Spot on podcast about concert photographer rights

Great listen and gets to the meat of the situation.

:

http://www.thephoblogr​apher.com …phers-you-have-no-rights/

absolutely wrong on so many levels. what an ignorant and misinformed rant.

Why do you feel that way, vfotog? I think he makes a number of strong arguments. Performance photography is pretty much all I do and sometimes I will sign a contract, other times I will not. The decision is mine. I have signed a number of contracts that state that I need to get pre-approval for other uses and only once have I been denied. I find that working with management, except in a case of ASAP, pretty much a breeze. I always have felt that many photographers forget that they are only their by the grace of the artist. The audience is there for them, not us.

skifurthur wrote in post #17625608
Why do you feel that way, vfotog? I think he makes a number of strong arguments. Performance photography is pretty much all I do and sometimes I will sign a contract, other times I will not. The decision is mine. I have signed a number of contracts that state that I need to get pre-approval for other uses and only once have I been denied. I find that working with management, except in a case of ASAP, pretty much a breeze. I always have felt that many photographers forget that they are only their by the grace of the artist. The audience is there for them, not us.

basically he's saying that photographers not working for the band themselves are nothing. that you aren't a real music photographer otherwise. Of course photographers have rights, and he's willing to throw those rights away because he doesn't actually do the kind of photography he is demeaning. Most music photographers aren't tour photographers. If you didn't get that he's being elitist and thinks those that are tour photographers are better and above other music photographers, you missed what he is saying. He flat out says that only tour photographers are artists. Absolutely arrogant. So if you are shooting for publications, or for wires, or for yourself, you're nothing according to him. Your rights don't matter. Photographers are complaining about some of the releases because you shouldn't have to give up the rights to your own intellectual property. And the artist, who didn't hire you in the first place, doesn't deserve free images. It's setting a precedent that is damaging to the music press and to music photography in general. The greats held on to their copyrights. If you want some arrogant jerk to tell you you're not an artist because you aren't touring with the band, I think that's really sad actually.

It may be a private event, but it doesn't mean that our photos is theirs just because they "gave permission"

They "put on a whole production" for us? What a laugh, who is that comedian?

Guy is melting his tits off just as much as some on the other side of the argument. The thing is, both sides can take themselves too seriously. Any publication with even a grain of integrity should not accept images from a tour photographer/publicist​.

The notoriety that the musicians have achieved is due in part to the publications they now try to impose absurd contracts onto.

It's a symbiotic relationship until the musician thinks they don't need the photographers and journalists that helped them get where they are today. I'm sure when the press eventually turns on them after they say something stupid, it will come as a complete shock as to how they could turn so quickly.

Edit: and the idea that photog a should share 75 percent of the revenue from sales of pics with someone the likes of Taylor Swift? Freakin' hilarious.

Not a very intelligent rant. Non Tour Photogs are not creating Art. If the Non Tour Photogs don't want to sign the contract, others will shoot for free as they pursue the Art...Rights are determined by The Constitution and Laws. No slam on contracts, they are invaluable to every business. I stopped listening half way through...