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; What would you do? From Photo District News: http://pdnpulse.com/2011/03/fame-monster-g...copyrights.html I'd turn around and walk away unless the famous person was paying my salary (and to ...


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1
    Nikon Shooter
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Eatontown, NJ
    Posts
    1,006
    PHOTO EDITING OK

    Smile

    What would you do?

    From Photo District News:
    http://pdnpulse.com/2011/03/fame-monster-g...copyrights.html


    I'd turn around and walk away unless the famous person was paying my salary (and to give up all my rights, they probably couldn't afford my salary).

    Regards,
    Marlo

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


  • #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SW WI
    Posts
    3,731
    PHOTO EDITING OK
    Interesting article! You know it would be funny if a famous person would do that...and all the photographers just decided not to show up at a concert nor any other place.
    That would be quite the statement.
    *I believe in God, only I spell it Nature. ~Frank Lloyd Wright, quoted, 14 August 1966*

    Assorted cameras.
    P&S
    Nikon D40
    Olympus E-420


    My Flickr

    Mulewings~My Blog
    Val

  • #3
    Nikon Shooter
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Eatontown, NJ
    Posts
    1,006
    PHOTO EDITING OK
    It's ashame, because it is a "gotcha by the gonads" type of situation. A lot of times, the photographer needs the images more than the celebrity needs the images.

    If you freelance for a music magazine, you have to get pictures. The magazine has to have pictures. There is no alternative. People don't buy music magazines that don't have rock star's pictures in them.

    Although, to be honest, I'm not 100% sure what the article means. If you sign away all your copyrights before a concert, then take pictures, do you get to publish them? If not, then they're basically saying "you are forbidden from taking pictures of the concert." At some point the publicity see-saw has to flip the other way. Without publicity, a lot of these musicians are nothing. Soooo, if they're not getting covered by the media, they'll get relegated to 'less than stardom.'

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out over time and whether photographers start to boycott celebrities that demand the releases get signed.

    Regards,
    Marlo

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

  • #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    886
    So you take a picture of a famous personality, then give them the copyright to that picture. You then sell the shot to TMZ and the star sues you because they own the shot. Bad, bad, bad.
    I wont shoot a wedding for any amount of money.

  • #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,126
    PHOTO EDITING OK
    Interesting... I guess I'm trying to figure out what the celebrities get out of this. I mean, do they think it means that the photographers will take, edit, and market the pictures and then hand the cheque to the celebrity?

    Celebrities exist due to media coverage, it used to be free publicity was a good thing and now it seems some want the publicity machine to pay them. As Marlo said, it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
    Marie
    Nikon D5000, Nikkor AF-S 18-55mm VR f/3.5-5.6,
    Nikkor AF-S 55-200mm f/4-5.6

  • #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    383
    PHOTO EDITING OK
    there seems to be a higher % of publications\photo contests\schools\professional organizations that state in fine print (or not) any and all submissions (images) become the property of "the company".......its not just individuals with the mindset....fwiw
    canon 50D
    canon lenses
    manfrotto tri\monopod
    pelican cases
    starting to see some progress
    http://notsoseriousproductions.zenfolio.com/

  • #7
    Nikon Shooter
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Eatontown, NJ
    Posts
    1,006
    PHOTO EDITING OK
    The difference being, with the exception of photo contests, most of those organizations at least pay something to the photographer. Contests have the lure of some sort of prize.

    Regards,
    Marlo

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

  • #8
    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
    Now here's the tragic hypocrisy of the situation. Lady Gaga makes her money on music. That's what she does for a living. And lately the whole music industry is annoyed at people who don't respect that they are trying to get paid for their work (e.g. stealing music.)

    And yet... she thinks nothing of making it hard for other people to make money at what it is that THEY do for a living. (e.g. the photographer)

    Tim Campbell

  • #9

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, Ca.
    Posts
    122
    PHOTO EDITING OK
    It's most likely not the talent, rather the management behind the talent. I have worked with Lady Gaga before and she was a sweetheart where as her "people" were rather difficult.

    Unfortunately in the entertainment industry almost always for projects least, the photographer does not own the copyright rather the hiring company does and that is why we as shooters get paid like we do, ie typically per day and not per usable image. In most cases the photographer can use the images for his/her self promotion, in some cases they can even sell the non selects (though this is rare).

    I'd never sign over copyright without a check attached to it, but I also don't typically shoot unless I am getting paid either. If such a demand came to me, I'd be discussing compensation or gracefully backing out of the project while enforcing that you have a job to do just like everyone else and you need to keep a roof over your head just like everyone else.
    TCP
    Pro Canon and Halsselblad Shooter...

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

  • #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    886
    Quote Originally Posted by TCampbell View Post
    Now here's the tragic hypocrisy of the situation. Lady Gaga makes her money on music. That's what she does for a living. And lately the whole music industry is annoyed at people who don't respect that they are trying to get paid for their work (e.g. stealing music.)

    And yet... she thinks nothing of making it hard for other people to make money at what it is that THEY do for a living. (e.g. the photographer)
    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.
    I wont shoot a wedding for any amount of money.


  •  
    Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

    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
    •