Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



Reply to topic
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
Bingewolf
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 9:59 pm
Posts: 272
Location: United States
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:02 pm 
 

Miikja wrote:
Bingewolf wrote:
If he had approached everyone civilly and said "Look, you may not know that this is a copyright violation but it is and I'd like you to remove the post or to pay me for it..."

But that's exactly what he did.

Bingewolf wrote:
took the chance to be an aggressive prick as soon as (s)he had it

And that's exactly what Gossow did.

Bingewolf wrote:
It is also a privilege to be given photo credentials for a band - and said band can take those away at any time, for any reason. So, if you're a douchebag to a band, they can absolutely tell you to fuck off and deny you shooting them in the future.

Did you read the whole story? It's really weird how someone would come to these conclusions if they had actually read the story. Start here: https://www.metalblast.net/blog/how-i-g ... rch-enemy/ Lots of ins, lots of outs, lots of what-have-yous.

Bingewolf wrote:
I find it crazy that the band is being lambasted for telling the guy he is no longer welcome to shoot their performances.

If you read the whole story, you'll understand that the photographer didn't do anything wrong. You can take issue with the fact that he went public with the story, but he clearly and repeatedly states he's not doing it just for himself (he's actually had no problem attending OR photographing AE shows in the months after the email exchange + he has a dayjob) but also in defense of other photographers who may depend more on their creative work for their income. As he rightfully points out, bigger bands routinely force photographers to 'sign away' their copyright on pictures taken of the band. Do you get the implications of a story like this? In my view, it is power abuse. The photographer is standing up for the little guy/girl and we should be happy for the discussion this debacle has unleashed. Awareness is good.

Bingewolf wrote:
I know I'm in the minority, but I feel bad for AE/Marta in this whole thing...

I think almost everybody feels bad for Marta by now. But AE is not even the issue here. It's Angela Gossow who really went out of her way to try and cause damage to the photographer's reputation. She really should have known better.


No, that's not exactly what he did... His message was that he wanted payment or a donation to a charity he chooses. This rubbed me the wrong way. Is he within his right to ask for payment for unauthorized usage, sure... But, handling it the way he did was what bothered me. He was a dick instantly. That is his right to do so - but I am allowed to judge based on what he presented.

Let's be honest, Arch Enemy may be a bigger metal band but Arch Enemy is not making big money. To that extent, there is no way that Thunderball Clothing is making any real money. It is a passion project by someone who wants to do something inside the scene. I look at the situation and say, well this person is not making money doing this job - they are probably a one person show, without any kind of lawyers involved, and probably don't know the laws of copyright. Therefore, I am going to approach this situation with that scope...

In my opinion, he was a dick - this led to Angela also being a dick... However, the band is getting hammered and he is not being held accountable for his rude initiation. If someone came to me and said "this is a copyright violation and I'd like you to remove or pay me" vs. "you have violated my copyright so you must pay me or make a donation to a charity of my choosing," you would get vastly different responses from me. This is what I am basing my opinion on. Like I said, no one is 100% right or wrong, but that's how I view it.

I do not agree that Angela did anything to damage the photographer's reputation. She said that he is no longer welcome to photograph the band, which she said directly to him - and is allowed to be done. He made this whole thing public to get attention for himself. If he had left it behind closed doors, no one would know anything about any of this. In my opinion, he made it public to gain notoriety and paint himself as the victim.

While I agree that a photographer maintains the right to his photo being used, the whole situation seems to me like a photographer who wants to make a name off of this situation and chose to provoke the situation rather than handling as a professional. I am not a photog but I deal in similar worlds and there is a way of handling a situation with tact vs. instigating a situation. I feel he was instigating and then presented it publicly for pity. That's all.

Top
 Profile  
SculptedCold
Metal newbie

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 11:26 am
Posts: 373
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:22 am 
 

I honestly can't conceive of how someone could go about asserting their copyright any more openly and politely than this dude did. I mean, asserting your (abused) copyright rights is never going to be a pretty, everyone-holding-hands-and-skipping-through-meadows kind of action. It's about economy. It's tough. I fail to see how his correspondence was "dick"ish, let alone instantly so.

How does one go about trying to defend their copyright without being an instant dick, in your opinion? Is a totally impersonal, legalese cease/desist letter more polite? Less "rude"? I'd be very interested to see how you think such a situation can be handled even more tactfully than this photographer did (before he decided to go public with it anyway, but even then, AE/Alissa/Gossow absolutely deserve the bad press). Enlighten us.

Top
 Profile  
Terri23
Metalhead

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:53 am
Posts: 2407
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:54 am 
 

Bingewolf seems to believe that artists should be happy to be paid in exposure bucks, and that they're completely out of line if they defend their copyright.
_________________
metaldiscussor666 wrote:
American isn't a nationality

Riffs wrote:
It's been scientifically proven that appreciating Black Sabbath helps increase life expectancy, improves happiness, bumps your salary by 11 thousand dollars annually, helps fight cavities and increases penis size.

Top
 Profile  
Opus
Veteran

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 11:06 am
Posts: 2805
Location: Sweden
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 6:19 am 
 

I don't understand why he even brought up the donating to charity. If he is a professional photographer wanting to get paid for his work and uphold the copyright laws, send an invoice.
_________________
Do the words Heavy Metal mean anything to you other than buttcore, technical progressive assgrind or the like?
true_death wrote:
You could be listening to Edge of Sanity right now, but you're not!

Top
 Profile  
Lord_Jotun
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 5:02 pm
Posts: 2188
Location: Italy
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 9:41 am 
 

Most likely because it was money he was owed, and he's free to use his cash any way he pleases just like everybody, so he thought he'd skip the middle man and offer the option to donate to his charity of choice directly, even offering a kind of "discount" on his fee in this case.
_________________
Bands I'm in:
Phenris
In Corpore Mortis
Orgiastic Pleasures
Rust
Black Druid Hymns - my projects on YouTube

Top
 Profile  
exsiccation
Metal newbie

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 9:49 pm
Posts: 247
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:29 am 
 

Opus wrote:
I don't understand why he even brought up the donating to charity. If he is a professional photographer wanting to get paid for his work and uphold the copyright laws, send an invoice.

Because invoicing for work without a contract of service between two parties or any understanding or agreement between them is what's generally known as a "dick move", especially when we're talking small businesses and sole proprietors.

If you're my neighbor and you assume it's okay to borrow my grill for your barbecue without a prior agreement or permission, then social norms suggest you're in the wrong. However, if I went and invoiced you, even though there was never a mutual understanding that I was renting you my grill, then you'd also probably think I'm an asshole, and that invoice would probably go unpaid forever.

However, there's also a middle-ground between the two options, in that I could ask you for a six-pack of beer in exchange for borrowing my grill. There isn't an implication that I'm directly accusing you of wrongdoing, and it also offers you a chance to make good and save face. Going forward, there's a good chance you'd also ask permission the next time you wanted to borrow my grill, and maybe you'd even pay me, or invite me to the party.

Asking for a charitable donation at a reduced dollar value is basically the equivalent in business terms. It's all about finding compromise and mutually respectful avenues of communication, and for a small business, building a brand and positive relationships is more important than a few bucks. Obviously, this can still break down, but in general, most businesses don't want to be seen as bullies or be at risk of a negative wave of PR, and I can't really fault the photographer for offering Thunderball an easy way out - and it seems like there was at least a chance it would have worked if Arch Enemy hadn't got involved.

Top
 Profile  
Opus
Veteran

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 11:06 am
Posts: 2805
Location: Sweden
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:51 am 
 

What if you run a grill rental service and put out a grill in a public space for people to use freely (why would you do that?) and I start grilling hot dogs which I then proceed to give to my mate as a return favour for the lunch he bought me yesterday, would you then demand that I supply your neighbour, who is refurbishing his house, with floor planks?

Why are we talking about grills again?
_________________
Do the words Heavy Metal mean anything to you other than buttcore, technical progressive assgrind or the like?
true_death wrote:
You could be listening to Edge of Sanity right now, but you're not!

Top
 Profile  
Bingewolf
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 9:59 pm
Posts: 272
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:09 pm 
 

Terri23 wrote:
Bingewolf seems to believe that artists should be happy to be paid in exposure bucks, and that they're completely out of line if they defend their copyright.


Incorrect. I just think this photographer handled the situation like a complete douchebag.

Top
 Profile  
chuggingpus
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:56 am
Posts: 10
Location: Vatican City
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 7:26 pm 
 

SculptedCold wrote:
I honestly can't conceive of how someone could go about asserting their copyright any more openly and politely than this dude did. I mean, asserting your (abused) copyright rights is never going to be a pretty, everyone-holding-hands-and-skipping-through-meadows kind of action. It's about economy. It's tough. I fail to see how his correspondence was "dick"ish, let alone instantly so.

How does one go about trying to defend their copyright without being an instant dick, in your opinion? Is a totally impersonal, legalese cease/desist letter more polite? Less "rude"? I'd be very interested to see how you think such a situation can be handled even more tactfully than this photographer did (before he decided to go public with it anyway, but even then, AE/Alissa/Gossow absolutely deserve the bad press). Enlighten us.


His correspondence was taken as dickish because the band granted him complimentary access to a photography section of the concert. The band responded by telling him to no longer expect such privileges. Guess that burned him and brought out the douche tsunami.

Top
 Profile  
Miikja
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:36 pm
Posts: 16
Location: Netherlands
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 7:50 pm 
 

chuggingpus wrote:
His correspondence was taken as dickish because the band granted him complimentary access to a photography section of the concert. The band responded by telling him to no longer expect such privileges. Guess that burned him and brought out the douche tsunami.

The photographer was well within his rights to ask for compensation. NOT from AE, but from Thunderball Clothing. He did so in a polite, respectful and absolutely reasonable fashion. (If you fail to understand this, there's really no point in discussing any further.) AE's manager Angela Gossow took it upon herself to make it clear to him that she expects photographers to make their work available for free. These are her words (attempt to damage photographer's reputation in bold):

Quote:
Fair enough, Mr Salmeron.

We have immediately removed the picture you took at FortaRock. By the way, we are sure you don’t mind that you are not welcome anymore to take pictures of Arch Enemy performances in the future, at festivals or solo performances. I have copied in the label reps and booking agent who will inform promoters – no band wants to have photographers on site who later send such threatening correspondence to monetise on their images.

Btw, the email below was not from Marta, but from Alissa herself personally. The artist you blatantly wanted to sell the picture to. Nice price tag. 500 EUR. In bcc the band so they know about you in the future.


Once again, he DID NOT ask for €500. He asked Thunderball Clothing to donate €100 to charity instead. He never tried to sell anything to them, they just used his photo without permission. Thunderball didn't respond but instead forwarded the mail to AE, prompting Gossow to come up with the aggressive reaction above. Talk about dick moves.
_________________
Akelei - atmospheric doom
akelei.org

Top
 Profile  
Morrigan
Crone of War

Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 7:27 am
Posts: 9597
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:43 am 
 

Opus wrote:
What if you run a grill rental service and put out a grill in a public space for people to use freely (why would you do that?) and I start grilling hot dogs which I then proceed to give to my mate as a return favour for the lunch he bought me yesterday, would you then demand that I supply your neighbour, who is refurbishing his house, with floor planks?

Why are we talking about grills again?

Oh, stop it. He was using an analogy to explain why the charity offer made sense. You're just being deliberately obtuse here. Stop with the bad faith.
_________________
Von Cichlid wrote:
I work with plenty of Oriental and Indian persons and we get along pretty good, and some females as well.

Markeri, in 2013 wrote:
a fairly agreed upon date [of the beginning of metal] is 1969. Metal is almost 25 years old

Top
 Profile  
Scorntyrant
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:55 am
Posts: 1409
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:49 am 
 

It is a weird conflict between what you would assume to be natural law and what copyright law actually is though.

Lets imagine that im a sculptor, and i hve one of my creations out in a park somewhere. If someone takes a photo of it, a reasonable person would or could form the opinion that given the subject of the photo is comprised of my original work that I as the sculptor are the "creator" rather than the photographer, and that therefore I am within my rights to link it however I want.

Similarly, you arrive at questions about how a 3rd party can dictate what an individual does with pictures of themselves. Again, the "natural law" commonsense approach would be to say "you dont get to make money out of my image without my permission".

Now obviously this is not how the law works. But i have to say that I draw a heirarchy in the arts between creativity and representation (or capturing reality). As such, the "exposure bucks" argument draws little weight for me. Old mate with a camera turns up with his gear, his night lasts exactly as long as the concert and he goes away. Compare that to the months a band takes preparing and in my mind his argument about being an artist that needs to be respected goes out the window. All he can do is make a slightly better version of what anyone with a nice phone can do.

Which brings me to my 3rd point: these petty fights are happening because there is no real serious money going around anymore. Photographer feels ripped off because hes not getting paid, band feels the photographer is extorting money they dont have for a product that takes significantly less effort to produce, nobody is happy because the ability to make a living is being eroded on both sides
_________________
Mike_Tyson wrote:
"I think the average person thinks I'm a fucking nut and I deserve whatever happens to me."

"My intentions were not to fascinate the world with my personality."

Top
 Profile  
joppek
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 7:36 am
Posts: 1579
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:02 am 
 

Scorntyrant wrote:
Old mate with a camera turns up with his gear, his night lasts exactly as long as the concert and he goes away. Compare that to the months a band takes preparing and in my mind his argument about being an artist that needs to be respected goes out the window. All he can do is make a slightly better version of what anyone with a nice phone can do.


this here is a fine illustration of the problem - ignorant people don't take professional photography seriously

and really, it's perfectly fine to be ignorant on matters that aren't relevant to ones life, but not being aware of one's own ignorance, nor stopping to think that there might be more to it than just point'n'shoot is pretty stupid
_________________
All the best bands are affiliated with Satan. -Bart Simpson

Top
 Profile  
Scorntyrant
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:55 am
Posts: 1409
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:49 pm 
 

Exagerrating for effect obviously, but i think the point stands. My own experiences with "pro" gig photographers has involved them contacting me asking if I want to buy shots - and charging more than the entire band got paid for the gig! Because apparently they should get paid more than 4 musicians being "professional artists" and all.
_________________
Mike_Tyson wrote:
"I think the average person thinks I'm a fucking nut and I deserve whatever happens to me."

"My intentions were not to fascinate the world with my personality."

Top
 Profile  
Bingewolf
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 9:59 pm
Posts: 272
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:44 pm 
 

Scorntyrant wrote:
Exagerrating for effect obviously, but i think the point stands. My own experiences with "pro" gig photographers has involved them contacting me asking if I want to buy shots - and charging more than the entire band got paid for the gig! Because apparently they should get paid more than 4 musicians being "professional artists" and all.


This is my point... No disrespect to anyone who does photography, but it's a bit insane that someone asks for certain amounts when the band you photographed makes a very small amount is insane. I'm all for everyone making their money but I know that asking for $500 is insane when it's compared to the type of band, etc. I work in the sports field and the majority of people wouldn't pay that much for any of the athletes. That coupled with the fact that he immediately offered to "let you donate to a charity of his choosing" just rubbed me wrong...

Top
 Profile  
Miikja
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:36 pm
Posts: 16
Location: Netherlands
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:35 pm 
 

Scorntyrant wrote:
Exagerrating for effect obviously, but i think the point stands. My own experiences with "pro" gig photographers has involved them contacting me asking if I want to buy shots

A questionable practice for sure. Still... It's not what the photographer in the case with AE did. He posted his photo on Instagram to be shared by band and fans alike. He only took issue with it being used for commercial purposes (by Thunderball Clothing).

Bingewolf wrote:
No disrespect to anyone who does photography, but it's a bit insane that someone asks for certain amounts when the band you photographed makes a very small amount is insane. I'm all for everyone making their money but I know that asking for $500 is insane when it's compared to the type of band, etc. I work in the sports field and the majority of people wouldn't pay that much for any of the athletes. That coupled with the fact that he immediately offered to "let you donate to a charity of his choosing" just rubbed me wrong...

The photographer in question did not try to sell his picture to the band, let alone ask €500 for it. So you see, that's not the point here. Thunderball Clothing reposted the photo on their Instagram account for promotional (commercial) purposes. It really doesn't matter that they are a small company. If the photographer doesn't take action in this case, the next time a bigger brand might try and use his work without permission. After all, he didn't object when that little clothing company took his work and used it for their own promotion. It would set an annoying precedent where everyone thinks the photographer's work is free for all and he loses control over where his work is used and by whom. Thunderball was given the option to donate €100 to charity in order to keep the photo up. If that rubs you the wrong way, just imagine how you'd feel if you did some great work and your customer said "I'm not going to pay you. Instead, I'll tell all my friends what a good job you did." When your work is used, you are right to demand compensation. Besides, €100 for a photo is peanuts. It cost me €200 to get a professional band photo taken. Lighting, editing and everything.
_________________
Akelei - atmospheric doom
akelei.org

Top
 Profile  
Terri23
Metalhead

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:53 am
Posts: 2407
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:40 pm 
 

Bingewolf wrote:
but I know that asking for $500 is insane when it's compared to the type of band


:durr: :durr: :durr:
_________________
metaldiscussor666 wrote:
American isn't a nationality

Riffs wrote:
It's been scientifically proven that appreciating Black Sabbath helps increase life expectancy, improves happiness, bumps your salary by 11 thousand dollars annually, helps fight cavities and increases penis size.

Top
 Profile  
Ilwhyan
Metel fraek

Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 1:41 pm
Posts: 7851
Location: Lifeless shadows
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:40 am 
 

Bingewolf wrote:
but I know that asking for $500 is insane when it's compared to the type of band

He did not ask for $500 for the photo, did he?
_________________
"A glimpse of light is all that it takes to illuminate the darkness."
Guitarist/vocalist in Illusions Dead - death/black metal
Vocalist in Gloaming - vile, crawling death/doom metal

Top
 Profile  
Terri23
Metalhead

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:53 am
Posts: 2407
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:52 am 
 

It's stunning that we're 4 pages in and he still doesn't get it
_________________
metaldiscussor666 wrote:
American isn't a nationality

Riffs wrote:
It's been scientifically proven that appreciating Black Sabbath helps increase life expectancy, improves happiness, bumps your salary by 11 thousand dollars annually, helps fight cavities and increases penis size.

Top
 Profile  
Lord_Jotun
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 5:02 pm
Posts: 2188
Location: Italy
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:06 am 
 

Miikja wrote:
The photographer in question did not try to sell his picture to the band, let alone ask €500 for it. So you see, that's not the point here. Thunderball Clothing reposted the photo on their Instagram account for promotional (commercial) purposes. It really doesn't matter that they are a small company. If the photographer doesn't take action in this case, the next time a bigger brand might try and use his work without permission. After all, he didn't object when that little clothing company took his work and used it for their own promotion. It would set an annoying precedent where everyone thinks the photographer's work is free for all and he loses control over where his work is used and by whom. Thunderball was given the option to donate €100 to charity in order to keep the photo up. If that rubs you the wrong way, just imagine how you'd feel if you did some great work and your customer said "I'm not going to pay you. Instead, I'll tell all my friends what a good job you did." When your work is used, you are right to demand compensation. Besides, €100 for a photo is peanuts. It cost me €200 to get a professional band photo taken. Lighting, editing and everything.


This.

And yes, photography is indeed an expensive line of work; have a look at the retail prices pro gear goes for while you're online, and that's just the materials, not even counting how long it takes to use them expertly (and how much it can cost to get there).
If you want quality, you've got to pay for it; if that ain't alright with you, you should learn to do it by yourself. All this talk about "it's just a photography; the guy was a greedy asshole to ask for money" reminds of people who complain about "production", "mastering" and "mediocre sound" when discussing an album they downloaded for free off some shady blog, or wherever it is folks pirate their stuff from nowadays. Plus, you're not only paying for the photo itself but for the rights of using it, which is the real meat of the discussion here to begin with.
_________________
Bands I'm in:
Phenris
In Corpore Mortis
Orgiastic Pleasures
Rust
Black Druid Hymns - my projects on YouTube

Top
 Profile  
Morrigan
Crone of War

Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 7:27 am
Posts: 9597
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:21 pm 
 

joppek wrote:
this here is a fine illustration of the problem - ignorant people don't take professional photography seriously

and really, it's perfectly fine to be ignorant on matters that aren't relevant to ones life, but not being aware of one's own ignorance, nor stopping to think that there might be more to it than just point'n'shoot is pretty stupid

For real.

Not your best moment, Scorntyrant, I have to say.

Bingewolf wrote:
but I know that asking for $500 is insane when it's compared to the type of band

Dude. Stop. lol
_________________
Von Cichlid wrote:
I work with plenty of Oriental and Indian persons and we get along pretty good, and some females as well.

Markeri, in 2013 wrote:
a fairly agreed upon date [of the beginning of metal] is 1969. Metal is almost 25 years old

Top
 Profile  
BlackheartSauron
Metal newbie

Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 119
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:53 pm 
 

Opus wrote:
I don't understand why he even brought up the donating to charity.

Well, your lack of understanding is your problem - not his ;-)

The dude (J. Salmeron) made himself clear - it's about the principle. He is NOT a professional photographer, his profession is a lawyer/attorney.

He did this in order to protect rights of photographers in general (and I'd say artists in general), not himself specifically. Because that's the right thing to do.

In order to demonstrate that it's not about the money for him he chose for the money to be donated to charity. Which shows clearly he doesn't do it out of greed, but because he's convinced that protecting photographers' rights is the right thing to do. Thus the user of the photo must pay for the usage. Even though the money would go to charity - that doesn't matter, that's just a proof it's not about greed or personal gain.

Opus wrote:
If he is a professional photographer wanting to get paid for his work and uphold the copyright laws, send an invoice.

But he's not. He's a lawyer.

This doesn't mean his photos are unprofessional (they are), just that photography isn't his primary profession (daily job).

He can issue any terms he wants for usage of his work - he's not obligated to just take money. If his terms are "pay to that charity" you either comply and do what he says, or don't use his photos. As simple as that.

P.S. There was another photographer - Anouk Timmerman - who did ask for his photos to be taken down from AE site gallery, or be paid. So she was ready to send invoice. No charity, all simple.

Guess what AE and Gosow did back then? First AE site admin took the photos down - so they didn't have to pay. But - then Gosow stepped in and tried to ban her from photographing AE shows etc.

And this happened back in 2009!

Bottomline - Gosow is a massive bitch with obvious "star syndrome" (where she thinks she's a glorious star of a person and everyone else is shitty peasant at most).


Last edited by BlackheartSauron on Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
BlackheartSauron
Metal newbie

Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 119
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:02 pm 
 

chuggingpus wrote:
You snapped some nice photos, congrats. Now you want 500 euros?!!

Yes. The author has full rights to charge any price or set any other terms he wants for the usage of his work.

But you don't have to agree. You can simply choose to NOT use his work. It's very simple.

Go use some other photos that are cheaper, or snap some yourself, or don't use any photos at all. The end.

If you go into some store and see some ridiculously priced item - the store is within it's rights to set any price, you don't get to nick that item and then complain the price is too high when you're politely asked to pay for it.

Just don't take it - it's that simple!

Top
 Profile  
Scorntyrant
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:55 am
Posts: 1409
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:50 pm 
 

BlackheartSauron wrote:
chuggingpus wrote:
You snapped some nice photos, congrats. Now you want 500 euros?!!

Yes. The author has full rights to charge any price or set any other terms he wants for the usage of his work.

But you don't have to agree. You can simply choose to NOT use his work. It's very simple.

Go use some other photos that are cheaper, or snap some yourself, or don't use any photos at all. The end.

If you go into some store and see some ridiculously priced item - the store is within it's rights to set any price, you don't get to nick that item and then complain the price is too high when you're politely asked to pay for it.

Just don't take it - it's that simple!


All of which would be fine if these were photos of dogs, or trees. It's a bit different when it's a picture of you, or your creation, that someone is trying to make a quick buck out of.

I don't understand why this is so difficult for you all to grasp - there would be nothing for this "artist" to photograph if not for the band and the fashion label, and charging them for the privilege of using an image of their face or their creation is churlish. If it was someone entirely uninvolved in the creative process - a magazine, an energy drink or whatever, sure go to town.

As a hypothetical, let's imagine I turn up to your art gallery opening and start photographing the artwork. Is the resulting photograph an original work which I as the photographer can sell back to you? Or does it exist solely as a reflection of work you as the painter has done? As the painter, do you have any say over how it's used, and is it "commercial use" to appropriate that image of your own work to promote your next exhibition?
_________________
Mike_Tyson wrote:
"I think the average person thinks I'm a fucking nut and I deserve whatever happens to me."

"My intentions were not to fascinate the world with my personality."

Top
 Profile  
Mass Suicide
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:32 am
Posts: 92
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:27 am 
 

LOL at taking live pictures of a band calling "creative work". Sorry, photography is the EASIEST of all "art forms". You just take a snapshot of what happens around you. Every moron with some bucks for equipment can call himself a "photographer". And before you complain, I am not talking about real artists like Simon Marsden (RIP).

Top
 Profile  
BlackheartSauron
Metal newbie

Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 119
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:30 am 
 

Scorntyrant wrote:
I don't understand why this is so difficult for you all to grasp - there would be nothing for this "artist" to photograph if not for the band and the fashion label

It's up to the band to have exclusive photosets if they'd wish to do so - but they didn't.
Exclusive photoset - fine, you still have to get a photographer to perform that for you, but you can actually own images produced that way, by paying photographer only as a hired labor force.

But that's not what AE did. They allow people to go to their concerts and take pictures. Some bands forbid this and if that would be the case you could blame the photographer for violating the non photographing rule of the gig. But this is not the case.

Scorntyrant wrote:
As a hypothetical, let's imagine I turn up to your art gallery opening and start photographing the artwork.

See above. You're well within your rights to forbid photographing inside the gallery. But if you allowed it - you don't have the right to take said pictures and use them for yourself without entering in agreement with the photographer.

Again, if you want to use photos that someone else made - you have to strike a deal with that person. That simple.

If you think you have some unique art there that should not be photographed for free because you're not getting a share you're entitled to - disallow photographing your gallery/gig. Then you can actually sell exclusive rights to photographers to make the photos (which they will own).

Also AE could set the rules for photographing their gigs where instead of making photographers pay for the rights to shoot and then own the photos photographers could shoot for free and keep the authors rights but the band would get exclusive right to use the pictures commercially, or at least share such rights with the photographer. That's a viable strategy for getting the profits out of your "fashion" work. However, such an agreement has to be made clear before the gig, photographers should somehow indicate they agree to these terms beforehand.

AE didn't do any of that, but they behave as if they did.


Last edited by BlackheartSauron on Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
BlackheartSauron
Metal newbie

Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 119
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:31 am 
 

Mass Suicide wrote:
LOL at taking live pictures of a band calling "creative work". Sorry, photography is the EASIEST of all "art forms". You just take a snapshot of what happens around you. Every moron with some bucks for equipment can call himself a "photographer". And before you complain, I am not talking about real artists like Simon Marsden (RIP).

I assume you're going to pursue a career of photography now and make a shitton of money since it's that easy. Go, prove your words with actions - you might discover things are actually a bit more complicated there for real photographers.
In fact, a lot more complicated.

Top
 Profile  
Mass Suicide
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:32 am
Posts: 92
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:33 am 
 

I already have a shitload of money.

Top
 Profile  
BlackheartSauron
Metal newbie

Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 119
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:38 am 
 

Mass Suicide wrote:
I already have a shitload of money.

Good, so you can easily go and become a photographer now without getting into major financial risks ;-)

Let me know when you'll have a shitload of money you made via photography.

Top
 Profile  
Scorntyrant
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:55 am
Posts: 1409
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:05 am 
 

BlackheartSauron wrote:
Scorntyrant wrote:
I don't understand why this is so difficult for you all to grasp - there would be nothing for this "artist" to photograph if not for the band and the fashion label

It's up to the band to have exclusive photosets if they'd wish to do so - but they didn't.
Exclusive photoset - fine, you still have to get a photographer to perform that for you, but you can actually own images produced that way, by paying photographer only as a hired labor force.

But that's not what AE did. They allow people to go to their concerts and take pictures. Some bands forbid this and if that would be the case you could blame the photographer for violating the non photographing rule of the gig. But this is not the case.

Scorntyrant wrote:
As a hypothetical, let's imagine I turn up to your art gallery opening and start photographing the artwork.

See above. You're well within your rights to forbid photographing inside the gallery. But if you allowed it - you don't have the right to take said pictures and use them for yourself without entering in agreement with the photographer.

Again, if you want to use photos that someone else made - you have to strike a deal with that person. That simple.

If you think you have some unique art there that should not be photographed for free because you're not getting a share you're entitled to - disallow photographing your gallery/gig. Then you can actually sell exclusive rights to photographers to make the photos (which they will own).

Also AE could set the rules for photographing their gigs where instead of making photographers pay for the rights to shoot and then own the photos photographers could shoot for free and keep the authors rights but the band would get exclusive right to use the pictures commercially, or at least share such rights with the photographer. That's a viable strategy for getting the profits out of your "fashion" work. However, such an agreement has to be made clear before the gig, photographers should somehow indicate they agree to these terms beforehand.

AE didn't do any of that, but they behave as if they did.


Heres about the best i could find on my local juristictions law about how this works:


https://www.artslaw.com.au/articles/ent ... -artworks/

As you see, it hinges on a definition of "threshold requirement of originality", and as the article points out this seems not to have passed sufficient legal precident in this juristiction to be ironclad one way or another.

But before you get so confident in committing to your opinion about my ignorance or otherwise,consider that I spent 10 years working with intellectual property lawyers preparing cases hinging on patent/trademark/IP law abuses and disputes, and I'm not mooting this for no reason. For all those years my job was hunting down patent trolls, cybersquatters, spurious fair-use cases, defamation instances....the whole gamut of what a large corporation would retain expert witness and consultancy services for related to online IP law.

So, opinionated certainly, but im far from ignorant in this field.
_________________
Mike_Tyson wrote:
"I think the average person thinks I'm a fucking nut and I deserve whatever happens to me."

"My intentions were not to fascinate the world with my personality."

Top
 Profile  
Terri23
Metalhead

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:53 am
Posts: 2407
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:47 am 
 

Mass Suicide is fast becoming my new favorite MA contributor.
_________________
metaldiscussor666 wrote:
American isn't a nationality

Riffs wrote:
It's been scientifically proven that appreciating Black Sabbath helps increase life expectancy, improves happiness, bumps your salary by 11 thousand dollars annually, helps fight cavities and increases penis size.

Top
 Profile  
BasqueStorm
The Wettest Blanket

Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 2:21 pm
Posts: 4266
Location: Turks and Caicos Islands
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:08 am 
 

Morrigan wrote:
Oh, stop it. He was using an analogy to explain why the charity offer made sense. You're just being deliberately obtuse here. Stop with the bad faith.

This thread seems full of geniuses. :-P

Top
 Profile  
Mass Suicide
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:32 am
Posts: 92
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:43 am 
 

Terri23 wrote:
Mass Suicide is fast becoming my new favorite MA contributor.


Good, because it's already a pretty boring place here. I mean, how many of your old users have left the hall in the last couple of years? Not a good sign!

Top
 Profile  
BlackheartSauron
Metal newbie

Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 119
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:26 am 
 

P.S.
Scorntyrant wrote:
I don't understand why this is so difficult for you all to grasp - there would be nothing for this "artist" to photograph if not for the band and the fashion label


So if I go shit on a Times Square - I'm entitled to a share of news outlets profits because if it wasn't for me shitting there they'd have nothing to report in the news?

Or at least I should be allowed to use for free any photos they make. 'Cause hey, it's my shit :D

Top
 Profile  
OpsiusCato
Mexican Metal Inquisition

Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:42 am
Posts: 2630
Location: Mexico
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:19 pm 
 

So... Where's the story standing at this point?
_________________
Uncolored, commenting on Erosion of Humanity's allergies wrote:
Your house in Chicago is possessed by Unholy Virus
PhilosophicalFrog, making accurate statements as usual, wrote:
Opsius is Metal as fuck.


Last edited by OpsiusCato on Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
HeavenDuff
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 10:35 pm
Posts: 1058
Location: Quebec, Canada
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:16 pm 
 

Scorntyrant wrote:
I don't understand why this is so difficult for you all to grasp - there would be nothing for this "artist" to photograph if not for the band and the fashion label, and charging them for the privilege of using an image of their face or their creation is churlish. If it was someone entirely uninvolved in the creative process - a magazine, an energy drink or whatever, sure go to town.

As a hypothetical, let's imagine I turn up to your art gallery opening and start photographing the artwork. Is the resulting photograph an original work which I as the photographer can sell back to you? Or does it exist solely as a reflection of work you as the painter has done? As the painter, do you have any say over how it's used, and is it "commercial use" to appropriate that image of your own work to promote your next exhibition?


I find your analysis to be extremely short-sighted and naive. The fact that you drop into this thread by saying that "you don't understand why this is so difficult for" us to grasp, shows such contempt for others who have, obviously, understood the situation way better than you... I don't see what's the intention here.

The fact that there are jobs that depend on other jobs doesn't give to the latter creative and commercial ownership of the jobs depending on them... Like others have stated, journalists are a good example of this. Your analysis here would be like saying that anyone who gets covered on the news should have rights over the professionnal work of the journalists and photographs who cover them in their media.

And let's take your example here, the photographer who goes to the art gallery. Your example fails to account for various details of the situation at hand here, so let's work on it a little. First of all, if the painter allows for photographers to come and take pictures of them and make commercial use of them, than yes, he's allowed to do so. Considering this, if the photographer was to go to the art gallery and take pictures of the paintings and share them online, and that the artist or maybe the art gallery would re-use these pictures for commercial purposes, than yes, the photographer would be entitled to some form of payment. The photography is obviously important for the artist or art gallery since they are using it to promote something they want to sell. The fact that they are pictures of your work have absolutely nothing to do with your right to dispose of them however you please.

Top
 Profile  
OpsiusCato
Mexican Metal Inquisition

Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:42 am
Posts: 2630
Location: Mexico
PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:58 pm 
 

So... Any more news about this?
_________________
Uncolored, commenting on Erosion of Humanity's allergies wrote:
Your house in Chicago is possessed by Unholy Virus
PhilosophicalFrog, making accurate statements as usual, wrote:
Opsius is Metal as fuck.

Top
 Profile  
schizoid
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:35 am
Posts: 1384
Location: New Zealand
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:44 am 
 

OpsiusCato wrote:
So... Any more news about this?


Well, considering that's twice now you've bumped this thread into action with the same question, maybe its time to do some sleuthing of your own.
_________________
add me on Untappd! https://untappd.com/user/ChairmanDrew

Top
 Profile  
OpsiusCato
Mexican Metal Inquisition

Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:42 am
Posts: 2630
Location: Mexico
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:47 pm 
 

schizoid wrote:
Well, considering that's twice now you've bumped this thread into action with the same question, maybe its time to do some sleuthing of your own.

Ok, that means kiwiboy has no news. Anyone else has anything?
_________________
Uncolored, commenting on Erosion of Humanity's allergies wrote:
Your house in Chicago is possessed by Unholy Virus
PhilosophicalFrog, making accurate statements as usual, wrote:
Opsius is Metal as fuck.

Top
 Profile  
Ludicus
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:07 am
Posts: 9
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2019 5:36 pm 
 

If anyone had any updates, I assume they'd have already posted here...

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MeltedFace, NapalmBath, Shadoeking, Xenophon and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

  Print view
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group