March 19th, 2009
Concert Photographers Of The World, Unite!
Well, well, well … I am all credentialed, and was fully prepared, to photograph the Morrissey show at the Academy of Music on Sunday night and post photos here on MMM, but I’ve just received something in my inbox that not only has me likely changing my plans, but has me fuming as well. See, I was sent a copy of the photo release form that I will be asked to sign at the venue, from Suffering Artists (c/o Spectacle Entertainment Group) — referred to in the release form as the “Company” — which appears to be Morrissey’s management company. Here is what I am supposed to agree to (the bolding is mine for emphasis):
1. Photographer shall photograph the Artist at___________________________on _____________, 2009 (“the Commission”). The photographs, transparencies, prints and any and all other related materials used or generated in connection with the Commission are hereinafter referred to as “the Photographs”.
2. The Photographer hereby transfers and assigns to Company with full title guarantee the entire copyright and all extensions and renewals throughout the world (including by way of present assignment of future rights) and all rights of a similar nature in the Photographs.
3. Company hereby grants the Photographer a non-exclusive licence to publish and authorise others to publish the Photographs in [outlet] (“the Publication”) during the period of [twelve (12) months] from the date of this Agreement (“the Exploitation Period”).
4. The Photographer shall not permit the Photographs to be used for any purpose whatsoever other than during the Exploitation Period in the Publication without Company’s prior written consent and shall promptly following the photo shoot deliver to Company the negatives of the Photographs.
5. Company shall not exploit the Photographs other than by way of the licence to the Photographer hereunder without Photographer’s consent.
6. Company shall have the right to approve each of the Photographs prior to its first publication in any media.
7. Company shall be entitled to assign transfer sub-license mortgage charge or otherwise dispose of its rights hereunder to any person or entity without reference to Photographer provided that Company shall remain primarily liable to Photographer for its obligations hereunder subject always to clause 5 above.
Are you fucking kidding me? In other words, they would own the rights to my photos now and forever. They wouldn’t share the rights; they wouldn’t have a definable period of ownership of the rights after which those rights would transfer back to me. They would own the rights, they would own the photos. They could do with them what they wish. There is no way I will sign anything like that and so easily hand over the ownership to my work. Aside from the principle of the matter, let’s be real here — do you think that a company as such who demands and receives, at no cost to them, complete ownership of photographs (or anything else) wouldn’t hesitate to make a profit from that intellectual property, should they so choose? They could very easily find ways around the wording of the agreement to exploit those images for their own purposes, fully knowing that one single photographer either wouldn’t have the financial means, the time, or the stomach to pursue legal action against a large corporate entity. They are counting on the fact that most photographers will sign away their rights without fully reading or understanding this contract or fully comprehending the ramifications of signing this contract; how many photographers show up at venues with a full and complete knowledge of copyright law, or a lawyer present to tell them what they should or should not sign?
Now, I am a very reasonable person, and I truly understand the perspective of management and artists in that they don’t want someone else to profit off of their likeness by taking the images they shoot and putting them on merchandise –T-shirts, posters, coffee mugs, whatever — and selling those, or selling the images to a tabloid or some publication that would depict them in a less-than-flattering light. I get it. I will sign (and have signed) a contract that stipulates I am only to give the photos I shoot to a pre-agreed-upon outlet (in this case, Philadelphia Weekly), and if I want to sell those images in the future to another publication, or sell them as stock, I can do so with the authorization of the management company. Using those images for promotional purposes — such as putting them on my photography website or posting them on Flickr — might be a gray area (sometimes contracts try to prohibit that), but I believe that if I am not making a profit from those specific photographs by using them in that manner, there is nothing wrong with it. I also have a problem with stipulation #6 above: Having to get approval from the “Company” for any and all images I would post on this blog. That’s more of an annoyance than anything.
But to sign away complete and total ownership of my work to someone else who can do as they will with my work? No way. Absolutely not. My work has value — if the “Company” wants to purchase the copyright, that’s something that could be negotiated should I choose to do so. To simply take something from someone forever, and potentially profit from it down the line — or at bare minimum simply have the ability to say “This is not your work any longer, this is ours” — without any form of financial compensation whatsoever? Nope.
It’s funny — earlier this week I learned that Coldplay was pulling the same stunt. I’m not sure if they and Morrissey share the same management company, but the wording and tactics are essentially the same, and equally as contemptible. Says concert photographer George Chin about the Coldplay photo release form, “This is one of the worst contracts I’ve seen in my career as a music photographer.” The last time I shot Morrissey — two years ago in Seattle; I posted photos from that show on MMM earlier today — I wasn’t presented with any kind of photo release form at all, so this is a relatively new thing, at least for him.
Unfortunately, this sort of thing will continue, and may even become the norm, if freelance concert photographers (or, in the case of staffers, the publications that employ them) don’t stand up for themselves and their rights. Which means refusing to sign these agreements if you have a problem with giving away ownership of your work forever, without compensation. My initial inclination today, after receiving the e-mail, was to say screw this and not bother shooting the Morrissey show on Sunday at all. I still might bag it, but I’m also considering going down there and, when presented with this form to sign, putting a line through all of the parts of the contract I find objectionable before I sign it. If they don’t like that, and tell me I need to sign the contract as it’s worded or I won’t be able to shoot the show, I will turn around and walk out of there, I can promise you that. I urge all my fellow music photographers out there to do the same — if enough people do this, and these artists do not get the media coverage they want and need, they will eventually relent and present contracts to photographers that are reasonable and fair, not greedy and exploitative.
Concert photographers of the world, unite!!
[Above photo of Morrissey was shot by Michael Alan Goldberg. Who owns the copyright to that photo.]
16 Responses to “Concert Photographers Of The World, Unite!”
By Lisa Roden on Mar 19, 2009
If musical artists would prefer no photography, they can simply state that. The idea of allowing photographers the opportunity to take photographs FOR THEM and then to demand ownership of the images themselves is just ridiculous. If they want to commission photography, they can can hire pros like everyone else. There is something distastefully corporate about this kind of approach and it doesn’t really sync up with current musical culture…
By Cody on Mar 21, 2009
Photographing someone else is akin to writing a book about someone else. You’re just trying to make money off of someone else’s luster, their charisma, their anything. This contract makes a lot more sense than the scams commonly accepted in this crap society…
By CF on Mar 22, 2009
Too bad if this ends up the dealbreaker. I’m really a fan of your band photography and I would have liked to see the results of another Morrissey shoot.
By The Menstruator on Mar 22, 2009
You can clearly profit off of someone else, like you are seemingly trying to do taking photographs.
Why should you have someone’s likeness and still be able to own the rights to that photograph? With someone’s likeness, that you’ve been allowed to take?
Seems to me you’re being selfish and paranoid.
And this totally syncs up with today’s world of technology… Any ass can have a camera. someone can take a photo of your mom if she’s in the hospital… and that’s ok? Someone can take photos inside your window and see you dress up in women’s clothing… these rules are needed for privacy… no?
By Michael Alan Goldberg on Mar 22, 2009
Menstruator:
1. There are laws regarding the taking of photography in public and private places, and I adhere to those based on my own personal ethics and my respect for the law.
2. By your logic, Morrissey should immediately hand over all rights to his song “Irish Blood English Heart” to the estate of Oliver Cromwell; or turn over “This Night Has Opened My Eye,” “Reel Around the Fountain,” and several other songs to British playwright Shelagh Delaney, whom Morrissey has lifted whole lines and/or ideas from. Songs he’s clearly profited from, both in money and reputation. What’s that, you say? He shouldn’t, because he’s created his *own* art via their likeness, and has every right in the world to own them? Exactly.
By Betty on Mar 22, 2009
Photography is unfortunately a very underestimated medium. Being a photographer, I would never release me photographs for full ownership to someone else for anything!! Let alone not get paid for my services! Photographers needs to protect themselves and not allow ‘companies’ to take advantage of them like they did in this joke of a contract. Who do they think would actually agree to this?
By Pine Saul on Mar 23, 2009
I love Morrissey, but this is especially chafing to read, considering his “crew” used an uncredited, no-prior-permission-granted photograph for the centerfold of his 2008 greatest hits album.
By Jaime R/ Carrero on Mar 23, 2009
I was presented with the same kind of contract for the Arctic Monkeys in Austin a couple of years ago. Walked over to my car put my gear in he trunk and returned to watch the show (they did give me a ticket with my credential). The problem is all the amateurs who want to shoot concerts because it’s “cool” and have no idea what rights and copyright mean. Yes it is going to get worse.
By George Chin on Mar 23, 2009
Isn’t this ‘agreement’ illegal in the USA .. after all it is a contract of slavery and un-Constitutional ?
I thought slavery, the idea of bonded labour, working for no reward or recompense to profit another .. wasn’t that abolished over a hundred years ago in the USA?
By donald the snapper on Mar 23, 2009
Tell them to stick it where there g string doesnt shine! ideally there should be an attitude of no snapper attending any gig.. will it happen? its up to those that snap isnt it.. good luck..
By Brad on Mar 23, 2009
@Cody:
It is quite usual for artists to portray other people in their work & make a profit from it (never mind incorporating influences into their work). This doesn’t just apply to photographers, let me give an example… hey, why not look at Morrissey? I seem to recall a few of his tunes being portrayals of other people. Sometimes portraits of more famous people that the man himself- take ‘The Queen is Dead’ for example- not just about some queen, but also her son, Charlie, that narrows it down a bit. He even controversially commercialised & profited from the moors murders!
As a fan of The Smiths since they burst onto the inde scene in ‘83, I understand why they avoided the major lables & ’signed’ to Rough Trade… ironically to avoid the type of rights grabbing and creative control that the music business now seems to be applying to photographers.
By Aaron on Mar 24, 2009
what a group of wankers. there would have to be some *very* large bills involved before I would give away full ownership of my work.
By MTR on Mar 24, 2009
Michael, I appreciate where you’re coming from. Had I seen the contract before the show, I might have walked away. I blogged on the dilemma: http://tiny.cc/BryVL
This clause is what kept me there:
5. Company shall not exploit the Photographs other than by way of the licence to the Photographer hereunder without Photographer’s consent
7. Company shall be entitled to assign transfer sub-license mortgage charge or otherwise dispose of its rights hereunder to any person or entity without reference to Photographer provided that Company shall remain primarily liable to Photographer for its obligations hereunder subject always to clause 5 above.
By Tess on Mar 24, 2009
So basically, you can’t use them without their consent, and they can’t use them without your consent.
I don’t see the problem here.
By Anon on Mar 24, 2009
Speaking anonymously and candidly, Spectacle are pricks. They’ve tried to cut me out (with varying success) of a very close relationship I have had with an artist because I wouldn’t capitulate to their demands which were fairly similar to the ones outlined above.
Stand your ground, it’s only a matter of time before someone with their wits about them like Morrissey will see that these demands are doing him more harm than good and contrary to what they say management companies DO NOT have the artists’ best interests in mind, all they care about is how much money they can make off them with little or no outlay on their own part.
/rant
By Kirstie on Apr 1, 2009
This just happened to me and I decided not to sign after much debating back and forth. Unfortuntely, I am not as lucky as you to have photos of Morrissey already, which made the decision much harder. I’ve been a fan of The Smiths and Morrissey since I was in high school for a good 15 years or so now but this has really made me upset. To think that they just own your work and the copyright to it…I don’t understand why a photographer would agree to that honestly. Oh and the comment made by Cody is one of the most ignorant I have read but my guess is that’s the general consensus. We (as in all of us photographers) really need to do something about the way photography is perceived…like anyone can do this and that it’s so easy.