Concert Photography Contracts

[lisa_13]

So, I recently acquired a pass to shoot a somewhat larger band in an arena. I've been told that I'm going to need to sign a contract stating that I will send the band all shots I take during the set and hand over my copyright. In other words, They can do whatever the hell they want with my photos (t-shirts, album covers, liner notes, posters, etc.) without having to give me credit or compensation. I've shot for smaller bands before at clubs, but never this size, and I've never had to sign a contract.

Is this fair? Should I sign it? I would really love to have these photos for myself, as I know the singer would be great to photograph, but I don't want to see my photos everywhere without credit. I'm only 19 & just recently started my photography business in the last year. I don't want to shoot, get great photos, and then hand them over for nothing. HELP!

 

[Kegger]

Up the hell out of the price. Make some decent money on it, and maybe keep a few for yourself. lol

Tell them because you don't normally hand over rights, they are going to have to buy them from you,you won't just give them to them. And charge whatever you feel is appropriate.

 

[PatrickHMS]

Up the hell out of the price. Make some decent money on it, and maybe keep a few for yourself. lol

OP said he acquired a pass, don't think he is getting paid for this gig (as I read it).

Seems like someone is trying to screw him over...

 

[lisa_13]

no pay, i requested a pass to use photos for a newspaper article. but if photos are used by the band for something else i'd at the very least want my name on them.

 

[PatrickHMS]

no pay, i requested a pass to use photos for a newspaper article. but if photos are used by the band for something else i'd at the very least want my name on them.

Their concert, their pass, their contract, their rules. Probably their way or the highway.

Only way I know for you to protect your images is to watermark them.

I bet if you refuse, they won't let you in. So seems you would be working for them for free...

Wonder what band it is....

 

[lisa_13]

I'm sure watermarking probably isn't allowed either. I know if I refuse to sign they won't let me shoot, but what's the better option?

 

[PatrickHMS]

I'm sure watermarking probably isn't allowed either. I know if I refuse to sign they won't let me shoot, but what's the better option?

Doesn't seem to be any other option.

You shoot for them for free, or you don't shoot.

Sounds like their way to get their photo taken for free.

I wouldn't buy ANYTHING from a band who handled their business like that. Not a professional way to handle their business...

Basically, they are legally stealing your work and your copyright it you allow them to do it this way.

 

[Flash Harry]

You haven't been commissioned, you have been allowed access to shoot for a newspaper, this is the deal your'e offered, agree to the deal and the images are theirs, end of, bigger bands work like this, this is the reason venues tickets almost always state "no cameras" in the small print, their gig, their copyright. Try speaking to the bands manager, see if you can organise something with him you can agree on would be the way forward, if not, either, don't do it, or, mark it down to experience. H

 

[bigtwinky]

I think its your decision to make, weighing whether getting the experience in shooting in an arena, potentially making other photography contacts and given a chance to learn but have nothing physical to show for it vs not doing it because you feel that if you do the work, you deserve the public recognition and potential compensation.

Either way of thought is a logical one, it just depends on where you stand.

I would try and discuss with the manager to see if you can have the right to use the photos for your personal portfolio, whether online or printed, but not for resale or any other publication. At least this way, you can keep some.

Make some decent money on it, and maybe keep a few for yourself. lol

I would advise against doing anything that is not in your contract. If they state don't keep any and you can't arrange something, then don't keep any. Else, if you are trying to make a name for yourself, you must ensure you are professional at all times, if not you risk being blacklisted and such.

And if you do push this further, these shots a few years from now will only be nostalgic for you. Chances are, there are bigger and better things down the road to shoot.


If *I* were in your place, I would try and negotiate something. Either some compensation, but I would prefer the ability to display photos in my portfolio. If they still refused, I would probably still shoot just for the experience of shooting. If I had done arenas before and had some experience, I would just tell them thanks, but no thanks.

 

[ecnal]

Well, if it doesn't say anything in the contract about watermarking images, I'd watermark them. A nice, big one across the whole thing. Hand 'em over like that and be prepared to defend yourself with the language (or lack thereof) in the contract.

I'd tell them 'Tough cookies.' and if they wanted the pictures without watermark that you'd be more than happy to negotiate a fair price per image, with a contract of your own that says that you must be credited, etc etc.

 

[bigtwinky]

I wouldn't do that, but thats just a personal thing, might not apply to everyone.

Again, it comes down to wanting to do this professionally and getting a good reputation and acting like a good business person.

I find that watermarking or doing whatever to an image without discussing it ahead of time and then just giving them the images is like backing them into a corner, which is not a right thing to do to a client. Shady business deals, threats, doing things behind their back, making sure your contract has loopholes prior to working for them are not the way I would conduct myself.

And yes, I consider them a client in this case. Except they are paying with the chance to gain experience instead of money.

If you do watermark, and they get pissed and don't take your images, whats the next step? You are probably not allowed to use them. So now you have images you can't use / display AND you have ticked off someone who might be a potential referral for something else.


Seriously... consider discussing everything with them and trying to gain a use of images for personal / professional portfolio. If not, decide if gaining the experience is enough for you to do this. I want to shoot sports... I know the main shooter for the Montreal Canadians for a big local newspaper. If he ever offered me the opportunity to shoot a game with him, and knowing that I can't do crap with the images, I would gladly take the opportunity.

 

[Rifleman1776]

I'm sure watermarking probably isn't allowed either. I know if I refuse to sign they won't let me shoot, but what's the better option?

Option? Why bother?
Your work is worth more than a ticket. When I photographed, or videoed events, I really didn't 'see' the event. Concentration was on getting the pictures or video. Work is work, enjoyment should be relaxation.
Your decision. Free ticket to get screwed. Or refuse and pay your own way.

 

[PatrickHMS]

I find that watermarking or doing whatever to an image without discussing it ahead of time and then just giving them the images is like backing them into a corner, which is not a right thing to do to a client. Shady business deals, threats, doing things behind their back, making sure your contract has loopholes prior to working for them are not the way I would conduct myself.

These people are not a client of the OP, they are already using shady tactics to steal work from OP for free under the giuse of OP getting opportunity to shoot.

OP - whatever you do negotiate with them, if you do - get it in writing.

 

[bigtwinky]

These people are not a client of the OP, they are already using shady tactics to steal work from OP for free under the giuse of OP getting opportunity to shoot.

Whether I shoot for free or I shoot and get paid, the person I am shooting for is a client. I am responsible to give them images of highest quality in a professional manner.

If they are using shady tactics to "steal" work, then its up to the business person to decide if they want to get involved with a shady client. While I agree that shooting and losing all copyrights and possibility of using the photos is not something I would do, sometimes the experience can be more valuable. Just my opinion of course.

OP - whatever you do negotiate with them, if you do - get it in writing.

I 100% agree on this.

 

[battletone]

I find that watermarking or doing whatever to an image without discussing it ahead of time and then just giving them the images is like backing them into a corner, which is not a right thing to do to a client. Shady business deals, threats, doing things behind their back, making sure your contract has loopholes prior to working for them are not the way I would conduct myself.

These people are not a client of the OP, they are already using shady tactics to steal work from OP for free under the giuse of OP getting opportunity to shoot.

OP - whatever you do negotiate with them, if you do - get it in writing.

What are they stealing? They don't have to let you in to start with. It sucks, but it isn't like you have a right to a free ticket, stage access, and to bring your super high quality camera in to take photos that no one else in the audience is being allowed to take.
I would like to keep the images for myself and to show off, but unless you are working for RollingStone or the local news media, the band/venue has ZERO need for you to be there doing this.