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:
Shawn's tirade continues over on his Facebook page:
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.
After the photographer contacted the band about his image he received the following reply:
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!"
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]
Let's ask Fro Knows Foto... lmao
Why? So he can go on a rant about how it's "just an average concert photo?" then go on an ego trip about his photos?
No, so that you can make negative rhetorical questions.
Fro knows nothing. A failed photographer making youtube videos implying he is successful. If he didn't make money through youtube he'd starve to death depending on his photography income which is slim to none.
Jared seems pretty successful, even if it is at "making youtube videos" and selling merchandise.
Very successful indeed but not as a photographer. As a youtuber and a merchandiser.
He's a much better photographer than you. For one, because he has tact.
Even Google translator failed. Try forming semi coherent sentences next time.
Just post a link to your website here so that we can have a look at your work, mate! If you really are that much better than jared is as you try to tell us here I will apologise to you.. I doubt that though!
Best wishes..
(ps: I think he's Ken Rockwell ;) )
Ok, no worries, mate... I think I already found all that I needed...
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=292195404263715&set=a.265447...
©"Akash Patel Photography"
My 13 years old cousin takes better pictures than that. If I was in the shoes of you Akash, I'd let my skill sett overgrow my ego, before i opened my mouth.
When's the last time you were paid to tour with a successful band? When's the last time you were hired to photograph a successful musician? Let's see your work Akash. Is it in Rolling Stone?
Regardless, he's still pretty successful.
Sure he is but not as a photographer. As a youtuber and a merchandiser. If you check out his website and portfolio you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. There is a reason why he is making hundreds and hundreds of videos. He has the time to do it because he has no photography gigs but he implies he is a successful photographer when he is not.
Hmmm we never heard of AkashPatel though? And you are...???!?
Ask your mom. She'll tell you the middle name too.
Look out folks, we have a tough guy here!
Take it easy cowboy. That toy in your hand can do some serious damage.
He's more successful than YOU!
Eggggggggzactly.
Maybe we should ask you all instead. Since you're all such established photographers with all your knowledge and experience on commenting in the internet. You're probably a bunch of spoiled kids that still don't know what it's like to make a living. Stop being assholes. Fucking wannabes.
A Fro fan.
Grab a camera and go outside and play dude, even if it's the iphone your mommy bought you.
Fro himself high on pharmacy drugs.
The only thing more ridiculous than Shawn Hamm's comments is the fact that Three Days Grace is still a thing.
I'm no concert photographer or anything but acceptable use guidelines of what BOTH parties are consenting to is dictated by signed contracts. NAPP style stuff: Don't crop or alter in any way the photos that were made that make it impossible to recognize the originator of the photo, no removal of watermarks etc. These are all in the contracts i've made with people i've worked with in the past. Verbal contracts might work with a witness but even in the digital age, signed contracts are almost always iron clad.
I'd wager big bands and even some small bands have such over inflated ego's due to their adoring masses of minions never saying no to them, they are not used to it when someone stands up to them.
No way to know what was agreed to in the spat between band and photographer in writing, but if band violated acceptable use statements in a signed contract that's breach of contract and pursuable under Tort law. It appears the alleged injured party did not resort to legal actions right away so that gives them additional ammo in court. Recent case law regarding public person(s) VS photographer claiming IP infringement indicate the injured party has 3 years from time of discovery to file suit, after that the clock is frozen until the court has heard all arguments.
Three Days what now??
i guess people should download their music for free cause its digital art
Happily, downloading music hurts ditributors and promoters more than the actual artists.
If we could buy digital music DIRECT from the bands, I'd do it. Until then, we shoudn't engross the fat pigs of the industry...
Not only download, but use it in your video's. No worries as long as you leave credit, right?...
actually you dont even have to credit them, acording to their mindset
Why should we leave credit? They should just be grateful we were willing to listen to it! Come on!!!!
if it's 3dg, they definitely should be grateful....
It's not like I agree with the guy, but you equating copyright infringement to a social media post is kind of ridiculous.
If you mean that they were ok to steal his photo and make money off it through promotion via a Social media post then I disagree completely. I know they THINK they aren't making money off of it but they are, every image a band uses gives them exposure to their fans and would-be fans. As such, since there is financial gain (popularity and recognition of the band members equals ticket sales for concerts), they owe him money and /or proper recognition. Now I am really speaking to the Red Jumpsuit Apparatus issue.
On the same side of the coin, if I was playing their music over the radio/using it in a video where I stood to make a profit then I have to pay them for that permission and I will likely have to credit them. This is different than sales to consumers. This really is a business to business deal: The photography business created a product, the Band business wants to use this product. They should PAY for use of that product. As such since they didn't then they are thieves.
Imagine if Apple stole some image Google had created and used it as their own, there would be a multi million dollar lawsuit filed the NEXT DAY.
These are business entities and all Photographers and Bands need to be seen this way. If they were then real businesses would take them more seriously, and so would the rest of the world.
So equating theft of a photo to theft of an album isn't quite the same, its intellectual property rights at stake here. Perhaps the photographer can re-release their album as his, but leave their name on the CD...I mean they're getting credit for it aren't they?
I really like how you broke it down - photographer created a product, band wanted to use that product... But, what happens when a photographer takes pictures and then tries to sell them? Should the band members get a cut because it's their product being photographed and sold? What are the usual intentions of a live music photographer? What are they using the images for once they've taken them? It's funny, and as naive as it may sound, but where I'm at in my business (just went full time!!!), I'd be flippin' stoked if a band used my image, honored even maybe (if it were a better band...:). I guess I just see both sides. Interested to your thoughts. Thanks!
Jamie. I did concert photography for years. Some pretty big bands to, with 5,000,000 likes on Facebook. There is a reason I do not do it anymore. I have self respect. I got tired of being treated by bands management and lawyers like the gum beneath their shoes. There is little to no money in it and the little I tried to make you had to go to war for. They have the attitude like you should be so honored to take their picture. Well it being a honor does not pay for my $40,000.00 in photo gear. I remember one time a band wanted to use some of my images on a dvd with one of the big record labels. There lawyers sent me contracts that wanted me to give them the photos, I would not be allowed to give them to anyone else without their permission, then on top of it, they wanted me to take on the financial responsibility if they got sued some how for using the images. CRAZY!! I still have the contracts to prove it. I can't tell you how many band members would take my images and use them without asking and removing the credit. Then when you try to be nice and ask them to at least put the credit on, they look at you like you have 6 heads and still not do it. It really makes you feel like crap. Problem, (Im sure not all) a lot of musicians are super super spoiled and are always silver paltered by people, even if they are on a low level.. So they think they can do what ever they want. Unfortunately, its the nature of the beast and not gonna change. So now I thank God I make a living photographing cars (and making good money). Concerts gave me a good portfolio that was a steeping stone, otherwise it was a waste of time. Its funny tho, I remember that an art director from Robb Report liked my concert photos so much, he gave me the job to photograph a new Bentley, go figure. And congratulations on going full time, thats a big accomplishment.
Why would anyone want to download or buy three days grace music?
haha
Agreed! Let's see how long that should last !
The only thing I have to say is this: concert photography is a big industry and I agree with him a little. I think large bands should have an official concert photographer they pay for photos for social media. All other photographers in the pit should be there for other paid jobs or their own personal interest. If you're there trying to make money as a stock music photographer or whatever it is, then you shouldn't expect much. Having to pay large amounts of money just for Facebook is actually something I don't agree with. That's where I would say the photographer's watermark and credit with a link to their website or facebook page is enough. A photo that they took because they love the band is not enough to warrant $50-$100. You went to the show, you were lucky enough to get into the pit, be happy about that.
The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus thing was different because they cropped out his watermark though.
If nothing was signed stating they could use the photos, I don't care if it was on Facebook or on the cover of their next "album", they have no right to use that photo without first having the permission of the photographer. No one should decide what your work is worth but you. If you think your work is worth $100,000 per photo, you can ask for that. You may not sell a single photo, but that doesn't mean that someone who thinks it is only worth $5 can take it from you and give you a $5 bill for it. That isn't how things work.
It does not matter what YOU think or I think... Title 17 of the United States Copyright Act and the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act state clearly, works, be they music, paintings, photographs, poems, wood carvings etc. become the sole and exclusive property of their creator at the time of their creation. There is not even a need for copyright notices any longer, since the work should be presumed to be the property of the owner at the time of it's creation. The only way the ownership of that work can be transferred is if the creator/owner signs away his or her rights, either exclusively or in part by a legal contract. It does not matter WHERE an artist posts their work, regardless of how public that posting is, that work is the sole property of the creator until the creator decides to share or transfer that ownership to another party. This silliness that a photographer should feel privileged to shoot a band is the psychosis many egomaniacs suffer. Every photo a competent photographer takes during a live performance is a moment recorded in time that cannot be reproduced and will likely last longer than the band's relevance. This is why I no longer photograph bands. I REFUSE to sign my ownership rights away as many bands and venues are requiring these days and I REFUSE to be limited to the FIRST THREE SONGS. I want to photograph pearls of sweat being flung from backlit hair, mascara running down faces, I have no interest in sterile, "Shoot them before they start sweating!" photos, so... not having the FANAtic gene to drive me, I lost interest in shooting bands. They're not gods to me! I don't feel any PRIVILEGE! They should feel PRIVILEGED that GOOD PHOTOGRAPHERS even bother.
Nuff said.
it also doesn't matter what title 17 of the united states blah blah blah says if it's not enforcable.. as I said in my big comment. Photographers, welcome to the problems every other digital media art form has been facing for the past decade and a half. Piracy literally killed record stores, and i've already seen people giving their online reviews of "the amazing spiderman 2" because IT'S ALREADY ONLINE! (AND IT DOESN'T COME OUT UNTIL MAY 7TH!!!!)
If that's the kind of shit music and movies take (and they're usually backed by multi-billion dollar companies--especially movies) what good do you think title 17 is going to do a lowly photographer?
Seriously if mega-corporations like Fox Studios and Warner Brothers can't keep their 8-figure movies from being pirated.. what makes you think Joe the photographer is going to be able to do?
Well natman2938, I know it may be hard to believe, but there may be things you might not be aware of.
It is enforceable, if someone uses your image without your permission, if you invoice them three times your established commercial rate per use, they either pay the bill or they don't.
If they do not pay the bill in 120 days, you pay $14 and place a lien on their name which effectively means they cannot buy a car, sell a car, purchase real estate, sell real estate until they pay you.
I have put a stop to illegal use of my images in Sweden where my image appeared on a sweat shirt prototype. Swedish laws function under the Bern Act, as does the United States.
I was prepared to invoice the company, they shut down production of the sweat shirts that used my image. I did not have to follow through on my threat, but they found out I could have and they would have LEGALLY owed me the $4,800 I was prepared to invoice them for. Had I done so and they not paid it in the 120 days, I could have filed a failure to pay on their credit report and filed a lien against their name as I indicated above. MOST, except the most moronic of the few will either honor your request to remove your image or pay you the USE RATE and PENALTY they should for using your property illegally.
I have a friend, a photographer as a matter of fact that a couple decades ago was printing postcards using his photos for the local Vegas tourist market. He used an image he had shot for a company he signed all rights over to in the sale.
They did not authorize him to use the image he created, but signed over to them, so they sued him.
They ended up settling the case for a fairly large sum, around $10,000 if I remember correctly, but your ASSUMPTION that it is difficult for JOE THE PHOTOGRAPHER to recover damages as the result of illegal use of their images is in error.
It's not that hard if you follow the procedures. The law is on your side, they have to be able to show in writing you authorized their use, they have no legal argument or defense against stealing your work. Photographers like JOE do not usually BOTHER, those who do... often get compensation or, have their images removed from the violator's site.
I've been a professional photographer for 38 years, on several occasions I have had to send a LETTER OF INTENT and often, during the first 20 years in this profession, people honored that request.
It's only in the past few years when it seems nobody has any respect for anyone any longer, which has changed my attitude from being soft on the issue to taking the time to do what I can to prevent illegal use.
As far as Sony and film distributors chasing down pirates? THEY DO IT EVERY DAY ALL DAY LONG! People are fined, even jailed... just because you don't know any of those people, does not mean they are not getting busted.
Two of my son's High School buddies got busted for downloading lots of music during the beginning of the NAPSTER craze, they too assumed nobody cared or would take the time to chase down a couple of kids downloading music from NAPSTER. They were wrong!
The two lead agencies known as Bounty Hunters in the IT industry are the Buisiness Software Alliance and Software & Information Industry Association, they among others do nothing all day and all night except chase down software pirates and illegal users.
To assume nobody chases after abusers and violators of copyright law, simply because you may not know of anyone who got busted, be it the software industry, the music industry, film industry or JOE THE PHOTOGRAPHER... might be a myopic perspective. THEY DO!
One of my son's friends parents lost their home, they had to sell to pay the $110,000 reduced fines they were charged for their son's illegal use of someone else's copyrighted music. I don't know what happened with the other kid, never heard from them again, I suspect they were dealt a similar blow.
So, the FACT IS, JOE THE PHOTOGRAPHER and many like him in the variety of crafts and industries that are protected by copyright law... do have recourse, do often get results, many times just too quietly for YOU and ME to hear about.
Not everybody who files a court case or sends a letter of intent or recovers damages does it in a manner that YOU, ME and JOE would ever hear about, unless the damages are extremely substantial. Then it makes the headlines.
I doubt... I just get the feeling... You will BLAH! BLAH! BLAH! this information as well.
BEST BET IN VEGAS!
You don't know a single thing about how Swedish law works, obviously. But I guess that wasn't the point.
Well sp_gm, I know Swedish law honors the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 which the United States implemented in 1998. AND THAT IS THE POINT! Kinda pompous for you to suggest you know what I know are do not know. Two people know what I know... you're not one of them. But again, the POINT was Copyright Law and Sweden like the United States implements the Berne Convention Implementation Act/1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That's all I need to know about Swedish law. But, the ADULT response to your juvenile retort would be, "I don't have to know the law in Sweden or the United States. I have the option of calling and retaining someone who does. I don't have to know anything about plumbing or AC repair either... I call and retain someone who does." That's how ADULTS do things!
Hey Naatman - Spiderman 2 is already out as I went to see it at the cinema last night April 23 - so the online review you read could of been someone in the UK - use better facts next time to make your argument,
Amen!