Band/group/celeberity photography - Sign your copyright over to them

[MarkChap]

http://www.tbd.com/articles/2011/03/...ork-55567.html

[Kym]

Easy! Boycott Lady Gaga - no loss

[mrDooba]

Who is Lady Gaga

Why are people like Lady Gaga so "famous" ?

*Thinks about how he can become rich and famous for doing nothing*

[Xenedis]

Laughable.

Not that I'd want to photograph a 'celebrity' like her, but at any rate, there's no way I'd be handing my rights to anyone.

[gerry]

but questioned why photographers automatically own copyright on their work, since it's the artist who does the show (in Gaga's case, a very visual one).

now thats a classic statement! those darn photographers should be paying lady gaga to even take a picture of here

[James T]

This has been around forever with many different artists.

I think it's a power trip thing, plus they know they can do it and someone will always shoot anyway.

I thought this was the best quote:

"[I]n my experience it often comes from artists who've been stuck having to pay a ton for a shot they want for a box set, merch, etc.,"

Having to pay for a product, man, must be a tough life when your income is only a few million a year. I wonder if the Foo Fighters will come and do a promo gig for me, I won't pay them of course, because it'd just be to advertise my business...

Stranger thing is when bands try to ban photographers, not sure what that's about. I think the Killers tried to do that at Good Vibes last year. I've also been booked as the photographer for an event but been told that 'no identifiable pictures of the band are allowed'. They were some nobody group as well (can't even remember their name) no idea what the reasoning was.

[Kym]

I have an answer!

Don't sign over your rights... just go hard core paparazzi!!

[geoffsta]

When you think of it, he/she has every right to do what they have done.
He/she wasn't always Lady Gaga. It was probably was Bob Zermanindress. Not a very good stage name.
He/she has more than likely registered Lady Gaga as a legitimate business name, and His/her body, balls and all is the copyrighted corporate logo.
Now if you were to publish his/her image in a magazine or web site without explicit permission, that would be against copyright laws, which he/she owns.
Although, you would think that any publicity would be a bonus, it is with most artists / performers. Just look at Charlie Sheen. He thinks it pretty cool.

Just my thoughts.

[Flesh]

You would think she would be appreciative of the extra advertising she gets (for free). Mind you, she has never been one to conform so it is hardly a surprise.

[James T]

You would think she would be appreciative of the extra advertising she gets (for free). Mind you, she has never been one to conform so it is hardly a surprise.

She / her management are conforming. Loads of artists have similar clauses regarding photography.

Off topic, her music and act conforms pretty well with everything else under the pop sun as well, hardly a revolutionary.