Robbie Williams and freedom of the press

Robbie Williams drives the press nuts. While giving his concert in the Munich Olympiastadion the press were only allowed to take pics of him during a specified period of time and the rights for publishing were given over to Mr. Williams himself.

SWR3 boycotted RW via printing white spots in their newspaper instead of showing pics of the concert. Nowadays "stars" have contracts for interviews, pictures etc.

Here's an article on the website of SWR3 regarding the "incident" Williams: SWR3 boykottiert Robbie-Williams-Tournee (in German)

An article which addresses with the situation of popstars / stars manipulating the press is also to be found on the webiste of "Der Spiegel": Robbie William - Spiegel archive search results

If you're interested in it you can buy the edition of 24th July 2006 online or at least try to find a pdf file. The one which is offered there only shows the index.

The reason for my post is to ask what do you think of this behaviour? Some peeps act like if they're so convinced to be someone special to restrict the rights of the media in such a harmful way. "Der Spiegel" says that the tabloids are sending their reader out "armed" with photo mobiles to take pics of the popstars etc. to get a pic for their stories.

I'm really interested in your opinions about it.

I personally feel that he is his own commodity and so has a right to earn fees for the photographs taken and also the rights to them. As for the specific time frame allowed within which to take the photos (I haven't read the links BTW), I can understand that too. Rather than being hounded before, during and after the performance, he could give the journalists/photographers his undivided attention for the alloted time as opposed to worthless one liners and rubbish photos.

Although saying that, I do get annoyed when celebrities use the media for their own PR purposes and then complain about press intrusion. Can't have it both ways I'm afraid.

I think the press should just ignore him.

Boycott Robbie Williams, the world will be thankful.

Well, that makes a change... usually it's the other way around. Power to Robbie. He is marketing a product, so I think he should have the copyright, the same as any other company would have. Don't forget, the newspapers and magazines are also trying to make money out of showbiz personalities.

Reuters sacking a photographer for picture manipulation would have made a more interesting point.
As for Mr Williams, he'd be well advised to keep making money while he still can. Picture rights are valuable and judging on last week's performance, his management are being pretty smart choosing this path.

He's an exclusive product and manages his rights exclusively. Legally, there's nothing wrong with his actions. His Munich concert was one of the few that did NOT ban private cameras so he's not banning all non-permitted pictures.

A concert is a newsworthy event, regardless of whether or how much admission is charged. Robbie is the center of a big event and his presence and performance a news item. The classification as entertainment vs. news is artificial. And saying that newspapers use him to sell more papers is totally irrelevant.

Regardless, if Robbie wants to keep the media out of his concert, that's his choice. But, if he lets them in, he should have no more control over them or rights to their photos than a politician or corporation holding a press conference. If he can control photos, why not also the right to censor reviews of the concert?

Nonesense. The press get free tickets in, they aren't there mixing with the plebs, trying to get a photo from half a stadium back, they are in the first frigging row. It's not news, it's coverage; and I agree it's his right to control it during the concert.

On the street, he's fair game.

Jeebus wept.


You have no fucking idea how copyright nor promotion work. Photographic works belong to the photographer and always have. That's internationally accepted copyright law.


He has a copyright on his vocals. He does not have the right to photographs taken of him by photographers who were invited by his production company for the explicit purpose of promoting him. Photogrpahers are invited to concerts solely so that the performer gets more press. Without the publicity the performer makes less money. It's a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" situation.

Should Editor Bob have to pay Hewlett Packard a percentage of his income because this site runs on their hardware? Do you believe HP should be able dictate what software may run on machines they build? It's preposterous.


The press aren't there because they want to see the fucking show. They're there to take pictures. They're not in the front row but in the pit between the barrier and stage. They're climbing over each other, all trying to get a "money shot", the one that will look good in the paper. The promoters want them there.

Do you think I could've taken this picture from the back of a concert hall? Hell no! And the guy posed for it. We both got what we wanted: I got my shot -- owned by me and sold and/or licensed -- and he got his publicity. He may actually buy rights to use it from me for the band's next album. That picture is my work, my talent and my effort.

Utterly, utterly clueless.

woof.

Your picture is your copyright. His image is his copyright. There's a difference.

So, why not control what these reporters write in the concert review too -- an unflattering photo vs. an unflattering review? It's just a matter of degrees.

How noble of the press to refuse to compromise their principles unless they get front row seats to a very popular concert. They certainly wouldn't agree to such terms for less popular musicians or, evidently, for seats in the back.

I don't blame the musicians for exacting as much control as they can, it just seems the press is losing their claim to be the fourth estate with such prostitution.

He can censor the press by not talking to those who give him bad reviews. Of course, then he doesn't get coverage from these guys, but who wants bad press? There will always be others willing to pay for interviews.

A photograph of someone else's copyrighted work is called a 'derivative work', and the rights do not extend to the creative work you photographed. Otherwise you could take a photograph of each page of a novel and then sell the photographs...

The press feel they can do what they want and if that means having cameras aimed at house windows then so be it. Thing is its not just Famous people. I had some friends die in an avalanche in January which was in a larger group. For a couple of weeks after reporters and camera people was taking pictures of the rest of the group and even followed them to a Pub where they had a drink one evening. Things got very heated and a report was made to the police who basically warned the media to back off!

I have no time for the media as they have their own little agendas and cause more trouble than they need. We all know what these starts look like anyway and to be honest have no interest what they get up to or whats happening in their lives-same as the Sports sections full of Bayern Stars doing this and that-And? report the Soccer not whats happening in their lives!

You're right, it's called selling papers, improving ratings etc. It's their job. Get over it.

Nice red herring there. Would you like it served in a senfsauce or do you prefer ceviche? I never mentioned derivative works.

There is no copyright on a human face. None. If I take a picture of a human, I hold the copyright on the picture unless I agreed to transfer the copyright to someone else (often the case in studio portraits) or I did it on behalf of an employer as a "work for hire" (something I don't do), in which case I already agreed to said transfer of copyright.

Whether that person is famous or not, I hold the rights to the pictures. Those shots of the Spring Fling in the gallery? Mine. I own 'em. Your face, my copyright. Editor Bob paid a fee for me to take them and also received a licence to use a number of them. As a courtesy I took down those pictures of people who asked not to be shown but I'm free to flog sell or license those same pictures to anyone I like. You have to recourses: approach me and deal with me directly, or sue the living shit out of me if the pictures are used fraudulently (I Photoshopped your head onto someone else's body and tried to pass it off as real) or try to use privacy laws to prevent publication or at least get a black bar over your eyes.

If you are in a public area you have no expectation of privacy. Anyone can take a picture of you and there's not a damned thing you can do about it.

Likewise, public persona lose their privacy rights as far as the printing of their likenesses is concerned. Williams can't demand I not photograph him. That photographers are limited to only a few songs of a set has become the norm, and many good shots have gone unshot because of this power-tripping silliness. But to try and claim the copyright? He can suck a fart out of my ass, and almost every photographer out there is giving him the finger.

The European Federation of Journalists has a bit to say on the subject. A successful boycott was done in Norway and more are on their way.

William rakes in millions from his concerts. He needs the media to promote these but he wants them to pay him for the privilege. He's trying to claim the copyrights of others who work in shitty conditions (that photo pit ain't no front row seat) and on tight deadlines who earn a lot less, all so that interest in him is kept high. Fuck that.

woof.

I am pretty certain that in Germany the privacy laws are more strict than what you alluded to BadDoggie. From my understanding, if you take a photo without someones permission that is an invasion of privacy and you can be held criminally liable. This can be a gray area if the person in the photo is secondary to the photo.

Fuckin' A! BadDoggie took pics of me at the chrimbo party and I never gave him permission. I'm skint. Consider yer arse sued Dog.

"Pretty certain". Show me a single cite. How about this: I get paid to take pictures and I'm familiar with the laws. Anyone incidental to a photo is legit. I can take a picture during Oktoberfest and I don't have to put black bars over each person's eyes. If some bint gets hers out for the lads, I may or may not have to put that bar on, depending on whether she's identified, the subject of the photo, and whether she's a public figure. If it's clear she's posing for me (e.g., gives me her name after I take the shot), it's kosher.

If I take a picture of an alleged criminal (charges brought, no finding of guilt yet), I must protect his identity. If I take a picture of you headbanging at some Tori Amos concert, you're fair game. If I take a picture of you and a group of people enjoying the sun at a Biergarten, you're fair game, even if I manage to get a shot of you making an ass of yourself. It's a public area. There are some weird limitations to this, but they're few and rarely applicable.


I don't need your permission and you can't sue me. The party was in a public area and you therefore had no right to expect privacy. Even if the party had been completely closed and no outsiders allowed in (there were non-TTers in the other section of the place), EB was the organiser of the event and gave me permission to shoot the party. He didn't pay me for that one. You could try to sue EB but no lawyer would help you try and sue me. Unless I 'shopped your noggin onto bonydebbie's bod in a malicious and fraudulent manner. I could 'shop that sort of picture as a joke as long as it was presented in such a manner.

woof.

I do not think Williams is trying to claim copyright but he is forcing photographers to forfeit copyright and authoring rights if they want to be in the pit taking photographs as it were. Seems a bit stupid to me because why would a photographer want to take photographs of this chump if they cannot make some mohla out of it themselves. "Stars" that try and control the media are often just looking to take an even bigger slice of the cake and deny others from making a living. Boycott the wanker and see how much money he makes without press coverage.

@BadDoggie

Sin may not have the copyright to the photographs but according to the European Court of Human Rights there is the right of the individual to privacy and a disporportionate interference with a claimant's private life is contrary to Section 8 of the Convention; therefore he would have every right to sue your arse if you published the pictures without his consent.

As for Robbie, if he's made a deal with certain publications and their photographers it would be with re. to UK legislation as per Douglas v Hello, in that if any unauthorised photographer had taken and used his photos, a breach of confidence and the photos considered a 'commercial trade secret'.

Therefore, it is not only a matter of copyright but privacy and ownership of image, which is obviously dependent on the jurisdictional legislation and ultimately the ECJ.

maybe i can just chip in that story. my cousin works for EMI in vienna and gets to contact the RW people. when they were promoting the last album, EMI Austria was given 2 (not too nice) pictures of RW they could give to newspapers and add to press releases etc for print. when her office requested more pictures, they didn't get any. (working with them is rather difficult)
the management of RW sees RW as big cash cow. the way he (and the his management) has been dealing with photographers is just another example.

WTF? Demanding forfeiting of copyright is claiming it for himself. He sure as shit ain't releasing to the public domain. Williams and Co are demanding that photographers relinquish their copyright and transfer it to him. They're demanding that photographers only shoot during specific songs and that he's only shot from certain positions. That's what his paid photographers do. And because he can pay his photographers to do that, he really thinks that every photographer has to do everything possible to make him look good and that every photographer should do what he wants. Fuck that.


Define "disproportionate". The EU can't. That runs on a case-by-case basis. There are some clear regulations and there are some fuzzy ones. I already gave examples. I could take any of the unposed group photos I shot and sell them to Bild for some sensationalist piece on "dem horrible forinjers what come into our country and go on the piss up". The shot of ER? Not without her consent, but that picture I got of IW "seeing the light" with a few others around him is definitely one that could be published with no consent and no remuneration.


"Either you shoot me when and how I say and transfer copyright of all those pictures to me and give me rights of refusal to publish or you're not getting in" is hardly a "deal". This is why he's being boycotted.

Nice try on Douglas v Hello, but that case revolved around a private function -- a wedding -- which allowed private guests. A concert is not a private function. Anyone paying admission can get in and tickets are transferable. Unlike a wedding which is a personal affair, there is no expectation of privacy at a concert, whether it's in the Arc or the Olympiastadion... unless it's a private affair and marked so (geschlossene Gesellschaft), and even then, whoever goes in may be "newsworthy" and therefore, I'd have the right to take and publish pictures of those going in and out.

woof.

All the talk of copyright is interesting and enlightening, but irrelevant.

Robbie requires the media to sign away rights to their photographs in return for access. No one questions the legality of these contracts or Robbie's rights to the images of those who have signed.

The dispute comes down to a question of principles: should the media accept such conditions?

Here's where the question would get interesting: What if Robbie showed off a swastika or similar symbol painted on his chest during a song -- could he prevent the media from publishing those images even though they had agreed to his terms?

You stated that "Photographic works belong to the photographer and always have". I was simply pointing out that your statement is overgeneralised and not always true. If you photograph a copyrighted work, then your work becomes a derivative. Furthermore, copyright does not extend to any part of your work in which such material has been used unlawfully.


But there is a copyright on live musical performances.

I am so glad you wasted time on a response to my little joke.

Nope. At that moment it becomes a news item and the context of the concert becomes irrelevant.


On their recording, yes. But a picture of the stage? Nah. It's a public performance.

woof.

It doesn't matter whether it's public or not. Try taking a video camera into the cinema if you don't believe me, and see what happens when you start recording the movie.

I've done that, didnt sit too well with the folks at the cinema, though one guy did see the funny side as I was quite drunk and trying to film Star Wars III on to a 256MB flash card!

How many fucking red herrings are you going to hurl out there? That would be a derivative work which you already pointed out isn't fair game.

woof.

Make up your mind. First you claimed a public performance isn't copyrightable, now you're admitting filming it is a derivative work. It can't be both.

How many overly-generalising statements is BadDoggie going to hurl out there might also be the question.

One hundred and forty-three.

Do I win a prize?

WTF? Why the hell do you keep changing shit around? The recording of the performance is copyrightable. That's the entire performance. It includes the scenery. Taking a picture of it in a news/events context isn't derivative. It's explanatory.


Bite me. Show me where I generalised. I've been writing specifics from the beginning, and you fucking know it. AM's been playing fast and loose with words and changing her meanings around. Every post of mine has addressed specifics.

IHBT.

woof.

Overgeneralizing


Sounds similar...

I wouldn't bite you even if I had had my rabies shot. You are generalising, ignoring posts that you can't argue with and choosing that which suits you to discuss. And you are needlessly insulting to boot. Tiresome.

It's not really a secret - Don't tell anyone, but I know what Robbie Williams looks like.


How did you get from photos to videos? If you video a film you can show it to your mates afterwards. If you take a picture of a concert and publish it in a newspaper where can I hear the music?

Concerts are newsworthy and I agree that they're fair game for photographers. I went to see the Spanish Harlem Orchestra in Darmstadt and they were allowing members of the audience on to the stage and posing for photos with them. But I guess some performers live in the real world and others are just arrogant twats.

Please show me a generalisation I made. One generalisation. Just one. And if you find some way of parsing a statement I made which could come across as a generalisation I'll be happy to clarify it. I haven't ignored a single post which ran counter to what I've written. And I found the insult (epithet, really) germaine to the tone in which I was addressed.

Showem, you have a lot to offer here and I don't know how we ended up so diametrically opposed to the point where I find that I can substantiate hurling some epithet at you, but I didn't choose this nick. It was more or less given to me by people who knew me 11 years ago. I'll back what I say until my dying day... or until you show me that such an opinion is incorrect, even when only in certain narrow circumstances. My opinions on countless things have changed once I was presented with new information I didn't have.

Fact is, I work in photography. I deal with EU and European countries' regulations. I know where the limits lie. I've tried to explain them in this thread. I've had my words twisted around and answered each time. I'm writing here knowing that this place is a general resource. If I don't know something, I say so. I demand citations from anyone making claims including myself.#

Look at the non-compete clause thread. Anyone can speculate. Those who actually deal with the law and legal implications are probably the best sources for information. OG has nailed me a couple times because he was more current with the law than I was, and I've admitted it every time. When's the last time you said, "Oh, you're right. What I thought I knew is from back in XX but I see the law has changed"?

woof

The performance consists of more than just the music. Do you think you could avoid copyright protection when videoing a ballet by not recording the sound, for example? What about a pantomime? Or a movie?

And other than sound, the only difference between a video and a photograph is one of scale - a video recording is the equivilent of a sequence of photographs. And while scale can make a big difference for things like "Fair Use", it's not going to stop your photograph from being a derivative work.

A performance is a closed venue with limited access. No one has the right to use any kind of recording device without prior consent of the performer and the promoter. By entering the venue, you agree to these rules.

Baddoggie, photographers do not hold the rights to contracted for photos unless the contract specifically states it. If I go to a photographer and have my picture taken, the picture belongs to me and they cannot do whatever they please with it.

It would be more accurate to say the photographer owns the copyright unless the contract states otherwise. Barring a work-for-hire agreement, a transfer of copyright (or exclusive rights) is not valid unless in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed.

My point was only that taking a photograph of a copyrighted work makes your photograph a derivative of that work. In other words, the photograph isn't entirely your property.

That is only because the photographer includes that on the contract to take photos. It is not a given and you have the right to have it removed. It falls under contract law and not an inherent right of the photographer in this instance.

The photographer owns the copyright unless the contract states otherwise.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wccc

"The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work."

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#toc

"Any or all of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights or any subdivision of those rights may be transferred, but the transfer of exclusive rights is not valid unless that transfer is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized agent."

I hire you to take my picture. I am the employer and you are the employee. I am the author by law and statute.

Jesus fucking christ, eurovol. Go back two pages to where I wrote work-for-hire. That is a fucking contract. Each contract is individual. The only works for hire coming out of the photography pit are those who work regularly for newspapers or magazines. The rest are freelancers, and we own the copyrights on the images of the events we take.

woof.

Photographers do not have an inherent right to be in a pit. The performer and the promoter have control of the whole of the show in a closed venue. They can allow you into the pit under various contracts which include hiring you to take pictures with a free ticket to the show as payment for your services or they can invite you in with no restrictions on your being able to use a camera. However you want to look at it, the performer and the promoters rights trump all in a closed venue with specific and limited access.


Under this situation, it was never yours to begin with and therefore you could not agree to transfer it. The employer owned it from the second you clicked the camera.

Robbie is a big enough star now that he can take more control over all aspects of his life and that is his right whereas a beginner would have much less reason to do so. That is why the paparazzi get paid big bucks for candid photos of stars and not you or me.

Simply hiring someone doesn't necessarily make you their employer. There would have to be an “employer-employee� relationship as de�ned by agency law:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ9.html#employer

Note that an independent contractor is not defined as an employee, and is only a work-for-hire if there is a written agreement between the parties.