Are Bands Really Asking Concert Photographers To Hand Over Their Copyrights?

By Andrea Domanick Thu., Oct. 13 2011 at 5:30 AM

Categories: Beef

Timothy Norris

Timothy Norris' shot of Dave Grohl at a Foo Fighters performance in 2007

See also our review of Foo Fighters at The Forum, 10/13/11

The Foo Fighters perform at The Forum tonight and Friday, and while fans may be giddy, some concert photographers are less enthused. Our sister paper City Pages in Minneapolis recently published an article lamenting -- and boycotting -- the band's draconian photo release policies, which demand that photographers sign away the rights to their shots, giving the band's management legal control over which photos can be published.

Photo releases at shows are nothing new. They're usually required, with many simply defining when the photographer can shoot and whether he or she can use flash, along with third party restrictions and similar basic use rights. But a number of what are being called "rights grab" releases have begun using ominous and intimidating jargon that effectively ask photographers to relinquish all rights to their images, forever.

The release for Band of Horses' current tour, for example, strips photographers of the right to use their photos anywhere, in any format, without management's consent. Or, as they put it, "the right to exploit all or a part of the Photos in any and all media, now known or hereafter devised, throughout the universe, in perpetuity, in all configurations as you determine, without obtaining my consent and without any payment or consideration therefore." [sic]

Such releases have inspired a strong backlash in the concert photography community.

"These contracts are exploitative and unjustified. I believe a lot of photographers are getting screwed over," says Florida-based photojournalist Radko Keleman, who started a Facebook group to keep tabs on these types of releases and provide a forum for photographers. In addition to being disrespectful to their art, Keleman says these agreements make it much harder for a photographer to make a living. "This is like Occupy Wall Street. It's about the rich taking from the poor."

"Photographers should stop shooting artists with these releases, period," he continues. "Then when they don't see any photographers at their show, they're gonna wonder why they don't have any other media coverage."

This type of protest has worked. In fact, Janet Jackson and Ke$ha revoked their strict contracts this summer after being met with strong opposition and boycotts from outlets across the country. Yet the Foo Fighters' photo waiver, which you can see here, remains one of the strictest around.

The band says they're trying to prevent scams. "The language [of the contracts] might be severe but that really isn't the intent. It's just to protect the Foo Fighters from having their image sold and licensed without their knowledge or control," a Foo Fighters publicist told City Pages.

Tags:

Andrea Domanick, beefin', Dave Grohl, Foo Fighters, Guster, Live Nation, photos

We Recommend

Daniel

The big issue here is whether the photos are used for editorial purposes or for commercial gain.

In most instances a photo of an artist may be used without consent if it is in connection with legitimate editorial or news coverage.

When a professional photographer like Keleman shoots a band without their permission and uses the images for commercial gain or to advertise his business it violates the artists Rights of Publicity, which are recognized in most U.S. states.

JustinGillPhoto

"It's just to protect the Foo Fighters from having their image sold and licensed without their knowledge or control,"

A great way to do this would be to include language along the lines of, "images cannot be commercially licensed without band's prior written consent."

To be fair, these releases are drafted by the publicists, not the bands themselves. Still, there's a legally definable difference between images that are commercially exploitative and images that are used solely for editorial purposes, which is what most of us professional music photographers relegate ourselves to doing. We're not looking to plaster these images on black market tshirts, or mouse pads, or anything to that extent. We're looking to make a living as journalists who have an appreciation and respect for these music artists, all we want is to be given respect in return.

www.justingillphoto.com

CatherineM

Interesting article , to say the least. I clicked on and read the contract from the Foos. I guess it does NOT apply to their 'pal', Ross Halfin. You see, he is DIRECT violation of said contract but as far as I know, he's not getting sued. Sooooo......that means if you're buddies with the band it doesn't apply?? Gimme a break.

Cherylcyn

If these bands (who are lucky in this day to sell their music and have people at their concerts) don't feel like having their pictures taken or wanting the photographers to sign over all of their rights, then they should either PAY the photographers for the service of shooting them, or SHUT THE HELL UP!!

C.O. Jones

"Alt rockers Jimmy Eat World restricts the use of their photos on wire services in order to "protect their image,""

so, basically what Jimmy Eat World are saying is "don't make us look fat"

Anonymous

The real question is who enforces these contracts? No one. Not once has anyone from any band or bands management asked me to take down photos on my website that I have shot for my clients. Sure I'm in breach of contract but until they enforce them, the onus is on the band and no one is enforcing those contracts.

tp82669

Unfortunately it's this kind of attitude that just contributes to the problem. What happened to professional integrity and ethics? In effect, you entered into a legal and binding agreement for an opportunity to shoot a band with the deliberate intention of breaching the contract. You could simply have said no. It's this kind of behavior that is the basis for these releases. When an artist can't trust a photographer to behave professionally and with respect to their profession, then these types of releases are crafted and enforced, in regards to PR and the artist requesting final approvals and reviews.

Aaron D Settipane

This is what is commonly known as "institutional censorship" and, although you guys are slow to the game, as these releases have been prevalent for 5 years, only recently have such releases become so onerous as to strip copyright and restrict content, and other normally reasonable editorial uses. Outlets like Wire Image and Getty generally get around these releases by purchasing the right to shoot a tour, pre-negotiate with the artist to prevent "unflattering" uses or have a photographer as the "house photographer" (e.g., photog contracted to the venue) - a required photographer; while outlets like LA Times and OC Register have an "understanding" (which I've personally witnessed) wherein they are allowed to shoot without executing any releases (in most cases) because the photographers are prevented from signing any contracts and the artists still prefer the local news outlet rather than the blog outlet.

This is absolutely image management and control on the part of the artists - as many blogs like "Too Fab" buy from syndicators or microstock websites when they wish to report unflattering news or gossip about a celeb or band. The only way to stop this is to start suing, unfortunately. Since the publicists (generally) are handing over assignment agreements (aka "Releases") with no value attached, no understanding of what the release says, and they give the photographer no right to revise or interlineate changes and no right to refer to any council prior to, or as pursuant to the work (e.g., shooting the concert), the enforceability of these releases is nebulous until such time as some industrious company starts suing the managers - or until the photographer gets sued for breach of the release. Unfortunately, the result of such litigation will be the photographer will lose all access to name A-List artists, as these management companies and publicists are vindictive; while the venue may blacklist the photographer to appease the management and publicity, spawning further lawsuits. As long as outlets keep kissing ass to celebrities (and their reps) and put some teeth into their complaining, this will not change, and will only get worse.

yo dawg

Slow to the game? The writer fully acknowledges that these releases have been around for awhile and the harsher ones are what's new. There's no need to be insulting, try reading closer next time: "Photo releases at shows are nothing new. They're usually required, with many simply defining when the photographer can shoot and whether he or she can use flash, along with third party restrictions and similar basic use rights. But a number of what are being called "rights grab" releases have begun using ominous and intimidating jargon that effectively ask photographers to relinquish all rights to their images, forever. "