Additionally I was also presented with a similar contract after an editorial portrait shoot. In this case the contract came 2 months after the shoot had taken place. As before, I explained that it was not my policy to sign over the copyright to my images and I wish that they had presented me with the request prior to the shoot taking place. In this case the conversation took place over emails and I never heard back on the subject again, but I have since worked with the publicists and their clients, have a great relationship with them, and they have never asked me to sign anything like that again.

I might also add that I am still developing in my career, and a part of me was scared out of my pants to say no to these people, fearful that I may have to start looking at a career change. But I am proud of myself for sticking to my guns, remembering what I have learned from sites such as this one, and dealing with it in a manner that did not alienate valuable relationships. I know now that it is okay, and not career-ending, to say no.

Photo rights and song rights are based on the same model and those PR people have to be told that in no uncertain terms. They should respect the photographer the same way they expect their musicians to be respected.

[quote]Imagine if an artist wrote a song about a friend or love interest, and that friend/love interest demanded to OWN all rights to that song. Wouldn’t that be stupid?[/quote]

That just happened the other day to Amy Winehouse:

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/amy-winehouses-ex-husband-stakes-claim-to-6-million/491672/

Some try to control ability to syndicate. No Doubt had a form that stated you could syndicate the images but management has to approve the images to be syndicated before you do.

Dave Matthews has a form that says you can syndicate for editorial but not make posters and other merch from the images.

Frankly I dont have a problem signing something that says I will not mass produce merchandise from these photos. That to me is completely reasonable.

Also to the folks that think the bands you’re shooting have any clue about these contracts, some do and some dont. It’s usually something done by the artist team. Most artist you’re shooting dont even realize that photographers are submitted to a 3 song limit now a days.

Not sure why these comments have to start off so negative when the only reason people are here is to learn and share ideas. More often than not, you get preached at and lambasted. Kind of sours the experience, no?

That said, thanks just the same for the info, @Eric Hamilton. I should certainly include a copyright retention notice in my estimate/invoice boilerplate. A separate line item that specifically addresses these types of contracts that we are asked to sign on-site at the last minute might also be something to think about-

All your clients should know well in advance of the gig that you retain the copyrights to your photographs. It’s a standard boilerplate on both my contracts, and my invoices – and all my clients get invoices prior to the shoots. That simple step would have covered your ass in this circumstance, and given you the power to say no when you were presented with the contract you never should have signed.

- Eric

se (in danish sorry) http://politiken.dk/kultur/article750259.ece

Call me naive, but maybe if there was serius music photograper’s association, that would stand for professional standards, it could openly negotiate with artists managers on that matter, greatly improving the situation, at least to some. This idea might not be something new, but did anybody actually try to invite serious editors, and music photographers, to check their interest in discussion about it?

“They would have to realize, that it’s bit similiar to them signing contract with major label, that would rip them of their intellectual property.”

… But what you’re missing here is, even though they might realize that it’s similar to the record company doing that to them, they’ll STILL do it to YOU. It’s amazing what the human brain can justify, (if the advantage is to its own favor). Even if they realize, they’ll find some way to justify it, by blaming it on their lawyers, or their publicists, or whatever.

Please do not be naive. Stand your ground, or better yet, get out of that segment of the business. The desperation factor, (or ego factor), of many photographers in that segment will soon make it so that there’s no way to profit. And without some profit, your rent is someday going to come due. And then what?

With all due respect, my advice is to take that next check and invest it training in a new segment of photography, because if you’re really needing that check from live photography to eat, the time is ticking before the game is over. Because there are ten guys behind you just ready to stick a shiv in your back, and sign any contract, even a Copyright Transfer. It’s a segment of the marketplace that’s quickly collapsing in on itself, due to desperation, or lack of education about business. It might be a fun place to be on a Saturday night, but don’t confuse that with a venue to make a living. Time to move on up the food chain before Contracts like this are commonplace. It’s not the bands’ fault either, it’s simply business — if you could get a roomfull of photographers to give you the images for free, wouldn’t you? Of course you would.

Time to move on. This segment of the market is now saturated, (as are many others).

You can’t even check if that’s required before, as You get accreditation from show organiser, and he don’t have to be aware that accredited photographers wont be able to shoot, if they don’t sign something that band’s manager will demand just as the show starts.

About transferring copyright.. No comment.

That may be US law, but wondering if that would stand up internationally?

During the Second World War, the Japanese often demanded POWs sign agreements not to escape. Such an agreement was contrary to military regulations but necessary to keep men alive. It was common therefore to sign Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Judy Garland or just “Dorothy”, Al Capone etc. etc. and those phony names were signed on the advice of POW military lawyers, who said that law applies differently to contracts signed under duress than contracts signed voluntarily.

Paul does more than just write about it, however. He talks with artists about the restrictions that have been imposed and sometimes, they get changed. I know from personal experience that was the case this past July 4, when photographers were allowed to shoot the entire Buddy Show at the Taste of Chicago.

It just seems there has to be a better way for everyone involved.

I only get paid for results (so I would have been turning down a check also) but while I don’t expect to make additional dollars from another publication needing one of my shots, I won’t give up the option that I might in order to shoot one show.

At the level of the top bands, whether they get a photo (or write-up) in the paper the next day is no big deal, and won’t help sell tickets.

However, the opening act might have been able to use the photo in the paper.

There was a concert that I shot last year where the headline act refused to be photographed, but the two opening acts were fine.

So all the photos were of them and the main act was only mentioned in passing.