Can I sell images from concerts under editorial?

[Pnn]

Hi Everyone,

 

I’d joined Alamy last year but I’m only now beginning to upload more. So I’m fairly new here.

 

I’ve a bunch of good images from concerts but unfortunately I do not have model or any press releases for them. They also include images of celebrities. Am I allowed to sell them as editorial? Is that legally allowed? Please advise on how I can licence them.

 

thanks in advance for your time to help out a fellow contributor

[Joseph Clemson]

In many cases you will find that the terms and conditions of entry to the concert venue precludes photography, either entirely or photography for commercial purposes (which would include editorial unless you have obtained accreditatation beforehand). You would need to look at each instance on its merits and see what conditions are attached. For the most part, any ticketed event is likely to be a no-go for the casual photographer as far as commercial sales goes. 

[spacecadet]

My view is different.

If you were not prevented from taking photographs they are fair game. The organisers have very little legal redress even if the terms of entry are restrictive.

[Phil Robinson]

14 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

My view is different.

If you were not prevented from taking photographs they are fair game. The organisers have very little legal redress even if the terms of entry are restrictive.

 

You could say the same about shoplifting if you don't get caught.

[spacecadet]

28 minutes ago, Phil Robinson said:

 

You could say the same about shoplifting if you don't get caught.

I wouldn't say the same because taking photographs is not theft.

That seems to me  an odd comment to make on a professional forum.

 

 

Edited September 4, 2020 by spacecadet

[GeoffK]

49 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

I wouldn't say the same because taking photographs is not theft.

That seems to me  an odd comment to make on a professional forum.

 

 

 

Lets get the lawyers in on this old chestnut

 

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/personal-injury/types-of-personal-injury-claims/videotaping-and-photography-on-private-property.html

 

Taking pictures and offering them commercially can be two separate chestnuts......

Edited September 4, 2020 by GeoffK
insert link

[geogphotos]

1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

I wouldn't say the same because taking photographs is not theft.

That seems to me  an odd comment to make on a professional forum.

 

 

 

 

Are you saying that it is 'professional' to ignore perfectly legitimate restrictions on photography on private property on the basis that you are weren't physically restrained from firing your shutter?

 

I think Phil's comparison with the sweetshop does have some relevance here. It may not be theft but is it the correct professional and moral response to do something on the basis that you know it to be 'wrong' but you can get away with it? 

 

During Covid there are no ticket inspectors on trains. Would you say that this makes fare dodging okay?

 

Mind you the 'The Moral Maze' these days does seem rather odd with Claire Fox about, presumably, to swear allegiance to the monarchy. 

 

More a situation of the 'The Moral Amazed' perhaps?

Edited September 4, 2020 by geogphotos

[zxzoomy]

One could argue the same re indoors at shopping centres. I have sold a photo of a shop front in a mall and don't feel guilty. On a later occasion in the same mall security asked me to delete, which I did. 

[geogphotos]

5 minutes ago, zxzoomy said:

One could argue the same re indoors at shopping centres. I have sold a photo of a shop front in a mall and don't feel guilty. On a later occasion in the same mall security asked me to delete, which I did. 

 

 

Personally I would think that there is a difference between concert arenas where the production organisers want to control photography/video for commercial reasons and private shopping malls.

 

But you are correct I guess that it is their decision.

 

The thing is with Alamy you can upload what you want but it is you who is taking any potential risk. 

Edited September 4, 2020 by geogphotos

[Phil Robinson]

1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

I wouldn't say the same because taking photographs is not theft.

That seems to me  an odd comment to make on a professional forum.

 

 

"If you were not prevented from taking photographs they are fair game" seems to suggest 'getting away with' something that isn't really allowed.
If ( I stress IF) a condition of attending an event is that you don't take any photos for commercial use, then the idea that if you don't get caught it's OK is hardly, I would suggest, "professional".

"Taking photographs is not theft" is an argument I have heard endlessly from those who copy and reuse photos they find on the internet.

Edited September 4, 2020 by Phil Robinson

[Pnn]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts everyone. I gather that it’s not completely ethical and risky to put them up then.

[spacecadet]

16 hours ago, Pnn said:

I gather that it’s not completely ethical

As you can see that is not necessarily a majority view. A range of views has been expressed. In any case your ethics are a matter for you, if you even consider that a contract term  that may or may not be fair, or even enforceable, engages them very much, if it exists at all. I do not allow mine to be defined by an internet forum especially not in the terms some have expressed here; we must all decide for ourselves whose opinions we respect.

Edited September 6, 2020 by spacecadet

[Bryan]

I tend to be a law abiding creature, probably in the minority who obey speed limits, but there are some laws that need to be challenged.

 

We wouldn't have access to large sections of the countryside if it wasn't for the mass tresspass on Kinder Scout many years ago.

 

Some laws protect the rich and/or powerful, possibly to the detriment of others, and questions do need to be asked.  The National Trust's attitude to photographers springs to mind.

Edited September 6, 2020 by Bryan

[Phil Robinson]

There are endless threads on this forum and elsewhere about people taking copyright pics from the internet and putting them to various uses without paying or crediting the photographer.

Also complaints about customers paying $9.99 for 'Personal Use' and using them for advertising.

It's very easy to do.

It's very difficult to stop, catch, or get anything back from those responsible.

It's very easy to get away with.

Many people argue that any image on the web is 'fair game'.

Does that make it ethical or acceptable?

 

Edited September 6, 2020 by Phil Robinson

[domf]

I think it would be ok to upload the photos as long as you mark them as editorial. At worst you will be asked to remove the photos.

[meanderingemu]

On 06/09/2020 at 23:05, domf said:

I think it would be ok to upload the photos as long as you mark them as editorial. At worst you will be asked to remove the photos.

 

as mentioned above this is up to the photographer's own values, however this may understate the "at worst" component.  Where it may be the worse case if the image is never sold, there are reports of some worse impact in other legislation for images that were sold (legal actions, and even if you win, you still have to defend yourself).

 

One thing for sure, i would clearly mark any such image as RM and editorial Only, to have as much control over its distribution as possible.   

 

Note that i have images of places where i was presumably not supposed to take images for commercial purpose, but this is still a consideration when i do so.  

Edited September 8, 2020 by meanderingemu

[phomme]

I don't take any chances, I always apply for a photo pass to cover any concert, some artists do allow editorial use images, but you are only allowed to photograph the first 3 songs.  Others do not allow any photos at all. Some artist do have very strict rules, such as taking down their photos after 6 months, no easy task if you have uploaded their photos to an agency.

 

 

[geogphotos]

18 minutes ago, phomme said:

I don't take any chances, I always apply for a photo pass to cover any concert, some artists do allow editorial use images, but you are only allowed to photograph the first 3 songs.  Others do not allow any photos at all. Some artist do have very strict rules, such as taking down their photos after 6 months, no easy task if you have uploaded their photos to an agency.

 

 

 

 

This is another important aspect of this subject.

 

There will be official photographers who have done things properly - why should they be undercut by somebody else doing it secretly without permission?

 

I read about a comedian who walked off stage recently because even though he had asked somebody was recording him without permission - he then performed his old routine rather than his new one because he doesn't want all future shows in his tour to be compromised by illegal copying.

 

It does seem that some photographers want it all to go their way.

[chrismid259]

If you were an accredited photographer for the event or for press, for example applied for access to cover the event for press or magazine etc, then I see no reason why you couldn't upload these images marked editorial - unless you were told otherwise, usually when you turn up on the day.

 

If you paid to attend the concert then I would expect that the terms and conditions of entry will state that you are not allowed to sell images for commercial gain.

Edited September 13, 2020 by chrismid259

[Gareth Sewell]

I've not uploaded any of my concert photos .... yet... but if I've been added to the guest-list as the photographer, so not paid for entry, and the band have said they are happy with them and have used my photos for some promotional use, then I guess I can use the same photos for commercial use if not editorial?

[MizBrown]

10 hours ago, Gareth Sewell said:

I've not uploaded any of my concert photos .... yet... but if I've been added to the guest-list as the photographer, so not paid for entry, and the band have said they are happy with them and have used my photos for some promotional use, then I guess I can use the same photos for commercial use if not editorial?

 

Other way around unless the band members have signed releases.  Editorial is for unreleased photos, and can't be used in an imaginary context (user of advertised products being an imaginary context).

[Klinger]

On 28/08/2020 at 15:06, Pnn said:

Hi Everyone,

 

I’d joined Alamy last year but I’m only now beginning to upload more. So I’m fairly new here.

 

I’ve a bunch of good images from concerts but unfortunately I do not have model or any press releases for them. They also include images of celebrities. Am I allowed to sell them as editorial? Is that legally allowed? Please advise on how I can licence them.

 

thanks in advance for your time to help out a fellow contributor

 

In general NO. All ethics and other considerations aside, you were on private property, you don't have permission, rights are restricted. This is also known as "Don't Do It". 😉

 

Unlike some others try to argue, the law is not, if they don't stop you, you can license. The law's are, if you don't have permission, you can't use the images.

 

In a public place, you can take photos (remember I'm in the US and the laws are different in different countries)... you can take the photos, but you can't use them for commercial purposes. The 1st Amendment protects the rights and freedom of the press. Editorial and Educational use is protected and allowed.

 

Important, even if this isn't always clear or enforced - Some countries protect and others restrict Freedom of Panorama (FOP) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama

 

Then there's the right to publicity and personal likeness. https://www.liveabout.com/using-celebrity-images-for-commerical-resale-192853  Considering that the artists in concert are alive, their images and rights will be protected for seventy years. Deceased people, it depends, but was 50 years, until 1999. Easy way to view this is, a celebrity has a protection and right to what is done with their likeness, so do some dead people and the estates of those people.

 

But back to the point of taking photos. No one can make you erase images. They can't take your equipment. The laws and restrictions are about what you can do with your images. Of course if you go into a restricted or sensitive area, trespassing or illegal entry, and take photos, you can be arrested. Then a judge can determine what happens to your photos, and your camera and cards can be held as evidence. The point is, someone can't come up and say "erase those images" and the police can't say "hand me your camera" unless they arrest you.

 

A nice basic ACLU page about your rights.  https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights/#i-want-to-take-pictures-or-shoot-video-at-a-protest

 

[Drummer Photographer]

Anyone can take photos,  you decide. If you go to a Robert Fripp or Jack White event be ready to be contacted. Both have very strict no photo/video.

Also, long lens camera s are usually not allowed in any venue in the US

 

I am new here but not to a concert arena. Since I started  in 2009 I have never sold a photo. I have usually had a media pass or from a venue.

I posted them on my various websites for no profit.

 

I gave photos  too  artists, venues and sometimes for promotional use. I do not believe I should sell any photo  to be placed on a coffee mug, towel or shower curtain.  At this stage in the game I have photos that could be used to help promote the artist in a promo situation, limited use as in an editorial, etc. 

 

I think common sense is the best answer. My photos are lifted from Instagram daily. When I find them I do contact them requesting credit if the post is tasteful. I have also had them removed if turned into cartoon.

.

 

G

Edited September 30, 2022 by Drummer Photographer
Spelling