letsmakeart
1st of November 2008 (Sat), 22:46
I found myself thinking, after turning down another rubbish contract at a recent The Vines gig (one of those nasty ones that takes all your rights), that music photography is completely unlike any of the other photographic genres and industries.
In any other shoot it would be us, the photographers, setting the terms and conditions. We would be setting the price, we would be setting the conditions. The client might want a change, sure, the price and conditions are modified. For the most part the client and photographer are equals.
So why then, as soon as a musician is involved, do band managers jump at the chance to try and **** us with contracts? Already we aren't getting paid, and yet instead of compensating us for that inconvenience, they often push it further by asking for the rights to our work. Rights that would cost thousands of dollars in other professional shoots. These conditions are generally delivered at the door when we have already invested in transport to and from the venue.
If any of the other photographic pursuits operated in this fashion they would be stuffed, just as music photography is now. Imagine turning up to a wedding shoot where you sign your contract at the venue, only to find out that they want to pay you half, they want different shots than what was agreed upon, and consider the price to cover all image copyrights. Oh, and by the way, the bride says you can't even use the shots on your portfolio.
All of you are saying, **** that! (I hope!) How dare this client push us around like that. There isn't a professional photographer that wouldn't either do it their own way or walk.
And yet nearly every gig photographer will get to the venue, sign a contract that doesn't allow them any actual benefit to the image, go in, and shoot their measely 2 - 3 songs. Shots that they are apparently contractually obliged to never use again.
The music industry offers some of the smallest paychecks and yet they get away with more than anyone else. And why? So we can get into a gig and save ourselves a wasted night traveling? So that we can tell our friends we shot some band they heard of? Are either of those worth our rights as artists or professionals?
This will continue to happen until the majority of music photographers go to gigs prepared to leave empty handed, and it will only get worse.
Please, when you're presented with bull**** contracts, try to negotiate the terms.
If they will not budge and let you in with a modified or no contract, then WALK.
If you cannot walk because you've been wanting to see the band for a year, and you absolutely must, and you won't listen to this post, then get in contract or not and don't shoot a thing. You'll see the band, and the band manager won't be any better off as a result.
Band managers will not change their thinking until they have had photographers turning down their contracts left right and centre for months. I hope that one day music photographers are prepared to do that, because even those of you that only do this for "fun" and don't care about your rights... it's going to get worse for you too.
I also encourage any publications which couldn't run a photo of a band for this reason to use a black rectangle. Trust me, if all publications started doing this, big and small, it would make our message very apparent.
Thanks for reading my rant. A lot of it is far fetched but it needs to start somewhere.
In any other shoot it would be us, the photographers, setting the terms and conditions. We would be setting the price, we would be setting the conditions. The client might want a change, sure, the price and conditions are modified. For the most part the client and photographer are equals.
So why then, as soon as a musician is involved, do band managers jump at the chance to try and **** us with contracts? Already we aren't getting paid, and yet instead of compensating us for that inconvenience, they often push it further by asking for the rights to our work. Rights that would cost thousands of dollars in other professional shoots. These conditions are generally delivered at the door when we have already invested in transport to and from the venue.
If any of the other photographic pursuits operated in this fashion they would be stuffed, just as music photography is now. Imagine turning up to a wedding shoot where you sign your contract at the venue, only to find out that they want to pay you half, they want different shots than what was agreed upon, and consider the price to cover all image copyrights. Oh, and by the way, the bride says you can't even use the shots on your portfolio.
All of you are saying, **** that! (I hope!) How dare this client push us around like that. There isn't a professional photographer that wouldn't either do it their own way or walk.
And yet nearly every gig photographer will get to the venue, sign a contract that doesn't allow them any actual benefit to the image, go in, and shoot their measely 2 - 3 songs. Shots that they are apparently contractually obliged to never use again.
The music industry offers some of the smallest paychecks and yet they get away with more than anyone else. And why? So we can get into a gig and save ourselves a wasted night traveling? So that we can tell our friends we shot some band they heard of? Are either of those worth our rights as artists or professionals?
This will continue to happen until the majority of music photographers go to gigs prepared to leave empty handed, and it will only get worse.
Please, when you're presented with bull**** contracts, try to negotiate the terms.
If they will not budge and let you in with a modified or no contract, then WALK.
If you cannot walk because you've been wanting to see the band for a year, and you absolutely must, and you won't listen to this post, then get in contract or not and don't shoot a thing. You'll see the band, and the band manager won't be any better off as a result.
Band managers will not change their thinking until they have had photographers turning down their contracts left right and centre for months. I hope that one day music photographers are prepared to do that, because even those of you that only do this for "fun" and don't care about your rights... it's going to get worse for you too.
I also encourage any publications which couldn't run a photo of a band for this reason to use a black rectangle. Trust me, if all publications started doing this, big and small, it would make our message very apparent.
Thanks for reading my rant. A lot of it is far fetched but it needs to start somewhere.