Mötley Crüe sued by photographers over merchandise image rights

Sep 8, 2016

John Aldred

John Aldred is a photographer with over 20 years of experience in the portrait and commercial worlds. He is based in Scotland and has been an early adopter – and occasional beta tester – of almost every digital imaging technology in that time. As well as his creative visual work, John uses 3D printing, electronics and programming to create his own photography and filmmaking tools and consults for a number of brands across the industry.

Mötley Crüe sued by photographers over merchandise image rights

Sep 8, 2016

John Aldred

John Aldred is a photographer with over 20 years of experience in the portrait and commercial worlds. He is based in Scotland and has been an early adopter – and occasional beta tester – of almost every digital imaging technology in that time. As well as his creative visual work, John uses 3D printing, electronics and programming to create his own photography and filmmaking tools and consults for a number of brands across the industry.

Join the Discussion

Share on:

motley_crue

Recently retired Mötley Crüe are being sued by legendary rock photographers Barry Levine and Neil Zlozower. Their work was slapped on all kinds of merchandise including stickers, flags, and even baby onesies. Their claim is that the band did not have the rights to use images that were on merchandise being sold during their farewell tour.

Blabbermouth reports that the lawsuit was filed on Tuesday (September 6th) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In it, Motley Crue, Inc are named along with 23 other defendants including Amazon (where allegedly infringing products were sold) along with a number of clothing, poster and other merchandise manufacturers.

Levine and Zlozower produce some of the most iconic imagery of the band. Specifically, Levine shot the album cover for Shout At the Devil. Zlozower photographed the amazing “Blood Session“.

zlozower_vs_crue

The suit states…

In the 1980s, Zlozower and Levine photographed the members of the MÖTLEY CRÜE band at Zlozower and Levine’s respective studios in Los Angeles. Zlozower and Levine used their own cameras, lighting equipment, film, batteries, backdrops, and accessories. Zlozower and Levine directed the band members as to where to stand, how to pose, and where to position.

Which seems reasonable enough. The band wanted to shoot some album covers, so they hired photographers. Crue were at the height of their career, so naturally they wanted the best. The photographers did their job, presumably were well paid for the commercial licenses to use them as album covers and everything was right with the world. Fast forward 30 years.

In January 2014, MÖTLEY announced that they will be touring for the very last time before their retirement during their Final Tour. The Final Tour started on July 2, 2014 and ended on December 31, 2015.

On the information and belief, The Final Tour consisted of one-hundred and thirty concerts around the United States, sixteen shows in Europe, five shows in Asia, six shows in Australia region, and one in South America.

The Final Tour grossed approximately eight-six million dollars.

The group then disbanded after their final concert of the tour. Despite the group no longer being together they now face a Copyright lawsuit. They claim that their permission was neither asked for, nor granted, for the use of their images in the Final Tour.

Upon information and belief, in 2014, Motley, Motley Touring, Global Inc., Global Ltd., Live Worldwide, Live Concerts, Live Entertainment, and Live Merchandise copied the Zlozower Photographs and Levine Photographs and placed them on merchandise to sell to the public.

Upon information and belief, the merchandise was sold on their websites, at concert venues, and third-party merchandise websites.

Levine and Zlozower are seeking profits from the sale of mercandise featuring their photographs, as well as damages and attorney’s fees.

Chances are, the band themselves had no idea what was going on. Many issues in the past, especially with the photographers, has been attributed to their “f**ked up management company“. It does sound like the original version of “the web guy did it”, but it will be interesting to see who’s ultimately responsible if this goes through.

It may be turn out that there’s wording in the original license that covers this. After all, album covers appearing on T-merchandise certainly isn’t uncommon, and it definitely wasn’t in the 80s. But the original license may be more limited than the band were led to believe.

The band itself may be gone, but they’re certainly not forgotten and still have a legion of fans out there (myself included), but what do you think? If true, who’s responsible? The band or the management dealing with merchandise? Do you think it’s unusual that such a license wouldn’t include merchandise for the cover of one of Crue’s most popular albums? Let us know in the comments.

[via Reddit / Feature Image : Joe Bielawa CC BY 2.0]

Filed Under:

Tagged With:

Find this interesting? Share it with your friends!

John Aldred

John Aldred

John Aldred is a photographer with over 20 years of experience in the portrait and commercial worlds. He is based in Scotland and has been an early adopter – and occasional beta tester – of almost every digital imaging technology in that time. As well as his creative visual work, John uses 3D printing, electronics and programming to create his own photography and filmmaking tools and consults for a number of brands across the industry.

Join the Discussion

DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

13 responses to “Mötley Crüe sued by photographers over merchandise image rights”

  1. catlett Avatar
    catlett

    My bet is that the photographers know exactly what language is in the original and the band will have to settle. The band also risks a PR nightmare if it tries to stiff the photographers considering how Lars has been with musical copyright infringement.

    1. Charles Sherman Avatar
      Charles Sherman

      Hi Catlett. Lars is in Metalica. :)

      1. catlett Avatar
        catlett

        LOL oops

    2. Kaouthia Avatar
      Kaouthia

      I don’t think they really risk much of a PR nightmare as they don’t exist any more. They’ve already made plenty enough money, so I don’t think they’ll be too bothered about future sales.

  2. DJ Bravo Avatar
    DJ Bravo

    Wow! so the band have to pay to use their own photos.

    1. Sean Avatar
      Sean

      Yes. For commercial uses definitely unless covered in the original license.

      1. DJ Bravo Avatar
        DJ Bravo

        I understand it, I just disagree with it.

        1. Kaouthia Avatar
          Kaouthia

          Do you also disagree with not being able to do what you want with music after you buy the CD or download?

          1. DJ Bravo Avatar
            DJ Bravo

            I would not compare a photographer to a musician. Musicians are in a much higher esteem. Almost anyone can capture a great photo but very few people are talented musicians. Give an average person a camera and they could probably figure out how to capture a good photo. Give an average person a guitar or piano and they wouldn’t have a clue how to create a good song or even a melody.

          2. Kaouthia Avatar
            Kaouthia

            Best laugh I’ve had in weeks, thanks. :)

          3. Kriztoper Avatar
            Kriztoper

            ROTFL!!!

          4. John MacLean Photography Avatar
            John MacLean Photography

            You obviously don’t understand Intellectual Property. It has nothing to do with comparing talents.

      2. catlett Avatar
        catlett

        Well if you finally understand it at least that is some progress. https://www.diyphotography.net/detroit-rapper-steals-image-tells-photographer-get-fk-outta-asking-photo-credit/. You sure didn’t understand it 4 months ago.