You sold 17 million albums and you want to pay me nothing

[AlterEgo]

What purchasers are you talking about?  They weren't purchasing anything.

you again missing the point that they were dealing with him and he with them before for a mutual profit as we can assume... that is not to say that he decided to exercise a public hysterical tantrum instead of even attempting to do a sane negotiation about the prices different from "credit"...

[AlterEgo]

The whole point of this thread is that they are not purchasers.....

they are

[AlterEgo]

If I spot an interesting old lady and ask kindly if I can take her picture without paying her, am I immoral?

apparently so and that lady has to go public immediately to scold you !

[AlterEgo]

Again, I will suggest you read the actual piece where he points out that they did:

I think that there is a difference between a record company and the group...

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Apparently, the band has its alter ego on this forum

[Alan Klein]

Publicly trying to embarrass the purchasers because the market has changed will only damage yourself.

What purchasers are you talking about?  They weren't purchasing anything.

Of course they're purchasers.  Let's say next year Garbage calls Pope and tells him they wanted to hire him again for their new album and all the still photos they needed for a video as well.  "You did such a great job on our other album.  And we appreciate the support for the book too."  So he threw away that possibility for what, a 100 Pounds?  He also threw away other bands hiring him because they think he's a loose cannon.   

[Rainer SLP]

Very interesting topic and I heve the Popcorn and the Coke standing ready  

Now, I am not a pro photographer and I do not live from selling photos but so far I have sold about 500 framed photos in exhibitions as well as 2 photos for brochure and Company logo.

Averything went fine except with a German Agency which bought the photo for a brochure for a digital camera producer back in 2008

They saw somewhere my image and asked me how much for it. I asked waht di you want to use it for ? They told me that want to include it in a brochure for a digital camera and the printing would be sized A4 adn they gave me the quantity of the printing and I gave them a price.

OK a few weeks later they send me the brochure and for my surprise my image was printed in Double A4 size (first cheating from the agency). Maybe 2-3 weeks later they asked if they could again use my image for the presentation of the digital camera as Posters and flyers and decorating stands and I told them NO because you were not honest and it would cost them again. Never ever heard from them again. SO >I do not even know if they just ignored me and used it anyway.

The world is getting lest respectful day by day  

Here under this link http://tinyurl.com/nryee7o you can see on page 2 and 3 the image I sold to the german agency

Just as a note aside about the way of thinking of some people ...

[Rainer SLP]

I think that there is a difference between a record company and the group...

Well there is nothing to separate there. The group has an agent which is the link between the group and the printer and so the group has a responsability too ...

IMHO 

[AlterEgo]

Apparently, the band has its alter ego on this forum

well - I don't like public attacks when the law is not broken - no matter how cheap the business offer is it is a business offer, take it, negotiate, refuse it - don't cry like a baby... I see no difference between that photog. and "rev" Sharpton actually... I do suggest (like smb did here already) then that photographers start actually paying to people /and not what photogs think fair, but what subjects think is fair - or on the first offer that they don't like they shall go public/ on the street when they happen to end up on their photos (that will generate income for photogs) or if you happen to have a private house in your shot to pay his owner too for example...

[AlterEgo]

Well there is nothing to separate there. The group has an agent which is the link between the group and the printer and so the group has a responsability too ...

IMHO  

IMHO no, the group has no hand in what the publisher did by using the photo (they might approve the photo on a cover, but business/legal side of producing the actual album is for the publisher to deal with... if the publisher will use something else /let us remove the picture itself as a component so dear to your heart/ - like for example some patented design of a plastic cover for a disc w/o paying are you going to blame the group too ?)... so that example is used just for publicity to smear the group

[AlterEgo]

Very interesting topic and I heve the Popcorn and the Coke standing ready  

Now, I am not a pro photographer and I do not live from selling photos but so far I have sold about 500 framed photos in exhibitions as well as 2 photos for brochure and Company logo.

Averything went fine except with a German Agency which bought the photo for a brochure for a digital camera producer back in 2008

They saw somewhere my image and asked me how much for it. I asked waht di you want to use it for ? They told me that want to include it in a brochure for a digital camera and the printing would be sized A4 adn they gave me the quantity of the printing and I gave them a price.

OK a few weeks later they send me the brochure and for my surprise my image was printed in Double A4 size (first cheating from the agency). Maybe 2-3 weeks later they asked if they could again use my image for the presentation of the digital camera as Posters and flyers and decorating stands and I told them NO because you were not honest and it would cost them again. Never ever heard from them again. SO >I do not even know if they just ignored me and used it anyway.

The world is getting lest respectful day by day  

Here under this link http://tinyurl.com/nryee7o you can see on page 2 and 3 the image I sold to the german agency

Just as a note aside about the way of thinking of some people ...

the difference is that if something was actually done - please by all means go public... in the particular case nothing was done... the hysteria was/is about the offer, not about the use of the image that did not happen in this case... and example what some publisher did - has to do with that publisher, so not relevant... certainly you can be guilty by association.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I do suggest (like smb did here already) then that photographers start actually paying to people...

Which is already the case. If the photograph is to be used commercially, you need a model release. Here is a an example (emphasis mine):

"Whereas for valuable consideration hereby acknowledged as received, the Model granted the Photographer permission to photograph him/her and thereafter to use the photographs..."

[Isaac]

If I spot an interesting old lady and ask kindly if I can take her picture without paying her, am I immoral?

iirc In African Journey, Pete Turner made a point of saying that he paid those individuals to pose for photographs.

[AlterEgo]

Which is already the case. If the photograph is to be used commercially, you need a model release. Here is a an example (emphasis mine):

with a model shot - what about street photography and the part about scolding photog right away is the offer is not liked... and where is what you pay to a model in that model release - what is the $$$ ?

[AlterEgo]

iirc In African Journey, Pete Turner made a point of saying that he paid those individuals to pose for photographs.

the devil is in the details of what he defines as "posing"

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

with a model shot - what about street photography and the part about scolding photog right away is the offer is not liked... and where is what you pay to a model in that model release - what is the $$$ ?

Not just a professional model... anyone, if it is going to be used commercially. Otherwise, while you are in a public space, you can be photographed freely. That's the law.

The term is "valuable consideration" and is whatever the two sides agree on. Dollars or prints or peanuts. The term is not just used in photography, but in many other legal fields, when it comes to contractual exchange (e.g., employer-employee).

[AlterEgo]

Apparently you didn't look at the photos.

that requires me to look though all of his photos with people in the frame and know for each such photo whether he actually paid or not... then we can understand 1) what he thinks is "posing" for which he claims he paid (for each single case since the beginning of his career, right ?)...

[AlterEgo]

Not just a professional model... anyone, if it is going to be used commercially. Otherwise, while you are in a public space, you can be photographed freely. That's the law.

but this is not about the law... no law was broken with the offer in question... the question is about the reaction to a legally correct offer.

The term is "valuable consideration" and is whatever the two sides agree on. Dollars or prints or peanuts. The term is not just used in photography, but in many other legal fields, when it comes to contractual exchange (e.g., employer-employee).

right... so you can offer a model a credit - just like model can offer you a credit... are you going to throw a tantrum right away if that happens, the model will approach you with such an offer ? are you OK with model  right away scolding photog in a public manner is he/she offers a model just a credit ? I 'd assume when he took their photo he got such release and such wording was used - so it was perfectly ok for the group to offer him a "valuable consideration" of "credit" ... exactly the point

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... a "valuable consideration" of "credit" ... exactly the point

You are grasping at straws. "Valuable consideration" is a known legal term and even if the subject is unaware, courts would throw away any consideration that a reasonable person (another legal term) would not consider valuable. "Credit" is one such consideration not considered "valuable" neither by courts nor by a reasonable person. Not to mention the already established fact that "credit" is already a legal obligation, therefore "offering" it is completely baseless and meaningless.

[AlterEgo]

You are grasping at straws. "Valuable consideration" is a known legal term and even if the subject is unaware, courts would throw away any consideration that a reasonable person (another legal term) would not consider valuable. "Credit" is one such consideration not considered "valuable" neither by courts nor by a reasonable person. Not to mention the already established fact that "credit" is already a legal obligation, therefore "offering" it is completely baseless and meaningless.

and you

1) changing the subject - from inadequate reaction of the photog in question, because no laws were broken

2) being "completely baseless and meaningles" is not illegal and is not a reason to be behave like that photog did

3) reasonable person can consider credit valuable, even that is an obligation - the fact is that every "model" with the release signed are not all paid is good enough

4) as this photog based his outburst not on anything being illegal, but on something being "not acceptable" for him then you are OK with the said reaction from your models too.