Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Egregious Demands by Gaga and Ms. Jackson

We ain't babies, Janet, and yes, Miss Jackson you're nasty. A colleague sent along this demand from Janet Jackson's "people" for photographers looking to cover her concerts, which most definitely is Egregious :


STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR PHOTOGRAPHERS/LIVE
APPEARANCES

Juggernaut Productions, Inc.
c/o Hertz & Lichtenstein, LLP
450 N. Roxbury Drive, 8th Floor
Beverly Hills, California 90210
Attn: Seth Lichtenstein, Esq.

Dated as of ________________________, 2011


You ("Photographer") have requested permission to photograph Janet Jackson ("Artist") at and/or in connection with the ________________________, 2011 live concert/personal appearance by Artist (the "Performance"). Any and all photographs and/or other recorded material embodying the images of Artist taken by Photographer are referred to herein as the "Photographs". For good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Photographer is hereby granted such permission, conditioned upon and subject to the following:

1. Right To Photograph: Photographer shall have the limited right to capture still photographs of Artist solely during the first three (3) songs performed by Artist at the Performance. Photographer shall not have the right to use any "flash" in connection with any such photographs.

2. Ownership/Rights:
(a) All rights (including all copyrights) in and to the Photographs shall be owned by Juggernaut Productions, Inc. (“Company”) as a "work-made-for-hire." In the event that the Photographs are determined not to be a "work-made-for-hire," this agreement shall constitute an assignment to Company of any and rights in and to the Photographs. At Company’s request, Photographer hereby agrees to provide Company with one (1) complete set of contact sheets of any and all Photographs taken in connection with the Performance, for personal, commercial and/or archival use by Company and Artist (and the licensees and designees of Company and Artist). Company and Artist (and the licensees and designees of Company and Artist) shall have the right, without any obligation to Photographer or any third party, to use and exploit the Photographs in any manner.

(b) Photographer shall have the limited right to use certain Photograph(s) expressly approved in writing by Artist, in a single instance, solely as part of a news item relating to the Performance in the news publication of which Photographer is an employee/agent. Any other use of the Photographs (including, without limitation, any syndication of the Photographs, any
additional use in connection with the news publication of which Photographer is an employee/agent, or any use in other publications) is subject to Company’s prior written consent in each instance. The Photographs may not be used in any manner which could imply an advertisement or endorsement by Artist of any company, person, product or service. By way of
example, but without limiting the foregoing, neither Photographer nor the news publication of which Photographer is an employee/agent shall have the right to embody the Photographs (or any portion thereof) in or on any items of merchandise or in connection with any advertisement or promotion of any person, product or service whatsoever. If the Photographs are to be printed together with any editorial, news or other informational text, the final edit of such text shall be subject to Artist’s prior written approval. Photographer shall have no other rights with respect to the Photographs, and Photographer shall not assign, license or transfer such rights. All rights in and to the Photographs not expressly granted pursuant to this subparagraph 2(b) are reserved by Company and Artist.

3. Miscellaneous:
(a) Without limitation of the other remedies to which Company and Artist may be lawfully entitled, any breach of the terms hereof shall result in the immediate rescission of all rights granted by Company hereunder and shall be subject to injunction by any court of competent jurisdiction. Without limiting the foregoing, (i) Photographer shall be held liable for any and all damages suffered by Artist and/or any and all third parties in relation to the breach by Photographer of the provisions hereof, and (ii) any payment or other consideration or benefits payable to or received by Photographer in connection with the unauthorized use or disclosure of the Photographs shall be the property of Company and shall be immediately turned over to Company by Photographer or held in trust by Photographer for Company.

(b) This agreement shall constitute a binding contract, construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Photographer hereby consents to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of California.

A SIGNED COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE RETURNED TO ARTIST’S REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO THE PERFORMANCE. ANY PHOTOGRAPHY OF ARTIST BY PHOTOGRAPHER SHALL BE DEEMED ACCEPTANCE BY PHOTOGRAPHER OF THE TERMS HEREOF, AND COMPANY AND ARTIST SHALL PROCEED IN RELIANCE ON SUCH ACCEPTANCE.

ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

Print Name:
("Photographer")

Employee/Agent of
(Name of Publication/News Group)


Seriously? I am sure that the many legitimate news outlets whom have photographed "Ms. Jackson" have not signed this, nor agreed to it. Photo District News details a similar demand by Lady Gaga (here), which is ridiculous. These "contracts" likely would hold little water nor stand up in court, but it stands that artists continue to devalue and disrespect their fellow creatives with contracts like these.

(Comments, if any, after the Jump)



Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

3 comments:

  1. that's ok... treat them with what they deserve... one of the reason why I stopped buying CDs years ago and simply download them for free from the web...
    ... klick boom bang done.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rip off copyright? ok 500% photography fee should fine.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I would never sign an agreement giving away my copyright to some celebrity.
    I've been handed these sort of contracts in the past before shooting (one time at Hoag Hospital). I simply threw it away.
    Jason
    www.wallisphoto.com

    ReplyDelete

COMMENT GUIDELINES

Every month, tens of thousands of visitors come to Photo Business News, and approximately 2,000 readers get PBN via RSS feeds. As we approach three years of blogging (in one form or another) PBN has matured, and has, as one might expect, attracted some less-than-mature readers, which, in turn, turns to commenters with their own agendas.

Following are our Terms of Service (TOS) for commenting on the blog posts:
-------------------
1. Comment Spam - we have had a ton of spam from countries like Russia, Japan, China, and so on. It interferes with the discourse, and is one of the prime reasons we are moving to moderation. All one need to is look back a few months to see the blog posts I haven't had time to clean up from this type of spam to see that moderation is needed for this reason alone. In addition, if your comment is not germane to the point being discussed, it too becomes spam. It will be deleted.

2. Over time, some pretty irrational challenges and attacks have been levied against me, and that's ok if you disagree with me, just don't make it personal on me, or anyone else. Doing so means your comment won't make it out of moderation, so don't waste your time. In addition, it would be a shame for you to make a really great point that everyone would benefit from reading, and include personal attacks on me, or other commenters, because we don't edit comments, they're either in, or they're out.

3. Over at the Photo Business News Flickr forum, (here) there are almost 2,000 members and a good opportunity to get your questions answered there. If you have a suggestion for a blog topic, there's a link to make that suggestion on every page of the blog.

4. It is the policy of Photo Business News that if there is a YouTube, Vimeo, Viddler, Hulu or any other video service online, we can post it here using the embedding players for those services (which often insert ads into the playback). We can't know if what might normally be considered a copyrighted work that you would think might not be allowed on, say, YouTube, in fact has been agreed to between the copyright holder and YouTube. So, if you have a question or concern, visit those sites, and flag the content you believe is problematic. In addition, we adhere to standards for quoting and citing other content, with attribution and where possible, a link to that content.

5. ANONYMOUS COMMENTS - For several years now, we've given free reign to anonymous commenters, and a small fraction of those were beneficial to the readership. It is our opinion that anonymous commenters would best be from someone who, for example, should their identity be revealed, could pose job security or economic problems for them. So to that end, unless your comment is significantly beneficial, anonymous comments won't get moderated in. If you wish to make an anonymous comment and you want to send me an e-mail identifying yourself (which I will not reveal), that would be helpful, and will increase your chances of getting your comments posted. Oh, and don't go creating a fake Blogger ID just to get in - blank Blogger ID's are just one step removed from plain anonymous postings. The more discourse where people know who each other are, the better. David Hobby, of Strobist fame summed it up best in his TOS: "Nothing looks more weenie and pathetic than sniping, critical, anonymous comments."