Photo Agreement for Concert?

[DGMPhotography]

So, I'm potentially shooting a show at The National, and it's one of my favorite bands, The Pretty Reckless. I've been trying to get a press pass because I'd really love to take photos of them, and was having a difficult time reaching anyone until now... I got in touch (through a friend) with someone from iHeart Media who could get me a pass to shoot on their behalf, but are requiring a photo agreement.

I've heard horror stories about the way the music industry cares for photographers, and just wanted to get your opinion on the contract. I'm still waiting to hear back what they are going to pay me, and a few other questions, but I'd like to hear your preliminary thoughts.

And no "talk to a lawyer" comments, please. I'm not too worried about the legal side of things - it's all clear to me. I just want to know your opinion on the contract terms, and any advice you may have.

(see attached)

 

[Dave442]

Basically just hand over the images and rights to the people that paid you to push the shutter button. It's a way to get your foot in the door.

They would probably charge you more than they paid you for you to license the images that you took.

 

[KmH]

Run Forrest! Run!
It's amazing how when you get your foot in the door the door often slams shut before you can get even part way in.

As a photographer, your copyright is just about the only thing of real value your work produces.

Clause #4 requires you to give that away.
As an independent contractor you own the copyrights, unless you sign a contract giving them away.
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

 

[DGMPhotography]

Run Forrest! Run!
It's amazing how when you get your foot in the door the door often slams shut before you can get even part way in.

As a photographer, your copyright is just about the only thing of real value your work produces.

Clause #4 requires you to give that away.
As an independent contractor you own the copyrights, unless you sign a contract giving them away.
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

Well, right now it's looking like I either go through them, or I don't get photos at all.

And they told me via email that they are actually pretty chill with photo usage. They will use my watermarked photos, and will credit me, and I can still use them for my website and port.

 

[pixmedic]

Run Forrest! Run!
It's amazing how when you get your foot in the door the door often slams shut before you can get even part way in.

As a photographer, your copyright is just about the only thing of real value your work produces.

Clause #4 requires you to give that away.
As an independent contractor you own the copyrights, unless you sign a contract giving them away.
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

Well, right now it's looking like I either go through them, or I don't get photos at all.

And they told me via email that they are actually pretty chill with photo usage. They will use my watermarked photos, and will credit me, and I can still use them for my website and port.

sounds like you have already made your decision.
are you looking for validation?
if you want to do the shoot then go do it and have fun. just remember that you can only do what the media group says you can do with those photos.
if you get paid AND get to use the photos in your portfolio, then thats a bonus.

 

[DGMPhotography]

Run Forrest! Run!
It's amazing how when you get your foot in the door the door often slams shut before you can get even part way in.

As a photographer, your copyright is just about the only thing of real value your work produces.

Clause #4 requires you to give that away.
As an independent contractor you own the copyrights, unless you sign a contract giving them away.
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

Well, right now it's looking like I either go through them, or I don't get photos at all.

And they told me via email that they are actually pretty chill with photo usage. They will use my watermarked photos, and will credit me, and I can still use them for my website and port.

sounds like you have already made your decision.
are you looking for validation?
if you want to do the shoot then go do it and have fun. just remember that you can only do what the media group says you can do with those photos.
if you get paid AND get to use the photos in your portfolio, then thats a bonus.

Just opinions.

 

[tirediron]

...And they told me via email that they are actually pretty chill with photo usage. They will use my watermarked photos, and will credit me, and I can still use them for my website and port.

I just won a million dollars in the lottery and I'm going to give it all to you.

 

[tirediron]

Just opinions.

Only an idiot would sign that agreement! That's my opinion...

 

[DGMPhotography]

I'm a little confused.

In yall's opinion having no photos is better than having photos that are owned by someone else? I guess I just don't feel stingy about it, as long as they're letting me use them as well, and that they're crediting me. Sounds like a good way to get my foot in the door. If it was for a concert I didn't care about, I guess it'd make more sense. But I'm a BIG fan of these guys, and they're kinda famous, so I don't think I can pass it up.

But maybe I'm totally off base, here.

 

[table1349]

So, I'm potentially shooting a show at The National, and it's one of my favorite bands, The Pretty Reckless. I've been trying to get a press pass because I'd really love to take photos of them, and was having a difficult time reaching anyone until now... I got in touch (through a friend) with someone from iHeart Media who could get me a pass to shoot on their behalf, but are requiring a photo agreement.

I've heard horror stories about the way the music industry cares for photographers, and just wanted to get your opinion on the contract. I'm still waiting to hear back what they are going to pay me, and a few other questions, but I'd like to hear your preliminary thoughts.

And no "talk to a lawyer" comments, please. I'm not too worried about the legal side of things - it's all clear to me. I just want to know your opinion on the contract terms, and any advice you may have.

(see attached)

I agree with you on this one, you don't need to talk to a lawyer about this contract.

You need to talk to a psychiatrist for even considering that thing. If this is in your business plan you are going to make one heck of a hobbyist photographer.

 

[tirediron]

If you're just looking for a free concert ticket, and you don't care about the photos, that's fine. I would however, NOT put an ounce of trust in what anyone tells you about usage that isn't written down on paper and witnessed. These large media companies make a habit of chewing up and spitting out willing photographers.

 

[table1349]

I'm a little confused.

In yall's opinion having no photos is better than having photos that are owned by someone else? I guess I just don't feel stingy about it, as long as they're letting me use them as well, and that they're crediting me. Sounds like a good way to get my foot in the door. If it was for a concert I didn't care about, I guess it'd make more sense. But I'm a BIG fan of these guys, and they're kinda famous, so I don't think I can pass it up.

But maybe I'm totally off base, here.

A photographic whore is still a whore. You need to decide, are you trying to be a professional photographer or a professional groupie?

 

[zombiesniper]

I guess I just don't feel stingy about it, as long as they're letting me use them as well, and that they're crediting me.

If this is the case then I agree it's a pretty good deal.....also if this is the case I would demand an edit to the contract stating this.

EDIT:
My reason for this is that shooting an event that I can never show photos of isn't going to help my business (If I had one)

 

[DGMPhotography]

Only an idiot would sign that agreement!

If this is in your business plan you are going to make one heck of a hobbyist photographer.

You need to decide, are you trying to be a professional photographer or a professional groupie?

I am not pursuing a career in concert photography.

My business plan includes portraits, events, and weddings.

Concerts are more of a hobby. I think yall need to come off your high horses just a bit. Like, ride a pony or something instead.

If this is the case then I agree it's a pretty good deal.....also if this is the case I would demand an edit to the contract stating this.

I agree. I did ask if they could put that in the contract, but I don't think it's going to happen. The contract they use is from corporate, and this is just the Richmond branch. I have a written agreement via email, should any trouble arise, but I don't think it'll be an issue.

Thank you all for your thoughts and opinions.

 

[vintagesnaps]

The contract describes this as 'work for hire'. That has typically meant being employed as a photographer. Apparently being contracted as a photographer can also be done as 'work for hire', although usually being contracted means taking photos for a particular purpose and licensing usage of your photos.

It seems like it might be worthwhile for a photographer to be contracted to do work for hire if it involves a product that wouldn't provide photos that would be usable in other ways. My example would be taking photos for marketing for a team; there probably wouldn't be other uses for photos of specific sponsor signs in the arena (at least I've never thought of any), but there may be other uses for player photos, etc. So if a photography job was only of arena signage, maybe work for hire would be an option; but in general doing sports/events the photography is contracted and usage licensed.

Usually photos done as 'work for hire' would belong to the employer. This contract seems to state that iHeartRadio will own the copyright to the photos, not you. So you won't be able to use them. Someone telling you that seems inconsistent with the contract, and I don't think having what was told to you in an email will matter if that violates the signed contract. Basically you'd end up having to license usage of your own photos from iHeartRadio if you wanted to use them, because you would not own the copyright to the photos you took, they would. (Which hardly seems to make sense, but seems to be the case.)

Note the section under 'Wrapping Up" at the end of the article.
Works for Hire: How Not to Get Bitten - asmp

This seems like it could be a fun one time opportunity for someone who's a hobbyist as a photographer. It sounds like a bad deal for someone who is aspiring to be a professional photographer and could otherwise potentially use the photos in a portfolio or to promote his/her business. This doesn't seem like it's going to benefit you as a photographer because you won't be able to use the photos; this seems to only benefit you personally as a fan of the band.