Another Day, Another Band Angry at Photographers: Three Days Grace

Another Day, Another Band Angry at Photographers: Three Days Grace

If you've been paying attention to photo news this week you know that concert photographer, Rohan Anderson, was in a little bit of a internet-war with the band Red Jumpsuit Apparatus after they "borrowed" an image for a social media post without credit or compensation. Now it looks like another group is jumping on the bandwagon.

One of Three Days Grace's tour manager band assistants, Shawn Hamm (far less cool than his brother, John) took to Twitter today with a message for concert photographers:

Austin_Rogers_Fstoppers_Concert_Photo_Stolen_1

Shawn's tirade continues over on his Facebook page:

Austin_Rogers_Fstoppers_Concert_Photo_Stolen_2

The advice he directs to his fellow musicians is particularly disconcerting:

ATTN: ALL BANDS make sure nowadays you make all photographers you approve sign a waver stating you can use the photos of YOURSELF however you want before you approve them to shoot YOUR SHOW! 

Below are is a copy of the post that started this whole mess as well as the conversation between the photographer and the band from PetaPixel.

Austin_Rogers_Fstoppers_Concert_Photo_Stolen_3

After the photographer contacted the band about his image he received the following reply:

Austin_Rogers_Fstoppers_Concert_Photo_Stolen_4

The band would later publicly respond:

"We believe ALL forms of art should be FREE!"

Before amending the post to:

"We believe most forms of DIGITAL art should be free!"

Austin_Rogers_Fstoppers_Concert_Photo_Stolen_6

This certainly isn't the first time we've seen people take photos without permission, compensation, or attribution, but the trend in feeling justified doing so seems to be.

[ Via Felix L. Esser @ The Phoblographer & DL Cade @ PetaPixel]

Austin Rogers's picture

Austin Rogers joined Fstoppers in 2014. Austin is a Columbus, OH editorial and lifestyle photographer, menswear aficionado, pseudo-bohemian, and semi-luddite. To keep up with him be sure to check out his profile on Fstoppers, website, drop him a line on Facebook, or throw him a follow on his fledgling Instagram account.

Log in or register to post comments
140 Comments
Previous comments

Mmm it's an understandable problem. Yes, art should be refered to the source and paid if asked, stealing it is not good. But then again, if I had the opportunity to photograph Beyonce's concert or backstage I would definitely do it for free just to keep a little watermark or freedom to post in my pages and I bet my two arms many of you would do it too even if you would say you wouldn't because of your pride or some bs like that. Yes! Working for free is a thing, has been a thing and will continue to be a thing many years in the future, get over it.

I think the band is completely entitled to make photographers sign these forms and photographers are completely entitled to sign them or not. The liberty of the parts aren't being damaged in this case. And of course is understandable that there might be photographers that want to hang from the populatiry of a band or artist, that's true, and it's also true that they should pay a price for it, wich might be working for free in exchange of watermark rights.

The point here is the illegal use of art and that certainly is a crime that should be punished.

Am I the only one here who thinks he's right? I mean if it's for online presence AND logo, come on!

If they use it elsewhere (promo, posters, etc...) then compensation is expected but social media? REALLY?

Greed is sad....

Social Media is a form of advertising.

I think everyone (industry leaders, pro-photogs, musician, etc...) need to look at reality.

Reality being: "Will it rob me of income (present or future)? Will it damage my brand?"

The fact IS that (in this case) the photog took pictures of an event UPON INVITATION (no fees I would assume..) and then had to give those pictures again to the band. he can't possibly think that they were going to sit on them for 40 years! OF COURSE it was meant to be used! We ent in there knowing and acknowledging that fact...

Will it rob him of income? I don't think so. They won't use a live concert picture as serious promo for album covers, posters, etc...

Will it damage my brand? No it could have HELPED his brand if he didn't behave like a small child.

Social media is a form of advertising THAT BOTH parties benefit from. Let's not forget that.

Doesn't matter. Copyright law is what it is. Photographer owns his work and copyright can only ever be transferred by signed contract. If there's not a piece of physical paper with the photographer's signature on it, the band is not allowed to do anything with his work.

If the band can prove an invasion of privacy (which they realistically can't), there's pretty much no way around that.

This is 2014. Copyright Law is what "Doesn't Matter" Oh sure it technically still exist and that's fun but when Fox Studios and Warner Brothers studios can't even keep their 8-FIGURE Films off the internet and multi-million if not billion dollar bands can't keep their music off the internet, what are individual photographers supposed to do?
I'm NOT saying it's right, I'm saying it is what it is. What's the photographer to do? Take them to court? Maybe if all the stars align perfectly a photographer might win a case every now and then and get a little settlement, but for every 1 time that happens a few hundred thousand other photographers will fail miserably in their attempts.
It's the nature of the modern beast. Most people don't have the money or time to try to fight something in court that they're probably not going to get much out of, and those that do will most likely fail.

Copyright law does indeed matter and there is no "technically" about it.

Settlements are negotiated every day for unlicensed use of images. What you won't see are court cases and news articles as the settlements are made "behind closed doors." The legal precedents are so well established that for most infringements it's obvious whether there is an infringement or not. A competent attorney will advise their client that they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and that they should settle for the best deal they can get because a judge will find against them. If a case arrives in front of a judge, the least award will be $10k or more. In exceptionally rare cases it could be as high as $150k.

Concert photography is only profitable for a very few photographers, just as album sales are only profitable for a very few artists.

I've shot performances and portraits and was paid by the bands for my work. I don't haul a couple of thousand dollars of photo gear to a show just to see 3 songs performed while I am busy trying to compose and photograph as many images as I can. I'd rather buy a ticket if I like the band and enjoy the show with a frosty beer in hand.

The band isn't doing me a favor by giving me a press pass. They are giving me access because they believe that I will be able to capture some good quality images that will be used in an article about them in a magazine, newspaper or music blog. If the band is polite and asks nicely, I may license them an image or two at no cost to create some goodwill for the future. If they demand that I give them everything I shoot and that I must have their permission to use any of the images, they can F*&k off. I don't need images of them for my portfolio. I have plenty already and many of them of well known acts.

I'll shoot a concert because it's interesting and maybe I'll make a $100 licensing the images. The truth is that I would make much more money shooting a portrait of somebody where it's not likely that I'll have a cup of beer sloshed down my back and I'm not in mortal danger of getting thrashed by security staff.

Social Media, The New York Times or Rolling Stone, it's all advertising. From a sales perspective, there is no difference between a license to put a picture on FaceBook (who claim free rights when somebody does) or Modern Drummer.

Generally, I agree. I wouldn't be upset from a marketing stand point if a band got my work out to their fans with my name on it.

I concur, unless it was on Facebook. Once a photo is on Facebook, FB can do just about anything they want with it and you have no legal recourse against them.

Social media is becoming more and more, the ultimate form of advertising and promotion. So yes If someone takes one of my images and uses it on social media to advertise/promote themselves, I will seek payment or at the very least make them take it down. This is why photographers need to copyright their images.

Chris, I think you mean that photographers need to register their images with the copyright office. You have the copyright as soon as you push the shutter button. Registering gives the photographer greater protections including the ability to collect statutory damages and attorney's fees.

What's missing here is that the TDG jerk is pissed because TDG capped a photo off a site (not off FB etc) and got hit with a fee to avoid a lawsuit....he's whining about it now as he has been for months, the full story should be up on petapixel soon, the photographer in question came forward, he didn't put it on social media, and when he asked it to be taken down TDG refused.

I'm fairly confident that any use of a photograph on their social media outlets could be considered some form of "financial gain." It's just another type of advertising. The least they can do is leave the watermark intact and link back to his site.
Luckily through the backlash he received from the band, this photographer is getting much more attention than he might have expected otherwise (though the circumstances are both unfortunate and illegal, regardless of what the band "believes").

While I am not dealing with a band using my images, I have been dealing with companies using my images: http://www.livingoverland.com/2014/04/a-tale-of-stolen-photo.html

Wonder if you could get one of those light bars for free? That would be cool.

That would be cool, I should try that angle!

I do alot of trade work...I take some pics and you give me whatever it is you do for a living..ha ha, but i don't really live off my photography so it may not be the best for everyone. Cheers!

I've been following these stories. I'm not a professional photographer but have a love and appreciation for it and respect the work that you all do. I'm also not a lawyer (but can't say have an equal love or appreciation for that profession!) So anyway, I have to ask this in all seriousness. If you're a street photographer taking my picture, the understanding is that we're in public and you can legally take pictures of me; you own the artwork and I don't. Now, if you're a concert photographer, I can see two scenarios. First, you're hired by a magazine or some music-related media house and, simply by convention, my band lets in the first four photographer that show up. I would expect (being the reasonable fellow that I am) that you or the magazine own the copyright to all photographs and unless expressly agreed up front, my band should not expect any rights to those images. Second, you're invited into a private venue to photograph my band. Regardless of whether you're a freelancer or not, I'm "allowing you the privilege" to photograph me. In this case, why doesn't my band own the photographs? You're doing me a service after all, spreading my image so why shouldn't I have rights to that image? Is it only because I haven't paid you? Or signed a contract? Again, I don't mean to offend, I hope I haven't, I just want to understand.

When you take a picture, the intellectual value of that belongs to you. Unless specified otherwise. So no, regardless of me doing you a service, the photography still belongs to me in other words. If you then proceeded to use the picture anyways, and I asked you to remove it, by law (at least where I come from) you would have to remove it.

unbelievable what you're saying... NOBODY owns the right of the pictures you take unless a serious buy out fee has been paid with specific mention that you leave your intellectual rights to the buyer ($$€€££). It's like saying that if you buy a concert tickety ou own the right to use the music you're listening to... makes no sense I guess either

He's almost as angry as that song Three Days Grace kept releasing under different titles across too many albums.

You know......they should feel privileged that anyone goes to their shows.

Let's see how forgiving he is when someone uses one of his songs for something.
What a c*nt.

I followed the link and read the comments. Shawn also posted "Shawn Hamm And just to BE VERY CLEAR for those who may be slower. I am NOT talking about photographers the band asks to come shoot. The should ALWAYS be compensated. I'm talking the ones that ask the band for a photo pass to come shoot. And all watermark, names etc should always be left on the photos in either situation."

Seems reasonable!!!

Hi, I just saw your watermark on a concert photo and I want to hire you to shoot my wedding.....said no one, ever!

LOL!!!! so true.

I took a photo of a monkey for a zoo, and was asked to photograph a wedding because of that photo... >_> Not kidding...

Hope the monkey isn't suing you because you are using his picture on the internet! Its worth bananas for him!

I get band promo shoots, album covers, business shoots and concert shoots (all paid) because of my watermark. I do no other advertising and barely even post on social media from my page.

Also, why would a concert photographer want to shoot a wedding anyways?

I should also add that I've been shooting for a print magazine for over a year now because the right person saw a photo they liked with my watermark.

It's awesome that Red Jumpsuit Apparatus can afford to do that. If they were serious about their free work, they should refund anyone who's ever bought it. Then I'd respect their conviction.

All I can say is don't ever sign a waiver to shoot a band free, that's waving your rights away.

Shawn Hamm is just frustrated, I get it, you think you own every photo of yourself, and you "allowed" the photographer to be there. But last I checked you NEED the photographers to be there, or you won't get any press.

Crediting photos with or no watermark is a professional courtesy.

And pay for good concert photos that you can use on your social media, it benefits you.

This is a side effect of not teaching proper business practices to all those who want to be photographers. It is all in one word: LICENSING. Learn to license, perpetuate licensing so these low lives won't take advantage of you anymore. Photography is NOT a commodity.

I'd like to see how many photographers will/would shoot their show, without being paid, after that comment (and signing THAT release). It's a catch 22. No publicity, no band. No band, No photos.

plenty of beginner/amateur photographers will do so. Of course, you'll get mostly beginner/amateur results, but still. Even a beginner can snap a few decent shots.

I'll shoot for free. You're paying me for anything better than a low-res jpeg with a watermark across every face, but I'll show up and shoot for free. It's one thing to not pay for promotional usage. I might or might not be cool with that in any given situation. But to not even credit is completely reprehensible.

When I was in school, I would have jumped to do this for free, and probably would have just given them everything for free with no watermark or just a small one in the corner. But I've been burned once (on a wedding, no less), and that won't ever happen again. The only things I'll do for free are charities and church events.

Just want to point out that this headline seems really misleading. I see nothing in this article to show that the band Three Days Grace said ANYTHING. Shawn Hamm is their tour manager and assistant, according to his Twitter bio. That means he's a roadie who carries cases of water bottles and finds the wifi password for the green room. Might want to understand the music industry a little before you write about it.

Someone who represents you in any capacity is your public face. Anything he says on behalf of the band reflects on them. What industry you're in has absolutely no bearing on that fact.

First of all, I disagree with that first statement. In that case, the band's fans are their public face as well, and it would be ridiculous to hold them responsible for their fans' words. Their tour manager represents them about as much as a door greeter represents the board of Wal-Mart.
And he didn't say it on behalf of the band. He was ranting his own opinion. If one of the members themselves had said it, it would be more significant, which is what this clickbait headline is going for.

Nope, you're wrong.

It doesn't matter what the relationship is between the band and the Tour Manager. When he goes off the wall on Twitter, it absolutely reflects on the band. His comments and public opinions absolutely will color peoples' views of the band. It doesn't matter if he's officially allowed to speak for them; he represents them, just like every player or coach on any college sports team represents the college.

Andrew, you do not understand the role of a tour manager.

That's absolutely true and completely irrelevant.

"You're wrong," good one.

The only reason this reflects on the band is because Fstoppers is reporting it as their words. If the headline had read, "Shawn Hamm (assistant for Three Days Grace) Hates Photographers," no one would care. But the writer threw the band under the bus with him, deliberately, for click-bait, and I think that's shady journalism.

this is essentially a collection point for blog posts, hardly anything posted here has ever been close to being labelled as journalism.

I would figure the first group of artists that would understand the life of a working photographer would be the musicians. How many gigs didn't pay? How many times did you get screwed out of money? How many times did you struggle to get noticed? I would have thought that the last people on the planet that would abuse, pick on, or mistreat the photographers would be the musicians. Sad.

There are at least two sides on this matter, the photographers and the subjects. The main question is who has the right to do what. Has the photographer right to benefit from photos that he has taken of a person without consent, this may be violation of personal privacy even if it is in a public event. The other is has a person, right to use pictures of them self wherever they find them, (unless they have signed a waiver), that may be possible violation of copyright.
It does not matter how you tackle it, it finally always comes to that witch side you are on.

There is no basis here to claim an invasion of privacy. Consent was pretty clearly given. Copyright can only ever be transferred by signed contract. Unless the photographer gave permission to use his work (which he apparently didn't), this absolutely is a copyright violation.

There will always be question about privacy unless the consent is written.
As I said before there are always two sides in cases like this, you can argue both sides with equal confidence and be right in both cases. Ultimately it comes down to which one you favor.

You walked through the cafeteria and you spotted that sandwich on someone's table. You liked the way the sandwich looked, and you really wanted a bite of that sandwich. The person might've even gladly given you a bite if you'd asked. But you just took it. You didn't ask, did you? DID YOU!?! :D

Perfect analogy.

More comments