I read this article earlier over my morning coffee, I'll weigh in on the issue.
As a commercial photographer I learned it is simpler to sign away my rights to images* I create when in the employ of someone else than try to fight and hold onto the rights for myself as well as the employer. Do I really want that photo of a model wearing trousers and a matching brassiere made from zip ties? No. Do I really want that head-shot of that aspiring actress? No. Do I really want that photograph of that bottle of high-end branded sparkling water? No. I leave the copyright infringement run around to others, once my work is done:
I'm done with it: it's in
their hands.
My way of dealing with the authors issues would have been to send the band/Management a proof sheet** of watermarked thumbnails and issue a flat price upon the body of work, including the perpetual right for reproduction and publication***. When you are good at something, never do it for free. Art is often a costly enterprise both in terms of time and effort, stiffing someone who put in time and effort, and expecting them to work for free is completely unacceptable. As fellow artists, that band should know better. Or do they have to be reminded of the days when they rehearsed in their garage, played at local pubs and low rate clubs, making demo tape after demo tape trying to crawl out of whatever put they were in to land a recording contract?
For my own personal portfolio - I pay models, makeup artists and wardrobe managers, location managers/studio heads myself if I want to create something. But when I'm working on commission for an individual, or commercial entity, the work isn't really mine. I don't have time to chase up copyright infringement on someone else's behalf, I have enough copyright issues to deal with on my own.
Originally posted by BigMackCam 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.
Issues like these are more common than you think - but are seldom brought to light due to the backlash from easily offended parties. I think it is good that the photographer has documented and provided evidence that his dealings were on the level and it was the band that burned all the bridges. Behavior like this needs to be dragged out into the light, into public scrutiny, after all: accountability is the mother of caution. The spokesperson for the band should have taken the time to
listen instead of automatically taking sides, and made sure they had their facts straight.
* You also get paid more, the extra money I make I can devote to my own projects.
** Sometimes a physically printed sheet, otherwise a PDF will do [with the usual caveats for colour accuracy included].
*** Even though there was copyright clause to admission to the photography pit [the precise elements to this agreement are curiously omitted] - it is nice to have this recognized by all parties, even if it is just a formality.