Family civil war came up this morning, they all decided around noon or so to not do dinner/gift exchange. I've just been at home all day. I gave my mom stuff, but everything else will likely be returned. Idk what else to do with it. Happy holidays.
Political bullshit. Dumbest thing is my 14 year old cousin started the whole thing. It's not as complex as you're probably hoping for, but it's still petty as fuck.
Sounds to me like the situation wasn't communicated very clearly. The photographer didn't even know who they were talking to half the time. All those bullet points in the article to clarify the situation should have been communicated to the band directly. The band's initial source of information clearly slanted the story when they relayed the story to them. The photographer didn't take the time to say "hey, IDK what you heard, this is what happened" like a normal person, they just went into lawyer mode about copyright rights and fees and charity donation. The band felt like they were being strong armed into some black mail shit (clearly not knowing the story as the photographer tells it) and told them to get fucked. Had the photographer wrote the basics of that article to the band explaining the situation better, I'm sure the results would be different.
It may have been a miscommunication initially, but both sides clearly have the email chain and screenshots, so it's he said she said unless the whole thing is posted in full or you take what the author posted as true. Personally I don't blame the photographer considering bands that big have all the leverage, and he was polite. Explaining your rights =/= blackmail.
I'm all for photographers protecting their rights, but the photographer still basically opened the exchange with "You used my picture, you owe me x____ dollars. Pay it here." and got predictable results for it.
I'm all for photographers protecting their rights, but the photographer still basically opened the exchange with "You used my picture, you owe me x____ dollars. Pay it here." and got predictable results for it.
And yet, he's still in the right.
If some company started using one of my songs in an ad, Id do the same thing. Here's my address, send me a check.
I fully agree he is in the right to use and sell his photographs any way he wants, or that people have a right to their own work. But it this particular instance, the band is a third party in this. The first two are the photographer and the company that used a photo they don't own in a way that is promoting their goods. The band got their info from the second party, the company. The photographer just did a shit job of explaining the situation to the band afterwards.
How I read it anyway;
Party 2 uses part 1 pic for profit ("the crime") Party 1 reaches out Nothing Party 1 threatens legal action Party 2 then misinformed party 3 of what's going on Party 1 contacts party 3 Party 3 responds to party 1, clearly having gotten a twisted story from party 2 Party one doesn't clarify what went down (the fuck up)
Had that part been handled differently, they wouldn't be banned.
Honestly I think it had less to do with getting banned (just a catchy title to pull people in) and more to do with bands/others needing to be called out for thinking they can just use whatever images they want without paying for it and thinking it should be a privilege to shoot the band. It’s a cautionary tale for photographers.
You tryin to be a hero fool? You wanna see badass mother fucker?! I'll show ya a badass!!!
Comments
[-(
blue turbins
From Those Fishes - I Fingered An Old Bitch (i got Aids on my finger)
fhaggot
[-(
blue turbins
From Those Fishes - I Fingered An Old Bitch (i got Aids on my finger)
fhag
[-(
blue turbins
From Those Fishes - I Fingered An Old Bitch (i got Aids on my finger)
https://www.metalblast.net/blog/how-i-got-banned-from-photographing-arch-enemy/?fbclid=IwAR3_lGhcylVL1lv_3JLN6A6CnYgftcjrkKUKEvH7ym9Vq6P1Mh3tHy8_7c4
People really suck at communicating.
It may have been a miscommunication initially, but both sides clearly have the email chain and screenshots, so it's he said she said unless the whole thing is posted in full or you take what the author posted as true. Personally I don't blame the photographer considering bands that big have all the leverage, and he was polite. Explaining your rights =/= blackmail.
If some company started using one of my songs in an ad, Id do the same thing. Here's my address, send me a check.
How I read it anyway;
Party 2 uses part 1 pic for profit ("the crime")
Party 1 reaches out
Nothing
Party 1 threatens legal action
Party 2 then misinformed party 3 of what's going on
Party 1 contacts party 3
Party 3 responds to party 1, clearly having gotten a twisted story from party 2
Party one doesn't clarify what went down (the fuck up)
Had that part been handled differently, they wouldn't be banned.