1. avatar titmunky
    Iíve noticed lately that there seems to be even more photographers posting on here these days and promoting their services for bands which is a brilliant thing, especially given the top quality work thatís being produced by these guys (and girls).

    However in a number of such posts Iíve noticed that there seems to be a heavy emphasis on copyright and protection of their work i.e. bold satements of copyright, do not use without permission etc. Iím wondering though if this emphasis is a result of photographers having experiences of bands abusing their work by not giving them credit, payment and/or generally using photographs without the artistís permission. Is this a common problem?

    My limited understanding is that if youíve taken the photograph you have created a piece of art and therefore have ownership and rights over it. But, if youíre the subject of a photo, do you not also have some rights over the photograph and how itís used?

    Essentially Iím just wondering what way rights for the photographer and the subject(s) of a photograph work.

    Maybe some of the frequent lens slingers who post on here might be able to shed some light on the matter.

    Cheers
  2. avatar churchwarden
    Photographer owns the rights, unless you are photographing another artwork in which case you are copying the artwork and therefore breaking copyright.

    Not being a professional, and still living in a vague hope of taking an accidental iconic shot, I have never worried whenever pictures I have taken have appeared uncredited. Naturally professional photographers, like any professional artist, deserve proper credit and permissions when their photographs are reproduced, and I assume the many professional photographers on this site will give much better answers than this...
  3. avatar the_doctor199
    The above comment pretty much has stated everything but as soon as a photographer takes a photo, they own the copyright, whether it's taken on a professional slr to your camera phone, you own the copyright (unless you have signed over the rights through a contract).

    The reason it has become standard practice for us to state our rights is because far too often, bands seem to think because the photograph is of them, it's acceptable for them to take the photo and use it however they like.
  4. avatar Pavel
    Ramsey has it on the head (both on copyright itself, and on why we have to so bluntly state it everywhere) - it is actually insanely simple; although I have heard so much bullshit about the subject over the last year and a half; and actually was convinced at one point by someone else that the case was different, so naive at the time I was.

    ...a mistake I will never make again. I put it down to a mixture of youth and my perpetual need to avoid conflict. Coming from film, where copyrights lie with the producer (financier) of the production, I was under the impression that photography was the same setup. That is completely wrong.

    [i:9ff60f2740]The second [b:9ff60f2740]you[/b:9ff60f2740] take a photo, [b:9ff60f2740]you[/b:9ff60f2740] own it by default - and no one else has any right to use it, or claim it as their own until you have signed it across in writing, [b:9ff60f2740]and you never should do that (give away your copyright that is).[/b:9ff60f2740]

    Think of your photo as an 'infinite pie' (that never goes out of date), you can charge people to look at it and smell it, but only you should ever be allowed to actually eat it.[/i:9ff60f2740]

    Quite simply, if you give people slices of, or even the entire pie...you're an eejit, and deserve to be fleeced.

    The only thing you should ever do is [i:9ff60f2740][b:9ff60f2740]licence[/b:9ff60f2740][/i:9ff60f2740] people to use your work in, ideally, as limited a manner as possible to stop any confusion.
  5. avatar Thedevilsfavouriteson
    surely with film if you have people in the shot that you are shooting and who dont know about it then if you want to use thier likeness you have to get them to sign a waiver or if for example its at a show then you have to read a legal statement before it.
    certainly regarding my experiences with photographers anytime ive approached one whos been shooting the bands as long as you give them credit for the photograph theyre happy to let you use it. i feel thats fair considering i feel that i own the rights to my own image and i dont think i give those rights away as soon as someone takes a photo of me.
    i mean if the bands werent on stage then youd be photographing an empty stage so i think the relationship between photographer and the band is symbiotic essentially if we werent there then youd be shooting space and if you werent there then we wouldnt have a document of the show.
    i mean i appreciate copyright and everything i wouldnt want someone stealing my song and saying it was there own but this is just what i think on the whole thing.
  6. avatar remaderyan
    I think those who are familar with maths will understand this.

    The 'photograph' is owned by the photographer and she/he has total control over how its used.
    But the same 'photograph' is controlled by the subject (unless they waive that right) and she/he/they have control over how it is used.

    so its a 'union' of both sets of rights.

    Typically that means that you have to licence it from the photographer for a fee and that'll give you the right to use it in certain ways.
    If you want a copy you'll probably pay £10 for a pic and if you want another you'll pay £10 again, etc, even though if you decided you didnt like it and didnt buy it then they'd make no money.

    I had a bit of a dilmea when paying for wedding photographers, they were charging us something like £1400 and that was just for an album and all the pics in it, if we wanted reprints they were £25 each, now thats a lot of money for everyone, so I asked for all the images on a dvd. That cost me £500 but it came with a letter saying, 'I release full copyright control to Ryan...' which means I can do pretty much whatever I want with the images.

    That £500 covered more than i'd be ever normally paying the bloke. But its meant that i've been able to order canvases or use the pics online however we wanted without telling them who mr photographer is.

    I find it puzzling tho, that there are so many amateur photographers in and about the scene who are so precious of their own rights. In my opinion if your not going to make a living from it at that point in time, ie getting a pint and bus fare for your work, then arent you better to watermark your prints and release them to the world asking for credit?
  7. avatar feline1
    The exeception to all this is if the photo in question could "potentially be useful to terrorists",
    in which case the police then have free reign to smash your camera, knee you in the knackers and detain you without clothes for up to 42 days.
    As pretty much everyone in Northern Ireland is a potential terrorist, it's well to bear this in mind.
  8. avatar The Ronster
    [quote:dcf62103c5="Thedevilsfavouriteson"]surely with film if you have people in the shot that you are shooting and who dont know about it then if you want to use thier likeness you have to get them to sign a waiver or if for example its at a show then you have to read a legal statement before it.
    certainly regarding my experiences with photographers anytime ive approached one whos been shooting the bands as long as you give them credit for the photograph theyre happy to let you use it. i feel thats fair considering i feel that i own the rights to my own image and i dont think i give those rights away as soon as someone takes a photo of me.[/quote:dcf62103c5]

    I'm not positive, but I don't think you do have the right to protect your own image in a public setting (ie a gig). I'm sure one of the photographers could clear that up though.
  9. avatar the_doctor199
    [quote:5f1210c774="The Ronster"][quote:5f1210c774="Thedevilsfavouriteson"]surely with film if you have people in the shot that you are shooting and who dont know about it then if you want to use thier likeness you have to get them to sign a waiver or if for example its at a show then you have to read a legal statement before it.
    certainly regarding my experiences with photographers anytime ive approached one whos been shooting the bands as long as you give them credit for the photograph theyre happy to let you use it. i feel thats fair considering i feel that i own the rights to my own image and i dont think i give those rights away as soon as someone takes a photo of me.[/quote:5f1210c774]

    I'm not positive, but I don't think you do have the right to protect your own image in a public setting (ie a gig).
    I'm sure one of the photographers could clear that up though.[/quote:5f1210c774]

    Yep, usually one of the terms on the back of your ticket is that it's possible that their may be a recording of the gig or photographs taken at the venue and by buying a ticket you're giving permission for you're photo to be used however we want. It's the same for taking a photo in the street, providing it's taken on public property, it's fine to be used.

    I think it would be fair to point out that most photographers locally taking shots of local bands are reasonable with the usage of our photos, whilst not giving away copyright, we try to help out bands who (probably) don't have the cash to pay a huge amount for images.
  10. avatar titmunky
    Thanks for the views as expressed guys. Good to get a handle on how these things work.

    With regard to what you said Ron id say your probably correct there. Surely if your in a band and your willing to get up on stage in a public place then essentially you've waived your right to any privacy during that period and can't really complain about people taking your photo.

    Say for instance though, a photographer does take a photograph of you which you do not like (say you're a very vain guitarist and it paints you in what you perceive to be a bad light) and then uses it to promote their work and website because its a good photo in techniacal terms, composition, lighting etc. As the subject do you not have any control to stop the photographer from using it?
  11. avatar clivemcl
    [quote:5f75ce59c7="titmunky"]Say for instance though, a photographer does take a photograph of you which you do not like (say you're a very vain guitarist and it paints you in what you perceive to be a bad light) and then uses it to promote their work and website because its a good photo in techniacal terms, composition, lighting etc. As the subject do you not have any control to stop the photographer from using it?[/quote:5f75ce59c7]

    Thinking about putting a 'If you look ugly in my photo money back guarantee' on my website... :D

    Great topic, very informative!
  12. avatar churchwarden
    Quick guide here:
    [url]http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html[/url]

    However a number of photo blogs that some peopple have been told that it is not legal to take photographs in public places. This has been brought up in parliament

    [url]http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2009-04-01a.262.0[/url]
  13. avatar the_doctor199
    [quote:b74f73bed2="titmunky"]Say for instance though, a photographer does take a photograph of you which you do not like (say you're a very vain guitarist and it paints you in what you perceive to be a bad light) and then uses it to promote their work and website because its a good photo in techniacal terms, composition, lighting etc. As the subject do you not have any control to stop the photographer from using it?[/quote:b74f73bed2]

    Afraid not - we can still do what we like with it - but as said above, we are very reasonable and generally won't use it if the subject doesn't like it, chances are that if they dont like it, neither do we
  14. avatar Chi-Lite
    So hold on, what's the answer?

    Is it this;


    [quote:403f082760]The 'photograph' is owned by the photographer and she/he has total control over how its used.
    But the same 'photograph' is controlled by the subject (unless they waive that right) and she/he/they have control over how it is used. [/quote:403f082760]

    or this;

    [quote:403f082760]we can still do what we like with it[/quote:403f082760]

    I mean, you talk about the wee waiver notice on the back of [i:403f082760]some[/i:403f082760] tickets...that obviously doesn't apply to most local gigs.

    I have no problem with people taking photographs of a gig, but it's nice if they ask first, and tell you what the photo will be used for.

    Have I really no right to expect that?

    Plus, fair enough if you're in the shot of a photo in apublic place, but if someone walks right up to you and takes a photo of your face, have you really no right to ask what it's for? Can I literally walk up to people and take close-up shots of their face and body, then when they ask what it's for just say "never you mind...my own personal enjoyment mwahhaha".

    Is that seriously the case? It would definitely warrant a slap like. i suspect you could probably stretch the legal definition of harrasment as well
  15. avatar the_doctor199
    Someone else im sure will clarify, but im pretty sure we can do what we like in public areas, that's how paps and Google streetview are able to operate without much bother.

    In saying that, it's a law i dont entirely approve of, i wouldnt be too pleased if someone walked up and took a photo of me scratching my nuts and did whatever they want with it, just because i was in the street.
  16. avatar remaderyan
    There must be some law against it or you'd have all sorts of crazy stalkers taking pics of people. Or you'd have more guys with cameras taking pics of randomers' cleavage.

    Then again you see the press taking pics of people in the public eye as they walk down the street.

    wtf
  17. avatar Chi-Lite
    Seems the law isn't entirely clear on the issue.

    Obviously there are public interest concerns...journo photographers have to be able to take phots of things that happen....

    but there is also scope for claiming invasion of privacy even in public...or even claiming harrasment. after all, why would someone want to take a picture of you scratching your balls if not to harras or ridicule you.

    There's no entirely clear answer...seems to be the answer here.
  18. avatar Strong Reaction
    What if a photographer comes to a show, doesn't inform the artist the may be taking photos, then uses one in a portfolio against the artist's wishes?
  19. avatar Pavel
    [quote:d197996d78="Strong Reaction"]What if a photographer comes to a show, doesn't inform the artist the may be taking photos, then uses one in a portfolio against the artist's wishes?[/quote:d197996d78]

    Then that photographer is a bit silly, shoots are generally pre-arranged; and if it is last minute, most of us make sure the band knows/agrees to us being there before shooting.

    As I'll mention below, there are moral codes [b:d197996d78]most[/b:d197996d78] photographers follow.

    [quote:d197996d78="Thedevilsfavouriteson"]surely with film if you have people in the shot that you are shooting and who dont know about it then if you want to use thier likeness you have to get them to sign a waiver or if for example its at a show then you have to read a legal statement before it.[/quote:d197996d78]

    Film isn't photography though, as I said. The laws are very different - although what you are referring to as 'crowd shots' are in fact treated the same in film as they are in photography.

    In the United Kingdom you can shoot anything and anyone, providing it is being shot from a public place, and not private property - which requires permission.

    ...and even then, that permission does not transfer any rights, or anything to the permission giver unless agreed for in writing - and it doesn't work retro-actively. So someone can't allow you to take photos, and then say "...whoa, I didn't allow you to take those photos!".

    If that wasn't the case, how do you think they would have shot the likes of The Bourne Ultimatum [b:d197996d78]live[/b:d197996d78] in King's Cross station with thousands of people walking around?

    [quote:d197996d78="Thedevilsfavouriteson"]certainly regarding my experiences with photographers anytime ive approached one whos been shooting the bands as long as you give them credit for the photograph theyre happy to let you use it. i feel thats fair considering i feel that i own the rights to my own image and i dont think i give those rights away as soon as someone takes a photo of me.[/quote:d197996d78]

    Actually by standing in a public place (at [u:d197996d78][b:d197996d78]any[/b:d197996d78][/u:d197996d78] gig that a photographer has been allowed to shoot in), you do. I believe the likes of The Odyssey/Oxygen/Glastonbury even print that on the back of their tickets these days just to warn people.

    ...to go into it a little further, if I turn my camera round to the crowd and you stick your thumbs in the air at me and motion for a photo with your pal...and I take it, that is visual confirmation of your permission (and willingness) to take the photo. Again, you have no rights to that photo, and none are transferred.

    There are of course moral codes that we follow. If I take a picture of you vomiting blood on the sidewalk I'm not going to print it, but another photographer might - everyone's different.

    Also, the photographers you have been around are selling themselves short (for the most part) - it's not fair at all, it's disrespectful to think of it in that regard actually.

    If I spend twenty hours painting an exact likeness of you, you don't own it in any way whatsoever. Just because it takes 1/160 of a second to take a photo doesn't diminish that in the slightest.

    Knowledge of the matter is incredibly convoluted for some reason but it's really very simple. The photographer owns the photo, and licence people to use it.

    No photographer (and I see wedding photography has been brought into the mix - and whilst I hate them for charging so much, that guy was silly to sell you his entire rights for £500 - I wouldn't sell you full rights to a single photo for £10,000, and that's the honest to god truth) should ever give away photos 'rights free' - i.e, "to do with what you like". It's insane, because in the future the majority of your income will be in repeat sales from your photo library, be it prints, stock use in magazines or whatever.

    On this note, NME at the minute are having serious problems with how they treat photographers, utilizing rights grabs and other unfair treatment. In all truth, at present photographers are continually being treated more unfairly, with people expecting the world for pitance.

    ...and it's only going to get worse due to young photographers (or inexperienced I should say) who stupidly agree to work under such (lets be honest here) illegal working conditions because, "I'll get my photos printed in NME...whoo!".

    Respect yourself, and others will respect you too.

    EDIT: Sorry for the half-rant, this subject annoys me to no end due to people's half knowledge of what is ultimately a very simple law - and the dilution of the photographic market by people willing to accept shit working conditions.

    On that note, can I just say...bands who email me assuming I do photoshoots for free, I expect full rights to your music in return from now on... ;)
  20. avatar fastfude
    No mention of [url=http://fastfude.org/recruitment.php]creative commons[/url] here so far?

    Would any amateur/hobbyist photographers (or even pros) consider releasing their local music work under a CC [url=http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/]Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works[/url] license?
  21. avatar Chi-Lite
    [quote:7bb1fbab30]Knowledge of the matter is incredibly convoluted for some reason but it's really very simple. The photographer owns the photo, and licence people to use it[/quote:7bb1fbab30]

    but as I've said...it really isn't that simple.

    True, specifically in law it is permissible to photograph anyone in a public place....

    but that person can bring all sorts of considerations into that. They can claim that the particular circumstances gave them a reasonable expectation of privacy...sitting in a car with a woman, for example. or they could claim that your targetting of them for photographing, whether in a public place or not, constitutes harrasment.

    So what you mean is that the very specific law on photography is very simple.

    It is...but it's that very simplicty that means it is open to all sorts of other ambiguities that could reasonably be brought up by a claimant if they so wished.
  22. avatar clivemcl
    [quote:3e9a06630e="Strong Reaction"]What if a photographer comes to a show, doesn't inform the artist the may be taking photos, then uses one in a portfolio against the artist's wishes?[/quote:3e9a06630e]

    I don't see what anyone's problem would be with this unless they are a huge band or something. I've done this extensively for the simple reason of building a portfolio to show my worth.

    I hadn't even considered anyone would take issue with this, i mean, they are on a stage, i'm assuming they dont mind being looked at...

    If however anyone requested the removal of their pictures, I'd happily do so.
  23. avatar Pavel
    [quote:29ea30ab08="fastfude"]No mention of [url=http://fastfude.org/recruitment.php]creative commons[/url] here so far?

    Would any amateur/hobbyist photographers (or even pros) consider releasing their local music work under a CC [url=http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/]Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works[/url] license?[/quote:29ea30ab08]

    The problem with creative commons and photography is that people bend the rules as to what's non-commercial.

    I had a band once say to me (after I'd found they were using my work without even so much as asking), "...oh, we thought we could use your photos under creative commons because we don't make a profit."

    ...even though nowhere do I mention that my work is creative commons on my site, or on any of my work.
  24. avatar Pavel
    [quote:d1282f4999="Chi-Lite"]but as I've said...it really isn't that simple.

    True, specifically in law it is permissible to photograph anyone in a public place....

    but that person can bring all sorts of considerations into that. They can claim that the particular circumstances gave them a reasonable expectation of privacy...sitting in a car with a woman, for example. or they could claim that your targetting of them for photographing, whether in a public place or not, constitutes harrasment.

    So what you mean is that the very specific law on photography is very simple.

    It is...but it's that very simplicty that means it is open to all sorts of other ambiguities that could reasonably be brought up by a claimant if they so wished.[/quote:d1282f4999]

    ...but, it is that simple.

    No one however said you couldn't make a claim against it, just that you should expect to lose, particularly if you bring it to court.
  25. avatar Chi-Lite
    No, what i'm saying is that, because the law is so simple, it doesn't take into account many of the legitimate claims that could be made against it....there are many circumstances in which you could go to court and win.

    you wouldn't be challenging that particular law, but invoking a number of other, related laws. Like privacy laws or harrasment laws.

    see, for example, JK Rowling, or Sienna Miller;

    [quote:8017726ac5]http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=823647[/quote:8017726ac5]

    It's not at all a foregone conclusion that those two cases will be unsuccessful...in fact, I suspect that at least one of them will be successful
  26. avatar clivemcl
    Arnt we talking about live bands though, and surely privacy laws and harassment laws don't stand a chance when ur on a stage at an event?

    But as a side topic, it is curious to consider whats right and wrong in public photography.

    I think someone told me that to place a photo on iStock you have to include the names of those in the photo. I dont know if thats true...
  27. avatar fastfude
    [quote:8907694b9a="Pavel"]I had a band once say to me (after I'd found they were using my work without even so much as asking), "...oh, we thought we could use your photos under creative commons because we don't make a profit."[/quote:8907694b9a]
    Well, that's a wholesale misunderstanding of what CC is on their part.

    You, the photographer, create a CC license which sets out the terms you allow the work to be used under without requiring your prior consent. Same as copyright (which is just a blanket "No" to everything without prior consent, CC provides some extra flexibility).

    No-one can take your work and 'claim' a CC license on it anymore than they can claim copyright of your photo because their face is in it.
  28. avatar Pavel
    [quote:8e0b2f1cfb="fastfude"]Well, that's a wholesale misunderstanding of what CC is on their part.[/quote:8e0b2f1cfb]

    Oh yes, certainly, however there was also the fact that I do not CC my work, so it was a blatent attempt to simply steal it and then stick their hands in the air - which is just really disrespectful.

    Not to mention that under each photo of mine online I have a massive "DO NOT USE/COPY THIS MOFO!" :)

    ...and people wonder why we plaster our copyrights everywhere :lol:.

    [quote:8e0b2f1cfb="fastfude"]You, the photographer, create a CC license which sets out the terms you allow the work to be used under without requiring your prior consent. Same as copyright (which is just a blanket "No" to everything without prior consent, CC provides some extra flexibility).

    No-one can take your work and 'claim' a CC license on it anymore than they can claim copyright of your photo because their face is in it.[/quote:8e0b2f1cfb]

    ...again though, the problem with that is that I like to eat once in a while, so that 'extra flexibility' is actually just 'using my work for free' only under a different name.
  29. avatar Chi-Lite
    Next time i see one of your photos I'm gonna use the ballix out of it.

    I dare ye to sue me. I bet you wont be successful. :lol:
  30. avatar fastfude
    Oh aye, I'm not advocating it as a replacement for commercial work, just that there may be situations where you are happy to release a few images for general use under certain conditions, and CC provides you with a licensing scheme to do that where copyright does not.

    If people violate the license, it matters not if it's copyright or CC, it's still taking stuff that is not theirs to take.
  31. avatar Pavel
    [quote:56ae3540f0="Chi-Lite"]Next time i see one of your photos I'm gonna use the ballix out of it.

    I dare ye to sue me. I bet you wont be successful. :lol:[/quote:56ae3540f0]

    I know you're making a joke, but in all seriousness (just to highlight the issue) - I would be successful.

    In fact, whoever your solicitor would be, wouldn't even let it get to court, he'd plead for it not to, because it's so open and shut.

    ...not that I would, I'd probably just ask nicely for you to "retourn moi photee please", then cry in the corner if you didn't :D.

    EDIT: Rodger this ten posts thing is such a hassle man.

    [quote:56ae3540f0]Arnt we talking about live bands though, and surely privacy laws and harassment laws don't stand a chance when ur on a stage at an event?

    But as a side topic, it is curious to consider whats right and wrong in public photography.

    I think someone told me that to place a photo on iStock you have to include the names of those in the photo. I dont know if thats true...
    [/quote:56ae3540f0]

    The question is why would you ever submit your work into such a morally corrupt, rights grabbing operation?

    Getty, Corbis etc... they're all monsters destroying the photographic market.
  32. avatar Chi-Lite
    I am slegging you, but I'm just making the point that the law in fact isn't very simple, because there are other considerations that could be brought up...like JK Rowling and Sienna Miller.

    Obviously if I just tea-leafed it you'd be in the right, but if it was a photo of me it wouldn't be such a foregone conclusion, because I could claim all sorts of things. I could claim you were gonna use it for dubious purposes, or that it is part of a pattern of harrasment.
  33. avatar exitonline
    Copyright ownership is different to the use of photographs though. If a band pays a photographer to do a shoot live/promotional then the band is in essence paying for a service and as such the band are free to use the photographs they paid for how they like. Full credit will always be given when a photo is used in the press but I cannot see why a photographer would accept a bands money for a shoot and then start imposing all the restrictions on use of photographs. Obviously, the copyright still belongs with the photographer for taking the photograph but the photo is licensed to the band.

    On the other hand any film shoots I have been involved in which required large crowds of people such as the example mentioned of a train station shoot have permission. Generally, the film company has to get permits to film and then notices are put in the station in advance of the shoot and on the day of the shoot letting people know that there is filming in progress. Just like it states on concert tickets. Anyone who objects will have to be blanked out or clever editing techniques will be involved if a person is caught on any close shots.

    But for photographers taking shots of a band and using the photographs without the permission of the band or management, I would imagine there would be some legal issues there if the photos were used for any financial gain. As bands like to control their image rights on any commercial products. Otherwise, why would the management of an arena not let people into the arena with a professional camera with telephoto lense and only allow press passes be issued for a few songs only.
  34. avatar ciara606
    my biggest mistake was being too easy going with my pictures
    Bands take the piss sometimes but newspapers are the worst
    as an ameture photographer im happy enough for bands to stick my pictures up on their myspace and give me credit for them
    But some bands just take the pictures and think they own it because their in it
    newspapers just always chance their arm in the hope that the photographer wont find out or wont care
  35. avatar Strong Reaction
    Interesting points here. Mind you, you'd be surprised how many photographers turn up at shows expecting free entry, without prior communication with the promoter, and also how many don't talk to the bands performing. Mind you, there are plenty who do. Publicity is great, but then again, so are manners. I now only allow polaroids at gigs...
  36. avatar Chi-Lite
    Well, this is the other thing. Surely someone who is organising and promoting a gig has a say over what photographs are taken.

    Gigs in big venue often have a disclaimer that you can't take any photographs or other recorded documents of the gig.

    How viable would it be for local bands to put a sign on the door with that proclaimer...."The use of any visual recording equipment is prohibited at that gig"

    Surely, if it's your gig, you can make that one of the terms of entry...

    so that's another way of restricting photography in a public place.

    The law really isn't that simple at all, it seems
  37. avatar my-angel-rocks
    [quote:c7ebb5e4ba="exitonline"]Copyright ownership is different to the use of photographs though. If a band pays a photographer to do a shoot live/promotional then the band is in essence paying for a service and as such the band are free to use the photographs they paid for how they like. Full credit will always be given when a photo is used in the press but I cannot see why a photographer would accept a bands money for a shoot and then start imposing all the restrictions on use of photographs. Obviously, the copyright still belongs with the photographer for taking the photograph but the photo is licensed to the band.[/quote:c7ebb5e4ba]

    This is known as Work For Hire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire
    The person who pays for the photo to be taken owns the copyright.
  38. avatar Pavel
    [quote:c0cd99e101="my-angel-rocks"]This is known as Work For Hire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire
    The person who pays for the photo to be taken owns the copyright.[/quote:c0cd99e101]

    No they don't and that is entirely wrong (not to mention that article concerns U.S copyright law and not United Kingdom copyright law ;)) - I would have to be working for EXIT the company as an employee (i.e, you paying me a salary) for that to be the case, and even then, I wouldn't agree to the working conditions.

    ...because I'm not a (complete) tool.

    To be honest it is disheartening to see such muddled knowledge, and in some cases a seeming lack of understanding (and even respect) for the work put in by photographers in this thread.

    In reference to EXIT, you can only use the photos however you like [b:c0cd99e101]if that is the licence you have been given by the photographer.[/b:c0cd99e101]

    You don't automatically get anything if you pay for it [b:c0cd99e101]that isn't in the licence[/b:c0cd99e101]; and the default 'setting' (as such) is All Rights Reserved.

    By your thinking, if I buy your CD I own and can do whatever I like with your music. Whereas the case is that by buying the CD, you have licenced me to listen to it.

    Same thing with photos, a band can buy a licence for the use of them, but do not own them, ever - unless it is signed away in writing. Which any self-respecting photographer would/should never do.

    In fact, large bands such as Coldplay have started trying to issue (illegal) rights grabs on their tour to all photographers who attend their events and are getting very close to being boycotted by the photographic community - as are several other bands.

    ...you know, I don't know why I'm even continuing this conversation because I feel like I'm talking to a series of brick walls - no offence.
  39. avatar Chi-Lite
    Fuck sake all you do is press a button. :lol:

    no harm til ye, but I think you take yourself and your photographer skills far too seriously - no offence
  40. avatar Pavel
    [quote:df306219db="Chi-Lite"]Fuck sake all you do is press a button. :lol:

    no harm til ye, but I think you take yourself and your photographer skills far too seriously - no offence[/quote:df306219db]

    Possibly, but then nuclear war is something to be concerned about.
  41. avatar exitonline
    [quote:099f3cbbd2="Pavel"]
    In reference to EXIT, you can only use the photos however you like [b:099f3cbbd2]if that is the licence you have been given by the photographer.[/b:099f3cbbd2]

    You don't automatically get anything if you pay for it [b:099f3cbbd2]that isn't in the licence[/b:099f3cbbd2]; and the default 'setting' (as such) is All Rights Reserved.

    By your thinking, if I buy your CD I own and can do whatever I like with your music. Whereas the case is that by buying the CD, you have licenced me to listen to it.[/quote:099f3cbbd2]

    So your saying that if an unsigned band pays you to do a photoshoot you will only allow them to use the photographs on an extremely limited basis. I don't mean to be ignorant or anything but that is a bit harsh for an unsigned band. Generally unsigned bands dont have the cash available to pay a photographer for a shoot, then further costs if the bands photo gets used in press etc. Its ok to "really" apply your rights to maximum effect to signed bands who may use your photos, because generally they have the finance in place to do this.

    Anytime we have used photographs in media we have simply gave the various photographers credit for the photograph. This doesn't mean the photographers name splashed onto the photo which ruins the photo, but in the picture comments. This has led to the photographer in question getting more work. So at the end of the day, they get their photo/name out there and we get to use the photo. So everyone's happy without resorting to petty arguments over rights etc with an unsigned band who could barely afford to pay for the photoshoot in the first place.

    With regards to us giving people a license to listen to our CD when they buy it. Thats fine in theory, but it doesnt stop people putting it onto their ipods, letting their friends rip a copy of the CD, putting it onto the internet etc. We dont mind people doing this because at the end of the day the music is getting out to more people. But of course, we would draw the line if someone tried to pass the music off as their own.
  42. avatar my-angel-rocks
    [quote:2472981064="Pavel"][quote:2472981064="my-angel-rocks"]This is known as Work For Hire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire
    The person who pays for the photo to be taken owns the copyright.[/quote:2472981064]

    No they don't and that is entirely wrong (not to mention that article concerns U.S copyright law and not United Kingdom copyright law ;))[/quote:2472981064]

    Yes, apologies. This gives the UK, it is pretty much the same.
    http://www.speechlys.com/copyrightandcontractors

    [quote:2472981064]I would have to be working for EXIT the company as an employee (i.e, you paying me a salary) for that to be the case[/quote:2472981064]

    This isn't true. There are two cases, if you are an employee, or if you are an independent contractor. If you are an independent contractor then the contract has to say that it is a work for hire. The only difference is that the independent contractor can tell the client to fuck off, the employee cannot.

    [quote:2472981064]By your thinking, if I buy your CD I own and can do whatever I like with your music. Whereas the case is that by buying the CD, you have licenced me to listen to it.[/quote:2472981064]

    This however it completely different and by conflating the two, you are contributing to the muddling of the issues.

    The two cases are

    a) I come to you and ask you to take a photo, or make a video, or compose some music.

    - This comes under a contract and the terms can say anything we agree. If it was me and it was something important, I would be asking for all rights (apart from your moral rights), you can reject that if you wish or bump your price accordingly, and either we'll come to some mutually agreeable terms or we'll part company.

    Obviously I would expect to be paying significantly more to own the copyright to the work than if I was simply getting a copy of the work and a limited license, but this is all something that we would discuss in any contract negotiations.

    b) You take a photo or paint a picture or make a film or compose some music without any prompting from me at all.

    - This does not come under any contract, and you are free to do whatever you want with the work, and I cannot do anything with the work unless you let me.

    The case of buying a bands CD clearly comes under scenerio b is not a work for hire situation and really has nothing to do with this discussion.

    The problem that photographers are having with NME is because they are using photos taken in the b) category and then trying to remove the photographers rights.
  43. avatar Pavel
    [quote:f6391ea7a5="exitonline"]So your saying that if an unsigned band pays you to do a photoshoot you will only allow them to use the photographs on an extremely limited basis. I don't mean to be ignorant or anything but that is a bit harsh for an unsigned band. Generally unsigned bands dont have the cash available to pay a photographer for a shoot, then further costs if the bands photo gets used in press etc. Its ok to "really" apply your rights to maximum effect to signed bands who may use your photos, because generally they have the finance in place to do this.

    Anytime we have used photographs in media we have simply gave the various photographers credit for the photograph. This doesn't mean the photographers name splashed onto the photo which ruins the photo, but in the picture comments. This has led to the photographer in question getting more work. So at the end of the day, they get their photo/name out there and we get to use the photo. So everyone's happy without resorting to petty arguments over rights etc with an unsigned band who could barely afford to pay for the photoshoot in the first place.[/quote:f6391ea7a5]

    I'll have to apologise to you for wanting to eat once in a while.

    It's a terrible affliction.

    I give up.
  44. avatar bodacious_happenings
    Unless the unsigned band in question and the photographer specifically agree/sign that the band owns the photos then they are just paying the photographer for his service for that night. The photos to be used are entirely different. This is similar to how wedding photographers operate. They do not take the photos then just hand them all over. Generally, they will then offer x amount of photos for y price and will print them themselves for the customer. Some MAY offer the images on disc but many do not. If they want more copies they will need to pay for more.

    Very general summary, not true for how a lot of people operate, but it's the essence of the situation.
  45. avatar tinpot anto
    The moral o' of the story is of course that when you feel like doing anything at all - DON'T, instead kill yourself lest some boring cunt tells you everything about what you did is wrong.
  46. avatar remaderyan
    http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/latestnews/39Unchivalrous39-postie-fined-100-for.4559185.jp
  47. avatar T Entertainment
    "Unless the unsigned band in question and the photographer specifically agree/sign that the band owns the photos then they are just paying the photographer for his service for that night. The photos to be used are entirely different. This is similar to how wedding photographers operate. They do not take the photos then just hand them all over. Generally, they will then offer x amount of photos for y price and will print them themselves for the customer. Some MAY offer the images on disc but many do not. If they want more copies they will need to pay for more."


    That may be the case, but local photograhers rigidly applying these rules to unsigned bands would rapidly find themselves losing work. Unsigned bands generally work in arrears as it is (ie: in debt to varying degrees).
    It is possible to get decent re-useable pics taken without the sort of deal listed above...and while it might be nice to use the better snappers, if that's how they're going to play it, most bands will prioritise and allocate their limited funds accordingly.
  48. avatar fastfude
    Hence my suggestion regarding Creative Commons - it provide a bit more balance between the professional need of a photographer to eat/pay rent, and a band to have access to decent quality self-promotional resources without selling the drummer to medical science.
  49. avatar T Entertainment
    If the objective is to get from 'unsigned' to 'signed', then there are many more important things for a band to spend their limited resources on than the sort of package outlined above.
    I've a lot of sympathy with snappers trying to pay the rent too, but that's the reality. You won't make a living out of unsigned acts applying that criteria to your work. You won't make a living out of unsigned acts period, but the blow might be softened if you take reasonable one off payments.
    As for newspapers, they are almost always not going to pay for pics of unsigned acts, in any shape or form, because no one buys a paper to see them.
  50. avatar fastfude
    Is anyone relying on newspaper revenue as part of their business model these days anyway?

    Also, question to the photographers:

    If shooting local bands is part of a pro photographer's business plan, then presumably there has to be a means of balancing the books. If the bottom line doesn't make sense, then why not either do it for cost-covering with CC licensing, or stop doing it and photograph better paying clients instead?
  51. avatar T Entertainment
    "Is anyone relying on newspaper revenue as part of their business model these days anyway?"

    I would doubt it, but that's all the more reason that it's patently pointless sticking to the 'I own the rights to this (and therefore a payment) every time it is used' line.

    That is why newspapers employ their own photographers, or have freelances / agencies on retainers. In terms of the NI press, the only way you are going to make regular cash out of them is to get yourself into one of those positions.
    And you won't do it hawking pics of unsigned acts under those terms and conditions.