Gig photo advice

Frantic_Inc

Frantic_Inc

Suspended / Banned
Messages
253
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
Yes
After sending an email to a music webzine enquiring about if they wanted a photographer for my area, I received a reply. Can anyone give advice on what else I may need to ask before accepting?

Here's the reply

"Hiya Lee,

Thanks so much for getting in touch!

We're always after new photographers.

We expect all photographers to agree to the following photography permissions rules:


Photography Permissions:

With pictures taken at gigs and festivals where we've provided the photo passes, pictures can't be published on any other website, facebook, flikr account or any other sit like this unless they're branded with the **** watermark on each picture and a link to the main **** site included in the article/place where it's published. Photographs with the watermark can't be put up on any external site or Facebook for at least 2 full weeks after they've been put onto the **** site.



If that's ok with you, let us know and we'll take it from there!"
 
Hey Lee,

Well I suppose the short answer is that if you want the gig, you'll have to accept their terms so long as the copyright remains with you, they are just dictating the usage. Might be worth asking if there's a time limit on the images having to carry their watermark perhaps.

G
 
Presuming your getting paid then I wouldnt worry about it.. just agree.. you dont need to do anyhting wiht the pics I am guessing..
 
pictures can't be published on any other website, facebook, flikr account or any other sit like this unless they're branded with the **** watermark on each picture and a link to the main **** site included in the article/place where it's published. Photographs with the watermark can't be put up on any external site or Facebook for at least 2 full weeks after they've been put onto the **** site.
Click to expand...

why would anyone take pictures.. conform to all the above.. and not get paid?

I do know poeple take pics for free and i dont personally have a problem with that.. its the way of the world... but to be shafted as well for free.. seems a bit wrong ?
 
KIPAX said:
why would anyone take pictures.. conform to all the above.. and not get paid?

I do know poeple take pics for free and i dont personally have a problem with that.. its the way of the world... but to be shafted as well for free.. seems a bit wrong ?
Click to expand...

Because magazines and webzines know there is a glut of photographers out there who will happily follow all those terms just to say they are a "gig photographer" and have a nice shiny pass to prove it.
 
Joe90 said:
Hey Lee,

Well I suppose the short answer is that if you want the gig, you'll have to accept their terms so long as the copyright remains with you, they are just dictating the usage. Might be worth asking if there's a time limit on the images having to carry their watermark perhaps.

G
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice Gareth.

ding76uk said:
Would be suprised if was paid.
Click to expand...

I'd be very suprised too! Believe it or not but having a camera and using it to take pictures does not necessarily mean i'm after money. I have a deep love for music and photography so it makes sense to do it together!
 
Frantic_Inc said:
Believe it or not but having a camera and using it to take pictures does not necessarily mean i'm after money!
Click to expand...

oh for crying out loud.. did you see the bit about shooting for free... theres nothign wrong with that.... but when you cant even use your own pictures then your just adding being shafted to shooting for free...

oh well... each to his own :)
 
I think the difference here, as opposed to being asked to cover a gig for this web-zine, is that the OP inquired about doing it for them. They just stated their rules, he doesn't have to accept. I personally wouldn't do it unless I could use the pics for my portfolio, without their watermark! But he may just want the experience?
 
I've had further contact with the webzine and they have said that the watermark must stay on the photos even if I want to sell them:shake:

Though as the previous poster has said, I am looking at gaining experience in bigger venues and may use this as way of building a portfolio(with watermarks included!).
 
Frantic_Inc said:
I've had further contact with the webzine and they have said that the watermark must stay on the photos even if I want to sell them:shake:

Though as the previous poster has said, I am looking at gaining experience in bigger venues and may use this as way of building a portfolio(with watermarks included!).
Click to expand...

Most music websites plead poverty / are happy to simply exploit people to shoot for free. To have you watermark all of your images with their logo is really taking the **** though.

Send a counter offer that seeing as you're providing their business with a service for free, that they only use the images with your watermark on them and a link to your website. When they say "no", go find someone who demonstrates a bit of respect for other people, and work with them instead.
 
Did you go with them in the end? Do you mind if I ask who they are asking this of you? You could pm if preferred.

Frantic_Inc said:
I'd be very suprised too! Believe it or not but having a camera and using it to take pictures does not necessarily mean i'm after money. I have a deep love for music and photography so it makes sense to do it together!
Click to expand...

That's fine, the music photography industry is non existent in any meaningful manner. Payment is rare to never these days. However there is a difference between shooting for free and handing over ownership of images for nothing.

Many music fans see music photography as a great way to combine passions, get free tickets etc. I will just give you a word of advice. Music photography is not that much fun at times. It is stressful, will result in you not being able to enjoy gigs as you are escorted from the venue after 3 songs or need to send images to your outlet. People in the front row will get mad at you (I have been punched several times), you will deal with crap lighting, I have even the artist verbally abusing me for daring to photograph him (I was approved by his management to shoot the show). Music photography looks like a glamorous, fun thing with free gig tickets attached, but the reality is very different.
 
Last edited:
Carl, I've replied to them and have provisionally said I'll shoot for them. Haven't signed anything or ticked any boxes yet!

I understand what people are saying about handing over ownership of images but at the stage I'm at I need to get to more gigs to build up a decent set of images. The music webzine is not a big one and as far as I know they all do it for nowt.

Can you give any advice on how to approach them about retaining copyright of my images?

At the moment I'm shooting for a promoter at a couple of small venues in Norwich(rock/metal) and enjoy supporting local bands.

BTW, how are progressing with your book?
 
Frantic_Inc said:
With pictures taken at gigs and festivals where we've provided the photo passes
Click to expand...

There's the kicker... Music Photography at the next level, is about access.

Getting into large gigs or festivals for free because you have a pass can be payment in itself, as well as the extra access over joe-public that the pass can give you.

You try applying to large venues, Festivals etc as a Freelancer asking for a photo pass and see what your success rate is. If they do reply the first question is always.. 'Who are you working for ?'


Whats the alternative ?

Go to the event as a punter, pay in, shoot what you can and then try and hawk the images around the press and have them use your images without payment and in many cases without credit. And that is if you can get your DSLR into the larger venues as many will not allow a camera with a detachable lens these days.


As ding76uk says... Music photography is not as glamerous as people think.

Being slightly cynical, if you go, shoot the stuff, then in two years time the publication folds..... you still have the images....
 
I guess I'd ask two questions:

1) What do you want to get out of this?
2) How big is their watermark?

If you're looking for the experience, you're not to fussed about the particular gig and you want some photos for your portfolio that you can show but not sell in future - go for it.

It's not like you'd be accepting a permanent unpaid job. If you find you're getting great shots and can get a better deal elsewhere, then at some point in the future you try to get better terms or find another publication who'll pay or be more flexible.

As for equipment, fast lenses and Full Frame would be ideal as you'll be pushing up to high ISO's to make the most of low lighting and you'll want reasonably quick shutter speeds. I've shot at a small dark venue in Kingston a few times with a 7D and f/2.8 glass and have had to push it to ISO 1600 most of the time, but the noise isn't pretty. It's left me longing for a 6D :(
 
Of course you must NOT take a second card and shoot a few on that, then hand the first card to whoever is commissioning you.



That would be VERY WRONG.



Don't even think about it.



Very, very wrong.
 
I shoot for a few webzines unpaid in money but paid in the free tickets and +1's I get and also get to meet with the artists if I interview them. Like the OP I do it for the love of the music but I do know a lot of togs who do it for a living and wont shoot for free. (buts that's no the debate here)

The terms mentioned seem a bit harsh with the watermark and I agree that the term shafted seems to fit. The ones I shoot for don't want any watermark on the photo's and the copyright belongs to me and its stated with the photo's. If they are approached by anyone who want to use one of my photo's they pass them direct onto me, and I can use the photo's for my portfolio/FB etc as I wish as long as the review/photo's has been on there site for a few weeks. Which seems fair to me.

At the end of the day its upto the OP to decide as Its a good way to get a foot in and get some contacts built up.
HTH
Simon
 
ding76uk said:
I will just give you a word of advice. Music photography is not that much fun at times. It is stressful, will result in you not being able to enjoy gigs as you are escorted from the venue after 3 songs or need to send images to your outlet. People in the front row will get mad at you (I have been punched several times), you will deal with crap lighting, I have even the artist verbally abusing me for daring to photograph him (I was approved by his management to shoot the show). Music photography looks like a glamorous, fun thing with free gig tickets attached, but the reality is very different.
Click to expand...

Yep never a truer word said, had all that happen to me. You forgot to add having hair pulled whilst in sitting in the pit and beer and fags dropped on yer head. I tend to wear a beanie now to stop some of this :-)
Oh, also getting kicked when the crowd surfers come over or getting shoved out of the way by security.
 
Of the few occasions I've shot gigs, I did it for free (based on them having the shots) and have not enjoyed it and it isn't without it's stress. I would never delude myself into thinking it's a money maker because there's too many people out there "building their portfolios". I've shot some decent 'a' list events and know that they do not pay for photographers wonder how far you need to go before you get a paid gig...

I wouldn't even entertain their terms personally. All that stress to not even decide how you use your own images. It's a micky take of the first degree.
 
Last edited:
Frantic_Inc said:
Carl, I've replied to them and have provisionally said I'll shoot for them. Haven't signed anything or ticked any boxes yet!

I understand what people are saying about handing over ownership of images but at the stage I'm at I need to get to more gigs to build up a decent set of images. The music webzine is not a big one and as far as I know they all do it for nowt.

Can you give any advice on how to approach them about retaining copyright of my images?

At the moment I'm shooting for a promoter at a couple of small venues in Norwich(rock/metal) and enjoy supporting local bands.

BTW, how are progressing with your book?
Click to expand...

The book is getting there slowly. I am 26k words in, most of the chapters are written or planned for and I have the images pretty much ready. It's just finding some time to get the final version of the first draft completed.

As for your predicament, if you want my honest advice, leave them to it. If it was a major outlet that could get you some good contacts I would still tell you to leave it. Free shots are one thing, but handing over ownership is another.

I know there is a post basically saying to do it without anyway, which is not a good way to go. It's dangerous to not stick to what you agreed, as the music industry is small. You can get a real bad reputation by doing things you aren't meant to, even if its for a little outlet. Remember they are on much better terms with the gatekeepers than you are.

As it is a local outlet by the sounds of it I would tell them that what they are offering takes the pee, you are not going to shoot for them. If they change their mind and offer more reasonable terms you will reconsider. You could word it friendlier though.

There are other outlets, blogs etc. you just need to find them. There is not any real money to be made as I have said (and that is not the debate), but to give away work to an outlet is taking the pee massively and not being able to show your pics without watermarks is worse than handing them over to the artist themselves via a rights grab.

If you have a half decent portfolio then just ask for passes direct. Find out the management etc. and say, "Hi I really want to shoot the show, I am happy for you guys to have the pics to use on your Facebook etc. in exchange for a pass." Short & sweet no waffle, no fanboy stuff. It won't work for the bigger bands, but bands who play the Arts Centre or Waterfront could go for this and what's the harm in trying? That's how I got started. My first gig was Graham Coxon at The Arts Centre. I had no portfolio, I just found the promoter and asked if I could shoot, they said yes and that was it. Saw him after the show, got put on the list for Nottingham 2 days later to photograph him again and from there I never looked back.
 
Last edited:
For info, this publication put up a post on facebook requesting photographers contact them, I received the same email as Lee.

My first response was **** off, but I decided to contact them specifically to ask about copyright etc.

I'm happy giving back to online publications that do it for the love of music, there are plenty out there working not for profit, but I won't be handing over copyright.
 
RichardtheSane said:
For info, this publication put up a post on facebook requesting photographers contact them, I received the same email as Lee.

My first response was **** off, but I decided to contact them specifically to ask about copyright etc.

I'm happy giving back to online publications that do it for the love of music, there are plenty out there working not for profit, but I won't be handing over copyright.
Click to expand...

That's the thing the website has replaced the zine, few make money from it, but it either reeks of naivety or greed, neither of which is great when looking for someone to shoot for
 
ding76uk said:
That's the thing the website has replaced the zine, few make money from it, but it either reeks of naivety or greed, neither of which is great when looking for someone to shoot for
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I have turned them down as I honestly could not see anything in it for me.
I enjoy live music photography, and have sometimes traveled great distances for some shooting opportunities. But the end result has always been 100% mine to do with as I please.

I will keep searching for a publication I feel I can work with, there are plenty out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top