Classic Concert Photo Usage

[todd_caudle]

<p>Hi All,<br>

From 1979 through 1994 I shot hundreds of concerts by big name artists in Colorado. In fact, no one shot more concerts in the region in that time period than I did. We're talking Springsteen, Rush, Van Halen, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Grateful Dead, Michael Jackson -- you name it, if they were a big shot artist, I shot them. I was a freelancer and do know that I own the copyright to all the images. My question is, how can I make money from them now? I feel like I'm sitting on a treasure trove of rock & roll history, if I can just figure out a way to make it generate income. They're obviously not current photos, so selling usage rights to magazines for current newsworthiness isn't an option. What about a book? An e-book? Signed/numbered, limited-edition fine art prints? Non-limited edition photographic prints? For the latter, what marketing strategy? These days I'm all about the marketing of landscape images, but these? Not a clue.<br>

Thanks for any and all advice!<br>

<img src="http://toddcaudle.com/Rush-Alex-Geddy-060181-01H.jpg" alt="" width="720" height="568" /></p>

 

[robertbanks]

<p>There's a music photographer here in the UK who started shooting in the 60's, at venues like the 100 club, Ronnie Scotts jazz club, artists like the Rolling Stones, jazz musicians on tour etc . A few years ago he sold his entire archive to Getty for a few million (3 million I think, GBP). He's still shooting, trying to create a new archive of work to sell I guess!</p>

<p>So you could approach the large image libraries and see if they are interested in buying the collection as a whole, or possibly a specialist music image library.</p>

<p>Can I get 10% referral fee ;)</p>

[todd_caudle]

After rereading my post, I suddenly realized I

forgot to address one of the primary issues I

intended to ask about. Can I do a book, an e-

book or limited or unlimited edition prints

without getting myself sued? I know doing

posters and the like is off the table (not that

I'd want to do something like that), and I also

know that I might only have a problem if a

particular artist finds out what I'm doing AND

has a problem with it. But in a more general

scope, can books and prints still fall under

the umbrella of editorial use?

[danmarchant]

<p>Yes, you can sell the images as prints, display them in a gallery, do a book (or an e-book) without any sort of model release or permission. Obviously you need to remember that the law allows any idiot to try and sue you, even if they don't have a legal leg to stand on.</p>

<p>In most territories the law allows an artist to benefit from their art by selling it (prints, photo books etc). The only time permission from the subject is needed is when the image is used for advertising, marketing, promoting a business, product or service. So a little twist in the tail here.... you can use the images in your book but if you use one on a poster to promote the book you may need permission from the person featured.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>There was an episode of Pawn Stars a while ago that had a photographer who had been Hendrix's personal photographer - Rick (pawn shop owner) went through his collection of prints and bought a ton of one of a kind never released photos. </p>

<p>With everyone being lawsuit happy, the musicians could try and claim control of their images, as I'm sure many of them have in their contracts limits on what images of them in concert may be used for. (Van Halen being the exception - as they allow and encourage any kind of camera / recording device at their shows.) That would be my only concern. </p>

<p>A book or limited edition prints may be the way to go here. </p>

<p><br />Dave</p>

 

[mike dixon]

The problem I see with limited-edition prints is that the photos are not one-of-a-kind or even rare. They're shots of very-popular bands, mostly shot at the height of the bands' popularity, in big venues during major tours. As a consequence, hundreds of other photographers have thousands of similar shots of the same subjects from the same era. Of course, that doesn't make them worthless, but they won't have the same appeal as very-rare shots taken behind the scenes or during the very-early stages of the artists' careers.

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Not a lawyer but I think you would be more likely to run into trouble selling prints than licensing the photos through a stock agency, doing a book, etc. Selling prints is pretty much a straightforward, for-profit business -- people are buying pictures because of who's in them more so than your artistic ability. Whereas a book is a collection of your work, showing off you as an artist, displaying your body of work as someone who documented a slice of this subject and time. I think your best best might be to approach a major stock agency. Need for pictures from this long along come up from time to time. When anybody from any of these acts dies (and they are all getting older), People and other magazines will do a multipage spread loaded with photos. And they go to their own files and the major agencies to find them. You've also got the semi-forgotten stars who get busted for drunk driving, foreclosed on, etc., and end up in the news.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I think you would be more likely to run into trouble selling prints than licensing the photos through a stock agency, doing a book, etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Selling prints is not commercial usage. It is perfectly fine unless legal agreements were in force that may still apply. </p>