Band Photos

[Thunderbroom]

We're planning to hire a photographer to come out and shoot our band at our next live gig. We have lots of photos of us, but none of them are of high quality. We've never done this and I wanted to run the guy's pricing and fine print by you folks for you opinions:

 

Photographer's Site

 

Here's the cost and fine print stuff from the site:

 

 

Live Performance - $150 + travel

I'll need my name + one added to your guest list so I can bring a "security guard" for my stuff at the venue. Get the rest of the ticket to hire me for the night and I'll cut everyone a deal - 2 bands playing at one show = $100 each. 3 or more bands at one show = $75 each. Each band receives 30 images. No discounts available for this package. (travel = anything outside the 5 county Chicago area - Cook, DuPage, Lake, McHenry & Kane counties)

 

 

Please take a second to read the terms below - this is in addition to my standard User Agreement/Privacy Policy.

 

Terms & Conditions - Jody Warner retains the copyright to all images and grants unlimited usage to the individual or individuals in the band for use in web or print applications. Record labels and management company usage can be negotiated at any time.

What this means is you and your band can use these images. If you are later signed to a label, the label will need to contact me for usage terms if they want to use the images you have. Labels and management companies can take advantage of these same rates during the introductory offer of my services.

 

Any editorial (publication) requests for your images must be placed through me. I can meet any deadline for editorial requests you have for magazines, papers, or web sites. The reason they have to come through me is so I can work the images up to their specs, I can make sure they give me proper credit, and I can continue to build relationships with publishers. Simply call me with the contact information of the person I need to send the image to and it's done.

 

All images will be shot digitally and delivered digitally. If film or extensive retouching is requested, I will quote you the added expense.

 

Payment for services is required in full the day of the shoot. Payment options are non-negotiable. Cash, check, bank check, Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Discover and PayPal payments are all excepted - images are delivered when the check clears my bank. Payments via Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Discover and PayPal may include a price increase that accounts for the various fees associated with doing electronic business.

[Crescent Seven]

The price seems fair enough, but the question I would ask is, is he going to take 30 pictures, or take 100 pictures and let you pick the best 30?

 

I just read it again. He wants to retain the rights to the images. So he can sell them again if you want to get them published in the paper or whatever...

C7

[FreestyleIntruder]

post this on eBassist, DBM might be able to help

[Thunderbroom]

 

The price seems fair enough, but the question I would ask is, is he going to take 30 pictures, or take 100 pictures and let you pick the best 30? I just read it again. He wants to retain the rights to the images. So he can sell them again if you want to get them published in the paper or whatever... C7

 

 

My guitarist, who contacted the photog, told me this:

 

"He told me that he would spend the evening taking pictures of us and however many pictures he takes, he will post all of them for us to view and then we get to pick the 30 best pictures for the $150 price. If in the future we want all of the rest of the pictures, the extra cost would be $100 for the rest, whether there were 100 more or 400 more."

[bassgirl9]

I wouldn't dig on someone owning the rights to pictures of me.

[Thunderbroom]

 

I wouldn't dig on someone owning the rights to pictures of me.

 

 

That's why I'm asking here as I'm trying to discern if this is standard practice for professional photographers. My bet is that it is.

[AntiStuff]

 

That's why I'm asking here as I'm trying to discern if this is standard practice for professional photographers. My bet is that it is.

 

 

From what I know, it is.

[Crescent Seven]

 

That's why I'm asking here as I'm trying to discern if this is standard practice for professional photographers. My bet is that it is.

 

 

I can understand using the pictures for a portfolio, but under this deal, he could sell the pictures to anybody he wants to, without paying you or getting your permission. But I don't know the legalities of this, I just wouldn't be comfortable with the deal.

The only time I've ever hired a photographer was for my wedding, and we chose her because we got to keep the negatives as long as we agreed to let her use the images as part of her portfolio. We were fine with that.

C7

[collinwho]

Yeah, I wouldn't accept a photographer owning the rights, either. I would accept, or offer to him, myself owning the rights to the photos and granting him unlimited usage for his portfolio/marketing. Photography is generally considered a "work-for-hire" situation, which means, in the end, whoever payed to have the photography done should be the one who owns those photos.

 

This part is what really annoys the hell out of me though

 

 

 

 

accepted. excepted. They are different words. They have different meanings. How hard is that?

[bonscottvocals]

 

That's why I'm asking here as I'm trying to discern if this is standard practice for professional photographers. My bet is that it is.

 

 

 

Most professional photographers retain copyright, not unlike a songwriter. This allows them a byline (sp?) and you buy specific publishing rights. Let's say one or all of you make it big and the photo is used on a cd sleeve or in a biography. Now the photographer is left in the dust and doesn't have to be given a footnote, much less $$ for use. Remember, they are in this to make a living too, and they can't do this by giving away their product or service for small, one-time fees.

 

Even Olin Mills retains copyright for pics, so don't think this is something out of the ordinary. At least they used to - I haven't had my pic taken in about 8 years by them.

 

What will you get from a pro that you don't from an amateur? Well, you should get better centering, lighting, resolution, contrast, etc... You should also get someone who has someone who has experience taking pictures of bands in crappy light and crowd situations.

 

Can you get this from an amateur? You'd be surprised the differences, but there are those enthusiasts who can do a great job. I have a friend who has thousands in gear and a depth of knowledge that boggles the mind; but he is smart enough to give props to the guys who kick his arse.

 

Depending on what you have to pay for travel, you're not really looking at a bad price for the package you describe.

[bonscottvocals]

 

Payment options are non-negotiable. Cash, check, bank check, Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Discover and PayPal payments are all excepted . . . accepted. excepted. They are different words. They have different meanings. How hard is that?

 

 

Seeing that would definitely blow this guy's credibility. You don't make typos like that and expect people to take you seriously.

[i_wanna_les_paul]

My opinion? Find a student photographer who is willing to do it digitally and give you everything he or she shoots.

 

When I do weddings, I give someone a disk of the best images - generally a few hundred. I let them know I reserve the right to use them for my promotion or portfolio use. The old film paradigm of re-selling prints is out of date, IMO, and someone who says they will reserve the copyright and give you just a few files better be damned cheap, IMO.

 

$.02

 

Dustin

[ashdown-freak]

Hi de hi all,

 

OK, T-Broom asked me to come over from ebassist and have a lookie at the legal stuff for this...

 

The basic stuff seems ok, personally, I've never taken a "security guard" along for my gear, but then again, for gigs I travel light, with a shoulder bag for 1 body, 2-3 lenses and a flash if necessary.

 

With regards to copyright or ownership, it is the photographer who would normally own the rights to the photo. As they created it, they own it, that's just the way it is. However, what he suggests is standard practice, for your fee you can use them as much as you like for "web or print applications", presumably, he means your website and your flyers. Fair enough.

 

The label stuff is smart, this guy is obviously a pro about his contracts, this wouldn't have any effect on you if you got signed, but if a record label wants to use the photos, they have to ask him first (so he can presumably charge them).

 

He then goes on to say about editorial stuff. Ie. newspapers or magazines. Again, smart stuff for the photographer, he cashes in from the sale of photos to a newspaper or magazine.

 

The technical stuff is also standard. Processing, editing, touch-up, seriously guys, it takes time, it takes me HOURS!!! It's a necessary evil though.

 

Most importantly, and obviously the concern of people here is the ownership issue.

 

Whoever creates the item, owns the item. End of story. Unless it is explicitly mentioned in a written contract that he will sell you the ownership. This is highly unlikely, as the photographer loses all income from them. Only stupid photographers sign over copyright. I'm sorry to say that I would support the photographer here, and the ownership is his. Sorry guys, thats the fact, and thats the law.

 

The "ownership" of the image isn't really that important as he's giving you a license to use them as much as you wish.

 

Most important of all, get EVERYTHING on paper, and signed by both parties. If he decides to pull a fast one (which by the sounds of it, he won't, he seems pretty pro) or if there is any disagreement, a copyright or intellectual property lawyer can look at your contract, and tell you right there who is right, and who is wrong. I can't stress that enough, get EVERYTHING ON PAPER, AND SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES.

 

AF/dBM.

[bonscottvocals]

 

"He told me that he would spend the evening taking pictures of us and however many pictures he takes, he will post all of them for us to view and then we get to pick the 30 best pictures for the $150 price. If in the future we want all of the rest of the pictures, the extra cost would be $100 for the rest, whether there were 100 more or 400 more."

 

 

That's $250 for the whole ball of wax. Seems reasonable. You gotta remember, these guys aren't a punk band or looking for 'street cred', they're a country band looking to land the corporate gigs that pay a pile of $$. (correct me if I'm off bass here, TB.) When that's the case, the kid with a Nikon D200, a SB600 flash, and a couple of 2G SD cards and experience taking pics of his brother's band in the garage might not be able to take pics that will leave an impression on people looking to hire a band for $3,000 to do the company picnic or $12,000 for the executive New Year's party.

 

All that said, TB, I would check out the photographer's portfolio and previous success rate. You also want a way out if none of the pics tickle the fancy of the band.

 

Best of luck.

[bassgirl9]

 

ashdown-freak With regards to copyright or ownership, it is the photographer who would normally own the rights to the photo. As they created it, they own it, that's just the way it is. However, what he suggests is standard practice, for your fee you can use them as much as you like for "web or print applications", presumably, he means your website and your flyers. Fair enough.

 

 

 

 

Jody Warner retains the copyright to all images and grants unlimited usage to the individual or individuals in the band for use in web or print applications.

 

 

I'd change the wording to photograph then, not image before I signed the contract.

 

 

Bonscottvocals Most professional photographers retain copyright, not unlike a songwriter. This allows them a byline (sp?) and you buy specific publishing rights. Let's say one or all of you make it big and the photo is used on a cd sleeve or in a biography. Now the photographer is left in the dust and doesn't have to be given a footnote, much less $$ for use. Remember, they are in this to make a living too, and they can't do this by giving away their product or service for small, one-time fees.

 

 

I'm all for someone making a buck, but you have to be careful. Especially with the quality of lead singer Tbroom works with. Those girls need to be sure that pictures of them aren't going to be put up anywhere indecent or inapropriate. Tbroom and band need to make sure that the photographer will only use the pictures to help him sell his ability as a photographer or that he will only use the pictures they approve of at places they approve of. I'm all for him owning the pics. Images of the very good looking band to use as he wants to at anytime? No way. No how.

 

 

Now anyone can take a pic at anytime, but when contracts come into play, you have to read the wording very carefully. That's my real point to this novel of a post.

[ThudMaker]

Chances are this clause will not ever be much of an issue anyway (provided YFC doesn't hit it big. But then the label would just say buzz off, we'll take new pics). Perhaps YFC will get a lot bigger and the photard becomes a cog. If and/or when he/she pisses you off too much down the road, just change the bands legal name to The Band Known As An Unpronouncable Symbol, formerly known as YFC.

[ashdown-freak]

 

Tbroom and band need to make sure that the photographer will only use the pictures to help him sell his ability as a photographer or that he will only use the pictures they approve of at places they approve of. I'm all for him owning the pics. Images of the very good looking band to use as he wants to at anytime? No way. No how.

 

 

But look at it this way, what right does a customer have over where something is sold? Why No way. No how? That's just the way it works unless you want to spend at least $1000 in buying the ownership to the photos. I'm sorry, but that really is just the way it is. In addition, no photographer will work with you if you want to try and grab "all rights" to his work. At least, not the smart ones.

 

Sorry to come off a little brusque, but this is my livelihood and I am forever arguing this with people who, because they don't agree with my terms, decide to ignore them and carry on regardless, meaning that my relationship with my bank manager is "somewhat strained" most of the time.

 

AF/dBM.

[Crescent Seven]

We aren't all snarling papparazo out for as much money as possible and damn the ethics or morals.

 

You'd be a whole lot cooler if you were.

 

Don't you ride sportbikes, also?

C7

[ashdown-freak]

You'd be a whole lot cooler if you were. Don't you ride sportbikes, also? C7

 

Hey mano, are you saying I'm not cool?

 

dBM/AF

[Crescent Seven]

Hey mano, are you saying I'm not cool? dBM/AF

 

I would never imply such a thing, shutterbuggy.

[bassgirl9]

Why? What difference does that make?

Photograph is the physical copy of the picture he took. Image can be any kind of media based representation of them. The wording is too open.

 

 

Fair enough, if this guy is as pro as he looks and sounds (from his contract terms) then that shouldn't be an issue. We aren't all snarling papparazo out for as much money as possible and damn the ethics or morals.

No you certainly aren't, but for the 1% that are, you always have to watch your butt.

 

But look at it this way, what right does a customer have over where something is sold? Why No way. No how? That's just the way it works unless you want to spend at least $1000 in buying the ownership to the photos. I'm sorry, but that really is just the way it is. In addition, no photographer will work with you if you want to try and grab "all rights" to his work. At least, not the smart ones.

 

Look at this way. I have no problem with a photographer using this to help sell his work.

 

However, if he sticks around after the show and happens to snag this little doosie, We've got issues. Know what I mean? Hence my, "Read the contract thoroughly, check the wording and make sure you know exactly what he's going to use which pictures for what" comments.

 

Sorry to come off a little brusque, but this is my livelihood and I am forever arguing this with people who, because they don't agree with my terms, decide to ignore them and carry on regardless, meaning that my relationship with my bank manager is "somewhat strained" most of the time. AF/dBM.

I appreciate the fact that this is how you make a living. I dont want you to think that I think you're a cad or a weasle or anything.

 

Have I made my original point clearer to you?

[Thunderbroom]

 

[i_wanna_les_paul]

 

Dustin, according to Thunderbroom: That's $250 for the whole ball of wax. Seems reasonable. You gotta remember, these guys aren't a punk band or looking for 'street cred', they're a country band looking to land the corporate gigs that pay a pile of $$. (correct me if I'm off bass here, TB.) When that's the case, the kid with a Nikon D200, a SB600 flash, and a couple of 2G SD cards and experience taking pics of his brother's band in the garage might not be able to take pics that will leave an impression on people looking to hire a band for $3,000 to do the company picnic or $12,000 for the executive New Year's party. All that said, TB, I would check out the photographer's portfolio and previous success rate. You also want a way out if none of the pics tickle the fancy of the band. Best of luck.

 

 

No, equipment doesn't mean anything, but nor does legalese or price. I stand by my idea to find a photography student who is interested, but go by the portfolio more than anything. I've seen pros who charge a heck of a lot of money and make images that I'd be ashamed to associate with my name. And I've seen kids with point and shoots that make me feel bad about my photography.

 

If this guy's portfolio looks good, if you're not worried about the price, and here's probably the most important thing - if he's not a pain in the ass to work with - by all means, hire him.

 

Dustin

[bassgirl9]

Just in case Jody Warner by chance actually reads this thread for whatever reason, Might I add, he's a killer photographer and I think the deal he proposed is dead cheap. I'd totally go for it. Just be aware of the wording thing I mentioned earlier, that's all.

[Crescent Seven]

Dude bassgirl9 is like my new {censored}in' hero and {censored}!

 

"The Lord is my shephard, he know what I want!":D

C7