MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: A rock band concert pictures allowed ?  (Read 9506 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Dook

« on: November 13, 2009, 17:40 »
0
I shot Simple Minds concert in Belgrade few days ago. I am a  newspaper photographer. Is it allowed to put these pictures at Alamy, for editorial usage, of course?
Thanks!


« Reply #1 on: November 13, 2009, 20:36 »
0
Dook,

In closed events, normally only registered "press" would be allowed to photograph, but I don't know if this is a fixed rule.

When we had the PanAmerican Games here in Rio, the ticket to Maracan stadium explicitly said photos were allowed for personal use only.

« Reply #2 on: November 14, 2009, 07:39 »
0
I know, for instance, that photos of the Thunderbirds (air force flying team) are not allowed to be sold under any circumstances, editorial or not, so a similar rule might apply to rock concerts.

I'm not exactly sure who you should contact to find out for certain. I suppose their agent, but then you know what the answer will be there. Everything is copyrighted nowadays and needs a release. Sorry to be negative but that's just about the truth.

Dook

« Reply #3 on: November 14, 2009, 07:42 »
0
Thanks for your replies. I will ask Alamy, but there can still be the problem with the band. I will let you know when they inform me. We have to know these things!

« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2009, 08:16 »
0
I would think you can, considering there are other editorial photos on Alamy of the Simple Minds.

« Reply #5 on: November 14, 2009, 08:47 »
0
I know, for instance, that photos of the Thunderbirds (air force flying team) are not allowed to be sold under any circumstances, editorial or not, so a similar rule might apply to rock concerts.

I'm not exactly sure who you should contact to find out for certain. I suppose their agent, but then you know what the answer will be there. Everything is copyrighted nowadays and needs a release. Sorry to be negative but that's just about the truth.

In regards to the Thunderbirds, wouldn't that be an actual violation to the 1st ammendment, freedom and spech and the press?

A.

« Reply #6 on: November 14, 2009, 11:00 »
0
Quote
In regards to the Thunderbirds, wouldn't that be an actual violation to the 1st ammendment, freedom and spech and the press?

To qualify my statement...I should add without permission from the Thunderbirds. No, I don't think it's a 1st amendment violation, any more so than not being able to photograph and sell commercially half of the buildings in New York, etc. etc. Personally, I think it's all kind of bogus, but whatever. One can take all the photos they want (I sure did when I went to the last airshow), but I cannot sell them commercially without a release. I was also told that they cannot be used for editorial, without a release.

« Reply #7 on: November 14, 2009, 11:27 »
0
You need to ask yourself, would it sell? I don't shoot rock concerts and as such am a poor judge but I would think they have limited markets. But what do I know?

« Reply #8 on: November 14, 2009, 11:28 »
0
Quote
In regards to the Thunderbirds, wouldn't that be an actual violation to the 1st ammendment, freedom and spech and the press?

To qualify my statement...I should add without permission from the Thunderbirds. No, I don't think it's a 1st amendment violation, any more so than not being able to photograph and sell commercially half of the buildings in New York, etc. etc. Personally, I think it's all kind of bogus, but whatever. One can take all the photos they want (I sure did when I went to the last airshow), but I cannot sell them commercially without a release. I was also told that they cannot be used for editorial, without a release.

Maybe I was not clear in the point I was bringing in terms of editorial and press. ie: television crews and press photographers for news papers. If an event happens, I am sure the press are going to cover it in terms of the so-called newsworthiness. I don't think they are going to run to the Pentagon or National Defense for a release.

Otherwise, it will get to a point that any newsworthy event would require a release. No???

A.

« Reply #9 on: November 14, 2009, 14:07 »
0
Quote
I don't think they are going to run to the Pentagon or National Defense for a release.

The press doesn't have to run to the Pentagon or National Defense for a release, they only have to contact the event promoter and get a press pass. And no, not all events require press passes. Some do, some don't. I took some photos at a yearly parade in the Caribbean and I was not required to upload a release to sell as editorial. If I took photos at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade, it is possible that I would need a release from someone in order to upload photos of the balloons. Every event may be different.

« Reply #10 on: November 14, 2009, 16:32 »
0
Quote
I don't think they are going to run to the Pentagon or National Defense for a release.

The press doesn't have to run to the Pentagon or National Defense for a release, they only have to contact the event promoter and get a press pass. And no, not all events require press passes. Some do, some don't. I took some photos at a yearly parade in the Caribbean and I was not required to upload a release to sell as editorial. If I took photos at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade, it is possible that I would need a release from someone in order to upload photos of the balloons. Every event may be different.

So you have to have a special veto from Rupert Murdoch to be qualified as "press" these days? The whole point of editorial photography is that sometimes you take photos of things that you may not want vetoed by any government or any company. You don't need releases or a press pass for editorial photography.

All I hear from people in the US these days is assertions about copyright & trademarks. Most of those claiming these things actually have no clue as to what the law is. Quite frequently even governments get it wrong. Using what microstock agencies accept as a basis for what you can and can't do is even more misleading. 

In most places as long as you're in a public place you can photograph and publish whatever you like. As soon as that changes you'll find you're no longer living in a democracy that values freedom of speech.

« Reply #11 on: November 14, 2009, 22:33 »
0
I think there is a difference between taking news photos in public places and taking news photos from within private events. Part of the condition of entry might be that you can't take photos for sale etc. 
If you sit in the car park and take the photos I can't see how they can stop you for editorial.


WarrenPrice

« Reply #12 on: November 15, 2009, 15:59 »
0
This subject is much too complex with way too many variables for a simple answer.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_abuse_photos


traveler1116

« Reply #13 on: November 15, 2009, 19:41 »
0
This subject is much too complex with way too many variables for a simple answer.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_abuse_photos




This is a different subject and shows how "special powers" were had to be given to block these photos, unless there is some national security interest from the concert I don't think there is much in common here.

« Reply #14 on: November 15, 2009, 20:28 »
0
There are a number of issues here:

1. The US stopped publication of those photos in the US. The US does not own the whole world or even the internet. So those photos can still be used if you owned the copyright.

2. The distinction between releasing photos of events is whether it is on public or private property. A street march is public property, and anyone and anything in that domain is fair play for editorial. (except of course copyrighted things like coke cans.

3. Press passes or (more accurately) media accreditation is not limited to press agencies. You will see Shutterstock advertise they will help you gain accreditation if you wish.

4. Back to the Iraq/Afghanistan thing. If you are in either of those countries the USA has no say in what you do and who you photograph, and who buys your stuff.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #15 on: November 15, 2009, 20:44 »
0
This subject is much too complex with way too many variables for a simple answer.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_abuse_photos




This is a different subject and shows how "special powers" were had to be given to block these photos, unless there is some national security interest from the concert I don't think there is much in common here.


It wasn't me who invoked the discussion on military and national defense ... both British, USA and several other elements were thrown into the mix.  I was simply responding to how complex the thread had become.  You are right; it was originally about a concert.  I'm not sure that that too isn't too complex for a simple yes or no answer.  Sorry if I seemed to have added a detour to the thread.


« Reply #16 on: November 16, 2009, 06:17 »
0
"I shot Simple Minds concert in Belgrade few days ago. I am a  newspaper photographer. Is it allowed to put these pictures at Alamy, for editorial usage, of course?
Thanks!"

I'd get them straight up there - Simple Minds would be glad of any publicity! If you restrict their use to editorial, it will be fine - (in my humble experience).

I was with an agency who photographed a play once with Hutch out of the US show Starsky and Hutch in it. Not a lot of interest in the play, but as a head shot of a celeb it still sold as stock.

Anyway, time passed, and a very irate Mr. Hutch rang up asking why we were selling his pic and it was online for sale at our web site. Despite the oddness of a converation with a celebrity, we stuck to our guns, we hadn't actually signed anything or agreed to any condition - we were the press doing our job.

He backed down - case solved. Chances of being sued by Simple Minds are as little as them having a number one at Christmas.

Oldhand


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #17 on: November 16, 2009, 06:19 »
0
There are a number of issues here:

2. The distinction between releasing photos of events is whether it is on public or private property. A street march is public property, and anyone and anything in that domain is fair play for editorial. (except of course copyrighted things like coke cans.


Huh?
If you're photographing a street march for editorial, and one of the marchers is carrying a coke can or there's a discarded coke can on the pavement, they'd have to be cloned out? Really??? Would that also apply to e.g. shop signs in city shots (maybe in the background of your street march)?

« Reply #18 on: November 16, 2009, 07:38 »
0
Quote
I was simply responding to how complex the thread had become.  You are right; it was originally about a concert.  I'm not sure that that too isn't too complex for a simple yes or no answer.

I agree about the complexity. The answer to the OPs question might be a simple yes, he can post to Alamy and sell as editorial. I was merely trying to make the point about complexity also. The answer to the OPs question may have been a no...depending on a lot of other issues that factor in affecting editorial photos, whether those issues are legal or not.

Did the photographer standing on the street taking a picture of a bridge legally deserve to get hassled by the police for taking that picture? No, but he got hassled anyway. If he stood his ground and was willing to go to jail to get the shot, then good on him. Some people may not want the hassle just for the opportunity to earn $1.00 off their microstock editorial photo. We're not talking National Geographic stuff here, people. It's called picking your battles.

Quote
In most places as long as you're in a public place you can photograph and publish whatever you like. As soon as that changes you'll find you're no longer living in a democracy that values freedom of speech.

That is absolutely correct. You can photograph whatever you like. But the photographer likely has no control over what gets published, legally right or wrong.

Quote
The US stopped publication of those photos in the US. The US does not own the whole world or even the internet. So those photos can still be used if you owned the copyright.

Here again, it all goes back to the public vs. private matter. If someone photographed those detainees on military property, and the military says they can't be published, I'm pretty sure that legally they can be stopped from being published anywhere. I'm pretty sure that just because military property is government property, and the people of the US are the government, doesn't mean that military property is public property.

But hey, most of those claiming these things actually have no clue as to what the law is. Quite frequently even governments get it wrong. (As stated earlier in the thread, by Holgs). I'm one of those people with no clue and apparently our government has no clue.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2009, 07:40 by cclapper »

« Reply #19 on: November 17, 2009, 00:46 »
0
There are a number of issues here:

2. The distinction between releasing photos of events is whether it is on public or private property. A street march is public property, and anyone and anything in that domain is fair play for editorial. (except of course copyrighted things like coke cans.


Huh?
If you're photographing a street march for editorial, and one of the marchers is carrying a coke can or there's a discarded coke can on the pavement, they'd have to be cloned out? Really??? Would that also apply to e.g. shop signs in city shots (maybe in the background of your street march)?

Sue you are correct in questioning this. In standard practice Editorial images are to be submitted and used AS IS. The Coke can stays. The shop sign stays. Many in micro try and do things like clone license plates. In proper practice, this is not allowed. The most cloning you can get away with is a sensor dust spot in the sky. And even then, for bona fide news work, I would leave that up to the editor.

For editorial you can crop to get rid of the Coke can or the license plate, and even then your crop should not change the news context of the image.

Dook

« Reply #20 on: November 17, 2009, 15:46 »
0
Just to let you know ( and thanks for all your replies), I contacted Alamy and they think it is fine to put these pictures for editorial use in their collection.
Stormchaser, you are right. No cloning is allowed in news pictures. After some bad experience, Reuters limits their photographers just to plain levels, curves and brightness/contrast. No cloning, vignetting, selections or anything.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2955 Views
Last post February 07, 2009, 12:26
by NYTumbleweeds
2 Replies
2623 Views
Last post July 12, 2009, 11:34
by Lcjtripod
7 Replies
4001 Views
Last post June 07, 2010, 18:32
by Phil
0 Replies
1554 Views
Last post January 16, 2011, 06:10
by Ahas
90 Replies
25464 Views
Last post April 05, 2011, 18:51
by lbarn

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle