"It's publication only or they sue you to high hell basically."

 

CAN "sue you to high hell" and WILL "sue you to high hell" are two different things. I doubt they'd actually go to the effort to take action unless the photos appeared in a fashion where the profit was exceptionally blatant, or the context of the photo (or where it appeared) was somehow embarassing to the band...

Just something I was thinking about on this:

 

Do we as fans have a responsibility to the photographers?

 

Most venues half-heartedly operate a no cameras policy, but we all know how easy it is to sneak a camera in. Some of the photos you see in the gallery have been taken by fans who bought tickets, but easily look as good as some of the professional photographers work.

 

So are we therefore eroding the value of the professional photographers work?

I was thinking that same exactly thought Jen!

We take pictures too:\

 

But I dont think that we are eroding the value of their work. Well unless a fan was to try to sell them to a magazine or something of that sort I guess!

This doesn't sound like Coldplay at all...

I already asked the Oracle... I´m really interesting in this even though I´m not a professional photographer, hehe..

Just something I was thinking about on this:

 

Do we as fans have a responsibility to the photographers?

 

Most venues half-heartedly operate a no cameras policy, but we all know how easy it is to sneak a camera in. Some of the photos you see in the gallery have been taken by fans who bought tickets, but easily look as good as some of the professional photographers work.

 

So are we therefore eroding the value of the professional photographers work?

Very good point!

 

When I look at the photos I took at SBE there are even some really decent ones (the ones which are not blurry or too clear) and I was wondering where to draw the line ...

Yeah but we're not likely to sell our pictures, nor are many publications likely to buy them.

"Yeah but we're not likely to sell our pictures, nor are many publications likely to buy them"

 

The kicker is, in the current environment professional freelance photographers are unlikely to find much success in selling such photos either. (even if they were not prohibited from doing so via contract.) The simple fact is, most publications now feel they have easier (and cheaper) ways to obtain photographs than paying the going rate that most proffesionals feel fairly reflects their skill. (and that they are accustomed to). Obviously, one of the big ways they have found to do this is to use photos taken by "non-professionals" (ie. you). Many major newspapers and even some magazines here in the U.S. no longer use any pro photographers and more are following this trend all the time. I suspect that's one of the reasons contracts such as this raise such ire from photographers, with many traditional revenue streams drying up, they're really keen to keep what's left.

"It's publication only or they sue you to high hell basically."

 

CAN "sue you to high hell" and WILL "sue you to high hell" are two different things. I doubt they'd actually go to the effort to take action unless the photos appeared in a fashion where the profit was exceptionally blatant, or the context of the photo (or where it appeared) was somehow embarassing to the band...

 

I don't think that really came to mind when I wrote that :lol: apologies!

Though I find that in that point, I have tried to find photos of concerts just to see what I was working with and couldn't mind much more than the official photos and fan photos. I didn't really think much of it at the time but until I heard from a photog friend that there was this agreement that didn't allow you, and I think that everyone just respects it out of a) fear or b) because its either that or you don't shoot/shots get deleted from the camera. Personal choice!

 

Just something I was thinking about on this:

 

Do we as fans have a responsibility to the photographers?

 

Most venues half-heartedly operate a no cameras policy, but we all know how easy it is to sneak a camera in. Some of the photos you see in the gallery have been taken by fans who bought tickets, but easily look as good as some of the professional photographers work.

 

So are we therefore eroding the value of the professional photographers work?

 

I'm not really sure how to respond to this (I know it wasn't posed to me), because Coldplay was my first concert - and what made me want to be a photographer in the first place because blown away with how well they came out! But I also think that maybe this will be true in a few years time when all the tiny digital cameras will be super super high quality, but right now it's more about the quality of the resolution and clarity that you just cannot get with a small digital (unless you're super close to them).

"I don't think that really came to mind when I wrote that :lol: apologies!"

 

Nothing to apologize for. I was just making the point that the fact that the band seeks to control the rights to their images, doesn't neccesarily(SP?) mean their seeking to stamp out all existing photos (as many others, notably Prince have done.) As I said in an earlier post, with my publication, the photo "approval" process was essentially a rubber stamp process for everything we wanted to publish.

Cold shoulder from Coldplay

 

Date: 17 March 2009

 

Coldplay has been accused of grabbing the rights to photographs taken during its concerts, BJP has learnt, pushing photographers to offer an alternative to music photography contracts

 

The chart-topping rock band has introduced a new contract for professional photographers that gives ownership of all the images to Coldplay's management. Photographers who refuse to sign the contract will be denied access to the band and its gigs.

 

The contract states that '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'.

 

The terms also prevent photographers from selling the images to other magazines or using them in their stock archives.

 

'Our contract is a standard contract that ensures that any live pictures taken are solely taken for the publications agreed with the photographer in advance,' a spokesman for Coldplay tells BJP.

 

However, veteran music photographers such as George Chin and freelance photographer Pete Jenkins have rejected the claim. 'This is one of the worst contracts I’ve seen in my career as a music photographer,' says Chin.

 

Such contracts have prompted a group of photographers to draft a new agreement that would address both photographers' and music artists' concerns, Chin and Jenkins say. The new contract states that any images 'obtained of the artists performance at the venue are for editorial purposes', while ensuring that the photographers will 'not release images for merchandising use without reference to the artist'.

 

The proposed contract would ensure that a photographer retains the copyright to his or her photos as provided by law, with the photographer having a moral right to be credited when the images are used.

 

The contract is expected to receive support from both the National Union of Journalists and the British Photographic Council before being presented to band managers around the UK. 'It's not the record companies or PR agencies that are causing a problem, it's the band managers that are behind such stringent contracts,' says Chin. 'They are concerned about merchandising, but we just want to sell the images for editorial purposes.'

 

Some artists, such as Take That and Madonna, do not require photographers to sign agreements. 'They just let you do anything you want with the photos,' says Chin. 'But with so many differences between the bands and their contracts, we feel a standard contract will be helpful.'

 

The spokesman for Coldplay declined to comment on the proposed contract idea.

 

http://www.bjp-online.com