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]
Love it !!
All the pieces of the sandwich belonged to the guy walking through the cafeteria. Someone made his sandwich for their own and he was hungry. Hmmm
It was a Hamm sandwich.
Luckily my landlord allows me to pay him in 'my Facebook page has 8million followers' quotations rather than actual money...seriously people need to understand that photography is a profession and as such money exchanges hands for that service....using an unlicensed image is theft/copyright infringement regardless of whether or not a tour manager has been gracious enough to allow you the privilege to shoot the show. And also all you fauxtographers questioning the ethics behind the article and whether or not the photographer is out of line are part of the problem...it's this type of half arsed just happy to be shooting a band mentality that is damaging this genre of photography. UNLESS it is expressly agreed upon before shooting, or a full buyout has been agreed, the copyright (or the right the register the copyright) belongs to the photographer not the person in it. The photographer might allow to person in the image to have a copy or print, but they in no way legal have any right to that image, this includes bands.
I implore all photographers hobbyist or professional to learn basic copyright and licensing. If someone requests to use an image of yours you are perfectly within your right to ask for a licensing fee...tell them to shove their "exposure" up their arse because exposure means f-all unless the right person sees that image at the right time....highly unlikely.
Exposure does not pay bills or buy you camera. stand up for yourselves and for photographers demand payment!
if a photographer takes images of people without prior permission and uses those images to promote their work it is ethically dubious at best. I think the real issue is the availability and the ever increasing cheapness of higher end photography gear meaning you have a lot of amateurs out there that aren't willing to pay for models. they go to concerts and clubs instead and snap away. But it still comes down to who owns exclusive rights to a person's likeness. A photographer putting their stamp and claiming exclusive rights when no deal had been reached prior is at least as ethically dubious as removing said stamp. FYI, my girlfriend was in a similar situation. A photographer snapped a pic of her dog ( a boston terrier fyi ) at the park and she saw the photographer selling prints of her dog at an art fair. Those are the types that are out there and maybe these bands are just trying to protect themselves when it comes to control and having their likeness being exploited. The argument that it justifies stealing music also falls flat on it's face and as a musician personally disgusts me. i'd counter that claiming ownership of someone's likeness in such a dubious way is more akin to claiming ownership of their songs because you heard them play em publicly and had a recorder in your pocket.
fyi i know legally the images generally belong to the photographer but if you'll
read my comment i was simply calling it unethical and as i said i know of case personally were a photographer was trying to profit off my girlfriends dog. A dog that she had paid for as a pup ( boston terriers aren't cheap fyi )and raised herself... I call it ethically
dubious at best for any photographer to claim sole ownership of my
likeness for them to exploit without my permission just because i
appeared in public. I think ownership should be shared with the subject
always if the photos were taken in public without permission.
For many uses, a model release is required to use an image of a person. They very from state to state, so it's not a good idea to just copy a release form off of the internet. In the absence of a contract to the contrary, if a photographer is issued with a press (photo) pass and given entrance to a concert, it could be argued that consent was implied to take and publish photos. The photographer can license the images to whomever wants them and it will be up to the end user to determine if a release is required. For example, if the image was used in a news story about the show, the usage might not need a release. If the same image is used to advertise Acme Cola, it probably does need a signed release from anybody recognizable in the photo. People in the audience are exempted if they are captured in a group as most venues post a "you consent to …. by entering these premises" poster. Consult your IP attorney for advice on specific cases.
Animals do not require a release. A photographer making an image of a dog at a park is legally permitted to sell prints with no restrictions.
I'm stunned at some of the uneducated comments regarding copyright. Not that I'd expect any less from some fstoppers 'professionals'. Davy J all I have for you is wow. Dizeman is clearly correct in the reading DCMA. I also no longer shoot bands, for the same reason.
Nor: I started writing this as a reply but realized when I finally finished, it was less of a reply and more of a post of its own. Consider "you" as someone arguing for the free use of images and "us" as photographers that want to live without starving. ;)
This is the thing. Your "likeness" as a musician is not what gives us the next paid gig, it's the quality of our work. Sure, the opportunity to create a photograph presents itself through the performance of the musician. Sure, the more the popular performer, the fancier show, the better opportunity to create amazing imagery but it's like saying your music is only good because you where put on that stage with that fancy guitar of yours. The same way goes for our camera equipment, the camera is useless unless you know how to use it and the same goes for that guitar. Whether it is music or photography, you get paid for doing good work (music or photography). Hell, I don't understand why your "likeness" you get from your fans would give me more paid gigs when its other bands, not the fans that are my clients.
If you are at any level serious about shooting live gigs you request a photo pass. If the credentials are granted (i.e. you are allowed to shoot the show) the management has given you permission to do so and unless there's been some kind of contract signed, the only person with any kind of rights for the images is the creator. If an image was good enough to "borrow" (steal) in the first place, it's worth paying for.
May I ask you to consider this, if say a reasonable famous band, maybe not the biggest of all but reknown, would be asked if a huge filmmaking company like Warner Bros could use one of the band's songs as intro and outro for a movie, should they let them use it for free, because of the "likeness" of Warner Bros and the films the company creates? Now I would expect an argument saying "but your photo is only good because of the musician you photographed". Well, that is a buckload of bs. The image could be equally good with some other performer. The quality of the image is depicted by the skill and creative vision of the photographer, just like the song sounds great because of the performer (and if not the same, the songwriter) not because of the equipment used or where and to whom it was performed.
I apologize if I coming off rude or rough, English is merely my second language and the hour is late (like 01.13 in the morning over here) so I am sorry if I was repetitive and/or unstructured in my writing. Typing on a tablet doesn't help. Maybe this didn't change your mind at all from this but if anything, remember why we request a photo pass, it's a compliance for allowing us shooting the show under some restrictions like only for the first three songs. Granted, the photos cannot be sold for commercial use unless a model release has been signed, which is different, but its still an agreement to allow us to shoot.
As someone who has been around this industry for some time now, I see this as no more than the photographer antagonising the band from the initial Facebook message. Instead of politely asking for payment, he was blunt, rude and IMHO unprofessional. Working in this industry you need to tread lightly because there is little to no money going around for photography work for concerts, so if you're going to DEMAND money, do it nicely. There are two sides to every story, but the fact is this. The band did what most bands do, take images without asking. The photographer said he'd normally let this kind of thing go but was upset for the cropping and filter used, which is just silly. Going after a band and demanding payment in such a way just because they cropped/edited the image is silly and asking for trouble. All this has done is improve the band's marketing strength and lessened the photographers....regardless of the short-term attention he is currently recieving.
The industry is the way it is no not just because stealing pictures is easy, but because Photographers allow such situations and issues to occur. Clients don't pay poorly unless photographers accept it. This case may be different but its about time photographers took a look in the mirror and made some changes going forward. The industry is not what it used to be and we need to adapt to our competition, our clients' needs and dealing in such situations.
While this is true, it still doesn't negate copyright law.
Nothing does, but this is a new age and things need to be handled (better) differently now. Starting a war would only ever get the photographer attention and traffic, which I suspect was his goal. if he wanted payment more than anything, he would have gone about it more professionally instead of attempting to publicly embarrass the band.
I'd say they're doing a decent job embarrassing themselves with that godawful tirade. An artist trying to protect their intellectual property is less professional than someone being an outright @$$ while stating that all digital art should be free? I don't think so. It is NOT someone else's call what happens with MY artwork. Nor would I expect someone else to be complacent if I were to come and disrespect their artwork. No different than someone coming over to your house and saying "I believe all coffee tables should double as ottomans," and then slamming their shoes up on your coffee table. But hey...times are changing. We should all be more open-minded about dirty shoes and feet on our furniture, right?
Also, this being "a new age" is a very, very poor excuse people use to allow behavior that was previously seen as unacceptable. Just because today is today and not yesterday does not mean that I should change my standards. And again, we can philosophize about it all we want, but the bottom line is that the law is what it is, no matter what you think it SHOULD be. Hey, someone might think killing people should be legal...but try using that as a defense at your trial after you do it and say, "I believe murder should be legal, your honor. That's why I killed that guy, so it's cool." Not gonna get you very far, is it?
A fair point indeed. I'm saying from a photographer's perspective, this will not be the last time he will need to deal with such a situation, so its important to understand that he went about this the wrong way from the beginning and throwing threats of legal action in the first 'proper' communication is not the right way to go about protecting your work and being paid for what you deserve.
Agreed! I felt that Rohan was a bit too aggressive in his demand for payment. The third message, he started threatening legal action. I would have left that as a last resort.
Ask Metallica if it's cool to use someone else's art without paying for it.
It seems to me, anything in the digital realm is 'up for grabs' (I don't subscribe to this notion at all).
Plenty of photographers are out there doing whatever it takes (dodgy ethical practice) to get to where they want to be (professional, famous or both) and that sets a dangerous precedent that everyone else, unwittingly, has to follow.
The bar has been set so low that it can't scape the ground any further. If photographers stopped whoring their good work for a scrap of recognition and got organised (read: proper viable business model), then you might see the value of their work and of everyone else increase.
How many kids with a camera, living at home (parent sponsored hobby) and oblivious to the real world, are out there shooting for free?!!
All art should be free. Let's starting downloading his music for free. Let's see how long that would last.
So you want to be taken seriously but expect free beats, features, music videos, and photos?....Ok guy
I think it's fine to watch CREDIT.. but to ask for money because they put in on a free social media website (something they don't exactly profit off of and could easily have used another photo) is a little silly.
I can't help but think "hey photographers---welcome to rest of the entertainment industries problems" I mean..the music of these very bands you're photographing has been being pirated for the last decade and a half or longer, and movies are getting pirated right and left---but you expect someone to send you a check when they upload one of your pictures to TWITTER?!? Get real.
I'm not saying I don't understand why you would WANT that.. but in the age of the internet (and especially in the manner in which these photos are being used) it's just not realistic.
Like the guy said in his tweet--if they were putting the image on a t-shirt it might be a different situation but you want compensation for them putting it on social media? I can't help but just LOL at that. What year are you living in?
and while I have spent many a long hour arguing against piracy.. this is one of the rare scenarios in which "doing it for the publicity" makes perfect sense. As long as they give you credit, you're picture is being seen by more people than have ever seen your work before. If you expect more than that, they could just as easily used someone elses picture. You are privileged to be able to stand right near the stage and take pictures of the band. How do you make money off of it in this digital age? That's a question I can't answer for you but I know it's not going to be by charging/sueing someone for putting the picture on twitter...
People want things for free when it benefits them, if it doesnt then they could care less. Selfish.
They are so lucky that their music sucks and I won't waste any space on my drives with it.
Otherwise I think they should be ok with it if I just downloaded and used it in my promotion videos and stuff..? As long as I don't sell it?
Did the photographer get paid when he shot the band in concert?
They should both be happy. This story has gotten both of them more press than they would have otherwise.
The irony is that because the photo was originally posted on Facebook, Facebook could have used it for an ad for free (because of their TOS), and there would be nothing the photog could do.
Agreed -- I thought from the story that the photog posted it to FB, and the band swiped the photo, but I think I misread it. (That's the way it often happens, though.) Good idea about the clause.
I'd say from now on any photographer who shoots three days grace should charge 10 x the normal rate or NOT shoot them at all. in fact all of news media should black list the band. face it its photographers and videographers that promote bands vie social media and news media that make or break these artist. they would never be popular with out the help of media coverage.
Woot! Totally putting both bands music on my site! I'm not making money on it after all.
Never knew this band was a thing till today.
He has removed the tweet, tweeted another statement about how his views don't reflect those of the band (including a link, assumedly to the full speech, to facebook), then deleted that statement from facebook. this guy really doesn't know how to cover his tracks.
Dear Shawn Hamm, would it be ok then if I bring my best recording hardware to one of you live events and use your music to promote my photography services? There is no "financial gain" as I'm not selling the video itself, I'm selling myself so... go "get lost" if you think money is coming your way as you should be thankfull as my video will promote your music to millions who don't have a clue who you are. I wonder if, inside your head, photography and music are not professions but hobbies and as so, no money should ever be involved in these activities. If you are getting payed to do concerts, you should STOP right *f* now, consider it a privilege to play to thousands who don't have a clue who you are.
Irony aside, you should be free and respect others freedom. Many of us photographer as many of you musicians offer their work WHEN we feel like it. Just because we are free to give, doesn't mean it's free to take. Asking for permission is always free too, and polite.
Winter is coming.
Wow...this guy accidentally kept his brains in his nut sack. Clearly he knows very little..
Firstly, people who are there snapping your photo are very likely to be your fans. This douche should be grateful that there're people are even listening to this band. it's a privilege. (also learn how to spell PRIVILEGE)
Secondly, these band members are probably under the category of 'Public Figure' which means signing crap so photographers can take their photo is brainless. Good luck catching paparazzi.
These band managers are class 1 assholes.
Hamm and these bands are right.
We don't own everything we see in our viewfinder. Just because we take a picture of it, it doesn't make it our property.
It's one entitled artist group against another.
One thing that took out the credibility of Shawn Hamm's post on FB and Twitter was his HORRIBLE grammar and sentence structure, not to mention his subject verb agreement is incorrect.
Besides that, it is shocking that someone in the music industry, which is suffering so much from digital content being stolen, turns around and treats photographers the same way...
Sorry bud. You can't pick and choose which art forms should be paid and which shouldn't. In honor of his true feelings he should release his album for free with no compensation and see how it feels. Sorry, these bands do not deserve anything for free. Regardless of whether or not the person showed up to one of their shows and took pictures, the photographer still owns the rights and if they want it they pay for it, the same as they would expect people to do with their music. This guy sounds super entitled, and I certainly will steer clear of their music.