Topic: No longer a Cold Play Fan (Read 9266 times)

mcfoto · « **on:** March 19, 2009, 01:25:39 am »

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=847278

Used to be a fan........NO LONGER!!!!!

Here is the contract.
http://www.webvivant.com/coldplay-copyright-grab.html
Denis

Nick Rains · « **Reply #1 on:** March 19, 2009, 03:32:19 am »

Quote from: mcfoto

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=847278

Used to be a fan........NO LONGER!!!!!

Here is the contract.
http://www.webvivant.com/coldplay-copyright-grab.html
Denis

I saw this too - I'd be interested to hear David Anderson's opinion on this as this is definitely his territory.

ziocan · « **Reply #2 on:** March 19, 2009, 12:46:41 pm »

Quote from: mcfoto

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=847278

Used to be a fan........NO LONGER!!!!!

Here is the contract.
http://www.webvivant.com/coldplay-copyright-grab.html
Denis

Does anybody care about them anymore?

Carsten W · « **Reply #3 on:** March 19, 2009, 12:54:46 pm »

Quote from: ziocan

Does anybody care about them anymore?

Not really. The first album was great, the second one good, and after that I think I haven't heard any more than once. It was enough. Boring.

Hoang · « **Reply #4 on:** March 19, 2009, 01:26:53 pm »

Quote from: mcfoto

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=847278

Used to be a fan........NO LONGER!!!!!

Here is the contract.
http://www.webvivant.com/coldplay-copyright-grab.html
Denis

Not to mention them ripping off Satriani's "If I Could Fly"

ziocan · « **Reply #5 on:** March 19, 2009, 01:30:35 pm »

Quote from: carstenw

Not really. The first album was great, the second one good, and after that I think I haven't heard any more than once. It was enough. Boring.

I had the same impression, but i was not sure. I thought that I may be out of touch.... you never know.

So one day soon they'll beg for being photographed, no matter what.
i'm sure they are still doing well, but...

Anthony R · « **Reply #6 on:** March 19, 2009, 01:54:20 pm »

It's the label. Boycott their label. (not that I'm in any way supporting Cold Play).

Carl Glover · « **Reply #7 on:** March 19, 2009, 02:35:26 pm »

It won't be the label - it will be the management, I've come across a few of these things in the past and they have been management led.

David Anderson · « **Reply #8 on:** March 19, 2009, 02:42:18 pm »

I shot them at the 'Sound Relief' concert that I was one of two official photographers for and signed that contract.
(the shows raised 5 million $ for the bushfire victims )

I've seen this type of contract MANY times in the last 10 of my 20 years shooting bands and if anything, Coldplays version is at least polite.

They do it so you don't have a leg to stand on if you sell your photos outside of what you've agreed too when you where given permission to shoot the band, but obviously, you would
have to get WAY out of line before anyone bothered to do anything about it in a legal sense.

They did let agency photographers in and they just had to nominate their agency on the contract - then there's no problem for them to syndicate the shots, provided that
Coldplays management approved of the agency.

For the record, generally, everyone just does what they do and ignores the contract and I personally have never had issues with one after the event even though everything I've shot has been
syndicated around the world.

Some other bands (mostly English) have a version where they state that for $1.oo they buy all rights to the photos forever.

david o · « **Reply #9 on:** March 19, 2009, 03:08:32 pm »

funny how some band can be really up tight with their copyright (legitimate) and don't give a crap when it's time to respect others... let me think.

One comment on Coldplay music : first album was great. I was listening to it not long ago. After there is no more battery, guitar, voice... all melt down. So no interest anymore.

pixjohn · « **Reply #10 on:** March 19, 2009, 03:53:39 pm »

You should post this at the Cold Play forums. Maybe if the band finds out, they might have something to say about it? I bet most artist don't care, its the suits who want to control everything.

pss · « **Reply #11 on:** March 19, 2009, 04:41:20 pm »

contracts like these are becoming more and more common...unfortunately...and there are always photographers to sign them...unfortunately....

it is just amazing that this comes from a band who just performed one of the most blatant rip-offs in music history...and i can't believe they got away with that...

situgrrl · « **Reply #12 on:** March 19, 2009, 06:33:04 pm »

On the same basis, surely, if I own a Coldplay album (which I don't, because I have taste) would that mean that their copyright was automatically transferred to me and other buyers in perpetuity? For those of you still claiming "the first album was good" - please, stop deluding yourselves, it was self-indulgent whiny rubbish sung from the tonsils. Martin's voice as awful and his lyrics somewhat worse. It's music for inducing suicide.

Actually, on a serious note, I think that that is why it is happening - because if I so choose, I can torrent an album and whilst I don't have any legal right to, who is going to stop me? Since artists' (and Coldplay's) copyright is routinely infringed to the point where for the first time in over 70 years, more money is made from touring than record sales, the value of gig photos increases. Since the record companies are getting screwed, instead of modernising their business model, they just choose to screw you guys instead.

David Anderson · « **Reply #13 on:** March 19, 2009, 06:51:11 pm »

With all due respect, you guys are overreacting..

It's a standard contract, it's not enforced and is only there to give the band rights if the photographer does something stupid like trys to sell T shirts with the pictures or prints a run of posters.

If you're shooting the gig and using or selling the shots for editorial use, there wouldn't be a problem and I have never heard of any problems with photo rights after the fact.

To be honest, the gigs are not worth shooting anymore anyway, the money is less now than in 1990 and the market is flooded with agencies competing with each other to get the lowest price for the work.

I would also ask how many of you have downloaded music that the artist didn't get their royalty for ?
You can't expect copyright protection if you don't honor it.

mcfoto · « **Reply #14 on:** March 19, 2009, 08:04:38 pm »

Hi
Below is clause two of the contract. In short Cold Play owns your work.

(2. You hereby transfer and assign to us with full title guarantee the entire
copyright and all extensions and renewals throughout the world (including by
way of present assignment of future rights) and all rights of a similar
nature in the Photographs.)

david o · « **Reply #15 on:** March 19, 2009, 08:38:08 pm »

Quote from: mcfoto

Hi
Below is clause two of the contract. In short Cold Play owns your work.

(2. You hereby transfer and assign to us with full title guarantee the entire
copyright and all extensions and renewals throughout the world (including by
way of present assignment of future rights) and all rights of a similar
nature in the Photographs.)

again... I want to hear them again complaining about torrent and all... the first one not to repsect copyright is them...

nicholask · « **Reply #16 on:** March 20, 2009, 02:14:09 am »

I'm with Denis M on this one. The Terms look like something Robert Johnson would have been pressured to sign back when when he recorded 'Love in Vain'.

On a similar note, check the facebook terms:

"By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing."

ericstaud · « **Reply #17 on:** March 20, 2009, 04:03:36 am »

Quote from: David Anderson

With all due respect, you guys are overreacting..

It's a standard contract, it's not enforced and is only there to give the band rights if the photographer does something stupid like trys to sell T shirts with the pictures or prints a run of posters.

If you're shooting the gig and using or selling the shots for editorial use, there wouldn't be a problem and I have never heard of any problems with photo rights after the fact.

To be honest, the gigs are not worth shooting anymore anyway, the money is less now than in 1990 and the market is flooded with agencies competing with each other to get the lowest price for the work.

I would also ask how many of you have downloaded music that the artist didn't get their royalty for ?
You can't expect copyright protection if you don't honor it.

You know of course you can't sell or syndicate any of those images as you are not the copyright holder. For you to charge and receive payment for any images shot at the concert would be illegal, because don't own them. The magazines should be paying the band for the images, not you.

There are already laws that protect the band from images being used commercially. They don't sign model releases for you, so you have no right to make t-shirts, and they could sue you in that circumstance without the new contract anyway? There is no need for a transfer of copyright in order to protect them.

Also, in my experience there is no such thing as a "standard contract". In the editorial photography world it is pretty common for a publisher to send a contract that is a big rights grab. You just cross out all the offending language, everyone involved signs it, and you shoot the job.

David Anderson · « **Reply #18 on:** March 20, 2009, 04:35:03 am »

Quote from: ericstaud

For you to charge and receive payment for any images shot at the concert would be illegal, because don't own them.

Again, the contract is a formality, maybe a strongly worded one, but a formality none the less - it's just another example of the world run by lawyers as opposed to humans.

Everyone is covering their own ass in case of -

If your just at the gig to shoot live shots either as a paid job or on a freelanace basis for editorial use, the contract changes nothing.

Dustbak · « **Reply #19 on:** March 20, 2009, 05:03:26 am »

There is no such thing as a contract being 'just a formality'. If it would be just a formality there would be no need for the bands management to have you sign one. There would have been no need for them to spend the legal fees to develop one. Apparently the band's management doesn't think it is merely a formality otherwise they would not have you sign one. The fact that at this moment they are not enforcing their legal rights doesn't mean anything and certainly doesn't mean it is a formality that has no possible implications for the photographers.

In most cases stuff like this means you are screwed when it really matters.

It is unfortunate that due to the pretty vulnerable position many photographers are in that most feel forced to have no other option than to sign contracts like these and hope for the best. Photographers are a bunch of people that operate mostly on their own which makes them vulnerable. I don't see this changing anytime soon so I guess contracts are these will get much worse in time and expand into many other areas as well. Actually that already is happening.

I am glad I work in a different area where I do the work, get paid and go to the next job. All my images are worthless in about 6 months so no need to be afraid of abuse for any party

Author Topic: No longer a Cold Play Fan (Read 9266 times)