[ad_1]
Ariana Grande made a splash with an extremely restrictive photo deal for her upcoming Sweetener tour, in which photographers shouted scandal.
A number of media, including Associated Press, New York Times, Los Angeles Times and 12 other people – say the terms and conditions of the pop star are so unreasonable that she has teamed up with the National Press Photographers Association (NPAA) to send a letter officially asking GrandAriTour, Inc. to revise the agreement or work with it on satisfactory wording. all parties.
The first point of contention is what is known as a "seizure of rights", which would give the artist copyright ownership of the photograph. "This surprising and very troubling excess of Ms. Grande goes against legal and industry standards and violates the basic journalistic principles of the news agencies represented here," writes the Attorney General of Canada. NPAA, Mickey H. Osterreicher.
This decision is not without precedent: in 2011, Lady Gaga signed a contract for a television photographer based in Washington, DC, to assign her photographic rights, and in 2015, Taylor Swift was charged with violating her rights. rights by media to comply with unusually strict shooting rules.
Photographer Keith A. Griner, who has photographed bands like Pretty Lights, Umphrey's McGee and Thievery Corporation, has a different term. "It's a robbery," he says Display panel. "The law states that the entity or the person who creates, the photographer, is the owner of the copyright, and you are entitled to it."
With respect to the additional requirement of waiver to Sweetener, the photographer must provide GrandAriTour, Inc. with digital files that may be used "for personal, commercial and / or archival purposes by the company and the artist, "adds Griner. "We are allowed to use your work to our advantage, but we will not pay you."
This certainly seemed to be the case in 2012, when a group of photojournalists boycotted the Stone Roses meeting tour after a photo-waiver announcement that the group would retain "all indefinite rights in the world" for the sum £ 1. As Ian Tilton, the boycott organizer, pointed out at the time, "a photographer employed by a leading group to take photos at a concert, for advertising purposes only, would earn between £ 350 and £ 1,000 . photos. If the group wants to use the photos of a book, the payment will be £ 80 to £ 250 per image. "
According to one photographer, the artist who applies these policies is not aware of their restrictions; Generally, the terms are dictated by management, who may simply want to use someone's photos instead of calling on a photographer. "It's sad, because most people come to the conclusion that it's the artist who demands all that, when the management sometimes quite controls," they confide. Display panel. "Some frames are awesome and some are sneaky, especially if a photographer is new and quite fan-he will give them photos without blinking."
To further complicate matters, the proliferation of amateur photographers has changed the game in another way for those still living from shooting arena tours. According to another photographer, during a recent show, Mumford & Sons refused to allow himself and several other professionals to film for important outlets, while allowing access to local bloggers. "Many artists push against Getty [which he was shooting for] because it's for syndication, "he says Display panel. "You can not sign a version limiting your abilities to use it this way because it's the opposite of syndication."
That did not stop GrandAriTour, Inc. from trying to do the same thing. "Another concern is the restriction that" the photographer will have the limited right to use certain photographs expressly approved in writing by the artist, at one time, only as part of a relative news. to performance in the publication of news of which the photographer is an employee / agent, "which is a prerequisite unacceptable to most, if not all journalists and media outlets," writes Osterreich.
Grande did not respond publicly to the NPAA's statement, nor did her team respond to a request for comment at the time of going to press. According to a source in the music industry, several unauthorized photo albums use past footage from Grande, which is why the terms of the contract are so draconian. "It's the same one she's been using for three years," the source said.
This article originally appeared on the billboard.
[ad_2]
Source link