[swanlefitte]

This article about a photographer who was bullied for asking for a €100 donation to cancer charity has the internet up in arms in his defense.
How I Got Banned from Photographing the Band Arch Enemy
Their Twitter has 1000s of tweets shaming the band. Reddit has several threads. Its nice to see photographers being defended and awareness about stealing images.

[SSGGeezer]

What a bunch of X/Ds The band and their manager are!

[BigMackCam]

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

[tvdtvdtvd]

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

Oh, but the unruly mobs just >LOVE< a chance to get out their pitchforks. Their day to day lives are so dreary otherwise.

Well said, BigMack. A public tarring and feathering is hardly a civilized or just resolution, at very least not as a first, (or even early to mid), course of action.

I have no idea who this band is, nor the photographer. But this sort of public trial is all too common. The same lot who would scoff at our ancestors for actually tarring and feathering an individual are nonetheless quick to do so with modern methods.

---

Last edited by tvdtvdtvd; 12-27-2018 at 04:58 PM.

[interested_observer]

I came across this article the other day, and there is something just not right about the whole episode.

• If you read closely, the photographer (and author) is a practicing lawyer (in the Netherlands). He says a lot, but most telling is what he doesn't address - which is, did he actually give up his copyright ownership in return for admission to the concert and the photo pit. He never really addresses this directly, but he somewhat skirts the issue by believing he still retains the copyrights to the images.

• The photographer/author/lawyer does discuss the general issue of bands requiring full image rights in return for admittance to the concert.

The photographer/author/lawyer is perfectly positioned to sue the fashion house for copyright infringement. It's very apparent that the fashion house fully believes that the band had full rights (copyright), and it certainly appears that the band believes this also. However, they don't come right out and say this.

None of the parties to this comes off too well in this. The photographer sends off and email reply to the band thinking he is writing to the fashion house. Actually, the fashion house does pretty well by saying absolutely nothing and just staying as quiet as a church mouse.

If the photographer/author/lawyer does not believe in his case (and sues in court), then this is all a large dust up about nothing.

[BigMackCam]

If the photographer/author/lawyer does not believe in his case (and sues in court), then this is all a large dust up about nothing.

Agreed... except that he/she then follows up with a revenge article on a website with huge distribution, intent on naming and shaming the other parties

[SSGGeezer]

The band is supposedly anti capitalist but is extremely opposed to non authorized merchandise being sold using their images and IP but are perfectly ok with taking the photographers IP and letting their clothing supplier use it like it belonged to them. I read all the way through the article, to include the comments and the band certainly is acting like big shots when they claim to be anarchists who don't care for capitalism. His message could have been formatted in a more polite manner, but if you don't support him when the band acts like the injured party, you are against copyright protection.

I am not a pro but when I give a friend copies of images that they want, I tell them how they can use them, because I own the copyright! So if it is something I may print for sale I ask them not to post on FB because your images often get stolen there. He should have licensed for non-commercial use and then it may not have gone so far.

The photog had previously had conversations with the lead singer about counterfeit band gear and she stated that they had to issue C/Ds on a daily basis due to IP theft. Then their leather metal gear outfitter steals his IP and the band goes stupid because they were probably telling the clothing maker to use it in exchange for more leather vests and bodices. they are not without the most blame here. Read their emails where they act like they are the aggrieved party.

[BigMackCam]

they are not without the most blame here. Read their emails where they act like they are the aggrieved party.

I agree. The difference is, those were e-mails... not a publicly visible article published on the web for all to see. That's my biggest issue with the whole thing... If it had all been dealt with in private, through commercial or legal means, no problem.

One more thing to consider... Since you now know that particular photographer is given to airing commercial / legal differences publicly on the web rather than confidentially, would you hire them? I wouldn't... because we all know that the course of business doesn't always run smoothly, and I don't want my name splashed across the internet when I have a commercial and/or legal dispute with someone.

[Docrwm]

Photographer is a lawyer who did not resort to actual legal avenues to address his concerns. He comes off as manipulating the situation but not on solid legal ground. The band appear to be the appitomy of hypocrites in their posing as anarchists while pressing every capitalist advantage. No winners here and no sympathetic parties IMHO.

[Racer X 69]

From the article:

This being the Netherlands, shooting the festival also meant dealing with quite a bit of rain, particularly during the first day. Arch Enemy were particularly unlucky in this regard since their set coincided with a massive downpour. This meant that I had to juggle my equipment while hiding under a poncho, trying to make sure it didn’t get too wet to function.

I'd say the guy's real problem is he needs Pentax weather resistant gear.

That way he wouldn't be hiding from the rain under a poncho.

[SSGGeezer]

Photographer is a lawyer who did not resort to actual legal avenues to address his concerns. He comes off as manipulating the situation but not on solid legal ground. The band appear to be the appitomy of hypocrites in their posing as anarchists while pressing every capitalist advantage. No winners here and no sympathetic parties IMHO.

It is a rare situation where I would side with a lawyer (With a few exceptions like Allen,) but this is one. I am waiting for our local rock photographers here on PF to chime in if they find the time to sort through the lengthy post.

[swanlefitte]

I am keeping my opinions of the parties to myself because they are unclear even to myself. Yet time and time again I hear of unauthorized use of photos where the legal avenues of justice cost more than the justice so the photographer gets screwed either way and the unauthorized use is rewarded or at least not discouraged. The photographer was bullied and bullied back in a legal way. It brought awareness to the issue and the exposure should help to discourage unauthorized use.
Unfortunately the legal system is unwieldy and justice is often as ugly as the crime.
I can't take courts seriously. If I raise my arm and say I will tell the truth is used to verify I will tell the truth. WHAT? In the UK I know it's in good hands because they play dress up in powdered anachronistic wigs! Lol. I feel like the whole of law comes from the movie Spinal Tap.

[Digitalis]

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.

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.

[Saltwater Images]

A complicated situation that didn’t need to be so. The merchandise company and band management handled the issue poorly and disrespectfully toward an artist whose medium is photography. The authors proposal of a modest charitable donation to resolve the issue was reasonable. Like BigMackCam; I too have mixed feelings regarding the Author/Photographer’s approach in continuing to pursue the issue. On one hand I applaud bringing the issue to light and informing photographers of an issue they may face and that they do have recourse. On the other hand “trial by social media” only creates more conflict with the seeming intent to create more damage to parties involved. When reading the article words of Native Canadian (First Nations) advice my Grandfather gave me as a child came to mind; “those who throw mud only lose ground”. I also agree this issue should have been pursued, mediated and resolved in private by all parties, legally or otherwise - preserving integrety and respect between all parties.

[sundown]

I am happy the person brought this to light. It was an interesting read and I think the issue is universal and not photography bound. Plagiarism has to be exposed in this oblivious, vicious world, detached from basic respect towards each other. Especially when done in an eloquent way.