# Photo Agreement for Concert?



## DGMPhotography (Apr 24, 2017)

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 (Apr 24, 2017)

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 (Apr 24, 2017)

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 (Apr 24, 2017)

KmH said:


> 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.
> ...



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 (Apr 24, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Run Forrest! Run!
> ...




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 (Apr 24, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...


 Just opinions.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 24, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> ...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 (Apr 24, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> Just opinions.


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


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 24, 2017)

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 (Apr 24, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Apr 24, 2017)

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 (Apr 24, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> 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 (Apr 24, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> 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 (Apr 24, 2017)

tirediron said:


> Only an idiot would sign that agreement!





gryphonslair99 said:


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





gryphonslair99 said:


> 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.



zombiesniper said:


> 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 (Apr 24, 2017)

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.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 24, 2017)

vintagesnaps said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



Yeah... idk. It sounds like this is something they do fairly often. I think I'll give it a shot and see how it goes, and if anything, it'll be a learning experience.


----------



## Dave442 (Apr 24, 2017)

Just reading again and it certainly looks like you can use the images in your portfolio - a private portfolio that is not out for public viewing. 

I have many images taken while working for others and those were sent off for marketing people to do as the company desired. I was paid, the marketing people were happy and it is always nice to see your image used in display and packaging. 

You can probably also put down the experience on your about page at your web-site.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 24, 2017)

Dave442 said:


> Just reading again and it certainly looks like you can use the images in your portfolio - a private portfolio that is not out for public viewing.
> 
> I have many images taken while working for others and those were sent off for marketing people to do as the company desired. I was paid, the marketing people were happy and it is always nice to see your image used in display and packaging.
> 
> You can probably also put down the experience on your about page at your web-site.



Good point!


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 24, 2017)

Of course they do this... happens I think because they can often get people with cameras to do this who want to get in to an event or get access, etc. Then the company gets pictures for free or cheap that they own and can edit and use without having to pay a photographer. 

Guess it could be good experience for someone starting out, but doesn't seem like there'd be anything much to show for it without so much as a photo for portfolio use. I don't think I'd sign anything like this, giving away rights to my own work. (Not unless somebody was planning to pull an armored truck full of cash up to my front door!)

What you're talking about Dave is like having 'tear sheets', samples of work that was published. I have for example brochures that my photo was used in and can put the brochure in a portfolio. I'm not sure this contract allows for anything like that.


----------

