The photo release applies to photojournalists who are accredited (by PR, management or record label) to shoot the concert for a media outlet or agency, not audience members who try to walk into the venue with a camera.

Being allowed into a venue with a DSLR =\= compensation for professional services and transfer of copyright, including loss of future income via licensing for the rest of the photographer’s life +70.

“She claims to make the best Oreo cheesecake around.” That I believe. Cheesy is her department.

The head of that PR firm dropped into a concert photographer’s group discussion 2 years back and claimed the release was in place so the artist wouldn’t be extorted by some evil photog who expected to be paid for using his images.

He stated, “in the cases of my artists who make “rights grabs,” they are often people who have been charged exorbitant amounts of money to buy their own images for box sets, merchandise, etc. so it is a two edged sword. think about how you’d feel: you give someone a free ticket, a photo pass, and 10-15 years later when you’re putting your box set together that same person is extorting you for $50K for a rare image of your dead friend.

i realize this is a forum for amateurs and n00bs so this probably won’t get any sympathy. you’ll probably mostly think “well those guys are loaded and we’re struggling geniuses” so you’re the ones who are being wronged.”

(I don’t know what or how many music photographers he thinks get $50,000 for one photo unless he’s conflating us with paparazzi and thinks [any] bands are as in demand as Brangelina).

Key words there aside from the put downs are “buy their own images” and likening a “free ticket [and] a photo pass” as sufficient payment for professional services and intellectual property rights… because apparently allowing you the experience of shooting their artist is payment enough, and rights of publicity are exactly the same thing as copyright. -__-

Not to single him out, as discussions in the UK between photographers and agencies like David Redfern and music industry labels and managers have also demonstrated that the contracts are there to try to hold on to any potential media income while the entire music industry adapts to digital distribution and a trickle of album sales, instead of prior big releases of physical cds/albums (while facing loss of income from torrent sites), because they think photographers are getting paid ~vastly~ more than we actually are, and also want to protect their artists rights of publicity etc in the cases of bootleg merchandise.

Except, it’s unlikely bootleg merch originates from photographers who get photo passes and shoot on assignment… it’s from the 100,000 fans with point and shoots in the audience, or people who steal images from photographer’s portfolio sites or agencies (at any time, you’ll find Getty Images photos being sold on Ebay from someone who lifted them online, and I’ve had images taken from my account here)

Then you go to shoot huge artists like Metallica, Madonna, and Bruce Springsteen and there’re no photo releases required…