[edri]

I am of the opinion that it is very good that the photographer made this situation public, presenting the real messages of those involved. The two girls in the music band insist they were asked 500 euros, although the real amount was 100 euros, shameful. The company that used the photo, obviously for commercial purposes, had no reaction. A court trial would be just an expense greater than the use value of photography and time consumed unnecessarily. It is also the fault of the photographer who allowed many users to use the photo on Instagram. It is surprising that on this site I understand that it is dedicated to photos it is allowed to post other people's photos in the usual way.
Arch Enemy is an exciting band, especially Michael Amott's guitar, I've been listening to this band from time to time. From now on I no longer care, I will not listen to them anymore. I also dropped out to listen to Manowar after they captured a photographer's agent in 2010, and they claimed money with threats because a photograph of them was used by the photographer according to his rights.

---

Last edited by edri; 12-29-2018 at 02:59 AM.

[Class A]

Taking a public swipe at the other parties for everyone on the internet to read isn't a classy way of dealing with things, and has an unpleasant odour of passive-aggressive revenge to me.

I fully agree in principle, but I think in this particular case, the publication of the interaction could be regarded as a "defense" rather than a "revenge".

Note that it was Arch Enemy‘s manager who made the dispute semi-public by copying other people in the music industry in her response, in an attempt to defame the photographer. This was when professionalism was abandoned the first time in the sense of making an attempt to hurt someone's reputation.

I still agree with you regarding today's popular but highly problematic "lynch mob" mobilisation strategy, but in this particular case the photographer could be seen as trying to achieve some damage control. It is anyone's guess whether the photographer may have just dug a deeper hole for himself, but in this case his sacrifice will hopefully mean that bands/managers/companies will be more considerate in their response in the future.

FWIW, I thought the article looked like a pretty unbiased report of what happened; it doesn't look like the presentation of evidence shows signs of "lying by omission". Obviously, I cannot be sure but the photographer does not come across as a manipulator.

However, in general, I'm against publishing communication that was originally meant to be private. Perhaps the singer of the band would have reflected her response more deeply if she had known that it would be seen by a wider audience. I'm not talking about pulling one's punches because one knows that an unfiltered gut reaction will be harmful to one's image; I'm talking about taking the time to think about what happened and try to come to a more measured response. Possibly the singer wasn't giving any of this much thought but now has to suffer the consequences of a knee-jerk reaction. I don't think that would be fair and I am puzzled that it is apparently legal to publish messages that were meant for private communication only.

[BigMackCam]

Note that it was Arch Enemy‘s manager who made the dispute semi-public by copying other people in the music industry in her response, in an attempt to defame the photographer. This was when professionalism was abandoned the first time in sense of making an attempt hurt someone's reputation.

The way I read it, the first attempt at communication over use of the image was by the photographer posting the following on Instagram:

"Hi, you're using my photo of Alissa to promote a product, and in that case you need to pay a licensing fee."

"Where can I send the invoice?

"Alternatively, you can pay the licensing fee as a donation to a charity of my choice."

Not the most professional approach, in terms of both the chosen platform and rather brusque wording. Only when that received no response did he resort to private e-mail - which, in my view, is what he should have used from the start.

As I said, I condemn the management and merchandising reps for their use of the image and handling of the situation. But the photographer did himself no favours either, and I still question the motives and value of this subsequent article...

[Class A]

Not the most professional approach, in terms of both the chosen platform and rather brusque wording.

He used a DM (direct message). No one except the account owner saw the content of the DM, so his first attempt at contacting the poster was private as well.

I still question the motives and value of this subsequent article...

I think it is hard to know what the photographer's real motives were when going public with the article.

In terms of value, I'm pretty sure that in combination such reveals will make it less likely for companies to play dumb. Misunderstandings happen, but to simply assume the image was available to be used for a commercial purpose and to pretend that the instagram post wasn't an advert was wrong and sadly, this behaviour seems rather common.

[Rondec]

The way I read it, the first attempt at communication over use of the image was by the photographer posting the following on Instagram:

"Hi, you're using my photo of Alissa to promote a product, and in that case you need to pay a licensing fee."

"Where can I send the invoice?

"Alternatively, you can pay the licensing fee as a donation to a charity of my choice."

Not the most professional approach, in terms of both the chosen platform and rather brusque wording. Only when that received no response did he resort to private e-mail - which, in my view, is what he should have used from the start.

As I said, I condemn the management and merchandising reps for their use of the image and handling of the situation. But the photographer did himself no favours either, and I still question the motives and value of this subsequent article...

I think when people can't argue with the message they tend to blast the style with which the message was delivered (not speaking of you but in general). I do think that over time there has been a tendency for people to devalue the process of making an image and the value of the image itself. Everyone has a digital camera -- in their phone if nowhere else. The band here (I'm not familiar with their music) puts time and effort into their songs and they shouldn't be pirated. In the same way, unless this photographer signed away his rights on entry to the concert (it doesn't sound as though he did), then the appropriate response is one of two things, "OK, sorry, we didn't know it was a copyrighted image. We will take it down immediately." or, "We really like your work and will pay the licensing fee."

I do think it is problematic when people take these cases on to social media, but as Class A says, I'm not sure he has much recourse if the band is contacting other bands to tell them he is a bad egg and shouldn't be admitted to concerts. Certainly the best thing would have been for cooler heads to prevail. Respond to the initial message and then drop it.

[BigMackCam]

He used a DM (direct message). No one except the account owner saw the content of the DM, so his first attempt at contacting the poster was private as well.

Ah... I hadn't understood that. I'm showing my ignorance of social media here, as I don't make use of those platforms. Thanks for the clarification.

[Racer X 69]

The band here (I'm not familiar with their music) puts time and effort into their songs and they shouldn't be pirated. In the same way, unless this photographer signed away his rights on entry to the concert (it doesn't sound as though he did), then the appropriate response is one of two things, "OK, sorry, we didn't know it was a copyrighted image. We will take it down immediately." or, "We really like your work and will pay the licensing fee."

This is the issue here.

The band and their manager should know and understand that the photograph is to the photographer as the songs are to the band.

A product of their respective artistic expression, and as such owned by each of them. The band, their manager and sponsor should all know and respect the ownership of that image by the photographer.

It is too bad of course that they chose to air their dirty laundry in public.

[Wheatfield]

I have mixed feelings about this.

The band, management and merchandising representatives were clearly in the wrong here, both in the unauthorised use of the photo and the way they handled the photographer's reasonable (IMHO) request (though the initial request - not just the follow up comms - should have been made by private e-mail, not on Instagram).

However... This was a matter to be dealt with through formal business communications and, if that failed (as it seemed to), legal recourse. Publishing an article on the web to shame them follows the worrying and quite nasty trend of initiating "trial by social media". Taking a public swipe at the other parties for everyone on the internet to read isn't a classy way of dealing with things, and has an unpleasant odour of passive-aggressive revenge to me.

Like I said, the band and its team were undoubtedly in the wrong... but I'm uncomfortable with the photographer's subsequent action online. I understand their reasons - but there are more professional ways to deal with these things

By shaming the band online, the photographer tossed a bomb into their relationship and probably buggered up any possibility of working with anyone in that particular field again. He may have been in the right, but he lost the battle and the war./

[clackers]

By shaming the band online, the photographer tossed a bomb into their relationship and probably buggered up any possibility of working with anyone in that particular field again. He may have been in the right, but he lost the battle and the war./

Yes, must be awful when someone doesn't get paid or gets hit on when auditioning, and pursuing action jeopardizes their future prospects.

[Class A]

By shaming the band online, the photographer tossed a bomb into their relationship and probably buggered up any possibility of working with anyone in that particular field again.

Unless a band has intentions of exploiting photographers or play unfairly otherwise, the band shouldn't have a problem working with this particular photographer.

Maybe a band even likes that the photographer stood up against the exploitation of artists and employs him because of his stance?

He may have been in the right, ...

He definitely was in the right, no question about that, if the article comprehensively covers the situation.

One can argue about his pricing suggestions, but unless we are missing prior communication that may have misled the band/shop to believe that they were welcome to use the images as they saw fit, there is no grey area at all. It is unlikely that such communication took place, as the photographer would have had to fear that the band/shop countered his story with the unveiling of a misunderstanding.

...but he lost the battle and the war.

If we must use military terms, one could also view the whole story as someone sacrificing themselves, losing their local battle, to help win the wider war, i.e., a fight against the commonplace attitude that "exposure" is as good as or even better than payment.

One can view the photographer as "not getting the wider picture" or as having the civil courage to risk his future in band photography just to further a movement against the exploitation of photographers.

Ideally, the photographer should have written the story without naming the band in question. Ideally, he would have used his attorney skills to claim considerable statutory damages from the band/shop and then just publish a cautionary tale as to why playing dumb when it comes to copyright matters doesn't cut it. It is unlikely that such article would have had the same impact as the one he wrote, but it would have avoided the highly problematic aspect of making the band/shop the target of a lynch mob.

[gaweidert]

The band may claim to be anti capitalist as part of their act, but when it comes to their own personal money, nobody is anti capitalist.

[BigMackCam]

Ideally, the photographer should have written the story without naming the band in question. Ideally, he would have used his attorney skills to claim considerable statutory damages from the band/shop and then just publish a cautionary tale as to why playing dumb when it comes to copyright matters doesn't cut it. It is unlikely that such article would have had the same impact as the one he wrote, but it would have avoided the highly problematic aspect of making the band/shop the target of a lynch mob.

Repeating myself (perhaps to the collective groans of everyone in the thread), that's my issue here. I'd take your paragraph above and quote it almost verbatim (only with the first word "Ideally" removed) as pretty much a perfect summary. They shouldn't have made unauthorised use of his photo. He had every right to ask for payment. They acted appallingly in response. He is the real victim here. I can understand why he wrote the article. But both parties should have handled things better, and a more favourable financial and reputational resolution for each might have been reached were that the case...

[Wheatfield]

Unless a band has intentions of exploiting photographers or play unfairly otherwise, the band shouldn't have a problem working with this particular photographer.

Maybe a band even likes that the photographer stood up against the exploitation of artists and employs him because of his stance?

My take is the band was none to happy with him for taking this on.

He definitely was in the right, no question about that, if the article comprehensively covers the situation.

One can argue about his pricing suggestions, but unless we are missing prior communication that may have misled the band/shop to believe that they were welcome to use the images as they saw fit, there is no grey area at all. It is unlikely that such communication took place, as the photographer would have had to fear that the band/shop countered his story with the unveiling of a misunderstanding.

The problem wasn't with the band using his image(s), it was with an outside company lifting them for advertising purposes. This was made very plane in the OP's link.

If we must use military terms, one could also view the whole story as someone sacrificing themselves, losing their local battle, to help win the wider war, i.e., a fight against the commonplace attitude that "exposure" is as good as or even better than payment.

Sure, how did it work out for the Kamikaze pilots?

One can view the photographer as "not getting the wider picture" or as having the civil courage to risk his future in band photography just to further a movement against the exploitation of photographers.

Ideally, the photographer should have written the story without naming the band in question. Ideally, he would have used his attorney skills to claim considerable statutory damages from the band/shop and then just publish a cautionary tale as to why playing dumb when it comes to copyright matters doesn't cut it. It is unlikely that such article would have had the same impact as the one he wrote, but it would have avoided the highly problematic aspect of making the band/shop the target of a lynch mob.

Ideally, the photographer should not be airing his dirty laundry in public.

---------- Post added 01-08-19 at 02:31 PM ----------

Yes, must be awful when someone doesn't get paid or gets hit on when auditioning, and pursuing action jeopardizes their future prospects.

When that pursuit backs people into a corner, it becomes counterproductive.

[swanlefitte]

I bet the band got fans from the exposure. I never heard of them before. I bet the photographer's magazine got new readers also.

[ZombieArmy]

I have mixed feelings about this.

The band, management and merchandising representatives were clearly in the wrong here, both in the unauthorised use of the photo and the way they handled the photographer's reasonable (IMHO) request (though the initial request - not just the follow up comms - should have been made by private e-mail, not on Instagram).

However... This was a matter to be dealt with through formal business communications and, if that failed (as it seemed to), legal recourse. Publishing an article on the web to shame them follows the worrying and quite nasty trend of initiating "trial by social media". Taking a public swipe at the other parties for everyone on the internet to read isn't a classy way of dealing with things, and has an unpleasant odour of passive-aggressive revenge to me.

Like I said, the band and its team were undoubtedly in the wrong... but I'm uncomfortable with the photographer's subsequent action online. I understand their reasons - but there are more professional ways to deal with these things

I think it's important for stuff like this to be out in the open because the music industry is unreasonably hostile to photographers, public pressure against these labels and managers can lead to good results.

I think ultimately if it was just a simple "we've removed your photo, have a good day" this article would have never been written.