters were grunge.


No. they. were. never. grunge.


Grunge.


I read it on the internet, it must be so!


were talking on the internet.

What is your explanation that the drummer from the most prominent "grunge" band, Nirvana, who made an album soon after Nirvana's demise, that was essentially the next album of Nirvana, loud quite loud, Cobain wrote or inspired some or all of the songs, was not grunge. Senseless.
10/17/2011 04:55:43 PM · #8
Originally posted by blindjustice:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by blindjustice:

They may be stoner metal, hardcore pop or some.variation now, and you can say wahtever you want, but Nirvana was grunge, the foo fighters were grunge.


No. they. were. never. grunge.


Grunge.


I read it on the internet, it must be so!
10/17/2011 03:12:40 PM · #9
Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by blindjustice:

They may be stoner metal, hardcore pop or some.variation now, and you can say wahtever you want, but Nirvana was grunge, the foo fighters were grunge.


No. they. were. never. grunge.


Grunge.
10/17/2011 02:31:04 PM · #10
dosn't matter if they are washed up or not, dosn't matter if they are grunge or not. what matters is they are getting free media outta it so it worked.
10/17/2011 02:17:39 PM · #11
Originally posted by blindjustice:

They may be stoner metal, hardcore pop or some.variation now, and you can say wahtever you want, but Nirvana was grunge, the foo fighters were grunge.


No. they. were. never. grunge.
10/17/2011 02:04:03 PM · #12
Originally posted by Spork99:

Foo Fighters are still around. They were never grunge.


Originally posted by o2bskating:

seriously i think it's a washed up band's last ditch effort to get free media publicity. grunge is dead.


Sure, Grunge mostly died with Cobain. Foo fighters' genre is "Post-Grunge", and although you say Foo Fighters is washed up (even though they just won an MTV music award for best rock video) but whatever... Grohl is not, He is the drummer for "Them Crooked Vultures" who just won a grammy.

10/17/2011 01:40:00 PM · #13
seriously i think it's a washed up band's last ditch effort to get free media publicity. grunge is dead.
10/17/2011 01:28:49 PM · #14
I shot pretty much the entire Canadian Olympic team members, and several up-and-comers this year at a major show jumping tourament in Ottawa. I didn't get model releases from anyone, but I didn't intend, and don't intend to sell them. I put some up in my portfolio on Photobucket, but also put my name and copyright in huge-ass letters across the horses/riders. That won't stop someone from downloading the images and trying to sell them, but they have to know who the horse and rider are and then spend some time cloning out my name. I'm not going to make things easy for thieves.

ETA Ray...which rodeo didn't let you shoot there?! Next year try the Upper Canada Rodeo (it was in Chesterville this year), Red and I got tons of photos there, no problem.
10/17/2011 12:33:18 AM · #15
Originally posted by kenskid:

What the hell does it mean? Is it saying if I take a photo at the show and it ends up making tons of money, it is not mine? I thought that is how it's always been. I didn't realize I could shoot a band and sell the pics.


I think they are just talking about the photographers that they hire to shoot the show. I think that if you were to publish something that you shot while attending a show and started making an inordinant amount of money from it then men in black suit might also visit your home too. I took this at the last show I went to with my iPhone. Hope I don't go to jail.

' . substr('//www.southeast-gifts.com/main.php?cmd=image&var1=Photography%2FVolbeat+concert%2FB%26W_1559.jpg&var2=700_85', strrpos('//www.southeast-gifts.com/main.php?cmd=image&var1=Photography%2FVolbeat+concert%2FB%26W_1559.jpg&var2=700_85', '/') + 1) . '
10/17/2011 12:17:00 AM · #16
What the hell does it mean? Is it saying if I take a photo at the show and it ends up making tons of money, it is not mine? I thought that is how it's always been. I didn't realize I could shoot a band and sell the pics.
10/16/2011 11:56:29 PM · #17
If I could be the Devil's Advocate for a second.

Do you think that wording these contracts the way they do is to actually keep them safe and to not look stupid? Think about the instance where Fergie pissed her pants on stage. I bet if that agreement was made before hand she would have never been publicly embarrassed by the whole world by having the ability to say, "Nope, don't really feel like putting that out there today." When we get into internet debates it really always boils down to the people debating don't know all the facts. Not saying anyone is wrong for slamming the Foo Fighters but there are plenty unanswered questions here.

Just like a documentary this article is pushing you in one direction and your buying the farm because of. I have ocean front property in Arizona if your interested BTW.

One question that comes to mind.
How much are these photographs being paid? If it's $5000 a show and they want to keep the rights OK. If it's $.50 and they want to keep they right. Not OK

10/16/2011 10:49:27 PM · #18
They may be stoner metal, hardcore pop or some.variation now, and you can say wahtever you want, but Nirvana was grunge, the foo fighters were grunge.
10/16/2011 08:45:51 PM · #19
you didn't used to be able to take cameras to a concert but now since they can't exactly stop you from bringing your phone/camera they want rights hahaha don't make me laugh RIAA and MPA tried that shit with the sharing music thing and lost so bad. somehow i don't think the foo fighters have the money backing them that the record industry had so it will never happen.
10/16/2011 08:36:20 PM · #20
I know diddle about this band and can't say that I care. I did notice something of this nature when looking to purchase tickets to a rodeo a while back and since I could not take photos I opted NOT to buy tickets.

There are enough things in life that grab my attention for free that I am at liberty to chose what I will photograph.

Ray
10/16/2011 08:16:00 PM · #21
Originally posted by blindjustice:

Originally posted by amsterdamman:

Just ignore them, they will go away. I did not even realize the Foo Fighters were still a band!
There are 10,000+ bands out there with skill and desire more than willing to take their place!
Once the media declares their next "star" the smart money puts them on "ignore" anyway.
Always amazed how people pretend to like the popular things.
Thank God the commercial world has fully Banned Art!!


Didn't realize they were still a band? you can say you don't like them, but its Dave Grohl, one of the best modern drummers, one of only three grunge bands to make more than three records, Music may have taken a shitty turn towards post rock, bad hardcore and European bands glorifying girl groups from the 50's but the FF have helped keep real rock alive, at least somewhat...

ALl bands are pretty tight on their "image control" both figuratively and literally. Lady Gaga and Jay Z both bigger entertainers than the Foo Fighters, but arguably not as musically inclined songwriters and performers, guard their "brand" closer than the Foo Fighters...

Is Jay Z still rapping? Is Lady Gaga going to put out another Madonna Copying crappy single? The answer- Yes- they protect their brand.


Foo Fighters are still around. They were never grunge.
10/16/2011 08:13:58 PM · #22
Originally posted by amsterdamman:

Just ignore them, they will go away. I did not even realize the Foo Fighters were still a band!
There are 10,000+ bands out there with skill and desire more than willing to take their place!
Once the media declares their next "star" the smart money puts them on "ignore" anyway.
Always amazed how people pretend to like the popular things.
Thank God the commercial world has fully Banned Art!!


Didn't realize they were still a band? you can say you don't like them, but its Dave Grohl, one of the best modern drummers, one of only three grunge bands to make more than three records, Music may have taken a shitty turn towards post rock, bad hardcore and European bands glorifying girl groups from the 50's but the FF have helped keep real rock alive, at least somewhat...

ALl bands are pretty tight on their "image control" both figuratively and literally. Lady Gaga and Jay Z both bigger entertainers than the Foo Fighters, but arguably not as musically inclined songwriters and performers, guard their "brand" closer than the Foo Fighters...

Is Jay Z still rapping? Is Lady Gaga going to put out another Madonna Copying crappy single? The answer- Yes- they protect their brand.
10/14/2011 07:27:10 AM · #23
Just ignore them, they will go away. I did not even realize the Foo Fighters were still a band!
There are 10,000+ bands out there with skill and desire more than willing to take their place!
Once the media declares their next "star" the smart money puts them on "ignore" anyway.
Always amazed how people pretend to like the popular things.
Thank God the commercial world has fully Banned Art!!
10/14/2011 07:12:55 AM · #24
Originally posted by mike_311:



i always thought the foo fighters were overrated anyhow.

Originally posted by blindjustice:

Tough to find a more perfect rock song from the 1990's -monkey wrench
Monkey wrench Letterman

Maybe Grohl is sensitive about his teeth looking too big in photos?


Foo Fighters are one amongst many though. They just happen to be a big name mentioned. After some looking it seems like it's not all THAT uncommon, which was news to me.

Message edited by author 2011-10-14 07:13:32.
10/14/2011 07:12:00 AM · #25
Originally posted by Skip:

nice article. this is already the case with NASCAR, the NHL, and just about anything produced by Clear Channel (such as the Monster Truck series). except for NASCAR, i don't shoot anything that has that type of restriction. as a photojournalist, i cannot allow my content to be censored. the radko keleman hits the nail on the head: "when they don't see any photographers at their show, they're gonna wonder why they don't have any other media coverage."


I had forgotten you mentioning that about NASCAR in the past, and I think some other members had said similar things. I think the idea is sorta ridiculous, but it's just as ridiculous for that photographer mentioned in the article to try to collect $15,000 from Guster for photos. I went and checked what the hubbub was there on Twitter, and apparently Guster ended up modifying their agreement to not be so draconian after @MusicPhotogs brought up how ludicrous it was and how other artists were doing it too.
And what's REALLY ridiculous is the article alluding to bands controlling reviews...
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/28/2022 06:08:20 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2022 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/28/2022 06:08:20 AM EST.