11 ms·

I Got Banned from Photographing Arch Enemy

157 points by pmlnr 8y ago

ablation 8y ago
Can’t say I’m massively surprised a mainstream metal band behaves like a business. Shame they come across like a bunch of jerks.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  It's depressing that ignoring the copyrights of everyone smaller than you while aggressively defending your own is considered behaving in any way "like a business."
  - gaius 8y ago
    Metallica really started the ball rolling on this one, they made their breakthrough via the underground bootleg scene and now, apart maybe from U2, they are the most corporate band in the world.
    - nraynaud 8y ago
      > Ulrich announced that Metallica had spent the last year “trying to apply Salesforce products into everything that Metallica does.” https://qz.com/1500717/what-is-salesforce-four-days-170000-people-and-one-metallica-concert-later-i-figured-out-what-salesforce-is/ https://qz.com/1500717/what-is-salesforce-four-days-170000-p... External confirmation.
    - Raffers 8y ago
      I'd say more so than u2, I don't think any of u2 have gone to crm conferences to talk about user engagement and lead-to-sale generation.
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      " apart maybe from U2, they are the most corporate band in the world." Wouldn't the Rolling Stones be a worthy contender for that title?
      - gaius 8y ago
        And Coldplay as well, now that you mention it
- devonkim 8y ago
  A lot of fans that were around years ago during the transition away from Carcass are aware of their behavior and even Angela Gossow (former vocalist) has basically admitted in interviews that they sold out (they weren’t ever really an underground band though... so you’re more like a commercial pop group, uhh) to make a living. To me, there’s nothing wrong with being up-front that it’s about the money and if you’re enjoying the music so be it but nobody into metal is surprised by this kind of behavior by bands doing the same money grubbing things that bands making orders of magnitude more money are doing. I think that’s the most shameful part of it all honestly - if you wanted to make money playing music there’s way more options than metal. Heck, the former keyboard player for Emperor quit metal completely, cut his hair, and did fine in Norway with dance music as a solo artist. I think the guys in Beherit literally went to dance music too.
  - CuriouslyC 8y ago
    Meh, if you are making enough to get by, doing what you love is way more important than having a lot of money. Ihsahn might rock sweaters and short hair now, but he is still making some really dark metal.
  - raverbashing 8y ago
    I can't blame them. Being an even mildly popular band is probably a gigantic annoyance. I can't even imagine how hard it is to be "famous". You basically have no weekends, not much free time, touring is hard, especially on bus. A lot of nights in hotels (in which you checkin one days and checks out in the next day). A lot of airports. You probably can't have a quiet mean in a restaurant without getting people wanting to talk to you (if you're lucky, if you're not then it's fanzillas and crowds). But of course fame is a drug.
1337biz 8y ago
It is much harder as a band to find a good sponsor than a good photographer. Everybody is a photographer today and unless there is some value in the name or style associated with the photographer, they are just replaceable.
- giornogiovanna 8y ago
  This is quite plainly copyright infringement. Surely you wouldn't infringe upon someone's rights because "they are just replaceable"?
  - 1337biz 8y ago
    The problem is that they let him take pictures of them in the first place without any restrictions. But they fixed that now. The 'I am a photographer and a lawyer' line won't make him many friends amongst artist.
    - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
      > The problem is that they let him take pictures of them in the first place without any restrictions. I don't think that was the problem.
      - DanBC 8y ago
        It's clearly the problem: the band thought they owned image rights. The photographer had a different understanding.
        ozgurozkan 8y ago
        Most people think like this: I have my face on that photo so that photo is mine not the photographer's. Photographer has rights to distribute, sell do whatever until the limit that is not harming the subject in the photo. In this case it is an artist she can only sue him if that photo harms her reputation. Instead her attitude harmed her reputation.
Semaphor 8y ago
My thoughts: a) doesn't IG have "repost" built in? In that case you'd probably give them and their users a license to repost by uploading it there. b) AE behaved like total jerks but they are a mainstream pop metal band, so it's not really surprising.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  >AE behaved like total jerks but they are a mainstream pop metal band, so it's not really surprising. It's a little weird that they got so vitriolic in defense of a sponsor, having no stake in it themselves. Not extremely weird, but a little weird.
  - throwaway8879 8y ago
    I suppose metal bands aren't making as much money as they did 20 years ago? that's probably why they have to put in the extra effort to hang on to the sponsor. Perhaps I'm wrong. I mean really, if you're not one of the old-timers like Iron Maiden or Megadeth or something, is being a metal artist really a good career choice these days? Genuinely want to know.
    - CuriouslyC 8y ago
      Being a metal artist hasn't ever really been a good career choice, unless you consider glam a metal genre, in which case for a while in the 80s it at least had a large potential payoff if you got really lucky, sort of like a high effort lottery ticket.
  - rurounijones 8y ago
    Based on the reading it appears that the clothing company sponsors are a small etsy style company owned by close friends of the band. So they have a personal stake... plus a commercial one if they want more merch to wear by keeping the sponsor happy.
  - pbalau 8y ago
    I find it terrifying how easy it is to influence people, basically, half the internet jumped to the conclusion that the band is in the wrong based on a single article, depicting only one point of view, witch conveniently leaves out the fact that most likely the photographer signed an agreement allowing the band to do whatever they see fit with the photos produced at the event. Plus the thing happened 6 months ago and was surfaced at a very convenient moment for both the band to not be able to react quickly and hit their bottom line.
dpcx 8y ago
Having not heard of Arch Enemy before this article, it's too bad for them. Their music is directly in line with my tastes (I watched about 30s of the YouTube video linked). I'm a music fan that doesn't mind paying to purchase albums or even go to shows. But because of their mismanagement of this situation (which likely extends to many others as well), I won't be giving them any of my money.
- CuriouslyC 8y ago
  If you liked Arch Enemy, I suggest you check out some of the other melodic death metal bands in the Gothenburg style. Dark Tranquility would my first pick, Soilwork is pretty good too.
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    If we're doing band recommendations along AE lines, I'd throw in Barren Earth, Amorphis and Omnium Gatherum and Insomnium as well.
    - Raffers 8y ago
      ne obliviscaris and wolves in the throne room are 2 other fantastic atmospheric black metal bands.
  - ralusek 8y ago
    In Flames, At the Gates.
    - npongratz 8y ago
      I'd recommend old In Flames. Not the mostly-"nu"-metal stuff they've been putting out since Reroute to Remain. EDIT: And the new stuff is fine, but it's definitely not the fantastic melodic/progressive death they helped pioneer.
  - EngineerBetter 8y ago
    Soilwork - Stabbing The Drama is one of my favourite albums of all time.
vngzs 8y ago
Site is down now, archive is here: http://archive.is/1mbNY http://archive.is/1mbNY Edit: their webpage is back up for now, but I'm keeping this around just in case.
- pmlnr 8y ago
  video version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW1TRQeo7gk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW1TRQeo7gk
raverbashing 8y ago
Well, this goes to show that being technically correct only goes so far. > “no band wants to have photographers on site who later send such threatening correspondence to monetise on their images.” Not surprising. Photographer has the prerogative of producing copyright images, they just "forgot" that taking pictures of concerts is half the story. I'm not surprised the band acted like they acted, they probably get a lot of those as well. It's like the recruiters that find a CV on the internet then try to apply as the person and charge a fee.
- andrelaszlo 8y ago
  I'm surprised that a lot of people are missing the point that they also chose to use the image. If there are tons of much more talented but replaceable photographers that are willing to give their work away for free, why did they have to use his photo?
  - raverbashing 8y ago
    Correct, the commercial use was an issue.
barrkel 8y ago
Almost all of the value of a photo taken close up at a concert like this derives from the band rather than the photographer. The photographer is infinitely more substitutable. The photo is normally only interesting to people who are interested in the band, rather than for the craft of the photo itself. Legally, the photographer in this story is correct. But I think he's dealing in absolutes in a situation where the economics are strongly in the band's favour. The band would be much better off with photographers that signed over copyright and it's not difficult for them to get that, because they're adding most of the value. The fact that they didn't, and permitted this chap to take the photos he did, is IMO down to them not having had this experience before. Now they have, and perhaps they'll be smarter about it going forward.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  I see a lot of people in this thread that view band photographers as disposable chaff that don't deserve the same copyright protection as everyone else, but I doubt that anyone would want to take legal rights away from migrant fruit pickers in California. Migrant fruit pickers are very replaceable, so that doesn't add up. Edit: In response to the shadowbanned comment that I can't reply to, I don't think there is a line beyond which extremely poor economic negotiation power crosses over into reduced status in the legal system in any court system or even moral system in the world... Except for metal band photographers, apparently. (With the possible second exception of third world countries.)
  - Chris_Chambers 8y ago
    For your whataboutism to be valid, everyone in the world would need to have their own personal fruit replication device in their pocket. In that case, no, we really don’t need migrant fruit pickers in California anymore.
  - 1337biz 8y ago
    I am wondering - did they even wave their rights away for commercial use by letting that guy take pictures of them? The way I am seeing is that he is trying to make money off them without compensating them as his 'models'.
causality0 8y ago
Legally speaking, the photographer is completely within his rights. The band is also within their rights to ban him from their shows because they disagree with the way he uses his legal authority. Personally, I find the idea that the photographer has more right to a photo than the subject ethically repugnant. If you came up, took a photo of me, and used it to make money on your Instagram, and then sent settlement letters to people associated with me for using it you'd be asking for a broken nose if I ever laid eyes on you again, legal right or not.
- frereubu 8y ago
  As far as I'm aware, in the UK, if the photograph was of you specifically - that is, not as part of a crowd - technically the photographer would need you to sign a model release, a legal document saying that you give the photographer the rights to use the image for commercial purposes. The document can stipulate a payment or that you give the rights for free. I can't imagine the situation is very different in other jurisdictions that protect intellectual property - but would be interested to hear from someone know knows more about that, because my knowledge is only based on the first year of a photography degree.
  - busterarm 8y ago
    Most venues (and almost certainly all large ones/festivals) have waivers explaining that you're in a space where photography/videography is taking place and that by being present you are essentially signing a release. That would apply to the talent too.
  - KineticLensman 8y ago
    I am not a photography lawyer but... a model release would certainly be expected in a situation where a photographer hires a model for a specific shoot whose shots would be used commercially. In situations where the shoot is for a third party (e.g. a clothing company that hires a model and a photographer to create catalogue pictures) the model release might be held by the party. However, if a photographer creates pictures of an artist in a concert-style venue, I imagine the artist (or their management) might expect the Terms and Conditions of the venue to override any arrangement that an 'unauthorised' photographer tried to create.
airwot4 8y ago
Looking at this strategically it seems that the photographer simply didn't expect the band and the sponsor to be so close. He desparately tries to separate them into two entities (artist and commercial) when in reality they're essentially two facets of the same brand. It does seem that the band massively overreacted though. I don't think this will play in their favour now that this has been posted so widely. Apparently the photographer wants the last word on this.
- detuur 8y ago
  Just because two businesses are close doesn't mean licenses are transferable. If the photographer gave his permission to use the picture for self-promotion (or even simply decided not to complain about it), that doesn't give them the right to grant that permission to a clothing store they're very buddy-buddy with.
  - matz1 8y ago
    Sure legality wise, that might be the case but nothing is ever black and white. Like in this case, no wonder the photographer received adverse reaction from the band.
    - gdpgreg 8y ago
      It's litterally black and white in intellectual property laws.
      - matz1 8y ago
        Not really, different judge may interpret the law differently.
        cthalupa 8y ago
        You're literally just saying things, and saying them doesn't make this true. Copyright law on this sort of thing is incredibly straightforward and completely settled. This isn't like recreating the likeness of someone, including their tattoos (another story popular in the past day on HN), this is clear cut commercial usage of someone else's copyrighted work, and his tolerance of non-commercial usage by the person photographed doesn't have any impact whatsoever on whether or not a different entity has the ability to use it to promote their clothing line. This is an incredibly open and shut case with tens of thousands (probably hundreds of thousands, actually) of cases worth of clear cut precedent.
chx 8y ago
How come this one is on the front page when I submitted it more than 12 hours before it at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18766327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18766327 ? Edit: and when I complain about stolen karma I get more downvotes. What a weird place.
- pmlnr 8y ago
  No idea. HN behaves weird, I wasn't aware of a previous submission.
- detaro 8y ago
  Complaining about votes/not getting votes is boring and thus commonly downvoted (it's also explicitly against HN's rules). There's some randomness to if a story makes it to the front page or not (how many/which people were paying attention to /new, how were other stories ranked in relation, ...), which is why limited reposts are explicitly allowed, you were unlucky this time.
- deadmetheny 8y ago
  >when I complain about stolen karma I get more downvotes Nobody gives a fuck about who gets Internet points. Sometimes things reposted and take off when they didn't the first time and there's not a lot you can do about it.
ajnin 8y ago
It seems rather odd that the photographer would expect to be able to benefit from the work of the band, taking photos of their on-stage performance (which is just as much an act of creation, if not more, as taking a picture), and use the image of that woman freely, including to demand payment of royalties to third-parties, while the subject of the picture should have no say at all in the matter. The legal aspect is what it is (although it would be interesting to analyze exactly what the creative act of the photographer is here), and the reaction of the band was overly harsh, but the photo wouldn't exist without the band performance, so I feel like there should be some kind of shared right here.
- Traster 8y ago
  The photographer didn't expect to benefit from the work of the band. He didn't expect to benefit from his own work of taking the picture, editing it and uploading it. He expected other people not to profit from his work, and when they tried to all he demanded was they donate to charity. At no point did he try and profiteer from this. The fact is that subjects of pictures don't really have the right to refuse to be photographed in public, they only have the right to prevent their image to be used commercially- which is categorically no what this guy was doing.
al_chemist 8y ago
Intellectual rights at its finest: I made this photo, I own it! - photographer I'm on this photo, I own it! - band She wears my product, I own it! - props maker Photo was made with camera I made - camera maker That patch of violet is a trademarked color - Milka
matz1 8y ago
Arch enemy itself in a way is also a businesses, so you let them use your photo for free but not their sponsor? Legality wise you might be right but not it's not surprising that you got backlashes from the band. In the this case I support the band.
ninth_ant 8y ago
From my read, poor communication come contributed strongly to this mess. The authors reply to band management was overly long winded when he just needed to stress that he didn’t want his work being used by random commercial uses, and that he offered them 100 to charity. Instead of that he demanded money to charity from the band itself (!?) and put the strongest emphasis (to my read) seemed to be about his rights. This unnecessarily amplified the aggression, and triggered the band to exercise their rights with the banning. Everyone within their rights, everyone loses.
- hughes 8y ago
  Offering to "explain the current state of the law" to someone in a giant email seems like a really poor way to resolve conflict. The pseudo-lawyer language seems almost designed to infuriate.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - starbeast 8y ago
    Isn't pseudo though as he is also a lawyer. He may be far too used to writing like that.
- jandrese 8y ago
  The guy comes across as a nut and it's no surprise the band doesn't want to deal with him.
  - busterarm 8y ago
    In my younger years I was very much a part of the "scene" and made a good go at booking and promoting metal bands, particularly European ones here in the US. After a very short time I realized that it's very much a pit of vipers and an endless source of drama. Everyone puts on a front of being very cool but in almost all cases it's just that. It doesn't matter if it's bands, promoters, photographers, fans, etc., anyone who is even the slightest bit invested in it is likely to screw you over or air some irrelevant feud out in public. I don't go near any of it anymore (except the occasional Meshuggah or Ihsahn show) and remain a fan in private, with headphones on. As right as the guy is, he totally didn't go about any of this the right way and neither did the band.
dwagonFawce 8y ago
Color me unsurprised. Arch Enemy sucks, and is surrounded by nerdy, legalistic douchebag fans who imagine that they have good taste in music. Arguments and infighting all around, and for what? To control the behavior of others, and establish arbitrarily cherry-picked, self-serving rules over digital media files that cost nearly nothing to create, view and transmit? If you listen to Dragonforce you have bigger problems than whether or not people are viewing pictures you took of them. Namely: That people know you listen to Dragonforce.
JackFr 8y ago
The photographer (and the rest of us) would have been better served with a simple straightforward take down notice: "a photograph which I own is being used or commercial purposes." The clothing brand would have probably contacted the artist, assuming that the band or singer had owned the rights since it went out on the singer's instagram. Upon learning they didn't they would have taken it down or bought the rights. But know we all now what an insufferable prig the photographer is and how unpleasant all parties involved are. If you're gonna be a lawyer, be a lawyer not a morally preening victim.

157 points by pmlnr 8y ago

Can’t say I’m massively surprised a mainstream metal band behaves like a business. Shame they come across like a bunch of jerks.

whatshisface 8y ago
It's depressing that ignoring the copyrights of everyone smaller than you while aggressively defending your own is considered behaving in any way "like a business."
- gaius 8y ago
  Metallica really started the ball rolling on this one, they made their breakthrough via the underground bootleg scene and now, apart maybe from U2, they are the most corporate band in the world.
  - nraynaud 8y ago
    > Ulrich announced that Metallica had spent the last year “trying to apply Salesforce products into everything that Metallica does.” https://qz.com/1500717/what-is-salesforce-four-days-170000-people-and-one-metallica-concert-later-i-figured-out-what-salesforce-is/ https://qz.com/1500717/what-is-salesforce-four-days-170000-p... External confirmation.
  - Raffers 8y ago
    I'd say more so than u2, I don't think any of u2 have gone to crm conferences to talk about user engagement and lead-to-sale generation.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    " apart maybe from U2, they are the most corporate band in the world." Wouldn't the Rolling Stones be a worthy contender for that title?
    - gaius 8y ago
      And Coldplay as well, now that you mention it
devonkim 8y ago
A lot of fans that were around years ago during the transition away from Carcass are aware of their behavior and even Angela Gossow (former vocalist) has basically admitted in interviews that they sold out (they weren’t ever really an underground band though... so you’re more like a commercial pop group, uhh) to make a living. To me, there’s nothing wrong with being up-front that it’s about the money and if you’re enjoying the music so be it but nobody into metal is surprised by this kind of behavior by bands doing the same money grubbing things that bands making orders of magnitude more money are doing. I think that’s the most shameful part of it all honestly - if you wanted to make money playing music there’s way more options than metal. Heck, the former keyboard player for Emperor quit metal completely, cut his hair, and did fine in Norway with dance music as a solo artist. I think the guys in Beherit literally went to dance music too.
- CuriouslyC 8y ago
  Meh, if you are making enough to get by, doing what you love is way more important than having a lot of money. Ihsahn might rock sweaters and short hair now, but he is still making some really dark metal.
- raverbashing 8y ago
  I can't blame them. Being an even mildly popular band is probably a gigantic annoyance. I can't even imagine how hard it is to be "famous". You basically have no weekends, not much free time, touring is hard, especially on bus. A lot of nights in hotels (in which you checkin one days and checks out in the next day). A lot of airports. You probably can't have a quiet mean in a restaurant without getting people wanting to talk to you (if you're lucky, if you're not then it's fanzillas and crowds). But of course fame is a drug.

1337biz 8y ago

It is much harder as a band to find a good sponsor than a good photographer. Everybody is a photographer today and unless there is some value in the name or style associated with the photographer, they are just replaceable.

giornogiovanna 8y ago
This is quite plainly copyright infringement. Surely you wouldn't infringe upon someone's rights because "they are just replaceable"?
- 1337biz 8y ago
  The problem is that they let him take pictures of them in the first place without any restrictions. But they fixed that now. The 'I am a photographer and a lawyer' line won't make him many friends amongst artist.
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    > The problem is that they let him take pictures of them in the first place without any restrictions. I don't think that was the problem.
    - DanBC 8y ago
      It's clearly the problem: the band thought they owned image rights. The photographer had a different understanding.
      - ozgurozkan 8y ago
        Most people think like this: I have my face on that photo so that photo is mine not the photographer's. Photographer has rights to distribute, sell do whatever until the limit that is not harming the subject in the photo. In this case it is an artist she can only sue him if that photo harms her reputation. Instead her attitude harmed her reputation.

Semaphor 8y ago

My thoughts: a) doesn't IG have "repost" built in? In that case you'd probably give them and their users a license to repost by uploading it there. b) AE behaved like total jerks but they are a mainstream pop metal band, so it's not really surprising.

whatshisface 8y ago
>AE behaved like total jerks but they are a mainstream pop metal band, so it's not really surprising. It's a little weird that they got so vitriolic in defense of a sponsor, having no stake in it themselves. Not extremely weird, but a little weird.
- throwaway8879 8y ago
  I suppose metal bands aren't making as much money as they did 20 years ago? that's probably why they have to put in the extra effort to hang on to the sponsor. Perhaps I'm wrong. I mean really, if you're not one of the old-timers like Iron Maiden or Megadeth or something, is being a metal artist really a good career choice these days? Genuinely want to know.
  - CuriouslyC 8y ago
    Being a metal artist hasn't ever really been a good career choice, unless you consider glam a metal genre, in which case for a while in the 80s it at least had a large potential payoff if you got really lucky, sort of like a high effort lottery ticket.
- rurounijones 8y ago
  Based on the reading it appears that the clothing company sponsors are a small etsy style company owned by close friends of the band. So they have a personal stake... plus a commercial one if they want more merch to wear by keeping the sponsor happy.
- pbalau 8y ago
  I find it terrifying how easy it is to influence people, basically, half the internet jumped to the conclusion that the band is in the wrong based on a single article, depicting only one point of view, witch conveniently leaves out the fact that most likely the photographer signed an agreement allowing the band to do whatever they see fit with the photos produced at the event. Plus the thing happened 6 months ago and was surfaced at a very convenient moment for both the band to not be able to react quickly and hit their bottom line.

dpcx 8y ago

Having not heard of Arch Enemy before this article, it's too bad for them. Their music is directly in line with my tastes (I watched about 30s of the YouTube video linked). I'm a music fan that doesn't mind paying to purchase albums or even go to shows. But because of their mismanagement of this situation (which likely extends to many others as well), I won't be giving them any of my money.

CuriouslyC 8y ago
If you liked Arch Enemy, I suggest you check out some of the other melodic death metal bands in the Gothenburg style. Dark Tranquility would my first pick, Soilwork is pretty good too.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  If we're doing band recommendations along AE lines, I'd throw in Barren Earth, Amorphis and Omnium Gatherum and Insomnium as well.
  - Raffers 8y ago
    ne obliviscaris and wolves in the throne room are 2 other fantastic atmospheric black metal bands.
- ralusek 8y ago
  In Flames, At the Gates.
  - npongratz 8y ago
    I'd recommend old In Flames. Not the mostly-"nu"-metal stuff they've been putting out since Reroute to Remain. EDIT: And the new stuff is fine, but it's definitely not the fantastic melodic/progressive death they helped pioneer.
- EngineerBetter 8y ago
  Soilwork - Stabbing The Drama is one of my favourite albums of all time.

vngzs 8y ago

Site is down now, archive is here: http://archive.is/1mbNY http://archive.is/1mbNY Edit: their webpage is back up for now, but I'm keeping this around just in case.

pmlnr 8y ago
video version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW1TRQeo7gk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW1TRQeo7gk

raverbashing 8y ago

Well, this goes to show that being technically correct only goes so far. > “no band wants to have photographers on site who later send such threatening correspondence to monetise on their images.” Not surprising. Photographer has the prerogative of producing copyright images, they just "forgot" that taking pictures of concerts is half the story. I'm not surprised the band acted like they acted, they probably get a lot of those as well. It's like the recruiters that find a CV on the internet then try to apply as the person and charge a fee.

andrelaszlo 8y ago
I'm surprised that a lot of people are missing the point that they also chose to use the image. If there are tons of much more talented but replaceable photographers that are willing to give their work away for free, why did they have to use his photo?
- raverbashing 8y ago
  Correct, the commercial use was an issue.

barrkel 8y ago

Almost all of the value of a photo taken close up at a concert like this derives from the band rather than the photographer. The photographer is infinitely more substitutable. The photo is normally only interesting to people who are interested in the band, rather than for the craft of the photo itself. Legally, the photographer in this story is correct. But I think he's dealing in absolutes in a situation where the economics are strongly in the band's favour. The band would be much better off with photographers that signed over copyright and it's not difficult for them to get that, because they're adding most of the value. The fact that they didn't, and permitted this chap to take the photos he did, is IMO down to them not having had this experience before. Now they have, and perhaps they'll be smarter about it going forward.

whatshisface 8y ago
I see a lot of people in this thread that view band photographers as disposable chaff that don't deserve the same copyright protection as everyone else, but I doubt that anyone would want to take legal rights away from migrant fruit pickers in California. Migrant fruit pickers are very replaceable, so that doesn't add up. Edit: In response to the shadowbanned comment that I can't reply to, I don't think there is a line beyond which extremely poor economic negotiation power crosses over into reduced status in the legal system in any court system or even moral system in the world... Except for metal band photographers, apparently. (With the possible second exception of third world countries.)
- Chris_Chambers 8y ago
  For your whataboutism to be valid, everyone in the world would need to have their own personal fruit replication device in their pocket. In that case, no, we really don’t need migrant fruit pickers in California anymore.
- 1337biz 8y ago
  I am wondering - did they even wave their rights away for commercial use by letting that guy take pictures of them? The way I am seeing is that he is trying to make money off them without compensating them as his 'models'.

causality0 8y ago

Legally speaking, the photographer is completely within his rights. The band is also within their rights to ban him from their shows because they disagree with the way he uses his legal authority. Personally, I find the idea that the photographer has more right to a photo than the subject ethically repugnant. If you came up, took a photo of me, and used it to make money on your Instagram, and then sent settlement letters to people associated with me for using it you'd be asking for a broken nose if I ever laid eyes on you again, legal right or not.

frereubu 8y ago
As far as I'm aware, in the UK, if the photograph was of you specifically - that is, not as part of a crowd - technically the photographer would need you to sign a model release, a legal document saying that you give the photographer the rights to use the image for commercial purposes. The document can stipulate a payment or that you give the rights for free. I can't imagine the situation is very different in other jurisdictions that protect intellectual property - but would be interested to hear from someone know knows more about that, because my knowledge is only based on the first year of a photography degree.
- busterarm 8y ago
  Most venues (and almost certainly all large ones/festivals) have waivers explaining that you're in a space where photography/videography is taking place and that by being present you are essentially signing a release. That would apply to the talent too.
- KineticLensman 8y ago
  I am not a photography lawyer but... a model release would certainly be expected in a situation where a photographer hires a model for a specific shoot whose shots would be used commercially. In situations where the shoot is for a third party (e.g. a clothing company that hires a model and a photographer to create catalogue pictures) the model release might be held by the party. However, if a photographer creates pictures of an artist in a concert-style venue, I imagine the artist (or their management) might expect the Terms and Conditions of the venue to override any arrangement that an 'unauthorised' photographer tried to create.

airwot4 8y ago

Looking at this strategically it seems that the photographer simply didn't expect the band and the sponsor to be so close. He desparately tries to separate them into two entities (artist and commercial) when in reality they're essentially two facets of the same brand. It does seem that the band massively overreacted though. I don't think this will play in their favour now that this has been posted so widely. Apparently the photographer wants the last word on this.

detuur 8y ago
Just because two businesses are close doesn't mean licenses are transferable. If the photographer gave his permission to use the picture for self-promotion (or even simply decided not to complain about it), that doesn't give them the right to grant that permission to a clothing store they're very buddy-buddy with.
- matz1 8y ago
  Sure legality wise, that might be the case but nothing is ever black and white. Like in this case, no wonder the photographer received adverse reaction from the band.
  - gdpgreg 8y ago
    It's litterally black and white in intellectual property laws.
    - matz1 8y ago
      Not really, different judge may interpret the law differently.
      - cthalupa 8y ago
        You're literally just saying things, and saying them doesn't make this true. Copyright law on this sort of thing is incredibly straightforward and completely settled. This isn't like recreating the likeness of someone, including their tattoos (another story popular in the past day on HN), this is clear cut commercial usage of someone else's copyrighted work, and his tolerance of non-commercial usage by the person photographed doesn't have any impact whatsoever on whether or not a different entity has the ability to use it to promote their clothing line. This is an incredibly open and shut case with tens of thousands (probably hundreds of thousands, actually) of cases worth of clear cut precedent.

chx 8y ago

How come this one is on the front page when I submitted it more than 12 hours before it at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18766327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18766327 ? Edit: and when I complain about stolen karma I get more downvotes. What a weird place.

pmlnr 8y ago
No idea. HN behaves weird, I wasn't aware of a previous submission.
detaro 8y ago
Complaining about votes/not getting votes is boring and thus commonly downvoted (it's also explicitly against HN's rules). There's some randomness to if a story makes it to the front page or not (how many/which people were paying attention to /new, how were other stories ranked in relation, ...), which is why limited reposts are explicitly allowed, you were unlucky this time.
deadmetheny 8y ago
>when I complain about stolen karma I get more downvotes Nobody gives a fuck about who gets Internet points. Sometimes things reposted and take off when they didn't the first time and there's not a lot you can do about it.

ajnin 8y ago

It seems rather odd that the photographer would expect to be able to benefit from the work of the band, taking photos of their on-stage performance (which is just as much an act of creation, if not more, as taking a picture), and use the image of that woman freely, including to demand payment of royalties to third-parties, while the subject of the picture should have no say at all in the matter. The legal aspect is what it is (although it would be interesting to analyze exactly what the creative act of the photographer is here), and the reaction of the band was overly harsh, but the photo wouldn't exist without the band performance, so I feel like there should be some kind of shared right here.

Traster 8y ago
The photographer didn't expect to benefit from the work of the band. He didn't expect to benefit from his own work of taking the picture, editing it and uploading it. He expected other people not to profit from his work, and when they tried to all he demanded was they donate to charity. At no point did he try and profiteer from this. The fact is that subjects of pictures don't really have the right to refuse to be photographed in public, they only have the right to prevent their image to be used commercially- which is categorically no what this guy was doing.

al_chemist 8y ago

Intellectual rights at its finest: I made this photo, I own it! - photographer I'm on this photo, I own it! - band She wears my product, I own it! - props maker Photo was made with camera I made - camera maker That patch of violet is a trademarked color - Milka

matz1 8y ago

Arch enemy itself in a way is also a businesses, so you let them use your photo for free but not their sponsor? Legality wise you might be right but not it's not surprising that you got backlashes from the band. In the this case I support the band.

ninth_ant 8y ago

From my read, poor communication come contributed strongly to this mess. The authors reply to band management was overly long winded when he just needed to stress that he didn’t want his work being used by random commercial uses, and that he offered them 100 to charity. Instead of that he demanded money to charity from the band itself (!?) and put the strongest emphasis (to my read) seemed to be about his rights. This unnecessarily amplified the aggression, and triggered the band to exercise their rights with the banning. Everyone within their rights, everyone loses.

hughes 8y ago
Offering to "explain the current state of the law" to someone in a giant email seems like a really poor way to resolve conflict. The pseudo-lawyer language seems almost designed to infuriate.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- starbeast 8y ago
  Isn't pseudo though as he is also a lawyer. He may be far too used to writing like that.
jandrese 8y ago
The guy comes across as a nut and it's no surprise the band doesn't want to deal with him.
- busterarm 8y ago
  In my younger years I was very much a part of the "scene" and made a good go at booking and promoting metal bands, particularly European ones here in the US. After a very short time I realized that it's very much a pit of vipers and an endless source of drama. Everyone puts on a front of being very cool but in almost all cases it's just that. It doesn't matter if it's bands, promoters, photographers, fans, etc., anyone who is even the slightest bit invested in it is likely to screw you over or air some irrelevant feud out in public. I don't go near any of it anymore (except the occasional Meshuggah or Ihsahn show) and remain a fan in private, with headphones on. As right as the guy is, he totally didn't go about any of this the right way and neither did the band.

dwagonFawce 8y ago

Color me unsurprised. Arch Enemy sucks, and is surrounded by nerdy, legalistic douchebag fans who imagine that they have good taste in music. Arguments and infighting all around, and for what? To control the behavior of others, and establish arbitrarily cherry-picked, self-serving rules over digital media files that cost nearly nothing to create, view and transmit? If you listen to Dragonforce you have bigger problems than whether or not people are viewing pictures you took of them. Namely: That people know you listen to Dragonforce.

JackFr 8y ago

The photographer (and the rest of us) would have been better served with a simple straightforward take down notice: "a photograph which I own is being used or commercial purposes." The clothing brand would have probably contacted the artist, assuming that the band or singer had owned the rights since it went out on the singer's instagram. Upon learning they didn't they would have taken it down or bought the rights. But know we all now what an insufferable prig the photographer is and how unpleasant all parties involved are. If you're gonna be a lawyer, be a lawyer not a morally preening victim.