“IMWAN for all seasons.”



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  ( Next )
Author Message
 Post subject: The band Garbage and artistic Copyright
PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:16 pm 
User avatar
Sonic Death Monkey

Joined: 22 Aug 2004
Posts: 8540
Location: Jet City
Bannings: 6
I thought this was an interesting case, and since it relates to music I thought I'd post about it.

As background, Garbage is apparently putting together a book about the band and in doing so, they've started contacting photographers about pictures that have been taken of them over the years. One such photographer (Pat Pope) was contacted and sent an open reply to the band because they basically just want to use the images he shot without paying him for their use, but giving him credit. I've also included the band's reply.

Pat Pope wrote:
AN OPEN LETTER TO GARBAGE

Dear Shirley, Butch, Duke and Steve

I don't know if you will remember me, my name's Pat Pope and across a few years in the nineties I worked for you as a photographer. That's one of my photos of you accompanying this letter. I worked pretty hard on that photo - actually, throughout my time as a photographer I hope I've always worked hard to make all the artists I've had the opportunity to shoot look as good as they can.

Today I received an email from your management company Big Picture Music Co. It's a very nice email, and in it they announce that you're working on a book about the band which you plan to self-release next year. The email says that you really like some of the photos I took of you and would like to use them in your book. It also says that in return for the use of my photos you will give me a "proper credit" but that given it is planned to be a self release the budget is "financially limited", by which your management company mean "we're not going to pay you". So I wanted to ask you a couple of questions, and I wanted to do it publicly because I think it's important that people know what your answer is. I don't expect as many people will see this Open Letter as Shirley's recent message to Kanye West, but I think it's important we know where you, as artists, stand.

Q1: I'm a firm believer that musicians and artists deserve to be paid for their work. I'll sign any petition that's out there supporting that concept, and even when I choose to stream rather than buy, I'm one of the fans of your band that will pay for a premium service because I think you should be paid. That's my point of view. Is it yours? When you think about artists being paid, does that include photographers? Do you think "content providers", whatever the hell that means, deserve to be paid for their work, or is that a special category for musicians? If I want to release a music album, can I use your music in it if I give you a "proper credit"?

Q2: If you're putting together a book, presumably someone at your management company or somebody in the band has written a budget. And if there's a budget, somewhere in that budget, against the line for "use of photos" somebody has written "no need to pay, we'll just give them a proper credit and get them for free". Against all the other lines, for writing, for printing, for distribution, for retailing, for marketing, for the management company, for the band, for Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, somebody, somewhere, working for you, has written a number down because that's what it costs. But that same person has written zero for photos, because that content, in their opinion, they can get for free. Who is that person? As a band are you happy to be employing someone who thinks like that? Because it seems to me that the person who writes down "zero for photos" today is the same person who will write down "zero for music" tomorrow because they don't respect the "content providers".

By writing this open letter, I'm obviously committing professional suicide when it comes to ever working with you again, and probably it won't do my reputation any good within the music industry to be seen as troublemaker. Obviously that worries me, but it worries me more that musicians and others are saying one thing publicly about the needs for artists to be paid for their work whilst privately people working for them are doing exactly the opposite. I'm not accusing you personally of being hypocrites, I don't know how involved you are in this process, but I'm letting you know it's happening and it's happening in your name.

So, very respectfully, .......no.

No, you don't have my permission to use my work for free. I'm proud of my work and I think it has a value. If you don't think it has any value, don't use it. I'm saying no to a budget that says you can take my work for free and make money out of it.

Thanks, and still a fan of the band

Pat Pope
http://www.patpope.com
PS: Just so you know, this is actually an improvement on the management of your "Absolute Garbage" album where the record company just used my work without even asking. I only found this out when I went into a shop and bought a copy, which, when you think about it, has a certain irony.


The band's reply:
Garbage wrote:
Dear Pat Pope
We were all deeply saddened to read your Facebook post in which you admonished us for approaching you to humbly request your kind permission to include one of your images in a book we are working on to celebrate our twentieth anniversary.
We regret that you interpreted our request so negatively.

HAVING ALREADY paid you in 1995 for the entire shoot from which these images were selected, we really didn’t expect such a hostile reception to our enquiry.
We adore the photographs you took of us at such a special time in our career but it was never our intent to use the aforementioned images without your express permission.

As an independent band on our own label we are struggling to juggle the harsh realities of the modern music business with our desire as artists to produce music and accompanying content for our fans.

Our book is not intended as a profit generating venture but something beautiful to create and present directly to our fans as a celebration of our music and the image-makers who we have been lucky enough to work with over the span of a twenty-year career.
We very quickly and painfully learned that without a book publisher to help offset costs, we are not in the financial position to afford to pay for the usage of every photograph we were hoping to include in the book.

Before we scrapped the idea of producing the book entirely, we decided instead that we would take a leaf out of Amanda Palmer’s book “The Power of Asking” and simply ask the photographers themselves whether they wanted to be included in our book or not. Any refusal of permission would be respectfully accepted and no further questions asked .

We were so grateful and delighted to learn that most of the photographers were happy for their images to be seen in conjunction with the telling of our story.
We would be entirely unable to produce a book at an affordable price for most of our fans without the generous consent of all these amazingly talented photographers and filmmakers. Historically, artists over the centuries have been known to help each other out in an effort to get their work seen and heard. We are proud and grateful to be part of this artist community.

Over the years we have happily compensated many photographers, filmmakers and other kinds of content providers for their work and will continue to do so in the future. We believe completely in the concept of the artist being compensated fairly whenever possible.

With that said, collectively as a band and as individuals, we have often provided our services and our music for no financial compensation in the spirit of artistic collaboration. Obviously we assess every request based on its own individual merits but we would never publicly admonish or begrudge a fellow artist for merely asking.

Regards
Shirley, Butch, Duke and Steve
“garbage”


So what do you folks think? While on the one hand, I can sympathize with the band "doing it for their fans" and finding out that it's cost prohibitive to pay licensing fees, is it really fair for them to expect other artists to forego being paid for their work just for the "exposure?" After all, since it's meant as a small scale release for their fans, just how much is that exposure worth? And in contrast, how would they feel about people using their songs on a soundtrack or mix-CD without paying for licensing - after all, that's exposure for the band, right?

Links to the original posts:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... 567&type=1

https://www.facebook.com/GarbageOfficia ... 1691888682

_________________
My home on the web:
http://www.alger-photography.com


Top
  Profile  
 

IMWAN Mod
 Post subject: The band Garbage and artistic Copyright
PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 4:14 pm 
User avatar
The Modfather; Wizard of WAN

Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 56209
Location: Under the Iron Bridge
Bannings: freely handed out
Sorry, but they can't have it both ways here. While I wouldn't have gone the attention whoring route to publicly shame them like this, I agree with his sentiment. I would have probably written something similar in his shoes, but just sent it to them directly, in private.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: The band Garbage and artistic Copyright
PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 4:28 pm 
User avatar
Sonic Death Monkey

Joined: 22 Aug 2004
Posts: 8540
Location: Jet City
Bannings: 6
It's pretty fascinating. I've been following it a bit, and while there are a lot of people siding with him, there are plenty that are dismissing what photographers do, saying the band should just recreate the pictures with another photographer or that he should be grateful for the exposure. It's amazing how many people don't realize how dismissive of one art form they're being when defending artists from another medium.

_________________
My home on the web:
http://www.alger-photography.com


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: The band Garbage and artistic Copyright
PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 5:13 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3308
It is easy for something like this to get lost in the weeds. But here is a shot. Based on the exchange (and the validity - but lets just say it is), it appears the photos in question were paid for previously. Obviously, it would be based on the terms of the previous agreement (and it appears Garbage actually paid for the right to use the photographs at the time, and not purchase the photographs). Otherwise, it could be seen as a ghostwriter getting paid for the work performed, but not the rights of the work (one can argue if that is fair or not - but if one agrees to accept payment on those terms, it sucks if one ghost writes a bestseller).
I extend it to my field - IT (far from artistic - though some of the networks I have had to fix definitely had a certain 'flair' to them). Something as basic as a network diagram. I am paid to create a network diagram. I feel the customer is entitled to the raw Visio document (and not just a pdf). That way they can edit it, etc.. It amazes me how this is not typical (and I would argue that at some level, that diagram can be considered a work of art).
I get the photographer's point though, so I have to assume the original work was not work-for-hire with transfer of ownership. Everyone should get paid, but paid according to the original agreement, and not flip just cause time has passed.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: The band Garbage and artistic Copyright
PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 5:19 pm 
User avatar
Puppy Monkey Alan!

Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 15804
Bannings: Dwigt Rortugal
This is why I didn't have a problem sending Pete pictures for his book - the handsome fee he paid me, which will enable me to retire in 15-20 years! ;-)

I'm not going to repeat anything, but this was the bit I found most interesting:

Quote:
HAVING ALREADY paid you in 1995 for the entire shoot from which these images were selected, we really didn’t expect such a hostile reception to our enquiry.


So, having already paid for that CD, I should be able to download it for free, right? Or if there's a new format, I should be able to just pick it up for nothing since I've already paid for it.

When they paid for the shoot, did they buy the rights to the pictures? If the answer is no, they don't really have an argument here. It's akin to a venue saying, "Hey, I already paid you for the concert, now I'm going to take the music produced that night and use it to sell a CD promoting my venue."

_________________
Alan

"This is a true story, except for the parts that didn't happen." - Steven Wright


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: The band Garbage and artistic Copyright
PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 8:49 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 2651
I think the photographer is out of line with his complaint. It's not so much about artists expecting to be paid for their work, but more about artists expecting not to have their work stolen. The band immediately stated that his work would be a donation and he had the option of whether to decide to donate his past work or not. If he expected to be paid then he should have just declined and walked away without making such a big deal about it. And then at the end of the letter he claims that the record label (which I guess would be A&E Records) stole his work in the past...well if that was the case I would think he would have gained an appreciation when someone approached him in an upfront, honest manner about whether he would be willing to donate his work.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: The band Garbage and artistic Copyright
PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 6:21 pm 
User avatar
Sonic Death Monkey

Joined: 22 Aug 2004
Posts: 8540
Location: Jet City
Bannings: 6
Well, the problem is that more and more these days we're seeing the work of photographers being devalued and other artists (and their management) attempting to steal their work - ask any concert photographer about the releases they're being asked to sign in order to cover a show - Megan Traynor comes to mind. I think Pope was taking a public stand over an issue that's really been kept quiet in the music business. It's a shame that one artist doesn't respect another.

And since this is primarily a music-centric area of the board, I'll pose this question: why is photography valued any less than music as an artform? There are constant complaints about downloading music and how the artists should be paid, so why shouldn't a photographer have the same expectation? People denigrate our skills and say "oh anyone can do that." To which I say, "so pick up a camera and show me how you can produce something that people will wonder at decades later, the way they do with Ansel Adams, or even Leibowitz, Halfin, or Jim Marshall."

That's like saying the Stones aren't anything special because any schmo can pick up a guitar.

_________________
My home on the web:
http://www.alger-photography.com


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: The band Garbage and artistic Copyright
PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 8:10 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 2651
ted262 wrote:
There are constant complaints about downloading music and how the artists should be paid, so why shouldn't a photographer have the same expectation?


The difference between that situation and the Garbage/Pope situation is that when someone downloads a Garbage album without paying for it they have done so without the artist's permission and have violated the artist's property rights. In this case if the photographer thinks he should be paid, which I respect and it is certainly well within his rights, he can simply decline the offer and Garbage will not profit (ether financially or from an enjoyment aspect as people do when the steal an album by illegally downloading it) from the photographer's work.


Top
  Profile  
 

IMWAN Admin
 Post subject: The band Garbage and artistic Copyright
PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 8:34 pm 
User avatar
Helpful Librarian

Joined: Day WAN
Posts: 197005
Location: IMWAN Towers
Bannings: If you're not nice
ted262 wrote:
And since this is primarily a music-centric area of the board, I'll pose this question: why is photography valued any less than music as an artform?

It's surely going to be valued less in a music-centric environment, whether it's on the ICE boards or on Garbage's Facebook page. Ask that on a photography site and the opinions might be overwhelmingly in favour of Pat Pope.

I don't know, Ted ... no artform is more important than another.

I thought that Pope's statement seemed well-considered and balanced. He sounded fed up with the way things work in the music business, not really angry at Garbage themselves. Making it public possibly gave his views a platform that photographers usually don't get, but even so, I expect that his letter has been read by far less people than Garbage's reply was. I found the latter to be sort of taken aback and defensive in tone ... as if they were surprised that anyone would say no to the request ... they kept throwing things back to their fans and their art, as if there were a great demand for a limited deluxe book (I doubt their fans were clamouring for it) and that it needed to be made to celebrate themselves properly (they should be proud of themselves, but the book doesn't need to be made).

"Doing it for the fans" always puts me on guard, in any case. That is too often a euphemism for some unnecessary, overpriced product which hardcore fans will feel compelled to purchase. Rather than a limited book for $150 or whatever it would have cost, put all the photos you have permission to use in a web gallery and let all your fans peruse it for free.

_________________
Image


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: The band Garbage and artistic Copyright
PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 10:43 pm 
User avatar
Sonic Death Monkey

Joined: 22 Aug 2004
Posts: 8540
Location: Jet City
Bannings: 6
JosephC wrote:
ted262 wrote:
There are constant complaints about downloading music and how the artists should be paid, so why shouldn't a photographer have the same expectation?


The difference between that situation and the Garbage/Pope situation is that when someone downloads a Garbage album without paying for it they have done so without the artist's permission and have violated the artist's property rights. In this case if the photographer thinks he should be paid, which I respect and it is certainly well within his rights, he can simply decline the offer and Garbage will not profit (ether financially or from an enjoyment aspect as people do when the steal an album by illegally downloading it) from the photographer's work.


Ah, but going back to the original request, the offer was for attribution, which implies that credit is enough compensation, since they paid for its use previously. That album someone downloaded was presumably paid for by someone at some point, and one of the justifications used is that by providing it for others to hear they're making it possible for others to hear the music and enable the band to gain more followers. This is a pretty analogous situation

Linda wrote:

"Doing it for the fans" always puts me on guard, in any case. That is too often a euphemism for some unnecessary, overpriced product which hardcore fans will feel compelled to purchase. Rather than a limited book for $150 or whatever it would have cost, put all the photos you have permission to use in a web gallery and let all your fans peruse it for free.


I agree... And really, if it's "for the fans," are they not expecting to profit from the book? If not, perhaps they could have explained that a little better to Pat and worked something out.

I suspect that they're hoping to make money on the book though, which makes Pat's expectation to be compensated for his work entirely reasonable,

_________________
My home on the web:
http://www.alger-photography.com


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: The band Garbage and artistic Copyright
PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2015 6:38 pm 
User avatar
Pure Evil Gold!!

Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 37645
Location: Witness Protection Program
Bannings: Ask Linda
Linda wrote:
"Doing it for the fans" always puts me on guard, in any case. That is too often a euphemism for some unnecessary, overpriced product which hardcore fans will feel compelled to purchase.


Click for full size

_________________
Image


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: The band Garbage and artistic Copyright
PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2015 1:33 am 
User avatar
Proud enemy of the United States--again!

Joined: 29 Apr 2014
Posts: 1538
I don't know that the issue is that photography is valued less than music (or vice versa) but that the economic value of both music and photography has been profoundly diminished in a digital age in which perfect copies of expression in either medium can be duplicated and distributed in seconds. Let's face it--while both of these parties bicker, I can sit here at my laptop and compile my very own "History Of Garbage" digital picture book for free without having to ask permission from anybody.

That said, I'm not sure who to side with here. Pope appears bent out of shape because he received an e-mail asking, in writing, for permission to allow his work to be used for free, yet all he had to do was to say "no". Should he have gone public with this? Probably not, although, frankly, I can't say his annoyance was completely unjustified to the extent that I know I hate it when I get a fund-raising call from an educational institution that has granted me a degree which appears unlikely to ever allow me to sustain myself financially--which would probably explain why the people making these calls are generally not actual school administrators, but undergrads getting paid minimum wage to read a phone script and eat shit.

At the same time...I hate to say it, but a coffee table pictorial history of the band Garbage would seem to have Barnes & Noble bargain rack written all over it. I would guess that this is why when these books are "authorized" and "official", they lean heavily on material actually owned by the band (personal photos, album artwork, etc.) I don't know why Garbage apparently only obtained a limited license to use Mr. Pope's work after "HAVING ALREADY" paid him for the shoot, but that's what they did. Sending out a batch of polite e-mails to photographers such as Pope was likely seen as a "nothing ventured, nothing gained" proposition, and not as some arrogant attempt to marginalize the work of professional photographers.

_________________
"I'm joking, of course."--Lt. Robert "Bob" Hookstratten


Top
  Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: The band Garbage and artistic Copyright
PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2015 6:37 pm 
User avatar
Mr. IMWANKO

Joined: 18 Sep 2005
Posts: 73853
Location: the Moist Periphery of Pendulum Tide
I think part of Pope complaining certainly had to do with Garbage having used one of his
photographs before without paying.

Still… I probably wouldn't have gone public with my complaint. I might, however, have said,
"Tell you what. If you pay me for the photograph you used before without my permission, I
might very well be willing to let you use the current one you'd like for free."

_________________
Staging Areas
Approach Area
Area of a Triquetra
Area of Effect
Life Longing


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: The band Garbage and artistic Copyright
PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2015 3:58 pm 
User avatar
Ancient Alien Theorist

Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 105335
Location: The Fourth World
Bannings: 2001
I think Pope's stance is perfectly fine, but his public and passive-aggressive letter is a bit uncalled for.

I could see writing a letter like that if Garbage was harassing him and dogging him for not giving up his photos for free. But if that's his first response out of the gate to, "Can we use these photos?", I think he seems like an asshole on a high horse.

To me, the heart of Garbage's request is this --

Garbage wrote:
We very quickly and painfully learned that without a book publisher to help offset costs, we are not in the financial position to afford to pay for the usage of every photograph we were hoping to include in the book.

Before we scrapped the idea of producing the book entirely, we decided instead that we would take a leaf out of Amanda Palmer’s book “The Power of Asking” and simply ask the photographers themselves whether they wanted to be included in our book or not. Any refusal of permission would be respectfully accepted and no further questions asked.


Then Pope turns something that could have been answered with a very simple, "Sorry, I'm not comfortable with that" into a public diatribe about how his work isn't respected and all that stuff, taking a stand and beating his chest. He seems like a whiner.


Top
  Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: The band Garbage and artistic Copyright
PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2015 4:01 pm 
User avatar
Ancient Alien Theorist

Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 105335
Location: The Fourth World
Bannings: 2001
ted262 wrote:
It's pretty fascinating. I've been following it a bit, and while there are a lot of people siding with him, there are plenty that are dismissing what photographers do, saying the band should just recreate the pictures with another photographer or that he should be grateful for the exposure. It's amazing how many people don't realize how dismissive of one art form they're being when defending artists from another medium.

It is a shame that people can't respect artists in media they don't avidly follow, but I think a lot of people are probably irked by the 'we paid you for the photo shoot already' bit. I think many people don't get paying a photographer every single time you use their work.


Top
  Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: The band Garbage and artistic Copyright
PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2015 4:08 pm 
User avatar
Ancient Alien Theorist

Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 105335
Location: The Fourth World
Bannings: 2001
ted262 wrote:
Well, the problem is that more and more these days we're seeing the work of photographers being devalued and other artists (and their management) attempting to steal their work - ask any concert photographer about the releases they're being asked to sign in order to cover a show - Megan Traynor comes to mind. I think Pope was taking a public stand over an issue that's really been kept quiet in the music business. It's a shame that one artist doesn't respect another.

And since this is primarily a music-centric area of the board, I'll pose this question: why is photography valued any less than music as an artform? There are constant complaints about downloading music and how the artists should be paid, so why shouldn't a photographer have the same expectation? People denigrate our skills and say "oh anyone can do that." To which I say, "so pick up a camera and show me how you can produce something that people will wonder at decades later, the way they do with Ansel Adams, or even Leibowitz, Halfin, or Jim Marshall."

That's like saying the Stones aren't anything special because any schmo can pick up a guitar.

I agree with all that, but I think that this argument has nothing to do with Garbage and isn't relevant in the context of their request. They are showing they DO respect the photographer by asking for permission and weren't advocating that photographers never get paid. They were asking if photographers wanted to donate work to an independently produced project, nothing more.

And you see artists from all other media do this -- musicians who work on a friend's album for free (such as Billy Corgan for Courtney Love) or donate a performance to charity. Actors and other production people working for free on indie film projects (not quite an indie project, but Spielberg, Lucas and Milius did editing jam sessions to help each other, free of charge). Artists and writers donating work for special projects without the expectation of pay. That's all this is.


Top
  Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: The band Garbage and artistic Copyright
PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2015 4:13 pm 
User avatar
Proud enemy of the United States--again!

Joined: 29 Apr 2014
Posts: 1538
Beachy wrote:
I think part of Pope complaining certainly had to do with Garbage having used one of his
photographs before without paying.

Given how the statements of both parties seem carefully worded--Pope specifically blames "the record company" for using his photo without permission, and the response states, semi-ambiguously, that they paid him "in 1995 for the entire shoot from which these images were selected"--I have a hunch that Pope and Garbage faced off over that claim and reached some sort of confidential settlement.

Frankly, it does seem odd that the band paid Pope for a photo shoot but retained no rights to the photos as part of that payment. Forgive my ignorance--is that at all the industry norm?

_________________
"I'm joking, of course."--Lt. Robert "Bob" Hookstratten


Top
  Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: The band Garbage and artistic Copyright
PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2015 4:18 pm 
User avatar
Ancient Alien Theorist

Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 105335
Location: The Fourth World
Bannings: 2001
Stumpy Joe wrote:
Frankly, it does seem odd that the band paid Pope for a photo shoot but retained no rights to the photos as part of that payment. Forgive my ignorance--is that at all the industry norm?

I think so. I think the logic is that you're paying for the actual work being done, not for permanent reproduction rights to the material. That way, the artist is protected in the sense that if you're using his/her work to make money, they get a cut of that money.

A venue can pay an act to perform, but they don't get the right to record that performance and sell it themselves without the band's permission. The venue is paying for the performance itself, not any reproductions of it.


Top
  Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: The band Garbage and artistic Copyright
PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2015 4:29 pm 
User avatar
#NeverThor

Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Posts: 26316
Location: Dorne
ted262 wrote:
I agree... And really, if it's "for the fans," are they not expecting to profit from the book? If not, perhaps they could have explained that a little better to Pat and worked something out.

I suspect that they're hoping to make money on the book though, which makes Pat's expectation to be compensated for his work entirely reasonable,


From Garbage's wording, it sounds like they're looking at something fairly close to breaking even, preferably a bit in the black.

Am I right in assuming they're not using the photos in the book? Their response seems to be "there's no harm in asking and there's no harm in refusing" and I know there's a long, long, long tradition of trying to get something for free for "exposure", but, as they say, it's not unusual for artists to waive their fees for low-profit endeavors.

Assuming I got the particulars right, I hope the photographer doesn't have any blow back because of this. He's well within his right to object and raise the flag, and it sounds like Garbage is happy to let him do so. There's certainly enough people who will gladly exploit your good will. I hope that this was not the intent here.

_________________
I reserve the right to be spectacularly wrong.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: The band Garbage and artistic Copyright
PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2015 4:37 pm 
User avatar
Ancient Alien Theorist

Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 105335
Location: The Fourth World
Bannings: 2001
Steven Clubb wrote:
Assuming I got the particulars right, I hope the photographer doesn't have any blow back because of this. He's well within his right to object and raise the flag, and it sounds like Garbage is happy to let him do so. There's certainly enough people who will gladly exploit your good will. I hope that this was not the intent here.

If it were me, I'd be irritated by the insinuation that I don't respect photographers and I'm just trying to get free shit because of it. I certainly wouldn't hire that guy again.


Top
  Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: The band Garbage and artistic Copyright
PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2015 4:57 pm 
User avatar
#NeverThor

Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Posts: 26316
Location: Dorne
Hanzo the Razor wrote:
Steven Clubb wrote:
Assuming I got the particulars right, I hope the photographer doesn't have any blow back because of this. He's well within his right to object and raise the flag, and it sounds like Garbage is happy to let him do so. There's certainly enough people who will gladly exploit your good will. I hope that this was not the intent here.

If it were me, I'd be irritated by the insinuation that I don't respect photographers and I'm just trying to get free shit because of it. I certainly wouldn't hire that guy again.


I'm sure there have been worse arguments that led to future employment.

_________________
I reserve the right to be spectacularly wrong.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: The band Garbage and artistic Copyright
PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2015 4:58 pm 
User avatar
Ancient Alien Theorist

Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 105335
Location: The Fourth World
Bannings: 2001
True.


Top
  Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Go to page 1, 2, 3  ( Next )
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]   



Who is WANline

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powdered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited

IMWAN is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide
a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com, amazon.ca and amazon.co.uk.