MISSION STATEMENT - This site is dedicated to professional music photographers. Our mission is to advocate sound business practices, warn against predatory client practices, provide helpful and educational resources, and foster a sense of community. All discussions related to capturing, processing, cataloging and licensing music photographs are welcome.

You are here

Home » Forums » Professional » Contracts, Negotiations, & Legal

Selling Prints ...

published by walter rowe on Wed, 02/20/2008 - 12:53pm

As an offshoot of another topic, I thought I would start a discussion here. In the US, there is very much a debate over whether photographers have the right to sell prints from the shows and artists they photograph without any model release. The accepted answer tends to be that this is considered commercial use of the photographs and therefore is not legally permitted without a model release from those who appear in the photographs. There are those who argue that this IS permitted, as long as the intention of the sale is for private use. And there are legal statutes that permit "limited edition fine art" prints.

In the other thread here on MPN where this was initially discussed, there was a reference to SportShooter.com where photographers were debating whether selling simple prints of photographs taken at professional sporting events was considered editorial or commercial. I went to SportShooter.com and found that thread - click here and here. An important point made in the thread on SportShooter.com is this - even if selling prints is considered editorial and therefore legal, you need to consider the personal ramifications of potentially never getting credentials once your print sales have been discovered.

What are the restrictions and permitted uses in other countries? If possible, please provide a link to relevant laws that govern this. It might make an interesting article for our site if I can get enough information from everyone.

Forums: 
Contracts, Negotiations, & Legal

Submitted by Pixel Perfect Images on Wed, 02/20/2008 - 11:51pm.

Well, the most important thing about this is the prospect of being credentialed again after it's discovered you are selling prints. You may have the legal right to sell prints, but they have the legal right to deny your credentials too.

That's enough to deter me, at least until I don't need the credentials anymore.

Dan

 

Daniel Knighton, PIxel Perfect Images

(858) 335-4540 cell

http://www.pixelperfectimages.net

 

Submitted by DwightMcCann on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 1:35pm.

I don't have to worry about being credentialed as I am the 'House Photographer' for the Chumash casino Resort in Santa Ynez, California. I have a back catalog of probably 5000 very nice images of world class entertainers. First, I delete all images that are unflattering. I don't care if an embarrassing image may someday be valuable. The chance of it getting loose and coming back to me simply isn't worth it. But this is certainly a matter of reputation and ethics. I know of lots of guys who are interested in money and 'No holds barred.' I suppose at some point when I am no longer able to shoot I may try to license my images to some place like Getty and sell prints but that's a while out yet. Anyway, it's nice to know that selling 'fine art prints of performers' is a fair use.

Dwight McCann

Submitted by killshot on Mon, 10/06/2008 - 2:33am.

I'd really like to hear what other people may know on this topic. I am not in the business of concert photography. I've shot many shows though. I've heard that as many as 300 prints of a single image is legally considered fine art prints, whereas anything over that makes it commercial. If a photographer is granted entrance to a performance, especially if it's granted specifically by the performing artist(s), does this not grant to license to sell fine art prints as long as no contracts were signed specifically stating otherwise? Personally I have no worries about credentials as I have said I'm not in the business of concert photography. So my only concern is the legality of it. I can most likely even get it ok'ed with the artist I have in mind as we are friends and they have encouraged my photography of their performances. It surprises me that there isn't more discussion on this matter even though I realize many concert photographers are detered simply by the poissible jeopardizing of their credentials.

George Abruzzese
KillshotPhotography.com

George Abruzzese
KillshotPhotography.com

Submitted by Shooter5150 on Thu, 10/09/2008 - 11:50pm.

I'm facing this right now with the biggest show I shoot every summer.

I haven't sold a print from their venue EVER, yet I've been told if I don't disable that function or put passwords on the galleries, I can kiss my first three up front next year.

On one hand, I like the fact that I have sold shots from OTHER venues, and I'd like to have a spot on the web where I can send possible editorial buyers to. However, being flat out told I would not get a shooting pass next year has pissed me off.

I shot this music festival for seven years before I was credentialed through my newspaper. However, my publisher and I have an arrangement on this festival that anything we DON'T publish is mine, copyright and all.

One of the few fringe benefits I have at my job.

I've stalled the media relations person hoping to figure out a solution that will allow me to keep the images online -- and in a secure manner -- and still be able to send possible editorial clients to them.

I also think I should be allowed to sell prints of the images. IMO, I own the images, I should be able to generate residual income from them.

Jamie "Shooter" Taylor
TailWind Imaging
"Away you will go sailin/In a race among the ruins/If you plan to face tomorrow/Do it soon." -- Gordon Lightfoot
http://www.myspace.com/tailwindimaging
http://tradewindimaging.photoreflect.com

Jamie "Shooter" Taylor
TailWind Imaging
"Away you will go sailin/In a race among the ruins/If you plan to face tomorrow/Do it soon." -- Gordon Lightfoot
http://www.myspace.com/tailwindimaging
http://tradewindimaging.photoreflect.com

Submitted by Stuiephoto on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 9:28pm.

A problem we face a lot having to shoot on/in private property.

It comes down to the fact that they own the venue and make the rules (for the most part). If you don't like it then kiss your access goodbye. You own the copyright, feel free to sell the images as much as you'd like (we won't get into photo releases for performers..thats a different topic for a different day) just don't plan on being allowed in to take any more.

At this point, you need to make a decision. Do you care enough to stop shooting there "per diem" and have to get access via a different media outlet. If that's not the case, then change your website to a non-store format, or disable checkout on galleries for that venue.

I run into the same thing at my job as a staff photog for a venue. I can shoot anywhere, any time, but I cant sell prints (but i can sell the images/i own copyright....explain that one would ya?). I do it because of 2 things. I wouldn't make any money off of prints to make it worth my while and, the number of people i meet and network with through that job has spread my name around.

www.stuiephoto.com

Submitted by walter rowe on Wed, 10/22/2008 - 3:58pm.

The copyright component that applies here is "right to publicity". You can't use another person's likeness for commercial purposes without their permission. You can license their likeness for editorial (i.e. news), documentary and educational purposes. Those are exceptions for fair use under the US Copyright law. Selling prints can be argued to fall into fine art provided it is a limited edition, which also qualifies under the fair use exception.

Selling t-shirts or other articles that display the image is commercial use. It is commercial because their image appearing on the article is what makes the buyer want to buy it. Also when the image appears in the context of a product or service that is being advertised, that is commercial use because it misleads the viewer into thinking the person in the photograph is endorsing the product or service being advertised. The person in the photograph is protected under the right of publicity section of the copyright statutes.

There was a long thread on SportShooter.com that discussed selling prints. One person I think referenced court cases they felt illustrated that it was legal to sell prints because it was considered documentary (it documents an event). Others disagreed. The money you would make from selling prints probably won't compare to the money you will make from assignments to take pictures, therefore the risk isn't worth the reward. That is how I see it.

In your situation, Jamie, if there is a way to disable the shopping cart per gallery, that might be the best solution for goodwill purposes.

Walter Rowe Photography
Columbia, Maryland - USA

Founder, MusicPhotographers.net
www.WalterRowePhotography.com
Columbia, Maryland - USA

Submitted by FrankAbegnale on Fri, 11/28/2008 - 3:04am.

Consulting lawyers for contracts is expensive. What do you think of the contracts available in the web? for me, I think they're fine and a lot cheaper...

---------------------------------------------
Get instant access to high quality Music Contracts & Recording Contracts online visit: Music Contracts & Recording Contracts