Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Legal advice?
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
In The Know (sometimes) |
DJKZ wrote:
He has entered private property, filmed a controlled performance without permission and has no significant 'public interest' angle.
All of which he did with the artistes full knowledge and implicit approval ! |
|
DJKZ |
This is quite simple. Tell your friend the following.
1. Tell him you will see him in court.
2. Right him a letter demanding compensation for your performance and moral rights on the photos.
3. Also let him know that by creating unauthorized images of your performance he has breached your performance rights.
4. If he has sent them to you, and asking why they are not on your myspace he is implying you have fair use for promotional purposes.
Don't forget he approached you and technically is contracting you to 'model' for him.
Your artist has the legal right to sue anyone who is taking pictures at your gig especially if they intend to profit from it.
Of course a judge will decide but if you show some robustness in your response the 'eejit' will not sue but will enter into an arrangement with you.
By the way if you did not approach the person but he approached you, then you should never ask to pay for any copies. You demand for 'promotional copies' and forbid any commercial use. If he wants any commercial use then he should PAY you for your performance. Simple. It is basically the same with shooting someone on the street. If they are deemed 'recognizable' and contributing to your shoot then technically you need a talent release form.
You may pay the talent or get their performance for free but you NEED A TALENT RELEASE FORM Seeing that he is photographing you and especially as he approached you then you have far more legal legs to stand on than he does and you should demand compensation for your 'performance'. Don't you think it is similar to a record label recording someone singing and then going out to print hundreds of copies and selling them on Ebay. Um that is bootlegging.
I'm getting into film, TV and photography and this comes up often. Now there is an element of public interest which is how Paparazzi get away with it but in your case, what public interest angle can he use ? He has entered private property, filmed a controlled performance without permission and has no significant 'public interest' angle. Um as the late great Gary Jacobs would say "Sue Em !"
Good luck but DO NOT PAY A PENNY and counter sue him. |
|
Red |
Many thanks to all for the kindly advice. I'll pass on the info and hopefully it'll help him reach a resolution on this. |
|
DJones |
the first time I heard of an artist banning (professional) photographers from his gigs was around 1973: David Bowie wanted to control his image (thru the execellent work of Mick Rock). |
|
zooloo |
Mart wrote:
...and, as if by magic, I awake to the news that Prince is the first to take the major stand on cameras at gigs.
See... you're giving him ideas!
Be careful what you write here - you don't know who's reading it. |
|
|
|
