To the ignorant pathetic sad persons who write these stupid copyright-grabbing “photographer releases”: get a life.
I am so disappointed though because this time (and that’s probably the worse release form I’ve ever read) it is from Mars Volta. I don’t get it, what goes through the mind of whoever decides this stuff, and does that really have anything to do with the actual band members? I mean have they sold out that badly?? Shame as I think these guys are brilliant musically and Omar RodrÃguez-López and Cedric Bixler-Zavala are some of the best performers around. I was also a huge fan of At The Drive In. Plus when you read things about them they seem to have ethics, integrity.
But tonight not only did they have pretty bad restrictions (1 song, from side of pit, don’t move), and typically the light started to be great as soon as we couldn’t shoot – but that, if it’s their choice, it’s their choice, fair enough – but they had this form, which can also be seen on that Flickr post I just found. Basically it says things like we “hereby grant, transfer, convey and assign to [the band] all right, title and interest throughout the universe in perpetuity, including, without limitation, the copyright (and all renewals and extensions thereof), in and to the Photos.” Not less. And then that they can do whatever they like with it for free etc etc. Go check it out it’s quite something.
And of course this form is handed to the photographer on arrival, and it is “sign or you don’t have your pass”. Which signifies it is signed under duress and is therefore by law void anyway. Now imagine that you go to work and the moment you get to the door someone tells you well you can go to work but all your salary is theirs, but if you say no you’re fired. That’s simply racket.
Although I did not sign it these copyright grabbing forms are a big shame on the face of this industry. Probably written by some frustrated wannabe lawyer who find it hard to justify their job (/existence?), they make absolutely no sense at all and instead of being here to protect an artist they simply let them steal the work of others. Like, do they grant the rights to their songs to the audience when they perform them? Maybe they think us photographers make lots of money on their back from shooting them live? Well sorry to disappoint you guys but not quite. And whenever we do make a bit of money, it means they do get promotion anyway. It’s not like it’s going to do the cover of tomorrow’s Times is it? Or maybe they confuse us photographers with the chaps that sell (illegal) prints/band merch on eBay? Well, wrong again: when this happens it generally means one of us got a photo stolen.
Anyway so, to these copyright grabbers, either:
1- You don’t want photos of your show or band in the press
Answer: fine! just tell us so, we won’t bother, we’ll find another show to photograph, or anything else to do, no problem at all, you’re hardly the center of the earth
2-You need photos of your show for your own promotion
Answer: hire one of us! We are a good bunch, we don’t bite, we know what we’re doing, just find a photographer to do the job for you and grant a licence for an agreed fee and there you go. That’s always better that stealing the copyrights once the job is done isn’t it?
Feel free to comment!
