I was really excited, the Cult was coming to San Diego and I was approved to shoot the show.
Then I was sent the photo release.
Let me make a few things really clear here. The publicist had nothing to do with this. The release was sent to be beforehand because they knew that I was going to have a problem with it. The release came from the band management and there is a good chance that the band members don’t know what is being asked of the photographers covering their show. Anyway, I hope that the band members don’t know about this… if they do, they really need to take a long hard look at what they are asking.
Here is the release:
Lets go through this release line by line and see where it is pretty bad and where it is downright insulting.
” The Cult Live, Inc. (herein called “The Cult”) hereby grants permission to _______________________ (INSERT PHOTOGRAPHER’S NAME) to take photographs (herein called the “Photographs”) of The Cult, solely and specifically for use only by ______________________ (INSERT NAME OF MAGAZINE OR NEWSPAPER) at a Cult concert taking place on _________(INSERT DATE) at _____________________ (INSERT VENUE). “
This first line is pretty standard. Not a great thing, but many times the bands only want the images to be used in the single outlet that was approved.
This Permission only permits the Photographs taken to be used in the above specified magazine or newspaper for a one-time only use by such magazine or newspaper, and accordingly, no other use, reproduction, dissemination, publication or distribution of the Photographs of any kind whatsoever is permitted to be made via any method or media.
This second line basically reiterates the first line and makes it clear that the images can’t be used for anything at all. So if I wanted to post a shot here on my blog or on my Facebook account or over at Google +, I was not allowed. Again something i could live with if I had to but seemed very restrictive.
The worldwide copyrights (and all renewals and extensions thereof) in the Photographs are from the inception of their creation and forever thereafter owned solely by The Cult (and their designees).
WHAT !!! I take the photograph and they own the copyright without any compensation. This is a basic rights grab and something that I will never agree to. Seriously, for a creative entity like a band to tell a photographer that they own the copyright to the work produced is insulting and no self-respecting photographer should ever sign this. They are not even offering to license or pay for the images, but just expect photographers to hand over their copyright…. without compensation. I knew at this point I wasn’t going to sign this. Then it just got worse.
In the event that the undersigned Photographer, the aforesaid newspaper or magazine or any other persons or entities wish to make any use of the Photographs other than as hereinabove expressly permitted, the prior written consent of The Cult shall be required (which The Cult may withhold or grant in The Cult’s absolute discretion), failing which consent, any such use, reproduction, dissemination, publication or distribution shall constitute willful copyright infringement and subject the photographer, the newspaper or magazine, the user and all others concerned to civil and criminal liability as willful copyright infringers.
So if I do use an image, the Cult can sue me. I am stunned.
The worldwide copyright in the aforesaid concert (and all elements thereof) together with all rights of reproduction, distribution, publication, and dissemination by any and all means and methods are exclusively owned and controlled by The Cult (and their designees).
Wow…. Just to make sure that any photographer is in doubt about the first part of the release, they reiterate that they own the copyright.
So there are no photos of the Cult from me. There will be no photos of the Cult from me. And if any other photographers are reading this who have applied to shoot the Cult, I urge you not to sign this release. Everyone who does just takes away any power that we as photographers have. Bands and their management need to realize that they can’t just treat us as dirt. I doubt any of them would work under these conditions.
Ridiculous.
Wow, that’s just awful…
Ouch. They have not been so restrictive in the past. Under new management? These are becoming more and more common and the artists which employ them more and more surprising.
-A
The reason I went public with this is to hopefully stop any photographer from signing the release.. or any release like it.When the band gets no good photos or positive publicity maybe things will change.
I wonder what they would say if they had to sign my agreement like this: “As soon as I, Jon Diener, listen to any Cult song, I immediately own the worldwide copyright, and The Cult is not permitted to play that song live or let anyone else listen to that song in any form whatsoever, in perpetuity. If The Cult is found to be doing so, they will be subject to full litigation and payment of damages, as allowed by law.”
Seems fair, right?
That’s absurd. You would think that a creative artist, of all people, would understand the impact of what they are asking. And, TBH, while it is The Cult, I really would not have expected something like this from them. I would be less surprised if it was a much more popular, mainstream paparazzi-followed musician (not that that would make me any more likely to sign) like Gaga, Madonna, etc.
I’d be curious who many photographer’s show up. I’m sure some would take the access in lieu of rights just for the access alone, but if you can’t share your work, what’s the point?
Even if I was their biggest fan, I still wouldn’t sign away my rights to the extent I couldn’t even show it off on G+, Facebook or my own website portfolio.
I specialize in non-famous bands and they are for the most part just appreciative of having quality images taken of them. And from a photography perspective, the challenge and thrill of capturing a great image is the same whether it’s someone famous or not.
I concur Alan and would never agree to being (now that I think about it) a sharecropper photographer. Actually in this case The Cult owns the land and gives you permission to work your tail off growing crops provided you give them ALL the crops at harvest time!
No thanks! Please pass the butterbeans…
Epic fail… !
I’ll keep it clean so will just say…Outrageous!
So, the band management can try and prevent professionals like yourselves from taking pictures but what about the masses that will standing there with their iphones out taking photos/video and posting all over FB, etc.. Can’t sue everyone?
That’s sorta the double standard. In rare cases (a very very small handful) fans are forbidden from using there P&S camera’s cell phones, etc and venues actually attempt to enforce it). Fans of course are not required to sign releases and can freely post images the their skill and gear allows – shooting the whole performance. I’ve seen bands actually put these on websites, etc. This has never bothered me and I think it should be encouraged (although in moderation). Fans want memories and it builds a connection with the fan base to allow them to post with the artist. Pro’s however (even sans releases) are escorted into the venue, allowed to shoot their allotted time (generally 2-3 songs) and escorted out of the venue to go home. So figure a couple of hours waiting around, 20.00 to park, a couple of hours driving home, downloading, editing, submitting, and hoping to perhaps cover expenses for the night. Often all we might get is the copyright. Maybe to have a nice image in a portfolio and in editorial casting the artists tour in a positive light – in theory to sell more tickets.
Releases like this hurt my heart more than anything else. :(.
-A
I wouldn’t be too sure that the band don’t know about this, I seen them about 5 years ago in Manchester (after traveling 200 miles). The provided no support band but still opened the doors at 6pm and didn’t come on stage until 9:55pm. It was an all standing venue so the audience were pretty miffed by then. The band had no rapport at all and the singer was in a real sulk. After 50 minutes they just walked off and that was it.
If they treat their fans like that I’m not surprised that they have even less regard for photographers.
Good for you, Alan, I know who needs who the most in this situation!
I can only hope that the band members do not know what is going on. I have many musician friends and know how hard they work defending their intellectual property… the ones I have spoken to about this are appalled….
There has always been a pretty simple solution to these rights grabs. If no photographer signs that equals no publicity for the artist and that very swiftly changes the situation.
A few years ago in the UK a Scottish football club tried something very similar, no photographers covered the game and the Scottish national newspaper printed blank placeholders where the images of the game should have been.
Needless to say it only happened once.
Sadly photographers have a poor record of sticking together,
Cheers Neil
I have seen similar for the Brian Setzer Orchestra (and gave up the chance to shoot them because of it) and also similar for My Chemical Romance when it was their own show. The outlet shot for was so scared of the release we ended up using a different shot of them I’d taken at a Grammy event where there wasn’t a crazy release (..yet was the same band, maybe because different organization ran the event for them?)
Definitely agree it’s crazy! Bands want promotion, photographer’s need work but clearly that type of agreement prohibits both.
That’s totally insane, Alan.
Thanks for sharing it.
Alan- Thanks for sharing. Sadly, this is how many bands are nowadays. As you mentioned I doubt many of the bands even know what their management is asking of photogs these days. It is up to us as photographers to make others aware of these ridiculous stipulations as well as the band members themselves. I’ve seen some luck with having these releases totally reworded and relaxed once the band knows what we are being asked to do. Thanks for the info and keep up the good work.
This is just incredible!!! It is just sad to have this kind of limitation from another creatives!!! I started taking concert photography less than a year ago and I have not run in this kind of situation, but definitely support Alan’s position and I would never sign an agreement like this… it is just wrong!!! Thanks to Alan for sharing this, this is something that all photographer should know and we must be united to avoid these agreements. This is going to be a sure blog post in my site. Regards!
I had one for Def Leppard that explicitly stated the photos could not even be used in a portfolio.. I had driven an hour to the venue, paid to park, and then saw this.
The limits of some of these releases, like the one you mention, are crazy and I would now refuse it. I was asked to shoot a guitar giveaway – by the headline acts publicist – at the end of a show at The Hollywood Bowl. The Bowl explained they would let me shoot it for the outlet on my release but that if the headline act wanted to use it they would have to pay a $5k buyout. I did not shoot it.
Hi Alan Hess,
Please tell me who you dealt with on the “Cult” contract. Their Name(s) & Number please. Band Mgmt(hopefully not Door’s guy) publicist
I shoot for a large Music Monthly for a decade & I always run into last second issues. I am trying to locate the Cults Mgr,s & Publicts.
I also share information too!
Thanks
Sorry, I do not give out that information
The person i dealt with was the publicist for that tour.