3 ms·
Its extremely uncharitable to assume he signed something. He even mentions in his article that other bands do require signing a license agreement to photograph
by slededit 8y ago
Its extremely uncharitable to assume he signed something. He even mentions in his article that other bands do require signing a license agreement to photograph but this band did not.
- pbalau 8y agoCan you please point me to the paragraph stating this? I have troubles finding it
- slededit 8y ago> In the past, artists like Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, and even The Foo Fighters, have gone beyond merely assuming that they have this right, choosing instead to force concert photographers to sign contracts where they have to, quite literally, surrender all of their rights over the photos. Aware of the fact that most photographers are not exactly versed on legal terminology, that photo pits aren’t great places to read contracts, and that many photographers simply can’t afford not to shoot a big band, artists have been able to profit from the many photographers that, for whatever reason, end up signing their rights away.
- pbalau 8y agoThanks, forgot about that, but it doesn't imply he didn't sign such an agreement. It's been vehiculated that in Nederland, a third party photographer has to sign an agreement, that states the photographer retains the copyright, while the artists retain the right to use the images as they see fit. Giving these pictures away, for promotional reasons, to a small subset of close to the band 3rd parties, like fan clubs and sponsors, sounds to me like fair use of the right the artist has. About how fair this arrangement is, you should remember that photographers with an accreditation do not pay the admission fee for the event and for a 3 days festival this is quite a hefty fee, I payed about 600 GBP for 3 tickets for Graspop festival.