|
|
Post by postscript on Jul 20, 2006 8:45:22 GMT
Thank you Richard. Now we know who is to blame for the fact that the public were strictly forbidden from taking photographs. It was not a security issue in it's literal sense and it was not the request of the performer, her management or even the venue (as far as we know). We were advised that the "official" photographers did not want members of the public to sell their own pictures on the internet and thereby reduce their potential turnover. What happened to free enterprise? I agree that flash should be banned, fellow audience members should not be disturbed, and that the performer and venue has the right to deny photographs being taken by the public during a performance. I do NOT agree that professional photographers should be allowed exclusive rights, especially when genuine fans are paying up to £40 (in this case) per ticket for a PUBLIC performance. But that's what happened.  Roger I think there are several intersting points here and I'll research it in my new book on copyright which may not cover the photography issue and these points also impinge upon privacy. Were the 'official' photographers paying a royalty for access? Are the performers consenting or restricting because of rake-offs they receive from the official photographers? Do the performers have an interest in sale rights for being the subject of the photographs? Amongst 'professional' photographers there is rivalry to UNDERMINE existing professional rights. Wasn't some celebrities' wedding (Zeta Jones?) the subject of a law suit in that they had sold rights exclusively to a magazine and another magazine pipped them to the publication post without paying such rights? So there is sheer proven hypocrisy and rivalry and intent to undermine 'official rights' WITHIN the professional photography circles. Who's calling the kettle black? Peter |
|
|
|
Post by roger on Jul 20, 2006 12:42:36 GMT
Hi Peter, Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to your questions. However, there is a principal at stake here. We know for a fact that Hayley is happy for us to photograph her and there is little doubt that the results which appear on HWI can only help to generate interest in her as a performer, albeit to a limited degree. I suspect that the official photographers do pay some sort of royalty but I am by no means convinced that the performer benefits from that. Using a very simple analogy, Tesco sells bread but that does not give them the right to deny Sainsburys and Asda the right to also sell bread. Yet these official photographers are buying (or being given) exclusive rights. And we, the loyal fans, don't necessarily see the official photographs. On this occasion we were fortunate in that Richard found them and supplied the link to their website. So we have given them a bit of FREE publicity when they had denied us the right to take our own!!! However, we can only see thumbnail images. To view them full size one is required to register - and that costs at least £50!  Yet 10,000 people attended that concert having paid £40 per person and I don't think it is unreasonable that they should be able to take a few photos as a souvenir of the event. And if they wish to publish some of them on a fansite, what is wrong with that? IMO, a little competition is no bad thing. Roger |
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Jul 20, 2006 17:06:58 GMT
Hi Roger.
Perhaps it is worth my while writing a SMALL SHORT paper when I get the proverbial spare moment--there are so many other things I have lined up already to share with HWI members!
The short piece I am going to quote from now concludes with 5 references to other detailed explanatons of related issues raised by the foregoing!
What follows is taken from A User's Guide to Copyright 6th edition Tottel Publishing © 2006
"... celebreties have sought increasing levels of control over the exploitation of their image for commercial purposes... lack of international harmonisation as to whether 'image rights' per se are `capable' of protection. In England they go largely unrecognised."
In fact, upon further reading, I don't think the subject is actually of that great interest to us, because even in quoting that small section meaningfully I've cross-referred to three other references to check i am not quoting out of context and therefore in danger of misleading.
Perhaps Il Divo are hard up for cash and need the income from granting licenses from which final photograph sales they presumably claim a percentage? Have they not thought of simply improving their singing?
On second thoughts, the subject may be worth pursuing, because while it is a public performance there is arguably copyright involved in their presentaion (as with a stage musical) and that is being 'reproduced' by the photographer, just as if someone were to photograph a photograph, the first photographer is the one who holds the first claim to copyright.
Peter
PS: Of course, the one to be involved in this debate is Andrew--although at the moment, of course, as he hasn't yet completed the course he may be little more enlightened than I, until he is on his third year, then he will be ahead of me (as I only read law for two years). When he completes his third year, while he remains technically as unqualified as I, I shall acknowledge his seniority!
|
|
|
|
Post by roger on Jul 20, 2006 17:54:21 GMT
"... celebreties have sought increasing levels of control over the exploitation of their image for commercial purposes... lack of international harmonisation as to whether 'image rights' per se are `capable' of protection. In England they go largely unrecognised." Peter Ah, but that is a separate issue entirely and one with which I agree. But we are not talking of exploitation and selling Hayley's image for commercial gain. At the most, we merely use it to promote her name. Roger |
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Jul 25, 2006 14:50:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Jul 25, 2006 15:35:36 GMT
Here's another mention of Hayley, hot from Il Divo's forum. Fushia wrote:- Richard  |
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Jul 28, 2006 8:47:40 GMT
|
|
Yet 10,000 people attended that concert having paid £40 per person and I don't think it is unreasonable that they should be able to take a few photos as a souvenir of the event. And if they wish to publish some of them on a fansite, what is wrong with that? IMO, a little competition is no bad thing.
