Photographer
Untitled Photographer
Posts: 1227
Dallas, Texas, US
So i'm at a show, take some shots of the band, post a few online. Someone wants to buy prints.
I have no agreement with the band or venue, I simply took some photos.
What are the common dos and don't in situations like this. Taking a photo of a celebrity/band and then selling prints?
Thanks
Photographer
alexphotog
Posts: 593
New York, New York, US
you can sell for editorial and fine art. But not as commercial. i.e. placing in an ad campaign.
so you're good if it's just a print for someone's collection
Photographer
Eagle Rock Photographer
Posts: 1286
Los Angeles, California, US
Untitled Photographer wrote:
So i'm at a show, take some shots of the band, post a few online. Someone wants to buy prints.
I have no agreement with the band or venue, I simply took some photos.
What are the common dos and don't in situations like this. Taking a photo of a celebrity/band and then selling prints?
Thanks Depending on details and luck you can get a stern warning letter from the band's lawyer, or a lawsuit crammed down your gullet. Especially if you're selling prints. Take a look at 'right of publicity' law, and you'd be bustin other laws as well.
Photographer
Eagle Rock Photographer
Posts: 1286
Los Angeles, California, US
alexphotog wrote:
you can sell for editorial and fine art. But not as commercial. i.e. placing in an ad campaign.
so you're good if it's just a print for someone's collection Dangerously, wildly, cluelessly 98% insanely WRONG.
Photographer
Eagle Rock Photographer
Posts: 1286
Los Angeles, California, US
Untitled Photographer wrote:
So i'm at a show, take some shots of the band, post a few online. Someone wants to buy prints.
I have no agreement with the band or venue, I simply took some photos.
What are the common dos and don't in situations like this. Taking a photo of a celebrity/band and then selling prints?
Thanks Don't.
Here's a link to the actual law in your state of TX:
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/texas-r … licity-law
You might also be subject to ROP laws in other states.
Most of the legal advice you'll get on MM is clueless.
Photographer
alexphotog
Posts: 593
New York, New York, US
Eagle Rock Photographer wrote:
Untitled Photographer wrote:
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/texas-r … licity-law
Most of the legal advice you'll get on MM is clueless. At the end of the day. Every state is different. I would contact a copyright attorney in your state. Or your local ASMP chapter, there will be photographers who know. There is a media exception i.e. editorial usage.
"The Texas statute also provides an exception for media use including:
a play, book, film, radio program, or television program;
a magazine or newspaper article;
material that is primarily of political or newsworthy value;
single and original works of fine art; or
an advertisement for the above uses."
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Of all the states to cite Texas, I must say is not the poster-boy state of ROP laws...
Texas's statutory Right of Publicity is a property right that protects a person's right in his or her name and likeness after his or her death.
Texas has no ROP statute relating to the living, though Texas recognises a common law right..
Studio36
Photographer
Eagle Rock Photographer
Posts: 1286
Los Angeles, California, US
studio36uk wrote:
Of all the states to cite Texas, I must say is not the poster-boy state of ROP laws...
Texas's statutory Right of Publicity is a property right that protects a person's right in his or her name and likeness after his or her death.
Texas has no ROP statute relating to the living, though Texas recognises a common law right..
Studio36 Good points. CA and NY are the leaders in ROP law.
Photographer
Eagle Rock Photographer
Posts: 1286
Los Angeles, California, US
From the TX common law:
Common Law
A plaintiff may recover general damages for a right of publicity/misappropriation claim, which may include claims for mental and physical pain and suffering. See National Bank of Commerce v. Shaklee, 503 F.Supp. 533 (W.D. Tex. 1980). Special damages and punitive damages may be recovered in exemplary and/or intentional cases, such as when the plaintiff's endorsement has been sold on the open market rather than used without authorization by the defendant alone. See National Bank of Commerce v. Shaklee, 503 F.Supp. 533 (W.D. Tex. 1980); see also Mantle v. Upper Deck Co., 956 F.Supp. 719 (N.D. Tex. 1997).
Photographer
Ken Marcus Studios
Posts: 9421
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Without going into the local legality issues, there is always the problem of having permission from the venue owners.
Without proper permission beforehand, I'd say you are skating on very thin ice . . .
KM
Photographer
Untitled Photographer
Posts: 1227
Dallas, Texas, US
Thanks everyone. It's not often someone asks to buy a print from an event like this so I was curious. I'll encourage them to take a camera and get their own shot the next time this band is in town.
Photographer
BCADULTART
Posts: 2151
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Chris,
I would not sell prints from a show, but the way you can
do it legally is to only sell "signed limited edition prints"
and your signature and the print number has to appear
on the image side of the print. Jim Marshall taught me
that.....
Photographer
Eagle Rock Photographer
Posts: 1286
Los Angeles, California, US
BCADULTART wrote:
...t the way you can do it legally is to only sell "signed limited edition prints" and your signature and the print number has to appear on the image side of the print. Jim Marshall taught me that..... The law varies from state to state. A few states have legally goofy exceptions for 'fine art.' But the late Mr. Marshall is noted for photography, not I.P. lawyering. And the advice cited is likely to earn the photographer defendant status in right of publicity lawsuit(s). Perhaps multiple suits in multiple states.
Photographer
BCADULTART
Posts: 2151
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Eagle Rock Photographer wrote:
The law varies from state to state. A few states have legally goofy exceptions for 'fine art.' But the late Mr. Marshall is noted for photography, not I.P. lawyering. And the advice cited is likely to earn the photographer defendant status in right of publicity lawsuit(s). Perhaps multiple suits in multiple states. Sorry my friend,
I also knew Jim's layers and according to the current U.S. law a signed (on the image side of the print) limited edition print is original art and can be sold by the creator without compensation to the subject of the image.
Photographer
Eagle Rock Photographer
Posts: 1286
Los Angeles, California, US
BCADULTART wrote:
Sorry my friend,
I also knew Jim's layers and according to the current U.S. law a signed (on the image side of the print) limited edition print is original art and can be sold by the creator without compensation to the subject of the image. 1. A few states have limited exemptions from right of publicity, for 'art' or 'fine art.' The exemptions are limited, generally vague, and ill-defined by either black letter law or precedent.
2. The belief in the 'art' exemption is largely an 'urban myth.'
3. Any such exemption would vary from state to state and would not be federal law.
4. Selling the prints, signed, numbered or not, would also violate the agreement you made when buying tickets. See, e.g., the fine print on the ticket and signs posted at the venue.
Photographer
Eagle Rock Photographer
Posts: 1286
Los Angeles, California, US
The Graphic Arts Guild has some good info, among which is this. Notice that the exemptions may not include photo reproductions...: "...Exceptions There are several limitations and exceptions to the right of publicity, most importantly those involving First Amendment protection for “newsworthy” images. The same likeness of Monica Lewinsky that would be prohibited on a T-shirt may be permissible as an illustration for an article in a commercial publication if two conditions are met. First, the image must bear some reasonable relation to the content of the article. Second, the article must concern a matter of legitimate “public interest,” a broad concept which encompasses everything from hard news to celebrity gossip. As the courts have defined it, virtually any story or article will qualify as a matter of public interest, so long as it is not merely an advertisement in disguise. Moreover, if the story itself is legitimate and the image is reasonably related, the likeness can also be used on posters and billboards advertising the publication, on the theory that the protected nature of the initial use extends to advertisements for the protected speech. In addition, both California and New York recognize a “fine art” exception, also rooted in the First Amendment. The California statute exempts “single and original works of fine art,” which would appear to be limited to unique works, not including mass-produced reproductions. It is unclear whether the term “fine art” in this section is intended to apply only to works of “recognized quality,” as determined by expert opinion, or to any original work in a graphic or sculptural medium. It is also unclear whether “works prepared under contract for commercial use” could qualify for the exemption. (The California Art Preservation Act defines “fine art” as meaning only works “of recognized quality,” but not including works made under contract for commercial use, while the California Resale Royalties Act applies to “an original painting, sculpture, or drawing, or an original work of art in glass.” The right of publicity statute does not include any definition of the term “fine art.”) However, the statute does clearly provide that as with newsworthy publications, advertisements for legitimate works of fine art, such as gallery posters, do not violate the statute.
In New York, there is no direct statutory language regarding fine art, but the courts have recently interpreted the statute to exempt two and three-dimensional works of art from the law. In Simeonov v. Tiegs, the Civil Court held that an artist who created a plaster casting of model Cheryl Tiegs could “sell at least a limited number of copies” of the work without violating Tiegs’ right of publicity because such activities did not amount to a use of her likeness “for purposes of trade.” In this case, the New York statute was read to permit the sale of reproductions, at least in small numbers, to avoid creating a possible conflict between the state statute and the First Amendment. - See more at:
https://graphicartistsguild.org/tools_r … 3iNX0.dpuf
Photographer
Photos by DeanR
Posts: 696
Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada
Does it make any difference if no money is involved?
Rather than SELL images, if the photog merely shares them...
Photographer
alexphotog
Posts: 593
New York, New York, US
BCADULTART wrote:
according to the current U.S. law a signed (on the image side of the print) limited edition print is original art and can be sold by the creator without compensation to the subject of the image. This is the correct advice.
Photographer
Noncho
Posts: 153
Sofia, Sofija grad, Bulgaria
Interesting topic and information here, thanks for sharing. I have to check the laws in Europe. I love shooting on rock concerts, say hello to Mr. Satriani  ![https://www.nonchoiliev.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/SAM_0219_BW_print.jpg]()
Photographer
Eagle Rock Photographer
Posts: 1286
Los Angeles, California, US
alexphotog wrote:
Eagle Rock Photographer wrote:
according to the current U.S. law a signed (on the image side of the print) limited edition print is original art and can be sold by the creator without compensation to the subject of the image.
This is the correct advice. You're mixed up with your quotes, and violently misquoting me. I never said that, nor would I make such a flatly incorrect statement. The statement is not only false, but if relied on, would likely lead to right of publicity lawsuits or worse.
Photographer
GK photo
Posts: 31025
Laguna Beach, California, US
this topic is an exercise in law, philosophy, ethics and usage. years ago (and i mean decades ago), i used to use my gf and other friends to help me smuggle in camera gear to shows. i grabbed a lot of photos...some good, and a lot of throwaways. anyway, i never intended to sell the images. anything i printed i kept for myself, or gave to my fellow attendees as mementos. fast forward to modern times. i was shocked, SHOCKED, to see how a lot of venues these days allow everyday folks to bring in all kinds of camera gear, from cell phones to dslrs with 400mm lenses. and then factor in all the ipads/tablets and cell phones that are ubiquitous at any concert these days (that DOES bug me, on an aesthetic level) . you can literally see a show tonight, and some form of video will be posted on youtube tomorrow morning...or sooner. most, if not all, music artists have come to the realization that these ways of getting their shit out there benefits them more than it detracts. if anyone is old enough to remember concerts in the '70s or '80s (i started attending shows as a wayward pre-teen), the only time you'd see photographers right next to the stage was the first two or three tunes. from that point on, every shot you see from that era was some form of bootleg. it was obvious by the angle. and the beauty is (and what they didn't understand) was that these were archival shots. things that lived way longer than their stubbornness in denying the access. a lot of bands don't care anymore. they realize now what they should have realized then. and i spent a few hours on youtube a while back, checking to see if most of the concerts i saw back in those days were available. and yes, they were. these were--of course--the old og bootleg recordings from that era. but without them, we'd be left only with the highly modified (overdubbed) official "live" recordings they all put out. which, for all intent and purposes, were fraudulent. look up the bootlegs from led zeppelins '73 shows at msg, vs what they released as "the song remains the same". then ask yourself which is more ethical. a complete rework of what was played, or the real thing? think of how many people would love to see video of the original us shows of "the wall", by pf. to the op. if you have shots that your friends or family want, then just give them the prints. how the eff would (insert artist name here) know that you are doing that? if you want to print out 1000 copies of them, and try to sell them on ebay, or at venice beach, then expect to hear from some suit. is everyone naive enough to think that every famous photo they've ever seen of any rock star was only shot by someone who had the band's/management's blessing? if so, i have a bridge to sell you.
Photographer
Mikey McMichaels
Posts: 3356
New York, New York, US
BCADULTART wrote:
Sorry my friend,
I also knew Jim's layers and according to the current U.S. law a signed (on the image side of the print) limited edition print is original art and can be sold by the creator without compensation to the subject of the image. This is correct.
Photographer
Mikey McMichaels
Posts: 3356
New York, New York, US
There are no laws that prevent you from selling a physical object that you own. If you buy a piece of wood, or a car or a newspaper or a CD and you don't want it anymore you can sell it. Making a copy/duplicating it is a different issue.
If you buy a (legal) print of a rock star and you don't want it any more, you can sell it.
Anyone claiming that you can't sell fine art limited edition prints is claiming that you can't make the print of the photo in the first place, because when you own that physical object, there's nothing preventing you from selling it.
The only way in which you can have a problem is if the actual shooting of the photo breaks the law or the usage of the photo breaks the law.
You could sell the negative or the digital file too.
Photographer
Eagle Rock Photographer
Posts: 1286
Los Angeles, California, US
Mikey McMichaels wrote:
There are no laws that prevent you from selling a physical object that you own. If you buy a piece of wood, or a car or a newspaper or a CD and you don't want it anymore you can sell it. Making a copy/duplicating it is a different issue.correct
If you buy a (legal) print of a rock star and you don't want it any more, you can sell it.correct
Anyone claiming that you can't sell fine art limited edition prints is claiming that you can't make the print of the photo in the first place, because when you own that physical object, there's nothing preventing you from selling it. misstates the issue and ignores right of publicity laws
The only way in which you can have a problem is if the actual shooting of the photo breaks the law or the usage of the photo breaks the law. the 'usage' here...selling prints...violates right of publicity and other statutes
You could sell the negative or the digital file too. yup. But trouble depending on details. See the current $2 Billion case against Chipotle which also sues the photographer My comments are in bold
Photographer
Eagle Rock Photographer
Posts: 1286
Los Angeles, California, US
If the subject has an exclusive deal with an authorized seller of the subjects' image, that seller could sue the bootleg seller pursuant to 'unfair competition' laws. See, e.g., CA B&P Code 17200 & 17500.
Photographer
Derek Ridgers
Posts: 1625
London, England, United Kingdom
GK photo wrote:
if anyone is old enough to remember concerts in the '70s or '80s (i started attending shows as a wayward pre-teen), the only time you'd see photographers right next to the stage was the first two or three tunes. from that point on, every shot you see from that era was some form of bootleg. This isn’t correct at all, where did you get that idea from?
I’ve taken photographs at gigs since 1973 and everywhere you go the rules are different.
In my experience, shooting big household name rock acts all over the World, the band’s management hold all the power. If they want you to shoot the entire show from either the pit or on stage then that’s what will likely happen.
The "first three songs, no flash" rule was something that mostly crept in in the ‘90s. But usually for big acts and big shows, where there are enough staff on hand to ensure it actually happens.
Nowadays big rock shows are highly regimented affairs. You need to sign your rights away to be able to take any photos at all. But it wasn’t always like that and it still isn’t like this everywhere.
Photographer
Michael Fryd
Posts: 5231
Miami Beach, Florida, US
Untitled Photographer wrote:
So i'm at a show, take some shots of the band, post a few online. Someone wants to buy prints.
I have no agreement with the band or venue, I simply took some photos.
What are the common dos and don't in situations like this. Taking a photo of a celebrity/band and then selling prints?
Thanks There are at least three legal issues to be concerned about:
1) Copyright
2) Rights of Privacy/Publicity
3) Contract law
In terms of copyright, you are likely the copyright owner of the image. This shouldn't be an issue.
State laws concerning rights of Privacy/Publicity, generally require you to obtain permission before using someone's likeness to promote goods and/or services. Selling a fine art piece may not be a problem here.
However, contract law can be a real issue. You said that you have no "agreement" with the venue, but I suspect this is not the case. Venues are generally private property, and generally prohibit photography. By using a ticket, or entering the property, there's a good chance to agreed to these rules. Taking a photo, and selling a fine art print may likely be a violation of these rules. You may very well have liability should you sell an image you took in violation of the venue's rules.
Photographer
GK photo
Posts: 31025
Laguna Beach, California, US
Derek Ridgers wrote:
This isn’t correct at all, where did you get that idea from? anecdotal evidence from many dozens of shows, at various arena venues, including msg, the la forum, nassau coliseum, la sports arena, santa monica civic center, long beach arena, both the spectrum and tower theater (philly), among many other venues.
some places i never saw one photographer at, like the greek theater (la, not berkeley), wiltern theater, universal amphitheater, among a few others.
Photographer
GK photo
Posts: 31025
Laguna Beach, California, US
Photographer
alexphotog
Posts: 593
New York, New York, US
Mikey McMichaels wrote:
There are no laws that prevent you from selling a physical object that you own. If you buy a piece of wood, or a car or a newspaper or a CD and you don't want it anymore you can sell it. Making a copy/duplicating it is a different issue.
If you buy a (legal) print of a rock star and you don't want it any more, you can sell it.
Anyone claiming that you can't sell fine art limited edition prints is claiming that you can't make the print of the photo in the first place, because when you own that physical object, there's nothing preventing you from selling it.
The only way in which you can have a problem is if the actual shooting of the photo breaks the law or the usage of the photo breaks the law.
You could sell the negative or the digital file too. This is also correct. Let's not let the loudest voice on this thread simply scare the OP, which has already happened.
Photographer
Michael Fryd
Posts: 5231
Miami Beach, Florida, US
Mikey McMichaels wrote:
There are no laws that prevent you from selling a physical object that you own. If you buy a piece of wood, or a car or a newspaper or a CD and you don't want it anymore you can sell it. Making a copy/duplicating it is a different issue. This is general rule of thumb, there are lots of exceptions, particularly when it comes to intellectual property.
For instance, suppose you buy some music online. You backup your copy to a CD-R disc. This is all perfectly legal. However even though you were legally allowed to create than physical CD, and you legally own that physical CD, you can't simply sell it on eBay.
Suppose you buy a blank notebook. You write down various trade secrets belonging to your employer, or write down government secrets. You are not allowed to sell this physical book.
Suppose I take a photo of you. I agree to give you a photo under the condition that you only hang it in your home, and that when you are tired of it, you destroy it. You own that print, but you are contractually bound not to sell it.
When you are attend a concert you have agreed to be bound by the rules of the venue. If those rules prohibit you from selling images you take while at the concert, then you may be contractually prohibited from selling prints.
Photographer
Eagle Rock Photographer
Posts: 1286
Los Angeles, California, US
There are so many legal dangers in what the OP asks about, that it could be a 'name the torts' essay question in a law school. I could name half a dozen before my overpriced Starbucks gets tepid.
Photographer
MikeW
Posts: 400
Cape Canaveral, Florida, US
Untitled Photographer wrote:
So i'm at a show, take some shots of the band, post a few online. Someone wants to buy prints.
I have no agreement with the band or venue, I simply took some photos.
What are the common dos and don't in situations like this. Taking a photo of a celebrity/band and then selling prints?
Thanks Unfortunately, most responses are not applicable to this situation. BUT, you can stay out of difficulties (and there are a great many potential problems), turn the situation around as an opportunity. Talk to the band and show them your images. They may want to have you do more or distribute the images as posters on their web site while sharing profits. It there is a real potential market for your images, the band will have a hundred times more potential buyers.
Photographer
T Urban Photography
Posts: 281
Somerset, Pennsylvania, US
Eagle Rock Photographer wrote:
See the current $2 Billion case against Chipotle which also sues the photographer It should also be noted that this was over an image used commercially, in advertising. It really has no relevance to selling fine art images. I'm not saying the OP is allowed to do what he is asking to do, but the situations are different.
Photographer
Mikey McMichaels
Posts: 3356
New York, New York, US
Eagle Rock Photographer wrote:
My comments are in bold Maybe this will help clarify.
If I buy an object with a photo on it, there is no law that stops me from selling that object.
If I buy a blank piece of photo paper, I can resell it.
If I buy a blank piece of photo paper and print something on it, I can resell it.
The only way in which it would break the law to resell the printed paper would be if it was illegal to print the image on the paper in the first place.
Photographer
Mikey McMichaels
Posts: 3356
New York, New York, US
Derek Ridgers wrote:
This isn’t correct at all, where did you get that idea from?
I’ve taken photographs at gigs since 1973 and everywhere you go the rules are different.
In my experience, shooting big household name rock acts all over the World, the band’s management hold all the power. If they want you to shoot the entire show from either the pit or on stage then that’s what will likely happen.
The "first three songs, no flash" rule was something that mostly crept in in the ‘90s. But usually for big acts and big shows, where there are enough staff on hand to ensure it actually happens.
Nowadays big rock shows are highly regimented affairs. You need to sign your rights away to be able to take any photos at all. But it wasn’t always like that and it still isn’t like this everywhere. This is my experience too.
Photographer
Mikey McMichaels
Posts: 3356
New York, New York, US
Michael Fryd wrote:
This is general rule of thumb, there are lots of exceptions, particularly when it comes to intellectual property.
For instance, suppose you buy some music online. You backup your copy to a CD-R disc. This is all perfectly legal. However even though you were legally allowed to create than physical CD, and you legally own that physical CD, you can't simply sell it on eBay.
Suppose you buy a blank notebook. You write down various trade secrets belonging to your employer, or write down government secrets. You are not allowed to sell this physical book.
Suppose I take a photo of you. I agree to give you a photo under the condition that you only hang it in your home, and that when you are tired of it, you destroy it. You own that print, but you are contractually bound not to sell it.
When you are attend a concert you have agreed to be bound by the rules of the venue. If those rules prohibit you from selling images you take while at the concert, then you may be contractually prohibited from selling prints. If you are selling a CD-R, it's not a backup. That makes the act of copying the music to the disc a copyright violation.
You could also erase it and sell it.
When you're contractually bound not to sell something, it's the contract, not a law that is preventing you from selling it.
Photographer
Michael Fryd
Posts: 5231
Miami Beach, Florida, US
Mikey McMichaels wrote:
Maybe this will help clarify.
If I buy an object with a photo on it, there is no law that stops me from selling that object.
If I buy a blank piece of photo paper, I can resell it.
If I buy a blank piece of photo paper and print something on it, I can resell it.
The only way in which it would break the law to resell the printed paper would be if it was illegal to print the image on the paper in the first place. However, this is not the situation with the OP.
It seems the OP accepted a contract with the venue that he would not take photos for resale (this is generally a condition of the ticket). Furthermore, he was on private property, and probably, one of the conditions of being on that property was not to take photos.
In the OP's case, it may very well be a violation of contract law to sell those images.
Furthermore, there are intellectual property laws that prevent someone from creating and selling object that infringes on the copyright/trademark rights of others.
Many states also have laws concerning rights of privacy and publicity, that limit what you can do with someone else's likeness.
These are some of the issues that the OP should be concerned about.
There really are situations that prevent you from creating something, and then selling it.
Photographer
Mikey McMichaels
Posts: 3356
New York, New York, US
Michael Fryd wrote:
However, this is not the situation with the OP.
It seems the OP accepted a contract with the venue that he would not take photos for resale (this is generally a condition of the ticket). Furthermore, he was on private property, and probably, one of the conditions of being on that property was not to take photos.
In the OP's case, it may very well be a violation of contract law to sell those images.
Furthermore, there are intellectual property laws that prevent someone from creating and selling object that infringes on the copyright/trademark rights of others.
Many states also have laws concerning rights of privacy and publicity, that limit what you can do with someone else's likeness.
These are some of the issues that the OP should be concerned about.
There really are situations that prevent you from creating something, and then selling it. He said he has no contract with the venue. He didn't say there were terms on the back of the ticket.
It's not a "violation of contract law" it's a "breach of contract" and if there were terms on a ticket it would probably specify what those were - like removal from the venue.
They'd have to prove he came in with a ticket, and that his stub had the entire agreement on the part that hadn't been torn off.
It's unrealistic that there would be a breach of contract lawsuit and if there was it would be for the damages sustained. So unless the venue was sued by the artist or they had a photographer shooting, it's not likely that they'd have sustained any.
He'd still be the copyright owner and still be allowed to use them in whatever way was legal.
Photographer
Eagle Rock Photographer
Posts: 1286
Los Angeles, California, US
Mikey McMichaels wrote:
...He'd [the photographer would] still be the copyright owner and still be allowed to use them in whatever way was legal. The contemplated use, selling prints, would likely violate right of publicity and other statutes. Copyright is not at issue here.
|
