Foo Fighters demand bullshit terms from concert photographers

boing
21

Nope, didn’t say or imply that - please do not put words in my mouth. Criticize away. My only beef is the normative assessment that such actions constitute “bullshit”, as you so colorfully described.

I realize that reputation and alternate forms of copyright are important to you, but you should at least concede the possibility that other rational actors are weighing these issues for themselves and coming to different conclusions. Which, in this case, might include overbearing terms for professional photographers. Some (most?) pro photographers will refuse to sign, as is their option, and will not cover the event. Most likely, some will hold their noses and sign. The band will get to exert their market power to some extent, perhaps losing out on some publicity, or not. Win or lose, ultimately it’s their option.

22

Don’t take the photos…even less revenue.

1 Like
23

In a number of European countries, the copyright law would protect the photographer’s right of royalty.

Three examples form Sweden:

  1. Scandinavia’s biggest news photo agency has a clear policy of not signing any photo contracts whatsoever. One of their photographers told whoever represented the band in question in this regard about this policy, and just left the venue.

2I) One of the big tabloids sent an in-house photographer down to a concert, and said photographer was presented with such a contract. He rang the paper, who told him to boycott the concert. They in turn rang other papers about this, and those papers decided to do the same in solidarity.

  1. One freelance photographer says he reads the contracts, and most of the time, he’ll sign them anyway, because in those cases, Swedish law completely overrides the terms put forth in the contract and permits him to use the photos exactly as he pleases.

That said, the Foo Fighters are far from the only ones with such contracts. It’s the same story with, e.g. Bon Jovi, Guns’n’Roses.

Prior to their performance at Norwegian Wood, Guns’n’Roses presented journalists with a contract very similar to that of Foo Fighters, and all the Norwegian newspapers have a tradition of boycotting such contracts, hence, they decided to not cover anything to do with the Guns.

In Norway, the photographer is by law granted rights to the photo, for up to 50 years from when the photo was taken, or up to 15 years after the photographer’s death, whichever comes last.

The artist may ask the venue to impose photo restrictions, and sometimes that can mean permitting press photographers entry at all, but in most cases, they usually just ask to prohibit the use of flash, because getting it in the face all the time is uncomfortable.

In Germany, the newspapers also boycott these contracts, and if presented with one, they print the articles with white boxes where they’d normally put photos.

At the end of the day, the artist is not above the law of whichever country she or he is performing in.
And if the law does permit these contracts, there are still some countries where the newspapers just decide to not mention anything about the concert, which in itself can be quite a big revenue loss for the artist.

2 Likes
24

Is it ironic that Robot Chicken had to use a sound-alike for the A-team theme, but is then allowed to create the most verbatim depictions possible in their medium for the actual characters no problem?

25

Well at least not until the TPP (Trans-Planet Partnership) comes into effect and copyrights are extended through the lifetime of the universe to placate the interplanetary corporations.

26

You do realize he’s part of a hugely successful group that has way too many moving parts for him to be aware of every freaking contract pertaining to its activities? And as others have stated this (may) be pretty typical and is par for the course for many bands?

5 Likes
27

I agree that it’s quite possible that the band itself knows zip about this.

Perhaps a few printed concert reviews accompanied by a four-column gray box captioned “We wanted to put a picture of the Foo Fighters here, but the band wanted us to sign an unacceptable contract” might make a point.

1 Like
28

Oh, the metallica stratagem. Maybe this time it’ll work.

29

Taylor Swift does the exact same thing.

30

Previously covered, but part of the ticket agreement (since without signing the contract, you’re not getting into the photographer pit) is that you can’t bring “professional” cameras in to the event. So, at best, you might get away with sneaking in a Sony RX100… And if you’re near enough to the front you might be able to score some decent shots. Otherwise, forget about it.

2 Likes
31

Whatever that means.

32

Basically, if it has a detachable lens, forget about it. Also, even some point and shoots get denied, if they are too “professional” looking to the security goon frisking you (super zooms, etc).

33

Ever see the back of a parking garage stub? Most of them say “Not responsible for theft or damage” or similar. Then there are those gravel trucks with signs that say “Not responsible for broken or cracked windshields” Putting up a sign or attempting to imply contract via a ticket stub isn’t a valid contract. The parking garage is responsible for damages while your car is in their care and the truck driver is responsible for damage caused by an unsecured load. Unless you volunteer yourself under this idiotic contract, I don’t see how this band could enforce such a policy.
I’d ignore and not sign the ‘contract’, take a camera, and snap pics as I liked just to test this in court. The only problem is then I’d have to sit through a Foo Fighters concert and I don’t think I have that kind of willpower.

34

Except you would be denied entry to the concert, by the very large security goons at the gate. So, you could test that in court if you wanted, but you certainly wouldn’t be taking any pictures.

1 Like
35

Yup, there is no way someone can get a camera in to a concert. Nope, can’t be done.

36

It really doesn’t matter that they didn’t write it. It’s their responsibility to know what’s in it.

2 Likes
37

It’s standard at other performances (theater, symphony, dance) that photography and recording is not allowed. It announced before the performance begins and in the program. Why do we expect (other) music concerts to be held to different rules?

1 Like
38

I’m sure you could somehow sneak a big DSLR into a venue, if you tried hard enough. But if you’re close enough to be shooting newspaper quality photos (you’re not exactly going to be sneaking in a 500mm f/2.8 lens to shoot from the cheap seats), security is going to see you (and consequently have you booted, or at the very least make you check your camera) almost immediately any way.

1 Like
39

Yes. My point (not well made) was that a photo is professional by virtue of who took it, not the equipment used. If nothing else is around, a professional will get a saleable picture with an iPhone. It’s like a professional programmer could produce production grade code on a Raspberry Pi, whereas a lot of those MBAs will never produce more than a few page mockups.
(I wouldn’t call myself anything like a professional photographer but I’ve been paid to take pictures in the past.)

40

The odds of that at a concert are extremely low, though (even if you are right near the front). Which is why they focus more on the fancier setups.

1 Like