Would You Give Up Your Copyrights to a Famous Person?

This is a discussion on Would You Give Up Your Copyrights to a Famous Person? within the Photography News and Views forums, part of the PHOTO FORUM category; Originally Posted by Bynx I think there is a big difference here. The musician is creating something whether as the writer, singer, or musician. Whereas ...


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, Ca.
    Posts
    122
    PHOTO EDITING OK
    Quote Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
    I think there is a big difference here. The musician is creating something whether as the writer, singer, or musician. Whereas the photographer is leeching and feeding off the talents of the musician. The musician doesnt need the photographer in the process of their creativity, but the photographer only exists as a parasite.

    Wow... I would not consider entertainment/celebrity photographers as Leaches or parasites... Talking on this particular matter specifically, Lady Gaga had not only become a Musical Icon, but she has also become a fashion and trend setting icon as well.... and the only way she could ever accomplish such status as a fashion icon would be with the guidance and artistic direction of photographers. Even in speaking strictly musical sense.... how do you think these musicians ramp up their name and musical talents? Its not just their music, rather the media and PR blitz that the record label and their management puts on and that encompasses a lot of still photography... I cant tell you how many concerts I was ho-hum about until I saw images and/or footage from which in turn made me want to experience the concert and musical act live... Lady Gaga being one of them in fact. Her music is not necessarily my daily style, though I appreciate it, but after seeing stills from one of her shows, I wanted to go and see it in person because I liked the artistic direction portrayed.

    I see us as photographers more as a tool than anything else... dare I even say paparazzi in some circumstances (that is difficult to admit as I am not a fan of the Paparazzi) count as well. As a celebrity/publicity/promotional commercial photographer myself I know the value of great stills images on several fronts... and that does not include being considered a parasite.

    just my $0.02
    TCP
    Pro Canon and Halsselblad Shooter...

    www.pattonphoto.com
    Current projects include... "Top Chef" "Biggest Loser" "Community" "Law and Order: LA" and more...

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    886
    The ones I call parasites are those, dare I say photographers, who lurk in bushes and climb trees and stalk to get that shot of some celebrity to sell to a rag mag. This doesnt include any legit photographer who approaches celebrities as they would any non celebrity and ask if they mind their picture being taken. But instead they just click away hoping for that embarassing shot, the nipple slip, the crotch shot or whatever kind of shot that Im sure their subject doesnt want taken. And its with that shot they earn their money. Money to feed themselves and are thus being parasites.
    On the other hand the artist works away using their talents to create something that hopefully the masses might enjoy. Stealing what they create is a lot different than trying to prevent a paparrazi photographer from doing their thing.
    I wont shoot a wedding for any amount of money.

  3. #13
    Nikon Shooter
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Eatontown, NJ
    Posts
    1,006
    PHOTO EDITING OK
    There is a photographer's pit at a concert because the artists and management companies want people there taking pictures, not because they are parasites. Believe me, if they didn't want them there, they wouldn't be there.

    I guess I can understand both sides of this. From the artist's perspective, someone is taking their picture and attempting to sell it and make money. If that same picture were of you or me, it would be virtually worthless. It has worth because of the fame of the artist. I guess the artist has a right to a cut of that worth. Although, I think 100% is kinda steep and relegates the photographer to an employee who works for nothing or almost nothing.

    So I understand where Bynx is coming from, although I think labeling photograhers as parasites, leeches, etc. is unfortunate vocabulary and sets a bad tone. It is more of a symbiotic relationship. The artist needs the media, the media needs the artist. Generally speaking, they can't exist without each other.

    There will be a supply and demand relationship at some point. When the photographers stop showing up at concerts, there will be no one to fill the need for concert photos and the artist's fame will suffer to some extent. They will then be allowed back into the concert to shoot away under the old "terms." How long this takes depends on how many photographers refuse to shoot under those contractual circumstances.

    History has proven that attempting to control the media in an open and free society, even a commercial one, is bad policy.

    Look at what's happening in Washington- for years, both parties have controlled photographers and provided "free" images shot by gov't photographers, or re-staged events for still photographers (mostly because pro cameras were too noisy while someone is giving a speech)- but the outcry is proving thunderous and the White House recently changed that policy. We can only hope that Congress follows suit (video from the House and Senate are provided by gov't controlled "robot" cameras strategically placed in the buildings).

    Regards,
    Marlo

    Check out my blog! --- http://marlomontanaro.wordpress.com

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    886
    Please let me clarify.....those having a symbiotic relationship with the artist are doing their job and is something mutually agreeable to both parties. Its when the relationship is strictly one sided that I am referring to the photographer as a parasite. There is taking someone's picture, and there is stealing ones image. If you take a pic of someone they dont want taken then its a parasitic action. I hope it is understood what I mean now. Also how would you classify someone who takes a celebrities image, finds its a really good shot and has posters printed for sale. Is this ok? Why shouldnt the celebrity get something for this?
    I wont shoot a wedding for any amount of money.

  5. #15
    Nikon Shooter
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Eatontown, NJ
    Posts
    1,006
    PHOTO EDITING OK
    The only one sided relationship I can think of are the papparazzi that shoot for celebrity rags... they're generally scum. I wouldn't even call them photographers. "Stalkers" comes to mind.



    Regards,
    Marlo

    Check out my blog! --- http://marlomontanaro.wordpress.com

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, Ca.
    Posts
    122
    PHOTO EDITING OK
    I agree that paparazzi should not be considered photographers, rather a ore colorful term. There is a difference between a credentialed photographer and a paparazzi at an event, typically one is respectful and has access to the talent and the other is loud, boisterous and generally a pain in the ass.

    I disagree though that celebs dont get anything out of it. In fact, I would argue that they get more exposure for their movie/tv show/music/concert/etc. which helps promote their "event" and in turn helps fill seats or brings in more viewers. In addition celebs/musicians frequently receive a ton of "perks, freebies" or whatever you want to call it. Why, because that company giving them product want images of the talent using/wearing/endorsing it in hopes that others will buy. It s a common thing and I have been in a few "Gifting Suites" over the years and the swag can be extremely nice and expensive for the commoner but complimentary for the celeb. The same goes for talent going to clubs, restaurants pretty much you name it. Comping talent in hopes of exposure is a common practice.

    But the most important benefit that talent receives from photographers and yes unfortunately paparazzi too, is the fact that their likeness stays at the forefront of trends and that there gets the talent more revenue when the go do their contract negotiations. Sure they are not making money off of our images, but the make a hell of a lot more money when their agents go and negotiate a deal if their likeness is at the forefront of the media over being in a state of obscurity.
    TCP
    Pro Canon and Halsselblad Shooter...

    www.pattonphoto.com
    Current projects include... "Top Chef" "Biggest Loser" "Community" "Law and Order: LA" and more...

  7. #17
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,320
    Equipment
    Canon 5D mk II, EF 14mm f/2.8L II, TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS, EF 135mm f/2L, EF 300mm f/2.8L IS, Speelite 430EX II, 5380EX II
    PHOTO EDITING OK
    All celebs were, at one point, unknown and would have welcomed any promotional assistance they could get. I know several musicians who are known well-enough that there's a strong chance you've heard their music, and yet they barely scrape by financially. They have fans who will donate their time for promotion, building and running websites, production, photos, videos, and you name it. Poor artists usually can't pay for these things so if it's not donated then they do without.

    In essence I view photographers and celebrities alike as "artists" who provide some form of art that provides some form of enjoyment or provokes though, etc.

    When I shoot an event for some artist that I follow, they arrange a photo pass for me, and I provide them free license to use the photos to help promote their music.

    Now... if one of these artists were to hit the big time and suddenly become all "me me me" centric and not be willing to pay-it-forward to help the next artist, I think my opinion of them would change.

    I suppose this is what bothers me about the story. These photogs are there to make a living at their work and the artist does definitely benefit from it.
    Tim Campbell


 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Remove Ads

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •