Danish photographers boycut Britney Spears

[tommykjensen]

Britney Spears is giving concert in Copenhagen tonigth (no I am not a fan :lol: ).

I just read that danish press-photographers will boycut and not take any photos because she demands that all rigths to the photos are given to her and the photographers may not even keep an archive copy or use it any way unless approved by her.

That kind of demands from "stars" are unheard of in Denmark. But what about the rest of the world ?

My question is would anybody here sign a contract with a "star" and give up all rigths to your photos just to be able to photograph him/her ?

[narlus]

good. stick together!

[blackshadow]

Britney - the greatest lip synch artist since Milli Vanilli.

She doesn't sing live - it's all lip synched.

[tommykjensen]

Britney - the greatest lip synch artist since Milli Vanilli.

She doesn't sing live - it's all lip synched.

That migth be true but do you have an opinion on my question ?

[blackshadow]

Unfortunately Tommy these type of "agreements" are becoming all too common - they can be from massive acts to the mid size with an over inflated sense of importance.

I have signed them in the past when shooting on assignment and knowing the client really needed the photos (and I needed the pay) and at other times have walked away rather than sign.

[neilwood32]

I guess that is the main thing - are people desperate enough for the money to take such a deal on or are the principles more important?

[René Damkot]

good. stick together!

Yep.
No way would I sign anything like that.

[timmyeatchips]

Don't really know the business but I'd assume there's more money to be made in the long run from walking away and sticking to shooting smaller, less arsey acts and having the images for future sales / portfolio.

[DDCSD]

Britney - the greatest lip synch artist since Milli Vanilli.


C'mon, Milli Vanilli had some real talent (lip synch talent that is). Britney has nice boobs. Boobs are cheap. Fight the power.

[Karl Johnston]

It's not britney, its the people that blow up the campaign of britney. Why would an artist do that? Just to own all those images? No, its for her producer...its for the people she works for...and the people that work from the work that she puts out.

most of mainstream pop is built on that foundation; people getting rich and creating more riches through the talent of (moderately talented) other people.

[tommykjensen]

It's not britney, its the people that blow up the campaign of britney. Why would an artist do that? Just to own all those images? No, its for her producer...its for the people she works for...and the people that work from the work that she puts out.
most of mainstream pop is built on that foundation; people getting rich and creating more riches through the talent of (moderately talented) other people.

You are probably rigth but to the photographers it really does not matter who makes those kind of demands.


The general rule in Denmark which the majority of stars (and their staff) accept is that accredited photographers can take photos during the first 3 songs without restrictions on the use of those photos).

[DDCSD]

It's not britney, its the people that blow up the campaign of britney. Why would an artist do that? Just to own all those images? No, its for her producer...its for the people she works for...and the people that work from the work that she puts out.

most of mainstream pop is built on that foundation; people getting rich and creating more riches through the talent of (moderately talented) other people.

Good point. These "agreements" aren't even known to the artists for the most part. The labels tell the tour manager to hand them to the promoter.

Britney couldn't care less about copyright or licensing as long as it doesn't show her with her wig off.

[tommykjensen]

Good point. These "agreements" aren't even known to the artists for the most part. The labels tell the tour manager to hand them to the promoter.

Britney couldn't care less about copyright or licensing.

But in reality it does not matter who demands those terms. It reflects badly back on the artist in my opinon.

[DDCSD]

But in reality it does not matter who demands those terms. It reflects badly back on the artist in my opinon.

I agree. Just agreeing the that "artist" is often little more than the "puppet". :lol: Certainly not letting them off the hook.

I have had low-level act's label/management try and spring this "promotional use only" crap. I would think (or hope at lease) that someone that worked their butt off for their music would understand IP "theory".

[narlus]

But in reality it does not matter who demands those terms. It reflects badly back on the artist in my opinon.

but the reality is that only photographers care. her fans don't know about it, and even if they did, they wouldn't care.

[blackshadow]

Was the boycott successful?

[Jeremy Winterberg]

I definitely wouldn't shoot the concert if I couldn't keep the photos...

[tommykjensen]

Was the boycott successful?

I believe so. At least no photographers from major newspapers was there. I even think swedish photographers joined the boycut.

[DennisW1]

So I guess they're just left with the hundreds of crap images taken with cellphone cameras of all her adoring fans? :)

Lets see them try to get exclusive rights from all of those people.....

[tommykjensen]

So I guess they're just left with the hundreds of crap images taken with cellphone cameras of all her adoring fans? :)


That would of course be perfect but I do not know if there were other foreign photographers or if they had their own photographers.

[scotteffone]

Britney Spears is giving concert in Copenhagen tonigth (no I am not a fan :lol: ).

I just read that danish press-photographers will boycut and not take any photos because she demands that all rigths to the photos are given to her and the photographers may not even keep an archive copy or use it any way unless approved by her.

That kind of demands from "stars" are unheard of in Denmark. But what about the rest of the world ?

My question is would anybody here sign a contract with a "star" and give up all rigths to your photos just to be able to photograph him/her ?

Depends what I was getting paid.

Maybe some photographers were getting more of a raw deal than others so they stuck together?

[totalphoto]

I might be shooting Britney tommorrow? I talked to the Sony rep here that looks after me and last night at the Kenny Chesney concert and he said there may be NO photographers at all. He said her people are still on the fence, so I am waiting for the call. That being said, I do not think I will be signing any release if I do get it.

[totalphoto]

Just got approval to shoot the show........IF I SIGN A WAIVER BEFORE....I can only read the waiver JUST before the show.....so what it says, I do not know yet.

[Jeremy Winterberg]

Just got approval to shoot the show........IF I SIGN A WAIVER BEFORE....I can only read the waiver JUST before the show.....so what it says, I do not know yet.

Show up, and if it says you must give them all the copyrights, don't sign it, and walk away. They'll be really screwed over then. Especially if you're the only photographer.

[totalphoto]

Well, Jeremy...I do not know how many photogs will be there, but, there were 5 + me at AC/DC. And walking away would in most cases be the perfect thing. Now here is where it gets tricky, I have just developed a great relationship with out local SONY Rep, he stuck his neck out for me, so to walk away might upset him as well, and I do not want to do that cause I have to think long term. My just have to eat this one! We will see what the waiver says and I will get back to ya!

[blackshadow]

My advice is to let the Sony Rep know beforehand that if you are presented with any form or rights grab waiver that you can't possibly be expected to sign it. That covers your butt with him - if he doesn't understand just explain it to him, as you said you have a good relationship with him so he must be a reasonable guy. If he is reasonable he'll understand; it's more professional to say no than to be screwed over.

[captainpenguin]

If all photographers followed the Danish lead there would be no publicity shots and artists would soon come crawling back,thats why I shoot at small local venues because they and the bands are happy for ypou to shoot away merrily

[Cosha]

If she wants the rights to any pictures, i suggest she buys a camera and takes pictures of her self!

While she is at it, put some pants on and learn how to sing!

[brownbugger]

great going by the danish photographers group , one never knows what more demands these stars will land up.

[totalphoto]

Thanks guys!

[René Damkot]

My advice is to let the Sony Rep know beforehand that if you are presented with any form or rights grab waiver that you can't possibly be expected to sign it. That covers your butt with him - if he doesn't understand just explain it to him, as you said you have a good relationship with him so he must be a reasonable guy. If he is reasonable he'll understand; it's more professional to say no than to be screwed over.

+1 on all points.

[Todd Lambert]

I'd shoot her.

It would just cost her a crapton of money, that's all.

Everything has it's price.

By the way, Britney's lips are quite popular in photography already, so I can see why she wants restrictions. ;-)

[LBaldwin]

I feel your pain, the sports biz is getting the same shake too. But the issue do they need the photographers, and IMO the answer is no. Not having Britney pix in a local rag will have zero effect on ticket sales and album sales. She won't miss the photographers in the least.

For two reasons, the web is already full of images from her photographers hired for promo work. And TV and web video trumps stills. Still photography is going to die and video is going to be the wave of the very near future. The web is getting fast enough to handle nearly any size video, the TV's are getting higher and higher quality and picture size so where does a still photographer fit?

There are millions of cameras, photographers and wannabees, willing to prostrate themselves in front of a star, for little or nothing. It has always been that way, and is only going to get worse.

The newspaper biz is dying faster than anyone thought possible, the web is stealing directly from TV. Everyone wants control over the image, the artist, the managers, the labels and the news or media outlets. No one even thinks about stealing songs, images, video or content of any type. They just take it, and let the chips fall where they may.

When was the last time you went to an event where there was no release to be read and signed at all? Even High School sports are starting to use them. Photographers are being sued by little leagues over image rights. Lockheed has even went one step further and trademarked a fighter jet (The F-22 and the old P-38) to keep anyone from using it for profit without a license agreement, and it is OWNED by the US GOV'T!

I just don't think it is going to be too much longer before we are all working for a conglomerate and fighting for a few crumbs that fall from the table.

Too many photographers - too few jobs and horrible license agreements.

[totalphoto]

Too well said, LB!

[totalphoto]

Editorial Use Only Waiver. Standard...