Coldplay is claiming the copyright of concert pictures taken by professional photographers, demanding complete ownership of the images, according to WebVivant, a British freelance photography site based in France. They write:

 

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

Rock band Coldplay is claiming the copyright of concert pictures taken by professional photographers. Just how rich do these guys need to be?

 

This is becoming all too common. Coldplay is just the latest in the line of high-profile bands who want to grab the rights to pictures taken of them in concert.

 

If you're a professional photographer, you won't get a pass to take pictures of the band during their gigs unless you are accredited to a magazine. And even then, you'll need to sign an agreement that forces you to give away your pictures.

 

This is a portion of the contract that Coldplay's management is insisting photographers sign:

 

1. The photographs taken by you of the Artist ("the Photographs") shall only
be taken during songs 2,3,4 performed by the Artist at the Event and shall
only be taken without flash. The Photographs are approved for publication
once in the following publications only;

................... [NAME(S) OF PUBLICATION(S)]

Or for syndication as agreed by us or your agency;

................... [NAME (S) OF AGENCY

2. You hereby transfer and assign to us 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. You warrant and undertake that the Photographs (in whole or in part)
shall not form, either directly or indirectly, the content of any
publication other than the Publication(s), whether published by the above
publication(s) (including in any associated publication of such
publication(s) listed above) or by any third party (i.e. no syndication
rights are granted).

 

In case you hadn't noticed, most rock photographers aren't exactly rich. The fees they get for attending and photographing gigs are mostly risible. The only reason it's worthwhile is because they can resell the images later as stock photos.

 

In this case, Coldplay wants that revenue for itself. It wants to profit from the skill and talent of the photographers. Just how rich do these guys need to be?

 

This is part of a larger trend, one that involves no small amount of hypocrisy. One the one hand, photographers' clients are reducing fees, using amateurs (so-called citizen journalists, micro-stock etc). There's a strong implication that the skills and artistic talent of photographers isn't worth much - certainly not as much as it used to be.

 

On the other hand, they're going for massive rights grabs, demanding complete ownership of the images. Why? Because they know that this intellectual property is actually worth rather a lot. They can make money from it.

 

Any self-respecting photographer is going to tell Coldplay, and their ilk, to shove this contract up their over-rated arses. Alas, there are bound to be some newbies or wannabes or innocents who just won't realise to what extent the band is ripping them off. This is shameful exploitation.

 

By steve

 

http://www.webvivant.com/coldplay-copyright-grab.html

ouch. Leave them alone, guys. :confused: Ickity.

Not good news.

Hmmm, I doubt this is anything that has come from the boys themselves, but no, not good.

If it isn't CJGW's doing, then why weren't they made aware of it and given the chance to tell the money people to sod off? The sooner they get away from EMI the better.

Agreed.

 

There has been loads of photographers Twittering their disgust at Coldplay though, so maybe something will be done.

 

I'd like to think they agreed it was wrong, but who knows.

I can remember years ago (must be at least 10 years) Bon Jovi were one of the first bands to do that and the press they got for it was not pretty!

For those of you who aren't twittered up yet, here's some of the comments:

 

teodiomio: @coldplay why are you trying to grab fotographers copyright? its 'our' work, you have no rights. we will boycot your gigs if you persist

 

WillStrange: @coldplay: Why are you ripping photographers off? How would you feel if I demanded copyright to your creations? Pack it in. Will

This looks bad....

 

When are they leaving EMI by the way?

Hadn't we already heard about this before? Still, not good.

 

And this is a stupid question, but how can you see what other people are saying to Coldplay's Twitter? *doesn't understand Twitter*

This looks bad....

 

When are they leaving EMI by the way?

 

Think they have still 1 or 2 albums left.

But what does this has to do with the copyright issue?

Hadn't we already heard about this before? Still, not good.

 

And this is a stupid question, but how can you see what other people are saying to Coldplay's Twitter? *doesn't understand Twitter*

 

i only found out on fri :D

 

there's a search page http://search.twitter.com/search?q=coldplay

so you can pick up twitters from anyone who's left their twitters open for all to read. (there is the option to make your twitters viewable only to people who are following you)

 

its been a different way of getting mini concert reviews & live concert updates the last 2 days.

yeah, this smacks of EMI and not CJGW. i think the whole practice is ridiculous, but so many bands have it in place that it's almost surprising they haven't implemented it before. one of the only things i don't like about coldplay are many of their business practices, such as this one. i can't wait till they're off EMI, and i hope they stay independent.

Record Companies have hardly anything to do with a tour and live shows! They don't even earn on them, well they do in the case of Robbie Williams but only because of his deal and the company they created.

 

You can blame EMI for lots of things but I don't think that is coming from them.

Wow. That's pretty nasty on a lot of levels.

 

Think of it this way, Coldplay. Every photographer making money legitimately this way is another photographer that isn't making money by joining the ranks of the paparazzi and hounding you to distraction. Let them make a living, guys.

Isn't Guy an amateur photographer in his own right? You'd think he at least would have more sympathy. :\

IF this is true, then they will be joining the elite ranks of such artists as Prince and others who now demand copyright ownership of all images!!!!

 

Prince is a total asshole in regards to this!!! Over the past 12 years or so, Prince has sued various webmasters of fansites over this very matter of uploading and publishing unauthorized and rare pics of him!! He even attacks fans for taking cam shots of him in concerts then posting them online!!! The online Prince community live in constant fear of him and his so-called Net Police and he has even employed a team of Lawyers called the Web Sherrif to "police" all internet activity!!

 

I only hope that Coldplay dont end up doing the same thing!!!!:cry::cry::cry::cry:

Well if it's not EMI who's responsible then I'm guessing it's Live Nation? In which case I can't see Coldplay cutting their ties with them any time soon! Whoever it is, it's just wrong and rubbish and stupid. On the other hand, I kind of think that it IS Coldplay's responsiblity. It's they're music, it's they're band. I know it's easy for me to say, but I'd like to think that if I was in a band, world famous or not, then I'd break my neck to know what the hell was going on in terms of merchandise, tickets, PR, promo, photography and whatever else.

Well, I think it's Coldplay at the end of the day whose responsible for it.

I am quite split on that one and always was as I personally for example think if my friend takes a picture of me and puts it all over the internet I would be rather annoyed.

It's always a discussion if it's the person on the picture or the person who takes the picture owns the right.

 

P.

I can´t believe the boys would willingly say yes to something like this...I think a LOT of the arrangement aspect of their live performances is left to Live Nation and they are not privy to every detail of it, however I think they should be. For example at the Coldplay gig here in Denmark you can only buy seated tickets in combination with a 5-courses menu, for a total grand price of almost 200 GBP / 300 USD! You can also buy standing tickets for the so-called inner circle for an extra charge, but this would only grant you the chance to run for the first row as there are throusands of tickets being sold as inner circle, so it is really nothing special: just another excuse to cash in more money....Just giving a few examples of how Live nation is not new to pulling all kind of stunts to make a profit.

wtf that's so retarded! they need to be made aware of this because, seeing as Guy's a photographer, i doubt they would find this acceptable

This certainly doesn't sound like something the boys know of. Eek. :\

I want to believe whatever wrong that comes from the

guys aren't really their fault but.... who knows? They always

seem be in some kind of trouble. :cry:

My thoughts on this:

 

While I can't really condone policies such as this on the whole, I think there are a few legitimate reasons to impose such policies on the part of bands and it's not as simple as saying "its a rich band ripping off some poor photographers"...

 

Firstly, I think it's important to note that Coldplay are hardly the only act doing this. I work for a pop-culture oriented web magizine in the Chicago Area that regularly sends Photographers out to most of the touring gigs coming through, and over the last year virtually every act big enough to play one of the major arenas (and a few that play smaller venues, even down to the Metro with a capacity of about 1000) have imposed similar policies.

 

From my personal experience, Coldplay were actually one of the better acts in terms of how they treated our photographer. Usually we have to fight tooth and nail just to get the big acts to even grant us credentials as we're not a big outfit, yet dealing with the Coldplay organization was really smooth and easy. Again not saying it's in any way a typical experience, just my personal point of view.

 

Now, as to the logic behind policies such as this (and yes there is logic behind them.). IMHO it mostly has to do with bands being able to retain control of their image, as oppossed to money.

 

Bands work hard to skew the perception of their live act/touring show in a certain manner. It is therefore paramount that they have some means of governing which images of their show see public release, and in what context. Rock photographers started the whole trend towards this trend by deliberately setting out to capture photos that undermined their subjects in various fashions. It's only reasonable from a marketing(sp?)/bussiness perspective to cast a weary eye toward how you're represented.

 

It's also important to keep in mind that while the actual photo may be, strictly speaking, the photographer's work, legally speaking the band's image and likeness are their intellectual property (at least here in the U.S., not sure what courts have ruled in other countries.) In ordinary circumstances (ie. not concerts), people have been sued (and lost) for publishing photos of someone else without their expressed consent. Therefore, even without a contract such as this you already have a vested stake in any photo anyone takes of you for any reason.

 

Lastly, just because the band retains the option to hold right to the photos, does'nt always mean they will. My publication was allowed to print (without fee) any of the photos our photographer took, and she was allowed to include them in her portfolio (again without fee). Again not saying that's true in every case, just mine.

 

It's really no different then taking photos at any private event (which is essentially what a concert is.) If you want in, it's at the host of the event's terms.

 

That said, I do think there has got to be a better way to handle these issues than the current status quo for big bands, one that would allow them control and allow photographers some fair amount of rights.

 

EDIT: Looking back over the contract we signed to get credentials to Coldplay at the UC last summer, it says you have to be attached to a publication of some sort to get credentials. This being the case, the whole article as somewhat moot, as many (most?) publications retain all rights to any photos taken on assignment for them, even by freelancers, meaning there was no way for the photographers to profit from said photos anyway.

 

Apologies for the long post...

Isn't Guy an amateur photographer in his own right? You'd think he at least would have more sympathy. :\

 

That's one of the reasons I doubt this is from the band themselves... :confused:

I'm a photographer and I was made to sign that very agreement just the other day. But in all the bands I've shot - this will be the very first that is ANALLY taking every right from the photographer. And I gotta say. It's fucking rubbish and unecessary. And I really don't think its coming from the band themselves, as Chris turned around and played it to the camera for a bit to me ( I was the only one in there!) It's publication only or they sue you to high hell basically. :(