Music Photography Reduced To A Hobby

I've tried to work as a music photographer (with varying success) and attending concerts is no way to make a living these days. The fact is, there's always someone with a decent camera willing to do it for nothing. Of course concert photography is a tricky thing to get good at - so I suspect the photographers who aren't put off by the contract won't get the great images that those at the top can obtain. Which ultimately could mean fewer column inches for the band.

In the end this sort of attitude towards photographers will only serve to weaken music photographers and therefore the art form in general. And subsequently, the music industry as a whole gets that little bit weaker and less interesting.

Music Photography is Dead

Once the photographer doesn't sell the photos on for merchandising outside the bands control, then I see no reason why the photographer shouldn't sell THEIR images onto however many magazines/papers/websites will purchase them - its how they have to earn a living. And having to sign rights over to the performer is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

I only photograph hardcore/punk shows (no stupid contracts or restrictions) from start to finish - even before and after - and like all other photographers in that area have a great collection of the show, and everything around it, much as the rock photographers did in the 60s-90s.....they documented it, not just a handful of glossy snapshots of the first 3 songs....how times change.

Wow

Both the rights grab And the "Go f@*k yourself" attitude of the band's manager, make the band look terrible, greedy, and hypocritical. In an age where bands and music companies rail against fans downloading their work for free, it seems ironic that they're doing the same thing to photographers. I guess they're the only ones that should have rights and make a living off of their work. I love hypocrites. There's one less concert ticket and a few albums I'll never buy...

Just another in a long line

This contract is pretty tame, there are a lot worse. Check out Coldplay's (Free Trade?) and the obvious Lady Gaga.

It really is a joke, but it will never get better as too many will sign this release purely to say they have shot The Roses. The call to make a stand is great, but there are people all over Twitter so happy the get to shoot this gig that coverage will be out there so why should the promoter worry.

Unless a proper stand is made by all photographers these conditions will continue and there are too many who will sign this and any other rights grab as they have no need to make money from photography and hey, they get to go to a gig for free, so they did get paid.

Music photography is no longer even respected by fans as the Alter Bridge case proved on Facebook.

We live in a time that has 100 times better equipment than the 60's yet 1000 times worse access to musicians. Respect for live music photography by management is at an almost non existent level and rather than pay for a professional shot they will either use a crowd shot from a fan or simply steal the image. This generation will not see the images that came out of the golden period of music photography and with all the digital noise being spewed out all over the web, will we even care?

I love music photography it is my passion but I feel myself becoming more and more disillusioned with what photographers have to go through in the name of trying to make a living.

Sorry, but it's how i feel.

The Stone Roses don't owe you anything. It's their gig, if they don't want you their then deal with it. All this constant complaining looses photography more respect than any boycott will do for the band. You might not like it but the world is changing, evolve or die.

RE: Sorry, but it's how I feel.

I don't owe The Stone Roses anything either. I could have sorted a pass for this, and my photographs would have accompanied an article to promote them. They DO need promotion. If they did not then they would not have any photographers there.

Your comment proves my point that photographers are in the wrong, never the band. I understand it from a fans perspective, a photographer vs their idols, only one will win, but look at the photography of the 60’s and 70’s, there are very few images these days that compare to those seen in those days, purely because of access.

Evolve or die? There will only be one winner, the death of music photography. The image of music photography will not be considered by serious image makers in this generation due to there being no way to make money and a general apathy towards quality of music images.

How can one evolve when there is no way to make a wage? The commission rate for shoots are peanuts due to the magazine industry being in turmoil and the inability to resell your images could see a nights shoot net you less than £100. Suddenly weddings don’t sound so bad.

RE "Suddenly weddings don’t sound so bad"

Thanks a lot pal.

Why worry about the music industry running you down when there are other photographers to do it for them.

Again, sorry but it's how I feel.

'There will only be one winner, the death of music photography' I see your point but disagree. As you say there will still be lots people documenting the gig, so music photography will continue, just not in the fashion that the photography industry wants. Here in lies the problem, what professional photographers provide is beyond the requirements of what the band needs in this situation. I agree that they need promotion they just DON'T need to pay you for it. It's just simple economics, supply and demand. There is a large supply of people willing to produce images so the demand is small as such bands can make such demands. I agree that this will almost certainly result much lower quality images but as you say with all the digital noise being spewed out all over the web, will we even care? Or more importantly will the music fans who are the end customers of the promoters care? My answer is no, they won't even be able to tell the difference. As photographers we may not like this but that doesn't change the situation. As for evolution, as sad as it may be, wedding photography might be the answer.

Here's the contract

In the interests of informed debate, here's the CURRENT version of the contract. Lots of the articles about this make some fairly spurious claims as to what's currently in it.

RE: THE STONE ROSES

This letter serves to confirm that you, may photograph (no flash) THE STONE ROSES on the condition that any material arising from the photographic session to be held on at is used for editorial use, in the following publication(s) only:

X

The license hereby granted to you to photograph the artist is limited to the above grant only and NO right to sell, license or reproduce the material for advertising or commercial purposes (e.g., for use as posters, calendars, T-shirts, biographies, etc.) either to be sold, to be distributed free or to be otherwise exploited in any manner whatsoever. Nor may any material arising from the said session be reproduced in any publication devoted exclusively or predominantly to the artist unless prior permission has been obtained from THE STONE ROSES and their management.

You hereby agree to indemnify THE STONE ROSES, their management and agents against any claims, losses or damage suffered by THE STONE ROSES and their management and agents as a result of any breach by you of the above. Please indicate your acceptance of the foregoing conditions by signing this letter and hand-delivering it to the box office.

This is the nature of the music industry.

In the music industry there are two types of people - those who have made it and those who have not.

Unsuccessful bands/managers etc fawn and coo over those who are successful whilst privately resenting them, desperate for a scrap of their success or soe exposure. There is no genuine respect in either direction. Those who have made it often milk this relationship to the extreme and have an unpleasant arrogance as per the Stone Roses manager who cannot even treat a publication such as BJP with respect or manners.

(I have no musical skill and no interest in music photography and no axe to grind, but I have quite a bit of exposure to the industry and that's where my comments come from).

Dig a little deeper

Google the photographer who's spearheading the boycott. He's using their name to sell his book of photos - thus the clause about publications that are predominantly dedicated to the stone roses.

While he should be able to sell his photos however he wants, he shouldn't necessarily be allowed to use their trademarked name to do it. How many copies of the book do you think he'd sell if it was his name in bold and their name in the tiny font?

Analogy

Do YouTube filmers complain about restrictions to sit in a movie theature at opening night and film bits of it to then later sell it? It would "help promote the film, right"? Though I'm a music photographer and want access, I do see the argument that "it's the band's show and they control the brand."

Music photography is dead?

If the music photography will be dead, that should also mean that there will be no coverage of the bands the way it is now. Perhaps we evolve to entirely electronically generated music, hence no photographs of the 'band' needed and bye music photograph. ?
Just like the music industry complains about downloads and tries to make production cheaper (read: gain even more profit) to 'justify' that behaviour, there will be amateurs with good cameras making a few shots to promote the band...
Does this sound real?
Not to me! Realistic could be that - serious - bands and photographers work together like today.
'The music industry' is an overarching term and will never suite the musicians who want to be taken seriously about their art. The rest is a bunch of snobs who think they can make it on their own and don't even deserve our attention, let alone our photo's.
Though it's a pity that I discover about millions of photographs of the Stone Roses on the net. But I will not make or spend my money on them.

Music Photography reduced to a hobby

I have had this conversation many times with the music photographers I mix with. The contracts are here to stay and there is no changing that. Boycotts dont work. I recall an attempt to boycott the RSC in the mid 90's when they introduced a grab contract. It failed then and it is even more likely to fail now. What is most concerning is that the grabs are now encroaching into editorial and it seems personal use. We have all got used to the non commercial use, but this development will soon spread too. I have had a conversation with one press officer who told me they are heading towards a policy of not commissioning house images, but will instead require attending freelancers to supply a selection of their images in return for the access. Payments will only be made if the images are actually used. I look after the archive of a photographer who covered theatre in the 50's and 60's. In order to gain access to one particular venue, he was required to pay the venue!. Might seem absurd, but don't be surprised if it happens again.

greedy bankers

I cannot imagine anybody bothering to record anybody if those recorded demanded control of the photographs. Imagine politicians doing it? or Footballers? Or not just the footballers but their audiences and audiences at the Olympics and Wimbledon claiming rights on footage broadcasted that included them?
Ridiculous. As anyone can simply buy a ticket and take pictures as a member of the audience, why not simply do that and bypass any such contract?
And is such a contract that overrides local and national laws enforceable? Can somebody, in other words, create THEIR OWN PRIVATE LEGAL SYSTEM within the UK?
This surely is a very important question, but I believe the answer to be no. And that goes for the National Trust etc. as well.

Not So Sure

Peter you say 'I cannot imagine anybody bothering to record anybody if those recorded demanded control of the photographs.' I think their record company and the 21000 fans who attended the gig might disagree. Let's be realistic and consider this in context, The Stone Roses are not a new band trying to break the market.

Music?

I think, in visual terms they're probably quite unattractive, so why would one want to photograph them anyway? I do long for the days when concerts were all about music, never thought of taking a camera to an Iron Maiden gig, we were having too good a time to bother with that sort of thing;)

Just sayin'...

Seems to me there are 3 possibilities here:
1. There was no such contract signed
2. There is a contract and it was worded like this as an obvious joke
3. It is all true
I know which I believe and it's not number 3...

Just sayin....

What if ....

Remember years ago when musicians got upset about Napster and the wheels began turniing to protect the artists copyrights and publishing rights.
It seems, in this case, that the Stone Roses have forgotten about that and come up with their own poly to govern the images that are to be used.
Don't get me wrong, wheather its music or photography I do believe in 'protecting your brand'.
However, without the photographers the Stone Roses would of had no cover art for there media, no music videos, no images in the press and no images to promote themselves.
I know that in this day and age fans would happily photograph from the pit for free and give the images to the band. I suppose thats the advantage of not making a living from photography.
Alas, its the bands decision on what embargos and rules they want to impose, but they need to realise that it may not be always acceptable to photographers. And if they subsequently want to use fans instead then that is there decision.

Persue The Group for slavery

Working without being payed is prohibited by law. This is dumping. So you can fix this situation with a class action against The Group for slavery. At the same time pursuing the photographers that offer the images for free for dumping. The ownership of the image rights have to be aquired (as every thing) paiyng. Without proof of paying there is no rights ownership.