Story   Photographer   Editor   Student/Intern   Assistant   Job/Item

SportsShooter.com: The Online Resource for Sports Photography

Contents:
 Front Page
 Member Index
 Latest Headlines
 Special Features
 'Fun Pix'
 Message Board
 Educate Yourself
 Equipment Profiles
 Bookshelf
 my.SportsShooter
 Classified Ads
 Workshop
Contests:
 Monthly Clip Contest
 Annual Contest
 Rules/Info
Newsletter:
 Current Issue
 Back Issues
 Subscribe
Members:
 Members Area
 "The Guide"
 Join
About Us:
 About SportsShooter
 Contact Us
 Terms & Conditions


Sign in:
Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.

Name:



Password:







||
SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board

Taylor Swift And Photographs...
Jim Colburn, Photographer
Omaha | NE | USA | Posted: 4:54 PM on 06.22.15
->> "Taylor Swift is accused of making photographers give her the lucrative rights to their images"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3134646/Taylor-Swift-accused-making...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Doug Pizac, Photographer
Sandy | UT | USA | Posted: 6:31 PM on 06.22.15
->> The same Taylor Swift who made Apple just roll over on its plan to allow free music streaming of its new service without paying the artists. Interesting.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Kevin Krows, Photographer
Forsyth | IL | USA | Posted: 6:46 PM on 06.22.15
->> Story made the NBC Nightly News. Sell your Taylor Swift stock immediately!
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Doug Pizac, Photographer
Sandy | UT | USA | Posted: 7:10 PM on 06.22.15
->> Here's the photographer's blog with an update -- a new more restrictive contract where Swift and her company have the right to confiscate and destroy whatever contains the photographer's master files. That can include cell phone, cameras, laptop, etc.

http://www.diyphotography.net/an-open-response-to-taylor-swifts-rant-agains.../
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Seelig, Photographer
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 9:26 PM on 06.22.15
->> Many in the concert photography world have two names one for when we have no contract and one for when we do. Alot of big acts pul this crap it is fairly new to country last 5 years or so. Butnin rock it has been going on since the 80s
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (1) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Loundy, Photo Editor, Photographer
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 9:29 PM on 06.22.15
->> David, What do you mean by "two names?"
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Seelig, Photographer
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 10:09 PM on 06.22.15
->> I mean you a name you submit thatis fictional most use with stock agencies
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (1) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Seelig, Photographer
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 10:09 PM on 06.22.15
->> PS her latest contract says she can take any picture taking deivce and destroy it if she chooses
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Seelig, Photographer
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 10:15 PM on 06.22.15
->> Mark I sent you an invite to Concert Photographers on Facebook you will see suff about Taylor at the top
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (1) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jon Blacker, Photographer
Toronto | ON | Canada | Posted: 5:01 AM on 06.23.15
->> "PS her latest contract says she can take any picture taking deivce and destroy it if she chooses"

No it doesn't, David. It states that they '...may confiscate and/or destroy the technology or devices that contain the master files of the Photographs and other images including but not limited to, cell phones and memory cards, and the Photographs and any other images and eject you from the venue...' if you fail to fully comply with the conditions of the contract.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (1) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Kevin Krows, Photographer
Forsyth | IL | USA | Posted: 10:05 AM on 06.23.15
->> Jon - Very confused. It sure sounds like she can destroy it. "may confiscate and/or destroy the technology or devices" ..... "including but not limited to, cell phones and memory cards"

Can you explain your reasoning as to why you don't believe her contract doesn't specifically say that she can't destroy "any picture taking device"?

Thanks
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Rob Sirota, Photographer
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 2:15 PM on 06.23.15
->> I forwarded these threads on my twitter account and now I have Taylor Swift following me... Good or bad?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Rob Sirota, Photographer
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 2:16 PM on 06.23.15
->> Looks like a fake Taylor Swift is following me...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jon Blacker, Photographer
Toronto | ON | Canada | Posted: 2:51 PM on 06.23.15
->> Kevin, my reasoning should be pretty evident; I don't believe her contract doesn't specifically state that she 'can take and destroy any picture taking device' because those words do not appear anywhere in the contract. Those were David Selig's words.

I quoted the actual contract where it states that they may confiscate or destroy the technology or devices THAT CONTAIN THE MASTER FILES. You left that part out of your parsed quotes.

A camera that would typically be used by a photographer presented with this contract (a DSLR) does not contain the master files; the memory card does. You would be hard pressed to convince me otherwise based on the specific language of the contract that she has free rein to go around destroying gear.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Doug Strickland, Photographer
Chattanooga | TN | USA | Posted: 2:52 PM on 06.23.15
->> Now her publicist is trying to defend this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/taylor-swift-hit...

"The standard photography agreement has been misrepresented in that it clearly states that any photographer shooting 'The 1989 World Tour' has the opportunity for further use of said photographs with management's approval."

"Another distinct misrepresentation is the claim that the copyright of the photographs will be with anyone other than the photographer - this agreement does not transfer copyright away from the photographer."

Gee, unlimited, perpetual, worldwide rights to use the photos by Taylor Swift with no permission granted to the photographer for continued usage in any form at all (including in your portfolio on your web site) without the artist's permission sure sounds like a copyright grab, even if the copyright "technically" still belongs to the photographer. Never mind that he didn't address the other concerns about the destruction of photographers' property.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Winslow Townson, Photographer
Andover | MA | USA | Posted: 6:43 PM on 06.23.15
->> I just had a photographer tell me that she had to get someone from the Swift tour (maybe Swift herself) to pick the pictures she could use from her take before she filed them. She gave them 30 images to choose from and they gave her permission to use two of them. Anyone else hear anything like this?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Loundy, Photo Editor, Photographer
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 7:08 PM on 06.23.15
->> Editorial subjects have no place in the editorial process, other than to confirm facts. Allowing them to edit imagest is a journalistic conflict of interest.

Call yourself what you like, but if you sign an agreement like this, you aren't a journalist.

--Mark
 This post is:  Informative (3) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Ian L. Sitren, Photographer
Palm Springs | CA | USA | Posted: 8:35 PM on 06.23.15
->> What a stupid contract. Some second rate law clerk or wanna be attorney must have written this or someone who graduated at the bottom of their class.

"'...may confiscate and/or destroy the technology or devices that contain the master files of the Photographs and other images including but not limited to, cell phones and memory cards, and the Photographs and any other images and eject you from the venue...'"

Totally not enforceable. If you refuse to left them take your device, whatever it might be, they still cannot physically take it from you without committing an assault, a battery, or actually a robbery. Detain you and call the police, the police are not going to enforce a civil contract.

The only thing they could do is eject you from the premises and file a lawsuit against you.

Personally if I were handed this contract I would tell them where to put it as I laughed in their face.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jim Colburn, Photographer
Omaha | NE | USA | Posted: 9:51 PM on 06.30.15
->> "Why there’s no photo of Taylor Swift’s gig in today’s Irish Times"

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/music/why-there-s-no-photo-of-taylor-swif...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (1) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Tim Vizer, Photographer
Belleville | IL | USA | Posted: 10:15 AM on 07.02.15
->> How about if you shoot film???? Haha
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (1) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Doug Pizac, Photographer
Sandy | UT | USA | Posted: 8:05 PM on 07.02.15
->> Here's a story -- with contract -- on what the Foo Fighters group demands.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/artsdesk/general/2015/07/02/why-we.../

Unlike the Taylor Swift contract, signing this one grants “all right, title and interest throughout the universe in perpetuity, including, without limitation, the copyright....” PLUS, the band has prior approval of what is to be published ONCE.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Doug Pizac, Photographer
Sandy | UT | USA | Posted: 6:33 PM on 07.06.15
->> Foo Fighters manager says it was in poor taste for the paper to air the contract publicly.

http://observer.com/2015/07/foo-fighters-can-sell-out-a-stadium-but-they-ca.../

He also says his publicity team works to “modify and negotiate these agreements all the time.”
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jim Colburn, Photographer
Omaha | NE | USA | Posted: 8:19 PM on 07.06.15
->> "Foo Fighters manager says it was in poor taste for the paper to air the contract publicly"

Oh, the poor baby. He really should reconsider his definition of "poor taste" to include "f**king over photographers trying to make a living."
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Seelig, Photographer
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 2:18 AM on 07.07.15
->> This alternative rock band reminds me of the old Pete Townshend line "here's to the new boss same as the old boss." alternative rock just marketing bullshit. Screw you David Growl
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Stanley Leary, Photographer, Photo Editor
Roswell | GA | | Posted: 9:22 AM on 07.07.15
->> This is just some of my thoughts on this topic and I am not saying we need to give in and sign these contracts, but why do you think these artists are wanting this protection anyway?

Does the Freedom of Press come with any responsibilities?

Since the law protects you to publish just about any photo you choose–should you ever restrain yourself?

I would say that a good number of "journalistic" outlets have through the years proven time and time again that they don't always behave ethically when choosing what to publish.

The best example that I can think of in recent history was the photo of Beyonce from the Super Bowl performance. Here is that photo that was published and went viral
http://static1.purepeople.com/articles/6/11/51/36/@/1046598-singer-beyonce-...

Now we can talk all we want about the editorial process and not being manipulated, but can you really blame artists after seeing how they are treated by the media?

Even tho you didn't take the Beyonce photo or would ever do that because your colleagues in the industry did and published such a photo we shouldn't be so high and might on the horse about it.

I think our journalistic associations should take stances occasionally condemning poor ethical choices by publications that choose to publish photos that put people in a poor light when there really isn't a journalistic reason to publish such content.

I wouldn't sign these contracts, but also if allowed access to such an event would want to treat the subjects with honor, dignity and respect. If they do something wrong that the public needs to know then report this using photos.

I think Freedom of Press comes with some ethical responsibilities. The reason these contracts are being requested of photographers is some people have disrespected artists in the past.

While I or even you haven't violated their trust when others in the industry do it hurts us.

Our personal goals should be to have higher ethical standards than the laws of the land.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Doug Pizac, Photographer
Sandy | UT | USA | Posted: 11:49 AM on 07.07.15
->> Stanley...

While I respect your belief about artists not being respected and need for ethics which I agree with in part, I have another theory that I believe has a lot more bite -- MONEY.

In the past there were the standard tabloids National Enquirer and Star magazines; today there is a multitude of publications that vie for readership and pay big bucks for shocking imagery. Back in the '80s when I worked in L.A. there were a dozen or less paparazzi at various scenes; today there are hundreds. Back in the '90s here in Utah covering the Sundance Film Festival there were six photographers shooting the premieres (me/AP, Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret News, Park City News and sometimes the Provo Daily Herald and Ogden Standard-Examiner; today there are 50-60+ here from out of town. Back in the '80s the AP would transmit 2-3 dozen images from a Super Bowl (b/w took 10 minutes, color 30); then when transmit time was cut the number of photos moved up to a hundred; today a thousand or more are done. In the beginning there was TV's Entertainment Tonight that was fairly benign; today there is TMZ and a half dozen other shows that go for the controversy including ET to grab viewership.

So what has changed? The Internet with an insatiable appetite and the need to be first to grab attention. Whereas in the past imagery wasn't published until the next day in print, today with the use of wireless transmitting from the camera imagery can be posted online within a minute or two (seconds if you don't add a caption). In the film days I would transmit 3-5 photos from a regular season NFL game; today my AP colleagues have to produce 200-300 not just for the wire but to feed the NFL beast that AP has a partnership with. Here in Utah the two main papers might post a dozen or so college game images in a gallery. But if Utah plays BYU you can expect over a hundred in order to generate clicks.

And this is where the money factor kicks in. Unlike print where looking at a photo is just looking, online revenue is generated with clicks. The more times an image is viewed the more clicks and the more money that is made; and similarly, the more photos you post the more clicks there are and the more money that is made.

A couple years ago a friend at one of the papers told me one of the photographers had to shoot three HS basketball games one night. By the time he was ready to transmit after shoot, drive, shoot, drive, and shoot the paper's web page already posted freebies from contributors (parents, HS kids, etc.). And they were awful in terms of professional standards. When the staff photos were uploaded the bad ones were taken down. However, the freebies were back up within an hour by order of top management. Why? Because even though they were bad every click on them generated revenue for the paper. So when it comes to online use, a dozen bad images by amateurs using kit cameras generates 12x the revenue than a professional photographer who makes a single Pulitzer Prize winning photo. That is today's reality from a financial stand point by media desperate for income.

Back in the pre-Internet days decades ago AP's biggest client was the NY Times because annual dues were based on a paper's circulation. And 85+% of the wire service's budget was comprised from all the members it served. As of about 8 years ago, the biggest money maker for AP was Google followed by Yahoo and newspapers made up for less than 25% of the wire service's revenue stream. With the loss of print pubs in recent years that number has dropped.

So as to ethical choices by publications driving respect, they are the minority in terms of financial clout. Those who are driving the money streams are the online giants, websites, broadcast, etc. who want clicks, who want hundreds of photos that create click money, who want controversial imagery that drives traffic, etc. MONEY is now the driving force what with all the corporate takeovers, hedge fund equity partners, mergers, etc. Just recently Gannett spun off its money losing newspapers from its highly profitable broadcast entities. And this week the LA Times allowed its front page masthead to be embellished with characters from the new Minions movie as part of a huge advertising deal with the studio much to the angst of some of its top editors.

The media motto used to be "get it right" and still is in many respects, but today it seems to be more "get it first" to grab viewers and if it is wrong it can be updated at the top of the next news hour or on the website. But more importantly it is "Show me the money."

And as to how this applies to Taylor Swift, Foo Fighters and the rest? Again, it is the money. By controlling access and imagery the artist/management gains revenue streams it didn't have in the past. Times have changed and will continue to change until some entity with more clout can change it. In the meantime, money is an awfully big sledgehammer.
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Seelig, Photographer
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 12:41 PM on 07.07.15
->> NOne thing wrong Doug with your statement restrictive contracts have beena orund since the 1980's in themusci buisness I rememebr at 29 years ago David Lee Roth had one so no this is nothing new here that some are worse then the old days yes but back then Roth's you had to send in your slides for them to edit. Joan Jett's management woudl stick pinholes iwth needles in slides they did not like this was aback in 1984.
PS the rolling stones started the 3 song rule back in 1977
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Doug Pizac, Photographer
Sandy | UT | USA | Posted: 2:35 PM on 07.07.15
->> Sorry to differ, but I shot the Stones playing at Anaheim Stadium in 1977, and it was the entire concert -- not just three songs. And I was allowed to shoot from everywhere except back stage -- in the pit, within the crowd, in the press box, from the nose bleed seats for an overall, etc. And in 1984 I photographed every song of Michael Jackson's Victory Tour at Dodger Stadium from various angles too. I was never asked to sign any sort of contract/agreement nor was I even asked to have my images pre-edited by the artist's management.

In the meantime, here's a good take on the current contract issue from a Norwegian photographer.
http://blog.jarlehm.com/concert-photographer-where-did-your-integrity-go/
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Seelig, Photographer
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 8:56 PM on 07.07.15
->> Well you might/ve ;ucked out but in the east coast that is when is started.Or alter in the tour. I said nothing about Jackson but the tow peope I named Jett and Roth was very true. There were many more back then but those I know for sure.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Liddy, Photographer, Photo Editor
PLANET | EARTH | | Posted: 12:54 AM on 07.08.15
->> Stanley. Really? I think you are MUCH removed from being a journalist. This is not a slam. But, lets face it. Do you work day in and day out for a newspaper? No. This is one of the problems with SS. Lots of folks who USED to work in the media spout out bullshit. They haven't and ARE NOT involved with what we do now. We should not bow down to this crap. And ANYONE who thinks we should is the enemy. Sorry but personally when you buy into this crap you're not a solution...you ARE part of the problem.
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Liddy, Photographer, Photo Editor
PLANET | EARTH | | Posted: 10:00 AM on 07.08.15
->> I wanted to clarify my statement a little better. The notion that we treat everyone with "honor, dignity and respect" is pretty much a given in our business. At least at real news outlets...that said....giving ANYONE editorial control over content is just not a good idea. In fact it is counter to everything journalists do. IF artists were concerned about their appearance or how they were going to be photographed by the media I would think they and their handlers would take that under consideration with the two or three songs that we are allowed to shoot. The artists and their "people" know exactly what they are doing for these concert photo-ops. It's show business. It is about MONEY as stated above. These people don't care if we honor, dignify or respect them. We are part of their publicity machine when we're shooting their shows. Remember the old adage, "there's no such thing as bad publicity."
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Doug Pizac, Photographer
Sandy | UT | USA | Posted: 10:47 AM on 07.08.15
->> Chuck...

"There's no such thing as bad publicity." Tell that to Bill Cosby, Jared the Subway guy, Donald Trump's partners, etc.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (1) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Seelig, Photographer
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 11:35 AM on 07.08.15
->> DOUG mentioning trump after his racist bs he went up to the number 2 challenger. But really the rest is king of cheap as people pulling criminal acts is a little differnent.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Doug Pizac, Photographer
Sandy | UT | USA | Posted: 5:21 PM on 07.08.15
->> David...

Read it again. While Trump's ratings went up, the bad publicity was pointed to his partners who didn't like what he said -- NBC, Miss Universe, Univision, PGA, etc. They are the ones who would differ on no such thing as bad publicity.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Stanley Leary, Photographer, Photo Editor
Roswell | GA | | Posted: 10:17 PM on 07.08.15
->> Chuck

Thanks for proving my point about honor, dignity and respect. You are consistent.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Phil Hawkins, Photographer
Fresno | ca | usa | Posted: 10:12 AM on 07.10.15
->> The world has certainly changed since 1969 when I shot Grand Funk at Dorton Arena in Raleigh and had access to the entire stage, not only 360 degrees around, but actually ON STAGE in the wings during the performance! No security to speak of, I just looked the part and shot 8 rolls of Tri-X over the entire concert. No one said a word.

Now the sad part; The shots? Fast forward to when I was in college and my mom, wanting to clean out the attic, took my foot locker that contained all my negatives of my entire high school work, opened it, and, in her mind, seeing only "smelly chemicals and loose trash", threw it out. "I'm sick and tired of that stinky foot locker" was her explanation. To this day she has no idea just how close to being strangled she was.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (3) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Doug Pizac, Photographer
Sandy | UT | USA | Posted: 11:29 PM on 07.13.15
->> Instead of signing the contract a paper in Quebec sent a cartoon sketch artist to their city's Foo Fighters concert. And six papers in Montreal boycotted Taylor Swift's show over her contract.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Nic Coury, Photographer
Monterey | CA | | Posted: 1:07 PM on 07.14.15
->> Our paper just had a similar situation and this was our response. We did a watercolor of Aerosmith:

http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/opinion/squidfry/squid-colors-you-a-pic...

To the point of "to treat the subjects with honor, dignity and respect" from Stanley, there are going to be plenty of journalists who do this and plenty who don't. Individually we can't control the ones who don't.

As I learned in working at Boy Scout summer camp as a director, we had a saying for that: "When one person looks good, we all look good, but when one person looks bad, we all look bad."

I can't control my colleagues or competitors, but I can control myself and how professionally I act in situations.

Respectfully,

~ Nic

On a completely unrelated note, man, a ton of you guys are sure old... I wasn't born until '84... I'm just giving you all a hard time though and respect the aged wisdom of many people on here.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Bob Ford, Photographer
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 1:45 PM on 07.14.15
->> I'm still curios how this works. I work for a newspaper. I don't own the copyright, the newspaper does. I don't have the right to sign over the paper's copyright to Swift, or anyone else.
If I show up to shoot the concert and sign the contract, I can't imaging it's legally binding. How can I sign away rights to something I have no rights to?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Nic Coury, Photographer
Monterey | CA | | Posted: 2:35 PM on 07.14.15
->> @Bob

I had similar questions. I think the understanding is that you're a representative of the paper, so in theory you're signing on their behalf.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Simon Wheeler, Photo Editor, Photographer
Ithaca | NY | USA | Posted: 9:31 PM on 07.14.15
->> Has anyone ever looked at the fine print on a NASCAR credential? Last one I saw said
"NASCAR owns the rights to all images, sounds and data from this NASCAR Event. For more information contact NASCAR Broadcasting. International Motorsports Center. One Daytona Blvd. Daytona Beach FL. 32114. The bearer of this ticket agrees not to take any action, or cause others to take any action, which would infringe upon NASCAR's rights. Use of this ticket constitutes acceptance of these terms.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 6:24 AM on 07.15.15
->> the National Bullriders have the same contract, I think. Years ago I shot them and no one gave me a contract (I would have walked away if they did). At the time, I put up a few images on my blog and was contacted to remove them. I didn't because no one tells me what to do with my images. They wrote again and said remove them or I would never shoot Bull riding again.
So..I have never shot them again. Fine-because I will never sign a contract.
I have been shooting concerts for over 31 years and have never signed a contract and never will--I will walk away first.
In a perfect world, every photographer would do the same, and every paper asked to sign a contract should not review the show. Does it really sell THAT many more papers if they review a concert without a photo?
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Simon Wheeler, Photo Editor, Photographer
Ithaca | NY | USA | Posted: 2:05 PM on 07.15.15
->> NY Times didn't have to sign according to Poynter
http://bit.ly/1L5twOg
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 7:49 PM on 07.15.15
->> the NY area dailies stay together and have a WE DON'T SIGN RULE
it's smart-and should be applied by EVERY photographer ,everywhere
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Alan Look, Photographer
Bloomington - Normal | IL | United States | Posted: 2:02 PM on 07.16.15
->> 2 years ago, I drove for 3 hours to get to a venue I'd wanted to shoot for 40 years and had finally been granted credentials. I walked when I read the contract and was prohibited from striking out the rights grabbing statements. Mad as I was, I smiled all the way out the door. It's kind of an open venue with a large amount of spectators and basically the main event is preceded by almost 3 weeks of prelims. I walked back the next day, purchased a spectator ticket for $5 with no restrictions typed on the back and even without the "special" access, I got ever shot I was looking for except one.

It felt good to walk away and not get taken advantage of.

Taylor has the clout and opportunity to change this sleezy part of the entertainment industry. Will she do it? come on Taylor - surprise us.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Doug Pizac, Photographer
Sandy | UT | USA | Posted: 5:24 PM on 07.21.15
->> Here’s a Poynter story on Taylor Swift making concessions on her photography contract. Reps will not forcibly remove images from photojournalist cameras and the one-time use clause is completely gone. While reps have agreed to credit the photographers when the artist uses their photos, it sounds like the language that gives her management rights to the imagery is still intact.

http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/359433/taylor-swift-makes-concessions.../
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Doug Pizac, Photographer
Sandy | UT | USA | Posted: 8:39 PM on 07.21.15
->> Below is the link to Mashable that includes a copy of the new contract.

http://mashable.com/2015/07/21/taylor-swift-photography/
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Loundy, Photo Editor, Photographer
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 7:23 PM on 07.22.15
->> Kudos to the NPPA, ASMP and NPPA General Counsel Mickey Osterreicher for bringing Swift's people to the table and negotiating a better contract.

But "better" does not equal good. Swift retains rights to freely use published images on social media. The contract also forbids shooters from licensing their images beyond the original assigning publication. That kills the majority of revenue for freelancers.

I would not sign it.

--Mark
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Larry Lawson, Photographer
Portland | OR | USA | Posted: 6:45 PM on 12.11.15
->> Just don't cover her. I bet she'd cry and write a new song about how 'hurt' she is that no one's taking pictures of her anymore. And then Apple would stream it for free... rofl
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Loundy, Photo Editor, Photographer
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 7:57 PM on 12.12.15
->> Larry, absolutely. Taylor Swift simply doesn't need photojournalism coverage at her concerts. Period.

--Mark
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]



Return to --> Message Board Main Index
How to use a Monopod the RIGHT Way! Learn here ::..