miseryXchord ♫

Posted by Trent Reznor on nin.com: 

"In an effort to allow you to document your experience at the upcoming NIN/JA performances, we will be relaxing our photo/video policy (5/7/09 - 6/12/09 only). Fans will be permitted to bring in their personal cameras, video and audio recorders. This is not not an open door policy for any and all recording devices. Please try to use common sense as we are trying to ensure this experience is great for everyone attending. Don't show up with a television crew and a recording studio. 

To be clear: this applies only to the North American NIN/JA tour. 

Examples: 

I have a nice SLR camera and lens and I want to shoot photos. YES. 

I have a high-quality camcorder and want to record video / audio. YES. 

I have a shoulder-mounted broadcast-quality video camera and want to shoot the show. NO. 

I have a flash-based audio recorder with a stereo hand-held mic and want to record the show. YES. 

I have a full Pro-Tools rig running off a generator and want to record the show. NO. 

I don't have any recording devices but I'd kind of like to make out with Ilan. NO (probably). 

The following guidelines will be enforced. 

- Photo and video access is granted only for non-commercial private use. 

- Photo and video access is limited to areas permitted by type of ticket held. 

- NO access to barricade/photo pit. 

- NO shoulder mounted video equipment allowed, all cameras must be hand held. 

- NO equipment with a dimension longer than 20 inches (including cameras, lenses, etc.) 

- NO equipment bags that violate existing venue bag policies (check with venue) 

- NO external supports (tripods, monopods, steadicam mounts, mic stands, etc.) 

- NO video or audio broadcast equipment (microwave, RF, etc.) 

- NO external power equipment 

- NO lighting equipment (mounted or secondary) 

WHEN IN DOUBT, LEAVE IT AT HOME. 

If you plan to take advantage of this relaxed policy, we recommend that you 

do the following... 

- Carefully review your equipment to ensure it meets these specs. 

- Arrive early for possible security delays. 

- If your equipment is so expensive and/or fragile that you'd freak out if something happened to it, leave it behind, we're not responsible. 

- Do not interfere with anyone else's enjoyment of the show or create a hazard. 

We will do our best to make sure venue security staff is aware of our camera policy. However, there are always going to be cases where local security misunderstands and attempts to enforce a stricter camera policy. This is unfortunately one of the hazards of attempting to be considerably more open about recording than most of the concert industry. If a security guard hassles you for equipment that is allowed under our guidelines, please ask him to speak with NIN security about the matter and we will do our best to resolve it. 

Audio and video recorded at NIN/JA shows is for personal use only, and cannot under any circumstances be sold or used for profit in any way."

Liking Lightroom 2 a lot...

I have at various times been contacted by publicists, record labels and other entities who've seen my photos and are interested in using them. Most of the queries, unfortunately, go something like this:

"WOW! I am a publicist at (insert record label) and I think your photos of (insert band name) are awesome! Please send me high res copies of them all without watermarks for the band's Myspace. We will of course give you proper photographer's credit!"

Regardless of the fact it states on the front page of my site that I'm a professional photographer; regardless of the fact it states multiple times on my site including under every photo set that for licensing they should contact (insert agency that handles my images); regardless of the fact that the band's existing Myspace photos may all be low res and watermarked and there is no reason whatsoever under the sun to need high res unwatermarked images for Myspace use.

I'm not sure what rationale they're using for contacting a photographer with no mention of licensing or terms, other than that there is a bountiful supply of fan kids with digital cameras who don't take photos professionally and would leap at the offer of getting a shot published with CREDIT. I'm reasonably sure the PR people are getting paid to do their job (if not in cash than at least with some valuable consideration), so why are they approaching an obvious professional as if I am a rabid fan who would die of happiness for the honor of giving them my work for free?

Perhaps, as mentioned above, the default is to try to get away with anything they can, as someone will eventually be happy to hand over high res unwatermarked shots in exchange for credit, thus saving them a licensing fee.

Or perhaps it hinges on the view that my work is entirely derivative of the band's performance, therefore THEY did all the work, and in actuality I created nothing and was merely a monkey pushing a button and pointing a box towards the stage... the images magically manifesting as nothing more than a side effect of technology.

The latter opinion would appear to be supported by statements from publicists and managers when photographers have politely replied to messages like these that they'd be happy to negotiate a license or have quoted a fee, that a photog should be doing this solely for the love of the music; that they are being greedy and attempting to leech off of and profit from the band's hard work; that somehow they expended no effort or talent in the creation of their images and are in no way deserving of any compensation. The underlying message being that PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT ANY TYPE OF WORK, NOR IS IT AN ART.

Leaving that for a moment to go back to the other... the endless font of free photos available from the 1000's of kids with spiffy new digital cameras standing at the barrier snapping away has fostered a situation in the music industry whereby it is increasingly difficult (nigh impossible) to license photos for publication, with magazine and website editors (many of whose publications have paid staff/editors and sell advertising and subscriptions) happy to tap into this plethora of images, and so will approach professional photographers in the same manner. I.E., "Your photos are awesome! Send me high res unwatermarked files and I'll make sure you get a proper photo credit!"

The problem with "proper photo credit" is that you can't use it to buy groceries. Or bus tickets. Or lenses. The only thing giving away your work for free gets you is a reputation for working for free... and if everyone gets your work for free, why should (insert name of publication) ever want to pay you for it?

The argument for allowing publications to use your images for free is normally that you should consider a photo credit "free" promotion of your work and/or feel honored to have your work published by them. 

This falls flat in the light that it is not in any way "free" promotion, the photog is paying for it via the fee he's not collecting for publication of his image and it's devaluation by allowing it to be used without payment (while the publication is getting something for free); nor is it likely to be any kind of promotion that will be helpful to the photographer's career. "Promoting" your images to fans might, if they even bother to look at the credit, eventually make the fans familiar with your work (so they can loot your website and repost your images all over the Internet), but fans aren't the ones hiring staff photographers, licensing your images for their magazine or sending you on tour with a band. 

As far as the honor of being published by (insert media entity here), I'm pretty certain record labels and distributors don't normally expect bands to sign with them, record their music, then go on tour, without any compensation whatsoever, because they should feel honored to have their work used by (insert media entity here). Nor do magazine publishers routinely expect they can print song lyrics and reproduce and distribute cds of a band's music in their issues without compensation to the artist, for the honor of being associated with them. 

This attitude may also carry over to publications that supply a photo pass in order for you to shoot a band and provide them with free photos. The attitude is that the photo pass and the honor of being published by them is payment in the form of a favor, and as such the photog is gaining at the expense of the publisher. 

This is normally in fact the complete opposite situation. The publication is securing something they can acquire at no cost to them (other than the time it takes to request the photo pass), and gaining free media content to provide to their readers (on pages that are often peppered with paid advertising directed at the readers who are being drawn in by the photos). The photog is expending his time, effort and expense to attend the concert, shoot, and provide his editor with finished images. At the very least, (IF the photog retains the rights to his images and can use them to enhance his portfolio and/or get something to potentially license to a paying publisher down the road) this is a situation of MUTUAL benefit. If the photographer does not even gain images for his own use, then the deal becomes very one sided, and not in his favor.

A photo pass in exchange for use of photos (unpaid) is not inherently a negative as simply being contacted after the fact by an entity wanting free use of your images. If a photog is able to retain the rights to his images and gain access to bands he would not be able to on his own, he can benefit his early career by shooting those shows and consider that "compensation" for the reasonable use of images in lieu of other payment. As stated above, this can be a situation where the two parties are mutually benefiting by the photogs work. The photographer by being able to gain images, the publication by not having to pay for content. (Another situation of mutual benefit is that a photog might exchange images to an opening band in return for access to shooting a major headlining band)

Considering that many publications that can afford to pay even a minimal fee for content, but don't, are using this arrangement, that there are burgeoning numbers of people producing concert photos, and that it's hard to find publications that will license photos (rather than try to get them for free or use a staff photographer or agency), the publication arranging the pass is usually still coming out ahead of the photog. However, the arrangement is still far more beneficial than that offered by entities asking for images after the fact without providing anything more than credit in return.

Returning to the issue of monkeys pushing buttons and concert photographers either being akin to paparazzi whose images benefit no one but the silver lined pockets of the photogs themselves, or mere copy machines entirely dependent on images being handed to them by the people on stage, establishing myself as an artist and professional is resembling an uphill battle on a slippery slope seemingly lined with land mines and tripwires, in an industry where I'm variously regarded as an intruder by venue staff, a parasite and talentless tool user by management, and a free organ bank by publishers and publicists who want to gut my portfolio for their own commercial gain. Navigating the trenches and barbwire while trying not to bleed out (in the form of trading images for "other valuable considerations" instead of $$) all over the battlefield before I make it to the other side is more work than even making the images in the first place.