For larger shows and larger artists, it can be common for concert photographers to encounter photo releases. These are legal contracts that may be sent in advance by a publicist or presented in person as a requirement to sign before a press credential or photo pass is given.
In this article, we'll look at your rights as a music photographer, appropriate contracts and photo releases to avoid — including “rights grab” contracts that strip photographers of their copyright.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
Photo releases exist largely to achieve goals set out by a label, artist manager or other agent acting on behalf of an artist (as well as their own interests related to that artist).
Artist management and labels are charged with looking out for the best interests of their clients/artists, and one area of their job is the protection of their image. This protection comes in the form of commercial profit as well as controlling the access to the artist and their likeness.
One way that artist managers can help protect their clients is through photography releases that help control the use of their client's image/likeness. This control extends to editorial features as well as illegal image use and unauthorized commercial use.
The premise of the photo pass (read: access) and editorial coverage in general is essentially a trade agreement with an artist. You, the photographer and by extension your publication, are providing a valuable service to the artist in the form of publicity and editorial coverage, and in exchange, an artist's publicist is allowing you valuable access to their client.
Under this context, the images are not for a photographer's portfolio or for the benefit of the photographers. There's no “right” or entitlement of photographers to photograph an artist giving a private concert at a private venue.
Access at concerts is at the determination of the appointed gatekeepers for live music. Photo releases are another layer to this agreement that requires careful consideration from photographers and their publications.
There are a few main categories of photo releases and contracts that concert photographers will encounter. In order of severity, from least to most, let's cover the common types of photography releases you'll see as a music photographer.
Some contracts amount to little more than a confirmation of the rules or guidelines that the artist's management has laid out for press. This may include confirmation of song limits, disallowing flash photography, and so forth. These confirmation of rules may take the form of the following:
By signing this agreement, I agree to adhere to the following policies when covering performances.
Photographs for the first three songs only and from designated area only.
No use of flash.
No obstructing of any concert attendees or performers.
Images are to be used for editorial and archival purposes only.
Risk Assessment: These are the most innocuous of contracts and photographers shouldn't be concerned about signing these types of releases. That said, these rules can be combined with other clauses that are more strict.
Other contracts will limit the use of the images created at a concert to a single assigning publication. This limitation is to ensure that artist management and publicist can approve specific publications and ensure that the images are not re-used elsewhere or syndicated (as with an agency like Getty Images or Wire Image).
The reason for this is that a publicist is approving a specific outlet for coverage when they grant a photo pass. This lets them control the placement and publication for their artists, and they know exactly how and where the images are being used.
Risk Assessment: Overall, these sorts of limitations to an assigning publication are not ideal, but the overall risk is low. Any limitation to how a photographer can use images within the realm of fair use (and that includes editorial use under the definition of the law) something photographers should weigh. However, in the relationship of access for publicity and press, it's within the right of a publicist to determine where the images are seen. Often portfolio use is allowed in this instance but when in doubt, check with the publicist.
Other image releases will claim indemnification or compensation of losses resulting from a breach of contract. This is often a clause in the contract that will appear in combination with one or more of these other types. These clauses cover the artist for losses and expenses, whether those come from a photographer illegally selling the images or from legal cost arising from a lawsuit.
These indemnification clauses will generally accompany one or more clauses, from simple ground rules for photography to the most severe copyright transfers.
Risk Assessment: Indemnification clauses by themselves are harmless if you obey the contracts. The risk of these clauses is the same as the level of infringement on them.
Some releases will prohibit commercial use expressly. For example:
The license hereby granted to you to photograph the artist is limited to the above grant only and NO right to sell, license or reproduce the material for advertising or commercial purposes (e.g., for use as posters, calendars, T-shirts, biographies, etc.) either to be sold, to be distributed free or to be otherwise exploited in any manner whatsoever.
Risk Assessment: This kind of clause in a contract by itself is pretty harmless in my opinion as a photographer (not a legal expert). The reason for this opinion is that as photographers we don't have the right to profit from another's likeness without consent, so any commercial use would be illegal in the first place without proper approval by the artist themselves.
Some contracts will claim certain rights of the artist and their managements, agents, etc to the images. These contracts represent an image license whereby the photographer agrees to license images created at the concert. These licenses are often stated as non-exclusive licenses and this is an important distinction. With these contracts, the photographer retains copyright to the images and is “only” granting rights (albeit often expansive) to the images.
Licensor hereby agrees to license to Licensee, on a non-exclusive basis extending worldwide in perpetuity, the right to exploit Materials in all manner and media now known or hereafter devised
Risk assessment: On paper, granting broad rights for use is a high risk simply because you're not being compensated, yet the artist is often given permission to use the images in any way they see fit. In reality, I've personally never heard of an artist using images from a photographer under this kind of licensing. Therefore, it's difficult to put a true risk assessment to this, but legally and professionally, it's always a bad practice to give you work away from “nothing” as is the case with this kind of agreement.
Finally, there are contracts that will not only ask for licensing rights from the photographer, but they will require the transfer of the copyright to the artist's management. The language may vary, but these contracts may state something like the following:
I hereby acknowledge that you shall own all rights in the Photos, including the copyrights therein and thereto, and accordingly, I hereby grant, transfer, convey and assign to you all right, title and interest throughout the universe in perpetuity, including, without limitation, the copyright (and all renewals and extensions thereof), in and to the Photos.
Another common clause with unfair photo releases are ones that reference one's “droit moral,” or moral rights as the creator:
I hereby waive all rights of droit moral or “moral right of authors” or any similar rights or principles of law which I may now have or later have in the Photos.
The transfer of all rights to the photos, including the copyright, should be viewed with all seriousness by photographers presented with contracts like this.
As recognized by the Berne Convention, the copyright of an artistic work lies with the author of that work on its creation. This applies to photographers — by default, photographers own the copyright to their images on their creation. It is only when the copyright or other rights are transferred to others that one assigns those privileges.
Risk assessment: The risk here, like the licensing, is very high on paper and the worst of all in the severity of implications. This is basically as bad as it gets. While the other risks of other photo releases is more hypothetical — an artist could use the images without compensation as in the above rights granted/licensing scenario — here the artist is now the owner of the images themselves and their copyright. Even if nothing truly comes to pass from this, it's a terrible position to be in as a creator that should be completely avoided.
Copyright grabbing contracts devalue the work of photographers, full stop.
Let's look at a few rationales for why you shouldn't sign prohibitively restrictive photo releases for concert photography. In the below explorations, we'll consider the worst case of a copyright transfer agreement, as these are the most offensive releases.
Unfair contracts devalue your own work
At their worst, photo releases that assign your rights to a 3rd party diminish your value as a photographer. If you're being paid on editorial assignment, your potential income is reduced to only what the publication is paying for the assignment at hand. All future earnings — even from legitimate editorial use — is now reduced to zero if you don't own the copyright to your images.
If you're not being fairly compensated in the first place, then you're creating images for the benefit of a publication that doesn't value your work properly and left with nothing — zero right to images you've made as a photographer.
Unfair contracts devalue the work of the photo community
Moreover, your actions as a photographer also affect the value of the photography community as a whole. Even if you're not concerned about fair payment for your work as a photographer, your decisions have repercussions beyond just yourself.
Unfair contracts affect all of us. Not only do they devalue the work of those who sign them, but they devalue the work of photographers as a whole.
Unfair contracts reduce your freedom
Even if you have no ambitions for yourself in the value of your work long term, the most severe photo releases limit freedoms that most of us enjoy.
Even the simple act of posting them to your own portfolio or social media account amounts to infringement because the work doesn't even belong to you. This isn't hyperbole, it's a literal interpretation of the worst kinds of photo releases presented to photographers.
In Norway, the photographers collectively refuse to sign copyright transferring photo releases. It's such a known fact that even acts that widely require rights grab contracts throughout the world know better than to present them to Norwegian press. That is the true power of solidarity and photographers — and their publications — sticking together for a common interest.
The reason rights grab contracts continue to proliferate is because photographers sign them. It really is as simple as that.
The best way to push back against unfair contracts is to understand the motivations of artists and those they've trusted with their image. From there, it's up to photographers to educate their publications on the reason why contracts are harmful to the photo community and the freedom of the press as a whole.
It's also up to photographers to pair their talents with publications who understand these issues and will advocate for their contributors. A publication who will fight contracts with you and for you is one worth dedicating your efforts to. In my experience, many publicists are willing to accept modified contracts for publications they trust and value.
Remember: the covenant of access in exchange for press is mutually beneficial to publications and publicists. Publicists will want to make publications they value happy to the best of their abilities so long as they serve the interests of their clients. Photographers should never forget that they have value and power in this arrangement.
Finally, it's up to photographers everywhere to take a stand to stop signing unfair photo releases. If your publication doesn't back you, I'd urge you to walk away from unfair photo contracts.
Todd Owyoung is an internationally published music photographer based in New York City. He specializes in music lifestyle, concert, and celebrity portraits. He is proud to be a Nikon Ambassador for Nikon USA.
Great post – so much misinformation and confusion about the layers and nuance of these photo releases. As a wire-service photographer (Getty Images) I often have to decline to sign the releases that limit distribution or syndication. I’ve learned that the publicists generally just send these out en-masse – I’ve also learned that they will make case-by-case exceptions, especially if it will give more exposure to their artist. In most cases they are not directed at legitimate media outlets like daily newspapers or major news wire services. Most festivals will have a similar blanket waiver to protect themselves and to cover any requirements the artists might have. Many years ago I applied to cover what is perhaps the premier music festival in Canada and was faced with a blanket “no wires” clause; I reached out to the the media team and they just had no experience with an agency like mine – they’re now seeing captioned images mentioning their festival published around the world! Weird push-back I do get from publicists from time to time is the premise that my agency and I shouldn’t be ‘profiting’ of the images of the artist – suggesting that professional photography has no value and I should just be happy for the opportunity to be in the pit! Too many bloggers and fan-girls/boys giving their work away for free means the bands and the publicists know they can get the images they want for no cost. Too many times I’ve seen photographers eager to sign away all of their rights and image ownership just for a chance to get into the pit at a big show or festival, and giddy with excitement when they send their images to the publicist for free (as prescribed in the waiver) and the show up on the band’s Instagram page (with no credit, of course…).
Todd Owyoung says:Hey Mark, this is a great comment, thanks for sharing your experiences. I have found the same, that many times releases are blanket solutions to more nuanced problems. Educating agents on the value you’re providing can turn their perspective from you as a liability to one of being an asset, as you shared! The reality is that image releases are meant to protect the interests of artists and their agents, but that those interest and our own as a photographers can be more aligned than one might think. It’s a balance of control and opportunity.
Walter Rowe says:You missed the largest problem with rights grabbing agreements. They allow the music artists to use our work for commercial benefit without any compensation to us. Whether the agreement transfers ownership outright, or it grants the artist and label unrestricted right to use in perpetuity, it enables them to profit from the images without any compensation. I would argue that ANY restriction of editorial, documentary, or educational use is unfair. Look at the historic archives of Henry Diltz, Ian Dickson, Ross Halfin, Mick Rock, Bob Gruen, Jim Marshall, Sherry Rayn Barnett, Baron Wolman, Lynn Goldsmith, Jeff Sedlik, and all the others over the decades. Do you think Danny Clinch or David Bergman sign restrictive agreements to shoot a concert for a publication? We would not have documentaries and books on Woodstock, Laurel Canyon, Monterey Pop Festival, etc, if all those photographers had signed restrictive agreements that forbid all future use. We would not be seeing their archives today if they had signed restrictive agreements. This is why photographers in Norway collectively refuse to sign them. They simply are not fair. Concert photography documents a newsworthy event. It is history. Journalists who attend concerts and write reviews do not sign restrictive agreements for their articles. Why should photographers sign them? A simple agreement need only state that the photographer retains all ownership and rights, they cannot benefit commercially without written consent of the artist, and that the images can only be licensed for editorial, documentary, and educational purposes. This would explicitly state what is already codified in copyright law.
Todd Owyoung says:Walter, As I wrote in my assessment of copyright transfers: “The risk here, like the licensing, is very high on paper and the worst of all in the severity of implications. This is basically as bad as it gets. While the other risks of other photo releases is more hypothetical — an artist could use the images without compensation as in the above rights granted/licensing scenario — here the artist is now the owner of the images themselves and their copyright. Even if nothing truly comes to pass from this, it’s a terrible position to be in as a creator that should be completely avoided.”
Valentina Ramirez says:Hi Todd! Thank you so much for this information piece. I do question if I sign this contract where does that leave me with putting these photos on my portfolio? Is that allowed?
Todd Owyoung says:Hi Valentina, I hope the article was helpful. You have all legal rights to the image until you sign a contract that profits a specific use. If the contract limits the use to just a single publication, you cannot legally put it in your portfolio, for example. That said, practically speaking I have never seen any photo release actually enforced in any meaningful way, but that is another issue.
Sari Makki-Phillips says:Hi Todd, great article! Do you have a recommendation for acquiring a good contract template for this purpose? I shoot mostly dance performances, and have yet used contracts to shoot. I need to do one asap. This upcoming project is pretty basic shoot/burn and promotional releases/usage.. but I just don’t know exactly how to word the contract out. Any leads you may have, I’d greatly appreciate it. Thanks!
Emily Butler says:I love your site and have found so much useful info here. Thank you.
Recently I was given photo agreements AFTER the show. The promoter said he thought the agreements were given to photographers before the show, but when he realized they were not he sent them 1 week after the show asking me to sign them. Seems a little scammy. What do you think?
Hi Emily, I’m so happy to hear the site has been helpful to you! Ahh, that’s unusual! If you’re dealing with this promoter regularly or expect to in the future, you’ll have to consider that. But it really puts you in a tough position as you might have made decisions differently if you’d have known there’d be a release. On the one hand, you already photographed the show and you could not sign, but doing so could result in issues in the future.
Amanda Fear says:Hi Todd! Thank you so much for this post – it was super informative, but I do still have a couple of questions. As background, I’m extremely new to concert photography, however my path was a bit less traditional by virtue of being a part of a well-known bands inner circle long before I became interested in photography. My first concert photography opportunity started with them in a big arena and subsequently a big amphitheater. Way to get ones feet wet, right? All the experience, zero pressure. No contracts. Didn’t even have to show them anything. They did a friendly favor and that was that. The photos are part of my portfolio and on my IG and I’m eternally grateful. Since then, I’ve shot two other smaller club (650-850 capacity range) shows where photo passes were required, but again, I knew the artist or the artist was a friend of a friend, so I was allowed to shoot for my portfolio, etc. Now, for the first time, I contacted management to shoot an artist that I had no affiliation with (for artist/management) at a similar sized club venue as above, and there was no contract of any kind. I sent management smaller sized proofs of the shots I selected and left the ball in their court to reach out for any hi-res photo needs – at which point, I’d imagine maybe then contracts and/or money could come into play, but I’m uncertain since I’m new to the game. Can you provide some clarity? In the meantime, I’m apprehensive to post any of the shots on my social media, but I’m excited and quite proud of my work. What is general protocol surrounding this? Is there a wait period? Likewise, did I commit a professional faux pas based on what you mentioned in regards to shooting for free? Given the shots I sent are only proofs, I didn’t see that as giving anything away (please correct me if I’m wrong since I’m just learning the ropes). I don’t work for or freelance for any sort of publication yet, so I feel like there is a lot more uncertainty given my unconventional path. Thanks so much in advance for any insights you may have!
Derek says:Hey Todd! I really appreciate your article. It is extremely informative. I’m a musician and trying to use contracts for all the business I do to help protect myself. My concern with photography is that my most recent photographer released all the photos (edited and raw) on their website for download and for sale from my most recent show. The biggest issue for me is that I haven’t even released these photos on my own page. My preference is to save these photos for promotion. I feel like there is no weight or surprise of these photos to my audience if they have already seen them on the photographers website and page. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. I look forward to your reply!
