This video Harry discusses his shoot with Kylie Minogue. Kylie Minogue's management force Harry to sign away the copyright for his work for a measly £1. Hope you enjoy!
A few harsh comments posted 😟 The thing is, presenting a contract minutes before a shoot is unethical and they KNOW it. Also, apart from anything else, why wouldn’t they want a gorgeous portrait of Kylie in the Australian Portrait Gallery, other than to refuse as some kind of power trip.
I used to work in the art department of a well known record label in the mid 90's.......the legal folks there would ALWAYS ask me to get the photographers to sign away their rights just BEFORE the album covers were printed......I always conveniently forgot and when I left my job I remember cleaning out my desk draws and disposing of all the unsigned scummy 'contracts'. They always try it on, despite the actual law (while claiming ignorance). I worked as a photographer years later and whenever I asked for re-use payments (usually for the contracted models I had used when ads were re-run a year later) the relationships always soured or you quickly became quietly black-listed ie no longer deemed a supplier.
Absolutely astonishing photos. It‘s a pleasure to see them and to hear you telling your story without any hate towards Kylie Minogue. And the nice plot twist at the end, also. I’ve got a question which is quite off-topic: I love your shirt. Where did you get it? Cheers from Dortmund
My heart sank when you said you'd signed the contract - I really hope it gets resolved. By the way I just figured out what the £1 is "Under English law, consideration needs to be paid to make a contract valid. The reason for that is that both parties are meant to get value from a contract, it wouldn't be enforceable otherwise.". I used to get this when I did design work - working in-house I'd be given £1 for signing a contract.
I feel rage after watching your video and can relate so much... I turned down a few jobs because of such hilariously stupid and abusive contracts presented by managements. I bet in almost all cases the artist had no clue what their so called management is doing. In times of social media, please do NOT stay silent and spread your experience and make people aware. I have done so with a open letter and a few years later I could work with no strings attached on the show of this artist. I understand not everyone is in the position to make a sometimes economical difficult decision to turn down a job. But I am not aware of anyone who has benefitted from giving in to abusive contracts... Thank you for sharing your case!
Great pics! It may have been good to have added some context that you will have been paid (probably a decent) fee for the shoot. If that was not the case, then not owning the copyright aswell would have been more of an issue. It's similar to other situations in the music industry where a remixes is paid a flat fee for his work, but the artist / label with then own the master recording of that as part of the contract, which I do see as fair. At least everyone is paid and the artist / label get to control what happens to the work they paid for. I'm also quite confident that Kylie would not have been aware of the opportunity to display the pic in the Aussie National Art Gallery. Unless there was other drama that went down that we are not aware of, and also having worked indirectly with Kylie myself in the past, she has always struck me as very fair and reasonable. Sorry to hear that things may have got messy with management for you. You did some great work there!
Never underestimate the value of agreeing a contract up front. I previously commissioned photographers and the agreement was always copyright was surrendered (and paid accordingly) but snapper could use them to promote their own business but not resell or assign copyright to others. Snappers got a fair price and we got control of something we paid for. No photographer should be bullied at the last moment to give up their rights.
This is soo sad, your portrait of Kylie & Michael Hutchence are really beautiful and should be apart of the Australian National Image… Kylie will probably see this and do the right thing
Just found you channel! I worked on a shoot with Kylie Minogue, many moons ago, as an assistant. She seemed a really friendly person. Quite a few of the photos were nudes etc, I remember they were quite up tight, understandably about the images. I often kept Polaroids of lighting setups for reference, as some of the photographers who I worked with would tell me what type of lighting they wanted and I would setup from that. I kept quite a few from this setup. That night I lost my bag on the tube! I was shitting myself for months that they would somehow end up on the red top front pages. They never did. Yeah... Never sign away copyright, they were wrong to ask but you did not have much option if they mugged you at the shoot. I probably would have done the same. Regards, Charles
Great information and thank you for sharing. I'm sure she knew what her manager was doing and very well went along with it. One could say she knew nothing about their business practices, but one could also say it was her request to her manager also. I was curious if they at least gave you credit in her La La La book? Anyways, I am now subscribed. Thanks.
Well; considering who the person was, I'm shocked (I, 70yrs, take photographs, the best I can, for fun.). A small plus point for you with this story, after looking at your photos. I admire your skill, a lot!!
Fantastic video and every photographer should be grateful that you shared this painful memory & lesson. Up to recently as an employed photographer all images created are indeed copyright of my University & that's the law. What annoyed me was their hap hazard way of crediting my work. Sometimes I was credited, sometimes not. Sadly these days I've noticed more & more photographers work goes un credited.
I've run into this situation or something similar. "You come and shot our event. We wont pay you but you can network and make contacts which will lead to your name getting out there. Which down the road is worth money to you." My answer in that situation has always a resounding no. They can pay me. I wouldn't call myself a "professional" photographer, I don't make a living at it. However I have had some paying work which has been nice. I've had people ask me to sell my copyright for next to nothing. My answer has always been no but I will license you the photograph for a period of time with conditions. The first being I own the copyright, second, you can't change nor edit the image without my permission. 23 years working in the legal profession gave me a better than average understanding of what makes an enforceable contract. Forcing you to sign or leaving you with the feeling of I have no choice but to sign. Not paying you. Yeah that's not an enforceable contract. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to business. But the situation you where in I'd have walked away. Clearly management had set you up on the day of the shoot to force you to sign your rights away. Ok, that's fine, after all it's nothing personal its just business. I guess on the day of the shoot they didn't need a photographer that badly after all. However I do understand how you may have felt that you didn't have a choice in the matter. So please don't take my comments as a criticism. In the past in other situations I've been exactly where you where. So I do get it. I came into photography late in life when I gave up my legal career and for use of a better phrase, reinvented myself. As a photographer I am an artist with an artistic vision. However it's also a business and I use a business model when I get paying work. As such I am very protective of my art and my artistic vision. One doesn't take away from the other but compliment and supports each other. After all, as a professional photography and artist, what you are ultimately selling is yourself and your brain. So what are you worth? If the "client" doesn't want to pay for your worth. Fine, bye.
Funny. I started as a photographer, then became a lawyer. As a general rule, though, contracts are enforceable and it would take a lot to set them aside. In this case, I fully get what Harry did. It's better to bring these photos into existence and deal with the legal issues later. Generally, though, be very serious and careful about every piece of paper that you sign. Also, the £1 consideration is never actually paid, it's just a clause that is needed to make it a valid contract. Same thing with peppercorn rents.
I'm sorry that happened to you. And thank you for sharing your story. Goes to show that photographers should always be alert for these types of sharks. It may or may not be a celebrity but it can happen to anyone, including a 40-year pro. All the best to you, hope it all works out.
Great video. Surely if you've been employed to photograph someone you get paid (I hope) for your effort but I wouldn't expect the photographer to own the copyright. You wouldn't expect a film director to own the copyright of a film just because they shot the film. Steven Spielberg doesn't own the copyright to Jaws just because he shot every scene. Universal Studios do. Whoever employed the photographer / film director would obviously own the material. Of course as this is a contract / employment law issue then the obvious tatic would be to decline signing such a contract you don't agree with it. I work in a small factory making glassware and yes I create the pieces but my employer obviously owns the copyright as they employed me under a contract. Keep up the good work x
Thanks for the comment! As Harry mentions at the end, the copyright laws only protects you if you are working self employed (not under contract for a company). Like someone else commentef: if a painter paints a portrait of someone you wouldn't expect the subject to own the painting! Thanks again!
I absolutely love every word in this video and as a former celebrity Photographer I can concur and truly appreciate what has happened here from my own experiences and happy with the message that is so prevalently powerful in this video
I find it interesting that a photographer being paid by an artist or performer to produce images of that person automatically has the copyright, but a worker who develops ideas into products does not. There seems to be a disconnect here, surely either both deserve the copyright or neither does. There is the other dimension though of the artist surely they have a real claim on their image and photos of themselves as they are a brand and their image is their trademark and therefore that is their copyright, especially when they are not taken in a public place and I doubt the photographer did this shoot for free.
Its all about WHO you shoot. No one gives a toss about the photographer. I find these even on IG. If you don't have a following most models/girls wont even acknowledge you exist.
Typically, contracts are finalized and agreed upon well in advance of the shoot day rather than being signed and agreed upon on the actual shoot day itself. I can empathize with the artist's desire for complete copyright ownership. During Kylie's early days on Neighbours, she had no control over the use of her photographs. This resulted in unauthorized resale of her images and the mass global production of various unofficial merchandise, ranging from mugs, pillow cases, and duvet covers, lunch boxes, scrap books, posters, badges, fake nails, unofficial biographies all featuring her name and face and sold at markets, independent stores and newsagents - globally. It was unfair to the artist, as others were profiting from her image without her consent. Eventually, Kylie's management rightfully took control of her image to prevent such exploitation, putting an end to photographers and agencies reselling her image for a quick buck. Just imagine companies worldwide exploiting your image and using your face to make money through various means. From your experience, it is possible that your situation could have been handled in a different manner. Nevertheless, it remains logical that you should receive payment for the work completed on that day, allowing both parties to part ways contentedly. Ultimately, it’s her face, and she should have full control of those images on how they’re used in the future. Also, Photoshop and Adobe Illustrator were around well before 1998 as I was studying it around that time. The takeaway in all of this is that don’t sign something that you don’t fully agree with and end up regretting.
Well Harry, at least you admitted it yourself - you were a mug for signing away your copyright on those pictures. And you also admitted that you thought it might result in a trade off that would work to your benefit, long term. Alas, and no surprise really that it didn't. I must say that photographers in your position do need to make a stand and tell these lacky PRs and 'artist management' that think they control everything, that no, a photographer's copyright is not up for grabs, and certainly not for the token sum of £1. It shows a deep lack of respect really.
Only a photographer can understand exactly what you are talking about :) In a photographer's work, a lot depends on relationships and good intentions, unfortunately this is often exploited by tricksters from the industry, of course, over time, "you are" become more resistant, which does not change the fact that the specificity of certain people's actions does not change changes... Good story
When you sign a contract, always assume that it is valid and will be enforced. The biggest practical problem if you have signed your copyright away, is that you can be sued for a cease and desist order and retroactive royalties, if you use your own work. It's quite cruel.
I'm sorry but when such haggling happens during a shoot, then you, bluntly put, have been naive beforehand. I hasten to add that the celebrity's "management" really have blundered, on the scale between manage and lead they are beyond "manage" in that they have not managed to do a great job. In my country, citizens have some protection against their own stupidity but in business there is none. And, here, the one who pays has the Intellectual Property (IPr) UNLESS agreed otherwise beforehand. A photographer, here, loses IPr by being employed as photographer with all work done during work hours or of situations that may be interpreted as work. The shutter release pushers however retain the right for their name to be attached to the IPr for as long as IPr lasts. The right to make copies and the right to publish are really separate from all this and should be contracted as different subjects, irrespective of laws that may have an opinion on this. I make special mention of the right of scientists and journalists to quote your work without permission and compensation - only in the context of their scientific/journalistic work. This is similar in many countries and we see this being used by a bunch of "reaction" channels in YT. Abused a lot. I also make mention of the right to make a copy for personal use (in my country) but that was never intended for me having your work now allowing a third person to make a copy. Its is only for me. This is abused a lot. And there is the right in my country to make new artwork as "collage" using without permission the work of others and resulting in IPr for me as "creator" - the condition is that the original artwork cannot be recognised any longer. Again violated a lot in YT and the basis of loads of channels that make videos by making a collage of the IPr of others,sometimes retelling the same story as originally told, only now with different video takes or different voices or both. It is also important to understand that publishing a photograph of, say, a designer's dress on a person we shoot, means that we publish that dress designer's art work. Or a shoot is under direction of an art director, uses a stylist, a MUA, etc. All these may need mentioning of their names in publication. We cannot say in many cases, I pressed the shutter release so the IPr is mine and mine only. A counter-example of these limitations, IMO, is where a new architecture (building) is erected in view of public space and guards walk around to prohibit you from taking its picture because the IPr would not be tours. Well, once you place a building in public space or sight fro public space, you have placed it in the public domain. Again, in this last case too, the right to publish is not the same as the right to shoot. There may be reasonable interests that uphold in a court of law, but in this case that largely depends on the quality of one's lawyer to argue the IPr away from public domain.
For me, it would all depend on the fee for the shoot. Also, how regularly they are. The subject is in many photographs more interesting than the photographs themselves.
I have found before, the artist has no idea . I’ve brought it up before on a later shoot and Artist told me they had no idea their mgmt was issuing rights grabs on the spot. One was appalled.
I half understand but equally, you’re asked to come and photograph someone - I’ve never know the photographer own the whole thing? It’s like someone photographing a wedding and owning it all - doing what they want with it wherever and whenever they want - everyone would agree that would be incredibly odd, no?
Thanks for the comment. The photographer always owns the images. People just purchase the rights to use it. Like a similar comment said "If you paint a painting of someone, does the subject then own the painting?".
I Really Like Him!! Just waking up. This popped up. Watching. Seconds into it...I Like Him! Maybe it's the real tone or??? (I didn't read the comments. Grazed one that says theirs some negative. (Shocking! People with something negative to say when they have no dog in the race. This irritating, knee jerk reaction over feeling...hearing something that's real. An experience that's not corporate cleaned with insincere suger?) OFF TOPIC.... fell in love with this guy! Dying to work with...or have drinks and pick his brain, Swap stories 🖤⚡️❤️🔥🥂
.....I've wondered for years....if "they" are aware of Alot of what's going on...tiny chuck w her for instance. Art, celebrity, touching people? Whooo knows. I know a part is money! And im sure knowing somewhere in the chain is sometimes impossible to purchase online. Music is a MF'er to purchase. Merch. Like jumping thru fire...(to purchase a 60...90 +++ dollar tee!) I'll go with "it's the times"...however. if im having a negative experience. AND im not being negative...but if im experience. Then others are!! And, i literally, i just walk away. New email comes (a new Drop...tee. single.?? something. I just delete the email.) WORKING in "the world" seeing meetings over meetings over just a "PENCIL"! The experience is effected. And So Are the Sakes (dumd for instance...padum. i bet 8 times i tried to purchase it...nope. till i just walked away. Practically anything ive had (98.9%) to do with LIVENATION. was unnecessary WORK!...to where again. I just walk away. Im one of...it adds up. They like sakes...numbers. "charts" meanwhile....wonder if they know. Blah blah blah
Kylie likely knew and knows nothing of this. If the management never paid you the £1 then you can sue them for breach of contract and then claim compensation for all the years of use.
If someone did that to me, I’d probably just walk out. But then again, photography is just a hobby for me. Pros probably have to kiss up a bit to keep working.
There was an occasion when receiving a courier parcel with a brief for a photography project , the courier asked me to sign for it , it turns out it wasn't just for receipt for delivery but by accepting it I accepted the terms of the shoot. ( in a nutshell they owned everything ) not only corrupt but they got the poor courier to do the dirty work . Sent it back unopened
Try asking if they will give the original recording of her latest songs and see what happens. It seems to be acceptable for the photographer to give up their work for a mere pittance and these multi-millionaires want all the images for nothing. 😡😡
Your videos are so inspiring and helpful for all of us photographers. I hope you won't stop doing them.
Thanks a lot for the kind comment. We really enjoy making them, no plans on stopping! New video every Monday 😁
A few harsh comments posted 😟 The thing is, presenting a contract minutes before a shoot is unethical and they KNOW it. Also, apart from anything else, why wouldn’t they want a gorgeous portrait of Kylie in the Australian Portrait Gallery, other than to refuse as some kind of power trip.
Cheers Chris 👍 it's all good. It's interesting hearing everyone's opinions/experiences!
Great to meet you the other day Harry. Awesome video and interesting story there. Ofc along with lovely portraits
Thanks Alex 😁 - it was great to meet you and thanks again for all the advice!
-Fred
Top video! 1000 thanks for sharing your experiences!
I used to work in the art department of a well known record label in the mid 90's.......the legal folks there would ALWAYS ask me to get the photographers to sign away their rights just BEFORE the album covers were printed......I always conveniently forgot and when I left my job I remember cleaning out my desk draws and disposing of all the unsigned scummy 'contracts'. They always try it on, despite the actual law (while claiming ignorance). I worked as a photographer years later and whenever I asked for re-use payments (usually for the contracted models I had used when ads were re-run a year later) the relationships always soured or you quickly became quietly black-listed ie no longer deemed a supplier.
Very very important advice there for us photographers.
Absolutely astonishing photos. It‘s a pleasure to see them and to hear you telling your story without any hate towards Kylie Minogue. And the nice plot twist at the end, also.
I’ve got a question which is quite off-topic: I love your shirt. Where did you get it?
Cheers from Dortmund
Thanks! It's a British design called @waxlondon
.
My heart sank when you said you'd signed the contract - I really hope it gets resolved. By the way I just figured out what the £1 is "Under English law, consideration needs to be paid to make a contract valid. The reason for that is that both parties are meant to get value from a contract, it wouldn't be enforceable otherwise.". I used to get this when I did design work - working in-house I'd be given £1 for signing a contract.
I feel rage after watching your video and can relate so much... I turned down a few jobs because of such hilariously stupid and abusive contracts presented by managements. I bet in almost all cases the artist had no clue what their so called management is doing. In times of social media, please do NOT stay silent and spread your experience and make people aware. I have done so with a open letter and a few years later I could work with no strings attached on the show of this artist.
I understand not everyone is in the position to make a sometimes economical difficult decision to turn down a job. But I am not aware of anyone who has benefitted from giving in to abusive contracts...
Thank you for sharing your case!
Great pics! It may have been good to have added some context that you will have been paid (probably a decent) fee for the shoot. If that was not the case, then not owning the copyright aswell would have been more of an issue. It's similar to other situations in the music industry where a remixes is paid a flat fee for his work, but the artist / label with then own the master recording of that as part of the contract, which I do see as fair. At least everyone is paid and the artist / label get to control what happens to the work they paid for.
I'm also quite confident that Kylie would not have been aware of the opportunity to display the pic in the Aussie National Art Gallery. Unless there was other drama that went down that we are not aware of, and also having worked indirectly with Kylie myself in the past, she has always struck me as very fair and reasonable. Sorry to hear that things may have got messy with management for you. You did some great work there!
Harry mentions in another comment he was paid £250 plus expenses!
Never underestimate the value of agreeing a contract up front. I previously commissioned photographers and the agreement was always copyright was surrendered (and paid accordingly) but snapper could use them to promote their own business but not resell or assign copyright to others.
Snappers got a fair price and we got control of something we paid for. No photographer should be bullied at the last moment to give up their rights.
I'm a Kylie fan, amazing work, thanks! Can we get a full contact sheet preview of this photoshoot? for fans
Give me an email we should be able to sort something out! Fredanningbo@gmail.com
I'd love to know what she thinks about it. I'm wondering if she even knows.
Great video and the photos are world class as ever
Thanks again for the lovely comments! 😁
Fascinating insight and well presented, Thank you . i know exactly where you would be coming from.
This is soo sad, your portrait of Kylie & Michael Hutchence are really beautiful and should be apart of the Australian National Image… Kylie will probably see this and do the right thing
Really interesting channel, great photos and stories and a photographer who doesn't just exist on YT - thank you and subscribed!
Thank you for the lovely comment! Glad you enjoyed.
She made millions but her manager made so much more.
That was quite clever at the end 😊👌🏾
Just found you channel! I worked on a shoot with Kylie Minogue, many moons ago, as an assistant. She seemed a really friendly person. Quite a few of the photos were nudes etc, I remember they were quite up tight, understandably about the images. I often kept Polaroids of lighting setups for reference, as some of the photographers who I worked with would tell me what type of lighting they wanted and I would setup from that. I kept quite a few from this setup. That night I lost my bag on the tube! I was shitting myself for months that they would somehow end up on the red top front pages. They never did. Yeah... Never sign away copyright, they were wrong to ask but you did not have much option if they mugged you at the shoot. I probably would have done the same. Regards, Charles
If you didn't get the £1 you should sue her for your share of the proceeds from 'her' book.
I mentioned this to Harry, he isn't sure its worth the time!
Great information and thank you for sharing. I'm sure she knew what her manager was doing and very well went along with it. One could say she knew nothing about their business practices, but one could also say it was her request to her manager also. I was curious if they at least gave you credit in her La La La book? Anyways, I am now subscribed. Thanks.
Thanks! I think I saw a credit when I saw a copy of the book at a car boot sale. 🙂
The music industry. Full of sharks since they worked out how to extract money from it.
Well; considering who the person was, I'm shocked (I, 70yrs, take photographs, the best I can, for fun.). A small plus point for you with this story, after looking at your photos. I admire your skill, a lot!!
Awful... BTW, these are great photos - Kylie, AND Michael. If I were the Australian museum I'd definitely want them too.
Thank you. 🙏
Fantastic video and every photographer should be grateful that you shared this painful memory & lesson. Up to recently as an employed photographer all images created are indeed copyright of my University & that's the law. What annoyed me was their hap hazard way of crediting my work. Sometimes I was credited, sometimes not. Sadly these days I've noticed more & more photographers work goes un credited.
My wife, a former journalist knows all about this as a media employee
It's definitely outrageous for a freelance photographer
Stick by your guns 📷👍
I've run into this situation or something similar. "You come and shot our event. We wont pay you but you can network and make contacts which will lead to your name getting out there. Which down the road is worth money to you." My answer in that situation has always a resounding no. They can pay me. I wouldn't call myself a "professional" photographer, I don't make a living at it. However I have had some paying work which has been nice. I've had people ask me to sell my copyright for next to nothing. My answer has always been no but I will license you the photograph for a period of time with conditions. The first being I own the copyright, second, you can't change nor edit the image without my permission. 23 years working in the legal profession gave me a better than average understanding of what makes an enforceable contract. Forcing you to sign or leaving you with the feeling of I have no choice but to sign. Not paying you. Yeah that's not an enforceable contract. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to business. But the situation you where in I'd have walked away. Clearly management had set you up on the day of the shoot to force you to sign your rights away. Ok, that's fine, after all it's nothing personal its just business. I guess on the day of the shoot they didn't need a photographer that badly after all. However I do understand how you may have felt that you didn't have a choice in the matter. So please don't take my comments as a criticism. In the past in other situations I've been exactly where you where. So I do get it. I came into photography late in life when I gave up my legal career and for use of a better phrase, reinvented myself. As a photographer I am an artist with an artistic vision. However it's also a business and I use a business model when I get paying work. As such I am very protective of my art and my artistic vision. One doesn't take away from the other but compliment and supports each other. After all, as a professional photography and artist, what you are ultimately selling is yourself and your brain. So what are you worth? If the "client" doesn't want to pay for your worth. Fine, bye.
Funny. I started as a photographer, then became a lawyer. As a general rule, though, contracts are enforceable and it would take a lot to set them aside. In this case, I fully get what Harry did. It's better to bring these photos into existence and deal with the legal issues later. Generally, though, be very serious and careful about every piece of paper that you sign. Also, the £1 consideration is never actually paid, it's just a clause that is needed to make it a valid contract. Same thing with peppercorn rents.
I'm sorry that happened to you. And thank you for sharing your story. Goes to show that photographers should always be alert for these types of sharks. It may or may not be a celebrity but it can happen to anyone, including a 40-year pro. All the best to you, hope it all works out.
Great video. Surely if you've been employed to photograph someone you get paid (I hope) for your effort but I wouldn't expect the photographer to own the copyright. You wouldn't expect a film director to own the copyright of a film just because they shot the film. Steven Spielberg doesn't own the copyright to Jaws just because he shot every scene. Universal Studios do. Whoever employed the photographer / film director would obviously own the material. Of course as this is a contract / employment law issue then the obvious tatic would be to decline signing such a contract you don't agree with it. I work in a small factory making glassware and yes I create the pieces but my employer obviously owns the copyright as they employed me under a contract. Keep up the good work x
Thanks for the comment! As Harry mentions at the end, the copyright laws only protects you if you are working self employed (not under contract for a company). Like someone else commentef: if a painter paints a portrait of someone you wouldn't expect the subject to own the painting!
Thanks again!
I absolutely love every word in this video and as a former celebrity Photographer I can concur and truly appreciate what has happened here from my own experiences and happy with the message that is so prevalently powerful in this video
I find it interesting that a photographer being paid by an artist or performer to produce images of that person automatically has the copyright, but a worker who develops ideas into products does not. There seems to be a disconnect here, surely either both deserve the copyright or neither does. There is the other dimension though of the artist surely they have a real claim on their image and photos of themselves as they are a brand and their image is their trademark and therefore that is their copyright, especially when they are not taken in a public place and I doubt the photographer did this shoot for free.
Kylie should be so lucky it was you who photographed her.
Its all about WHO you shoot. No one gives a toss about the photographer. I find these even on IG. If you don't have a following most models/girls wont even acknowledge you exist.
Kylie Minogue
Typically, contracts are finalized and agreed upon well in advance of the shoot day rather than being signed and agreed upon on the actual shoot day itself.
I can empathize with the artist's desire for complete copyright ownership. During Kylie's early days on Neighbours, she had no control over the use of her photographs. This resulted in unauthorized resale of her images and the mass global production of various unofficial merchandise, ranging from mugs, pillow cases, and duvet covers, lunch boxes, scrap books, posters, badges, fake nails, unofficial biographies all featuring her name and face and sold at markets, independent stores and newsagents - globally. It was unfair to the artist, as others were profiting from her image without her consent. Eventually, Kylie's management rightfully took control of her image to prevent such exploitation, putting an end to photographers and agencies reselling her image for a quick buck. Just imagine companies worldwide exploiting your image and using your face to make money through various means. From your experience, it is possible that your situation could have been handled in a different manner. Nevertheless, it remains logical that you should receive payment for the work completed on that day, allowing both parties to part ways contentedly. Ultimately, it’s her face, and she should have full control of those images on how they’re used in the future.
Also, Photoshop and Adobe Illustrator were around well before 1998 as I was studying it around that time.
The takeaway in all of this is that don’t sign something that you don’t fully agree with and end up regretting.
Well Harry, at least you admitted it yourself - you were a mug for signing away your copyright on those pictures. And you also admitted that you thought it might result in a trade off that would work to your benefit, long term. Alas, and no surprise really that it didn't. I must say that photographers in your position do need to make a stand and tell these lacky PRs and 'artist management' that think they control everything, that no, a photographer's copyright is not up for grabs, and certainly not for the token sum of £1. It shows a deep lack of respect really.
Yes mate!
Only a photographer can understand exactly what you are talking about :) In a photographer's work, a lot depends on relationships and good intentions, unfortunately this is often exploited by tricksters from the industry, of course, over time, "you are" become more resistant, which does not change the fact that the specificity of certain people's actions does not change changes... Good story
Totally! Thanks for watching.
If Harry could choose again, with what he knows today, would he still sign the contract or refuse and walk away from the shoot?
I think I'd still do the shoot. I knew back then I was signing under duress and had no intention of giving them my negatives. ;-)
Best video I've watched all week
Wow, thanks
It probably wouldn’t stand up in court,even if you’ve signed it!
The pictures are still your intellectual copyright!
If I paint a picture of you, do you own the picture?
No, even if you sold me the physical picture, that's not a transfer of IP. 🙂
#freekylie
Should have said. Ok. Then she can leave now.
sage wisdom
The one who presses the shutter is the owner!
I often wonder how diligent they are in keeping the contracts.
When you sign a contract, always assume that it is valid and will be enforced. The biggest practical problem if you have signed your copyright away, is that you can be sued for a cease and desist order and retroactive royalties, if you use your own work. It's quite cruel.
Never surrender Copyrights ✊
I'm sorry but when such haggling happens during a shoot, then you, bluntly put, have been naive beforehand.
I hasten to add that the celebrity's "management" really have blundered, on the scale between manage and lead they are beyond "manage" in that they have not managed to do a great job.
In my country, citizens have some protection against their own stupidity but in business there is none. And, here, the one who pays has the Intellectual Property (IPr) UNLESS agreed otherwise beforehand. A photographer, here, loses IPr by being employed as photographer with all work done during work hours or of situations that may be interpreted as work. The shutter release pushers however retain the right for their name to be attached to the IPr for as long as IPr lasts.
The right to make copies and the right to publish are really separate from all this and should be contracted as different subjects, irrespective of laws that may have an opinion on this.
I make special mention of the right of scientists and journalists to quote your work without permission and compensation - only in the context of their scientific/journalistic work. This is similar in many countries and we see this being used by a bunch of "reaction" channels in YT. Abused a lot.
I also make mention of the right to make a copy for personal use (in my country) but that was never intended for me having your work now allowing a third person to make a copy. Its is only for me. This is abused a lot.
And there is the right in my country to make new artwork as "collage" using without permission the work of others and resulting in IPr for me as "creator" - the condition is that the original artwork cannot be recognised any longer. Again violated a lot in YT and the basis of loads of channels that make videos by making a collage of the IPr of others,sometimes retelling the same story as originally told, only now with different video takes or different voices or both.
It is also important to understand that publishing a photograph of, say, a designer's dress on a person we shoot, means that we publish that dress designer's art work. Or a shoot is under direction of an art director, uses a stylist, a MUA, etc.
All these may need mentioning of their names in publication. We cannot say in many cases, I pressed the shutter release so the IPr is mine and mine only.
A counter-example of these limitations, IMO, is where a new architecture (building) is erected in view of public space and guards walk around to prohibit you from taking its picture because the IPr would not be tours. Well, once you place a building in public space or sight fro public space, you have placed it in the public domain.
Again, in this last case too, the right to publish is not the same as the right to shoot. There may be reasonable interests that uphold in a court of law, but in this case that largely depends on the quality of one's lawyer to argue the IPr away from public domain.
If they never paid. Then there is no contract. And they owe you a lot of money.
Great video. Why not go after them for the proceeds of the book and any other money made off your photos?
For me, it would all depend on the fee for the shoot. Also, how regularly they are. The subject is in many photographs more interesting than the photographs themselves.
The Observer paid for the shoot. (about £250 plus expenses!)
Kylie's the QUEEN 👑💯 I don't think she'll care u putting this video out or pictures... She's probably forgotten the shoot tbh 😂 #PadamPadam
Haha yes - we are banking on it!
I have found before, the artist has no idea . I’ve brought it up before on a later shoot and Artist told me they had no idea their mgmt was issuing rights grabs on the spot. One was appalled.
I half understand but equally, you’re asked to come and photograph someone - I’ve never know the photographer own the whole thing? It’s like someone photographing a wedding and owning it all - doing what they want with it wherever and whenever they want - everyone would agree that would be incredibly odd, no?
Thanks for the comment. The photographer always owns the images. People just purchase the rights to use it. Like a similar comment said "If you paint a painting of someone, does the subject then own the painting?".
I Really Like Him!! Just waking up. This popped up. Watching. Seconds into it...I Like Him!
Maybe it's the real tone or??? (I didn't read the comments. Grazed one that says theirs some negative. (Shocking! People with something negative to say when they have no dog in the race. This irritating, knee jerk reaction over feeling...hearing something that's real. An experience that's not corporate cleaned with insincere suger?) OFF TOPIC.... fell in love with this guy! Dying to work with...or have drinks and pick his brain, Swap stories 🖤⚡️❤️🔥🥂
.....I've wondered for years....if "they" are aware of Alot of what's going on...tiny chuck w her for instance. Art, celebrity, touching people? Whooo knows. I know a part is money! And im sure knowing somewhere in the chain is sometimes impossible to purchase online. Music is a MF'er to purchase. Merch. Like jumping thru fire...(to purchase a 60...90 +++ dollar tee!) I'll go with "it's the times"...however. if im having a negative experience. AND im not being negative...but if im experience. Then others are!! And, i literally, i just walk away. New email comes (a new Drop...tee. single.?? something. I just delete the email.) WORKING in "the world" seeing meetings over meetings over just a "PENCIL"! The experience is effected. And So Are the Sakes (dumd for instance...padum. i bet 8 times i tried to purchase it...nope. till i just walked away. Practically anything ive had (98.9%) to do with LIVENATION. was unnecessary WORK!...to where again. I just walk away. Im one of...it adds up. They like sakes...numbers. "charts" meanwhile....wonder if they know. Blah blah blah
It’s really messed up that celebrities abusing photographers like this …
Kylie likely knew and knows nothing of this. If the management never paid you the £1 then you can sue them for breach of contract and then claim compensation for all the years of use.
If someone did that to me, I’d probably just walk out. But then again, photography is just a hobby for me. Pros probably have to kiss up a bit to keep working.
There was an occasion when receiving a courier parcel with a brief for a photography project , the courier asked me to sign for it , it turns out it wasn't just for receipt for delivery but by accepting it I accepted the terms of the shoot. ( in a nutshell they owned everything ) not only corrupt but they got the poor courier to do the dirty work . Sent it back unopened
Ooooft! That is sneaky!!
Ooooft! That is sneaky!!
Try asking if they will give the original recording of her latest songs and see what happens. It seems to be acceptable for the photographer to give up their work for a mere pittance and these multi-millionaires want all the images for nothing. 😡😡
Should I have heard of this girl?
She’s amazing
There's some satisfaction to be had noting that Kylie these days, looks old enough to be Harry's mum.
She doesn't look old, she looks great now days
I'm sure Harry would love to hear this 😂 thanks for the comment!
@@shaunhoward6838 she's white budd and no amount of good lightning and/or make-up gonna hide the fact, that she looks the age she is. No harm in that
@@looptimelapse she's still hotter then black Oprah
@@looptimelapse what's white got to do with it 😂😂😂 Kylie's still sexy ASF, and still hotter then Oprah Winfrey is at 55 👌💯 😂
For being such a big shot, how come you can't expose your own video correctly 😂
Its me who does these videos - It's my Dad talking. Thanks for the advice though!
Kylie has done this on all her shoots since 1990, she would buy all the shots taken on the shoot, keep the ones she liked and cut up and destroy the rest. Her brand is very protected which I think is incredible and very interesting.
℗© 1988 KDB PTY
Totally!