Only a few weeks back there was a viral story about Taylor Swift and the photo contract imposed on live photographers on her 1989 tour. The contract was one that is very similar to ones that appear for other big name artists touring the globe. The effect of the contract was arguably grabbing rights to the photos, saying that Swifts management could destroy your camera/memory in the event you were in breach of the contract, it was quite strongly worded.
Contracts like these are not new, perhaps Swifts was one of the more strongly worded ones, but it was not something which shocked us too much given the expectation, almost every time, to see a contract like these at a big touring artists concerts. On the back of Swift telling Apple that artists deserve fair pay, nobody should work for free, photographers and publications around the world highlighted the contract seemed to imply that Swifts management would have rights to use the images produced by every photographer that signs it, FREE. With it perpetual and global rights for non-commercial use of the images, in which the contract deems publicity and promotion to be “non commercial”. It might seem innocuous but publicity and promotion of brand Taylor Swift is commercial activity and revenue generating (these promo’s sell tickets, albums, merchandise).
In the last few weeks multiple publications have pulled photographers from Swifts gigs. The Irish Times posted a piece explaining exactly why there would be no images in their print run. The Montreal Gazette similar. An action that has to be commended given the news that’s just come out.
Today according to Poynter, The general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association in the States – Mickey Osterreicher announced that negotiations between news organisations and professional associations has led to a revision to the photography contract for her 1989 tour.
The new contract gives Swift rights to share linked to reviews and post images taken on the 1989 tour. This isn’t a right to use the images commercially (per their definition of commercial), or for her to use the pictures on merchandise, posters etc, just social media and promotion.
It amends the destruction of equipment to a deletion of images IF they are taken outside the terms/scope of the already agreed arrangement for first 2 songs and no flash. You can only shoot from the alloted area. Failure to comply with these rules means you will be asked to delete images taken outside the terms of the agreement. Seems fair enough.
The publication the photographer shot the gig for can now use the images for news, editorial reasons more than once (previously you could only use the images for a single published piece, which made it difficult for GoldenPlec to publish a gallery AND a live review post as we so regularly do). The use by only a single publication is probably unnecessary and limits freelancers from getting paid by multiple publications for their set of images.
It also needs to be pointed out that references to commercial use are irrelevant. A photographer applies to photograph a show on behalf of a publication. If a photographer wishes to use images for commercial purposes, they would require a model release, as an individual’s image is protected to privacy law. The clause is likely in there for added contractual protection, but shouldn’t really be needed to enforce the existing law.
What is glaringly missing from the contract, is the how to contact the management agency, or a requirement upon them to reply within a reasonable period to grant permission to use the images for other publications. If they wish to control this aspect, contact with an agreed response time upon which their failure to reply can be deemed approval (to allow photographers not to miss out on a potential pay day from a publication requiring images of the concert).
Overall it is an improvement in photography contract terms, and if other acts followed suit it would make a massive improvement to live concert photography of big name acts around the world. There are probably small amendments that could make this contract something more worthy of praise for the artists management, however the leap forward this contract makes is at very least a massive step in the right direction.
Right now at GoldenPlec, we enjoy bringing you photos from the biggest shows around Ireland on a regular basis. However internally we have decided that bands arriving to Ireland producing a rights grab contract will be a show we walk away from. This isn’t ideal, we want live photography to compliment our reviews to create a real picture of what happened on the night in question. However if that means photographers surrendering their rights to their images, we are not willing to sign contracts of this type any longer.
Hopefully the radical movement from one of the biggest artists in the world right now in Taylor Swift regarding the photo contract, will signal an industry change, something that is long needed. Protect your artist, absolutely. Don’t steal the rights of another artist in the process.
* We would have used a photo of Taylor on this post, but the previous contract still forbids us a second use.
Taylor Swift amended photo contract
