Taylor Swift’s bold rant against Apple over royalties continues to echo in the ears of photographers.
A quick recap . . . Swift used her Tumblr page to chide Apple for initially not paying musicians during the trial period of the new Apple Music. Then a music photographer in England called her a hypocrite because the contract her people force editorial photographers to sign before shows says Swift has the right to use those photos for free to promote her brand.
Apple backed down, but the good publicity-bad publicity for Swift has photographers and photo editors taking second looks at the contracts of other musical acts.
Washington City Paper is boycotting the Foo Fighters’ RFK Stadium concert over the Fourth of July for similar restrictions to photographers assigned to cover the event. This comes in the same week The Irish Times in London refused to assign a photographer to cover two Swift shows in Dublin because of her contract.
In a post Thursday, Washington City Paper’s Steve Cavendish published a copy of the Foo Fighters’ contract, noting this passage: The band has “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” without approval or payment or consideration for the photographer.
Photographers and bands have always had simple agreements over how concerts pictures would be used. By receiving a press credential, photographers agree the photos will be used for editorial use only.
But now that we live in a digital world, it is getting more and more difficult for both photographers and musicians to control how images are used on the web. Many websites just grab and publish images without compensating the copyright holders. Business-savvy bands also seek to control photo usage as a possible revenue stream.
Cavendish said the band management told Washington City Paper the contract language was an industry standard worded to protect the band. Yet, the Rolling Stones make no such demands on photographers covering their shows, according to Cavendish.
Still, Washington City Paper plans to cover the Foo Fighters concert with photos. Because band management can’t possibly control the thousands of fans taking pictures at the concert, the paper asked fans to send in their photos for possible publication.
“If we run it in next week’s print edition, we’ll pay you for it,” Cavendish wrote. “And we won’t ask you to sign over the copyright or your first born, either.”
If you are at the concert and wish to help Washington City Paper cover the concert, send photos to [email protected] or tweet them @WCP.
David Pierini is a former newspaper writer and long-time photographer. Considered a luddite by most of his friends, they did not believe him when he broke the news that he would be writing for a technology website. He is fascinated by human nature and would love to cultivate stories about the people driving the tech bus. Reach out to him at [email protected].
34 responses to “Photographers add Foo Fighters to their Taylor Swift contract battle”
Well, THEY are the subject of the photos, so they DO have control if they want to. To me, a photographer is not much different than someone behind a video camera or a mixing board pressing the Record button. Why would you not want to sign and adhere to their contract? These concerts are on private property and only open to people that pay money. Some venues don’t mind people taking photos, but many do. I’ve been to countless concerts where they clearly mention no audio, video recording devices or cameras. People unfortunately take their smartphone out and take photos and videos of concerts and post a lot of really crappy videos on YouTube, but if they don’t have legal rights to take them at the concert, then the subjects can have them removed.
If you go to a set for a movie, they close it off to the public and they get everyone that’s being captured have to sign a release form to the production company so they can use the footage for a movie. Same thing with musicians in a band that’s going into a studio.
Hello again Celes,
You do understand that a single image can have multiple rights holders, correct? You get that, right? We would not want to sign or adhere to the contract because while the artist certainly has the right to protect their likeness rights in who takes their photo and where it can be used, they are overstepping a line when they TAKE the image rights from the photographer so they can use the photos without paying for a license of the image rights.
To be perfectly clear, no one is advocating that the subject of the photo doesn’t have likeness rights. They do. That is their projection. Image rights are the to protect the creator of an original image. Pretty simple.
This has been the standard for a long time, it allowed Annie Leibowitz and many others to make a living. The artists are within their rights to try and change the terms, and we are within our rights to say no, I will not allow you to maintain your rights while stealing mine.
If they have rights to their photos, then why should have to pay you for it? You said that an image has several rights holders. Well, if they are one of the rights holders, then why should they pay you to use it? They aren’t going to sell them like you are, they are just going to use it.
They call always not give you permission to take photos at THEIR concerts.
If you work for a magazine and you get a famous celebrity on a photo shoot for the cover of the magazine, they go to a place that isn’t a concert or their own property, it’s usually done at the photographer’s studio. I would think they get rights to use those photos for promotional purposes, but they aren’t going to sell copies of it.
I personally think that photographers should be treated just like a recording engineer. The recording engineer just gets paid for their time and the recording engineer doesn’t get ownership rights to the recordings. The artist might give them a copy for personal listening, but they don’t get any ownership rights to those recordings to sell or distribute. A photo is just like a recording of a performance. One you listen to and one you look at, it’s still capturing someone.
All you are is someone that looks for a shot and presses a button, you aren’t performing in front of people. Anyone can take a photograph of someone else if they have a camera. You make it sound like you are an artist or something by taking photos of someone at a concert. You are a photographer taking photos. Anyone with a camera of smartphone that can take photos in dark lit rooms can take the photo in this article, it doesn’t take much skill to do that. If you get lucky and capture someone from a good vantage point and they are in the right pose, etc., then you luck out. but you aren’t doing anything that really requires much skill. Of all of the concert photos I’ve seen, I didn’t see much artistic skills in that. At concerts, you can’t tell the musicians to take a certain pose, so you are just lucky if you get something that great at a concert. When a photographer is in their studio or in a place where they have more control over the camera position, the subject’s pose, etc. then there is more artistic value, but at a concert, you don’t have any control over what the artist you are shooting is doing, wearing, etc., and you can’t just go on stage and take a photo whenever and where ever you want to, so there is less artistic control on the part of the photographer. I’ve taken photos at concerts that came out just as good as anyone else’s. But I wouldn’t say I’m an artist because of it, i just lucked out and was sitting in front row. if the artist/musician wanted copies, I’d gladly give them copies, all I wanted is one for me to look at, but I wouldn’t be a prima donna about it.
They have rights to their likeness. That is not the same as my photos.
If I want to make posters using my photo of them, I have to pay for likeness rights, which not only requires their permission from them, but that I pay them. Everyone has a say and everyone gets paid fairly.
In turn they should pay for my image rights. What they get for free is they don’t have to pay themselves for their own likeness rights.
They can choose to not provide access, no one is debating their right to control access and they do. So your whole private property, expense of putting on a show point is irrelevant to the issue under debate.
Your opinion on the value of photography and whether it warrants copyright protection has no basis in the law and is of no concern to the issue at hand. Thanks for the insight into your thinking but it is moot.
As a musician, you just play notes and chords to a rhythm. You didn’t invent the notes, the chords or even the instruments you play. Anyone can do that, yadda, yadda, yadda.
A musician is granted copyright by virtue of an original composition, arrangement and lyrics. A photographer is grant copyright on the same grounds. You may not get it, you may not like it, but you also have a total disregard for the labors and training for others, so it is becoming less surprising with each post. The law grants a copyright, we have a right to defend it. We do not need your approval or understanding to exercise that right. Artist can try to make a grab for the rights of others, we have the right to defend ourselves.
When the photographers are gone as a profession, Dave Grohl will have a season of Sonic Highways where he claws his eyes out asking “why, oh why? Where are the new Annie Lebowitz’?”
If you would like extra cash on the side with average of 50-300 dollars each day for doing jobs at your home for several hours daily then try this…
Andrew, good for you. This is what I have been telling the willfully ignorant on this site for over a week now. These contracts are threats to the livelihood of professionals. They are a form of coercion based on undue influence and the threat of economic penalty. But some people just really want Swift and the Foos to always be heroes and won’t hear anything bad about them.
Then find another profession or don’t rely on photos you take at concerts. it’s THEIR concert and it’s on private property, so just suck up and deal with it, or just go into commercial photography where they bring you things to shoot in YOUR studio.
Your logic is faulty. Location is irrelevant to granting of copyright to a photographer. you are making a point that is moot to the issue of copyright.
You must be talking to yourself. The only faulty logic I see is yours.
Cleaver retort. Copyright is granted to the photographer for the composition of the image. Location, cost, who spent what has no legal bearing so my logic stands.
Your reply contains no substance at all and so shows an inability to engage on the topic at hand.
But the subject of the photo also gains a copyright claim. And no, that only works for people. You’re a blind moron.
No, also applies to physical things like buildings. For example, you have to pay to take a picture of the Crysler Building (unless it is part of a greater landscape shot). Same for the Eiffel Tower with night lights (also unless it is part of a greater landscape shot).
Buildings are a completely different principal; not relevant. And people take “illegal” pictures of those things all the time. Just like fans in the crowd at a concert taking photos. That’s the only connection.
Find another topic to comment on, and don’t expect people to simply give up the rights they earn under the law. We won’t stop fighting for our rights and our livelihood, suck it up.
Wow, your asshole is all over this article. If you care about your “livelihood”, get off the internet and go get some more work. Moron.
No, you are the moron.
Nope, but you’re welcome to join him as moron!
PMB01, I am fine with being an a-hole, because I am speaking up for the legal rights of mine and others in the creative services. If you would like to add a point that is on topic, I am sure we would all like to hear it.
I’ve added many points that you haven’t rebuked (because they are valid points). Speaking up for others doesn’t mean you get to be an asshole. If you’d like to stop whining, I’m sure we’d all listen to you.
Wow, did you really just say that? Find another profession?
So instead Washington City Paper is screwing its photographers by crowdsourcing the job. Idiots.
See, this is why photographers have this all wrong. Demand better pay from your employer instead of complaining about your “rights” being taken away. Or demand your employer actually stand up for you instead of making idiotic moves like this.
As a freelancer, I find the contract unacceptable. Even though I’m a fan of Dave and theFoo Fighters, I would still refuse to sign the document. I seriously doubt that those employed by publications have much leverage to demand a raise, budgets are tight everywhere and staff jobs are few and far between. Remember what happened at Sports Illustrated last year when most of the photo staff was let go.
And you’re allowed to have that opinion, but plenty of others sign it. As a freelancer, you can choose your work. Don’t blame artists for wanting to control their image, which they’re allowed to do. If you don’t like it, go to someone else. It’s not difficult.
You clearly do not understand the issue.
You’re clearly talking to yourself. I understand perfectly what’s going on.
He’s a dingbat.
A photographer may miss out on $250-$500 per Editorial use of an image but it’s the already wealthy artist that saves around $3-5K per publicity shoot that the images replace. Those photographers supply a steady stream of fresh images that the artist can use as they please for free with no regard to their creator.
Nice red herring. Too bad I saw right through it. Try making a relevant argument.
You type “rights” as though we are making something up. The law, you know the law of the land that governs how many things work, grants the taker of a photo a copyright. That is the right we are fighting to keep. A copyright we earn by virtue of the job we preform. Your same argument could be applied just the same to the musicians. But we understand they deserve to be paid for the music they create. Why? They didn’t invent the notes, or the words, or the rhythms, or the instruments they play. They earn copyright protection because of the composition and arrangement they create. We can break down the parts of any song and find that it is made up of these things that are not original, but they put these pieces together in an original way. Photography is granted a copyright on that exact same reasoning. We create an original composition with our photos. That is our art. We take free and common things like light, shadow, speed and timing and we create original compositions that make images. Some of these images people want to see and share and we are granted, by law, a copyright for that work. That is our right by law.
Except photography is different because the subject of the photos also has a claim to the copyright. The artists are allowed to control their image (that is also part of the law). In the case of Taylor, you can still use the pictures for other things. You just have to ask them first. I don’t see anyone saying “I asked for permission to use pictures for such-and-such purpose and Taylor refused my request”. Until then, you guys just look like a bunch of whiny assholes trying to piggyback on Taylor’s fame. Maybe you should get off your ass and try to get more work instead of whining about others “preventing” you from earning a living.
No one is claiming that the subject doesn’t have likeness rights, they do. But the photographer has image rights to their original composition. Their rights don’t negate our rights anymore than our rights negate theirs. The terms of their contracts are a grab to add my rights on top of the rights they already have. They are welcome to try and we are welcome to call them out for it. If we are whiners for calling out Taylor and The Foos, then she is a whiner for calling out Apple. Your selective love for Taylor has quashed all logic in your head.
And yet, you’re still completely clueless to what these contracts afford you. But please, continue to whine about your “rights” instead of being a man and looking for better work. Quit being an entitled asshole and people might actually listen to what you say.
Still talking to yourself? That’s sad.
Outlet?