Danish photographers boycut Britney Spears

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

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 ?

good. stick together!

Britney - the greatest lip synch artist since Milli Vanilli.

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

blackshadow wrote in post #8277274
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 ?

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.

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?

narlus wrote in post #8271495
good. stick together!

Yep.
No way would I sign anything like that.

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.

blackshadow wrote in post #8277274
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.

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.

Karl Johnston wrote in post #8300463
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).

Karl Johnston wrote in post #8300463
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.

DDCSD wrote in post #8300489
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.

tommykjensen wrote in post #8300492
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". 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".

tommykjensen wrote in post #8300492
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.