Washington Newspaper Won’t Photograph Foo Fighters’ Concert Due Swift-Like Contract; Will Buy Photos from Fans
Jul 3, 2015
Share:
The Foo Fighters will be performing in Washington this weekend with a triple celebration: the 4th of July, a 20th anniversary and coming back to their home state.
The Washington City Paper, however, will not send a photographer to cover the show has they had planned. The reason? A Taylor swift-like contract that according to the paper ‘sucks’, and the paper’s refusal to give the band editorial control.
Pointing out the irony of bands restricting professional photographers when there are thousands of fans with cameras, and maybe in an attempt to stick it a bit to the band, the WCP will run photos taken by concertgoers.
This is the second media outlet stating it won’t send a photographer to cover a concert due to exploitative contracts, after the Irish Times boycotted photos from Taylor Swift’s Dublin performance.
Earlier today the WCP stated it will not be sending its freelance photographer to cover the homecoming concert due to the contract he was given by the band’s management company.
Much like Taylor Swift’s contract, the paper would have to agree to use photos from the concert just once and only in one article, but the band also demands it approves the photos used by the paper and that all copyrights will transfer to them.
Think that’s ridiculous? Get this: the contract gives the band “the right to exploit all or a part of the Photos in any and all media, now known or hereafter devised, throughout the universe, in perpetuity, in all configurations” – without getting permission from the photographer, paying him or even letting him know about it.
“That is exploitation of photographers, pure and simple”, said the WCP, later adding that by signing the contract they “would be signing over editorial control to the band and their management company. And unless we get to pick the set list, that’s never going to happen”.
Being a newspaper, the WCP reached out to the Foo Fighters’ management company about this matter and was assured this type of contract is “standard” and intended to “protect the band”.
I’m not quite sure how giving the band the right to use photos for free is supposed to protect them, and obviously the WCP didn’t buy these excuses either. Calling BS on the explanation it received, the paper gave the Rolling Stones as an example of a massively successful band that does not demand newspapers sign over their photos.
The post ends with the WCP calling on concertgoers, who the band and its ‘overzealous’ management can’t police, to email or tweet their best photos.
“If we run it in next week’s print edition, we’ll pay you for it” the paper stated, adding that “we won’t ask you to sign over the copyright or your first born, either”.
I was glad to see the Irish Times openly speak up against Swift’s contract and actually do something about it (or not do in this case), and am even happier to see that the Irish paper is not alone.
I’ve said it before and I will say it again, musicians benefit from having photographers and the media cover their concerts, but it’s about time they stop benefitting at the photographers’ expense. Some of them anyway; the Rolling Stones are cool.
[Washington City Paper via NPPA | Lead image based on: SobControllers]
Liron Samuels
Liron Samuels is a wildlife and commercial photographer based in Israel. When he isn’t waking up at 4am to take photos of nature, he stays awake until 4am taking photos of the night skies or time lapses. You can see more of his work on his website or follow him on Facebook.
Related Posts
Major Irish Newspaper Didn’t Photograph Taylor Swift’s Dublin Concert Due to “Exceedingly Restrictive” Contract
Janet Jackson’s concert photography contract is worse than Taylor Swift’s
Newspaper Navigator is a free online base of 1.56 million newspaper photos
Taylor Swift Does Right By Photographers, Amends Heavily Restrictive Photo Contract
Join the Discussion
DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.
19 responses to “Washington Newspaper Won’t Photograph Foo Fighters’ Concert Due Swift-Like Contract; Will Buy Photos from Fans”
Wonder why I stole all their albums… after all, if I can’t get paid then they won’t get paid, simple really!
one way to save the money for professionals completly.One Job less.
Maybe they’ll pay the fans. You don’t know.
buy from fans??? wouldn’t that make the fan cross a violation?
Foo Fighters can play at my venue but I’m allowed to use their songs in perpetuity, anywhere, anyhow for whatever I like and for free. And the songs they perform, they can only perform that once and never again.
I’m gunna get so rich.
It’s not really an apt comparison as it’s the Foos’ image that is the valuable IP at issue in this situation. If anything, photographers would have been the ones profiting off of someone else’s IP in perpetuity.
I guess this will prove once and for all that big name musicians completely depend on freelance photographers for their existence. Yeah! Fight the power! You’ll show’em! I’m sure the Rolling Stones, Foo Fighters, RHCP, and other guys will just say “You want to come to our concerts for free, take all the pictures you want in the first 3 sets, and then do anything you want with them without us getting a penny or say in how our image is used? Come on down!”
Or perhaps Photographers will be knocked down a peg as they find out they are completely irrelevant to the process and the artists can just afford to have their own pro do their promotional photography.
“the paper gave the Rolling Stones as an example of a massively
successful band that does not demand newspapers sign over their photos.”
Stones aren’t as greedy, sorry :)
What would the Rolling Stone magazine do if presented with such onerous contracts? Tell Taylor Swift and Foo Fighters “FU!”?
No they don’t sign these contracts
One concert photographer’s view on WCP suggesting fans submit photos and paying them for it.http://gigzealot.com/standing-up-for-the-concert-photographer-by-standing-on-his-neck/
oh come on… it is nothing weird that his comments are off when he wrote such a BS.. well done WCP
Comments are closed on every post on the site. I have no control over that. I’m more than happy to discuss any counterpoint you might have right here with you.
newspapers/media aren’t bad guys in this story and you should know that those contracts are awful thing and that “paying” to fans is more of a show than pulling out of your mouth. dave grohl and mucisians like him pulling it out coz they are just too greedy
Tell that to the thousands of photographers who have been replaced at their newspapers or media outlets by journalists with iPhones. Yes, the contracts are bad, no I don’t think Dave Grohl has a clue that his contract contains that clause, but offering to pay people to skirt the contract is just as bad an idea. I’m sure there is an element of “we’ll show big bad Dave Grohl and his contract” but it’s so shady for anyone to say I don’t like this contract, so I’m just going to wiggle my way around it. Yes, I do count the newspaper amongst the bad guys on this one, no question.
Well, they can’t be bad guys on this one. They just don’t want to be harassed. You can be freelancer, it’s your choice. Like it’s choice of newspapers not to be harassed. In this world where media is so controlled by companies and their ads, this is great thing. And yes, I doubt Dave Grohl doesn’t know, this is 2015.
I’m working in newspapers for 10 years, I know how hard is to photographers but I completely disagree with you because if you have contract with some media then one concert is not your only job and for you it doesn’t matter (here photographers have 2-3 events to cover on daily basis and we are Croatia with population of 4,5 mil and best selling papers with circulation of only 30 000 – 40 000 on daily basis), but it does matter for media to fight against something like this. If Foo Fighters (Dave Grohl) or Taylor Swift were on start of their career than they would be more than happy to have photographers and to be in media etc.
Saying that they will pay people for photos is just proving a point and if every media would follow that path, there wouldn’t be such a contracts anymore.
The elephant in the room is that when a professional photographer retains the copyright to a photograph THEY can use/monetize it at any point without further permission or input from the subject. That’s what rankles a lot of these musical acts and is not really an issue with non professional cell phone photos.
Just my take as someone who has had experience around both journalism and photography at various points, but I don’t think either side was “the bad guy” in situations like this.
I can totally see why a photographer (especially a freelance one) wouldn’t want to photograph a show under these circumstances, but at the same time I can absolutely see why musical acts aren’t keen on photographs of which they don’t have editorial control and why they don’t want photos ended up in some photographer’s stock file to potentially be reused at multiple points without permission or compensation.
The bottom line is that no event has to allow people to photograph and conversely no media outlet has to cover any event. There are always trade offs on both sides and both sides have to live with their choices.
Swift is still trying to get trademark-control of everyday English. Someday we’ll be paying royalties just to talk.