Getting a concert photo published by a book

Should that be the business of whoever is writing/publishing the book to get in contact with the pr/management/artist themselves to sort out whether permission is granted to use a photo?

One of my photos is going to be used, in what is described as a "retail book"+ digital use

The reason why I am asking is because these release forms, albeit, I never signed one for this artist, what would be my standing if they came back to me asking me to take the photo down?

RichSoansPhotos wrote in post #17506995
Should that be the business of whoever is writing/publishing the book to get in contact with the pr/management/artist themselves to sort out whether permission is granted to use a photo?

One of my photos is going to be used, in what is described as a "retail book"+ digital use

The reason why I am asking is because these release forms, albeit, I never signed one for this artist, what would be my standing if they came back to me asking me to take the photo down?

That's going to depend entirely on what the release/contract says. If it says that you can't use the photo, and you sign it (which I'd have a hard time with), then you can't use it.

I'll add this: If they're using it for a "retail book", you need to be paid.

Well.

Road Dog wrote in post #17508038
That's going to depend entirely on what the release/contract says. If it says that you can't use the photo, and you sign it (which I'd have a hard time with), then you can't use it.

I'll add this: If they're using it for a "retail book", you need to be paid.

Well.

I do see your point, but I'm sure those release means that if for example I were to release a book about my photography experience, that I would have to get permission from the said artists.

In reality, there has to be a good market for concert photography book in order to justify a print run

Yeah, well, it's via the agency I upload to that I'm getting paid

RichSoansPhotos wrote in post #17506995
Should that be the business of whoever is writing/publishing the book to get in contact with the pr/management/artist themselves to sort out whether permission is granted to use a photo?

One of my photos is going to be used, in what is described as a "retail book"+ digital use

The reason why I am asking is because these release forms, albeit, I never signed one for this artist, what would be my standing if they came back to me asking me to take the photo down?

you didn't sign anything with the band, so the images are yours unless your agreement with the agency says something different. The book isn't selling product right, it's just a book? that's editorial, so why would you think you need the band's permission?

vfotog wrote in post #17510279
you didn't sign anything with the band, so the images are yours unless your agreement with the agency says something different. The book isn't selling product right, it's just a book? that's editorial, so why would you think you need the band's permission?

Well, yeah, it is editorial, thanks, now I know where I stand

RichSoansPhotos wrote in post #17508174
Yeah, well, it's via the agency I upload to that I'm getting paid

So, you've not been contacted by a publisher? You are just submitting this to a stock agency? In that case mark it "editorial" and be done with it.

If selling via a stock agency, it is unlikely that the photo would be used in any kind of a book. More than likely, it would be used in blogs, online gossip pages, and the like.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17510916
So, you've not been contacted by a publisher? You are just submitting this to a stock agency? In that case mark it "editorial" and be done with it.

If selling via a stock agency, it is unlikely that the photo would be used in any kind of a book. More than likely, it would be used in blogs, online gossip pages, and the like.

I don't know because I can't see the image being used anywhere on the internet, even on a blog, I can't fathom it out to be honest

I normally submit photos via an live news agency, then gets it goes straight away if not used by any publication within a 48 hour period, to the stock side of it, that is how I'm guessing it works, the event where the photo being used was 11 months ago

first of all, i'm confused as to the usage of the photo.

sounds like you took a pic from the crowd and someone has found it and wants to use it in a book that will be sold on the open market.

that is not editorial use, that is commercial use. you are the owner of the photo but the performer has a right to manage how and when his image is used in a commercial work.

a book is different than a periodical or blog.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #17515928
sounds like you took a pic from the crowd and someone has found it and wants to use it in a book that will be sold on the open market.

that is not editorial use, that is commercial use.

No, commercial use is when the image is being used in advertising, to promote a product, service, or entity. Image use in calendars, books, etc is not commercial use - unless the product (book, calendar, etc) is being distributed for the purpose of promoting or advertising a product or service.

the following is said about a bazillion times more succinctly, and a gazillion times more accurately than i could ever say it.

keep in mind this is in regards to "people" , not a performer, and I feel even in that instance it is a very grey area, even though we don't know the content of the book. Should we apply this to a performing artist, especially one in the midst of said performance, the rules tighten up considerably. I don't think the photographer would necessarily be liable, but the author and publisher would. If the artist wanted to make a stink about it, any bridge the photog had built in the industry would be burnt to the ground.

in the case of a book, the commercial product the artist might be seen as endorsing is the book itself.

http://www.photoattorn​ey.com …of-photographs-of-people/
Commercial vs. Editorial Use of Photographs of People

On 02.23.06, In Business, Photographer's Rights, Photography Not Allowed, Releases, Rights of Privacy/Publicity, by Carolyn E. Wright
When photographers take photos of people, they must be careful to not “invade their privacy.” See my September 15, 2005 blog for more information. After the photo is taken, however, the photographer should be concerned about the person’s “rights of publicity.” You violate a person’s right of publicity when you take or use without permission a person’s photo for your own use or benefit. Editorial use of a photo is not considered a use of the person’s image for your own use or benefit. Commercial use is different. Commercial use clearly benefits the photographer, so you need the person’s consent to use their image. This normally is documented by a model release. But how do you tell the difference in the uses?

Editorial use of a photograph is found in a newsworthy item. In those cases, the person’s right in the use of his image must be evaluated in light of constitutional interests. “Newsworthiness” is a First Amendment, freedom of the press, interest and is broadly construed. Courts traditionally have defined public interest or newsworthiness in liberal and far reaching terms. It is not limited to dissemination of news in the sense of current events, but extends far beyond that to include all types of factual, educational and historical data, or even entertainment and amusement, concerning interesting phases of human activity in general.

Commercial use of a photograph usually occurs when the picture of the person has been used purely for “advertising purposes.” While the photograph of a person may be used for something that is sold for profit, such as in a book or a print, that is not the test for a commercial use. Instead, using a picture of a person without consent gives rise to a claim for violating the person’s right of publicity only when it injures the economic interests of the person due to commercial exploitation.

In sum, if someone looking at a photograph would think that the person in it is promoting or endorsing a commercial product affiliated with the photograph, then the use is commercial. But since it sometimes is difficult to know if the use will be considered commercial or editorial, it’s always a safer to get the model release.
Take my advice; get professional help.
PhotoAttorney

Anyhoo, I've found the source of the usage..........yup, it's for editorial usage, by all means, if the publishers wanted to make use of it by any other means, they would have to contact both me and the said artist(s) for permission. I for one will only give permission if the artist agrees, but then again I might not agree on any other means of usage.........but since it was editorial, fine by me

I shoot from the crowds?????? I certainly do not, I'm in the pits 99.99999999% of the time, if not some other places

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #17515928
first of all, i'm confused as to the usage of the photo.

sounds like you took a pic from the crowd and someone has found it and wants to use it in a book that will be sold on the open market.

that is not editorial use, that is commercial use. you are the owner of the photo but the performer has a right to manage how and when his image is used in a commercial work.

a book is different than a periodical or blog.

no, being in a book isn't even remotely close to endorsing the book. it's not like this is a book being put out by Fender.

It is my understanding that selling a photo of someone in print or book for profit is quite liberally acceptable without a model release as long as:
1. There is no implied endorsement or connection to a commercial enterprise. The exception being a portfolio of one's own work that is available for service.
2.the likeness of the person is not branded, or financial gain or control of likeness is not hurt through the use of image.
3. The primary purpose for selling or purchase of the content should not be driven by the known likeness of the person. This is similar to trademark limitations and rules. In other words, known likeness in a concert photography book might violate 2 and 3.

Any time you license a photo, include language in your agreement that you don't convey a model release and that any necessary releases are the responsibility of licensee. This goes into my contracts when I license an image directly to an artist or to a publisher. I was approached a few weeks ago about a crowd shot that I took from onstage of Michael Franti with his back to me. I have little doubt that there will be a problem for the publisher with Michael's likeness being used (it's a book about the festival's promoters put out by National Geographic) but there are literally hundreds of concert fans in the photo who could be problematic. Problematic for the publisher, that is, since my licensing agreement states that they're responsible for securing any necessary model releases.

I put that language into my contracts (agreements), too. BUT - it is already the publisher's responsibility to procure model releases. Typically the publisher gets these releases from the photographer, but just because it typically works this way does not make it the photographer's responsibility. It is always the responsibility of the publisher to have releases fora anything published. So, that language is not necessary from a legal standpoint, but I put it in there to make sure the publisher (my client) knows that I will not be providing a release and that if they want one it is up to them to get it (which is impossible with random crowd shots).