How I got Banned from Photographing Arch Enemy

UPDATE: An update, addressing some issues raised by Arch Enemy, has been posted here.


Back in June I covered Fortarock, a fantastic metal festival in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. I had the opportunity to shoot bands like Dragonforce, Watain, Týr, Alestorm and Arch Enemy, all of whom are not only really fun to photograph, but also extremely talented musicians.

This being the Netherlands, shooting the festival also meant dealing with quite a bit of rain, particularly during the first day. Arch Enemy were particularly unlucky in this regard, since their set coincided with a massive downpour. This meant that I had to juggle my equipment while hiding under a poncho, trying to make sure it didn’t get too wet to function.

Still, the effort was worth it, and the result of that first day was an image of Alissa White-Gluz, the singer of Arch Enemy, that, as soon as I published it on my Instagram, was very well-received by everyone, even by Alissa herself, who re-posted it on her account.

Alissa White Gluz with Arch Enemy at Fortarock 2018 (Photo: J. Salmeron)

Just as I saw that fans were re-posting the photo (something that I tend to turn a blind-eye to, as long as they don’t edit the images), I noticed that a company named Thunderball Clothing had posted it to promote their products.

The (now deleted) re-post of my work by Thunderball Clothing

Since the post had been made on the account of the company, it was obvious that its purpose was to advertise. It was placed on an Instagram page that had a link to their online store, and my image was used to show the products that they had created for Alissa. In other words, this wasn’t merely a fan using the photo because they liked Arch Enemy (which I would normally tolerate), but instead a business, profiting from my work without even asking for my permission.

Since I had tried to contact this company via Instagram messages, but was ignored, I sent their owner an e-mail, explaining the situation:

Dear Marta,

My name is J. Salmeron, I’m a photographer and [an] attorney based in the Netherlands.

I’m contacting you because yesterday you posted my photo Alissa White-Gluz, taken at Fortarock, and used it on your site to promote your products (the photo is uploaded here: [the link is now broken]).  So far the photo has gathered more than 200 likes, and has been viewed, of course, not only by your over 10 thousand followers, but also by anybody looking for tags related to Alissa White-Gluz.

Your use of my photo is unauthorized and, as I’m sure you are aware, represents a clear and blatant breach of my copyright. This infringement is, of course, made more serious when we take into consideration that your use of my photo is in connection with your business, which you are trying to promote with this post.

In general, I charge a fee of at least €500 (five hundred Euro) to businesses that have posted my work in an unauthorized manner. In this case, however, I would be willing to forget about this problem and let you keep up the above post in exchange for a donation of €100 (one hundred Euro) to the Dutch Cancer Foundation. This is an organization that seeks to benefit cancer research as well as improve the quality of life of cancer patients. I can send you a link for the donation (which would be direct to the foundation, not through me) if you accept this method of payment.

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

I send take-down notices like these  all the time, since this is hardly a rare occurrence on Instagram, and this one seemed to me like a no-brainer. I even thought that they’d be happy with it, since I would even allow them to continue using the image in exchange for a small donation to a cancer charity. This is a method that I’ve even used with clients, benefitting organizations like the ACLU, so I sincerely thought that that things would go smoothly.

Alissa White Gluz with Arch Enemy at Wacken 2016

The Shit Hits the Fan

Unbeknownst to me, instead of getting in touch directly with me, Marta Gabriel, the designer behind Thunderball Clothing, got in touch with Arch Enemy and accused me of sending her a “threatening” letter “demanding €500”. While this was completely false, that’s precisely the information that Arch Enemy‘s management decided to use to send me a series of messages (which, at first, I thought were still coming from Marta):

Hello J,

I would like to ask why you are sending discontent emails to people sharing the photo of Alissa?  Alissa’s sponsors and fan clubs are authorized to share photos of her. Thunderball Clothing is a sponsor of Alissa and Arch Enemy.

Arch Enemy loves to have a nice cooperation between photographers, fans and festivals, and sharing moments from the concert is a way to stay connected. Generally speaking, photographers appreciate having their work shown as much as possible and we are thankful for the great photos concert photographers provide.

Please let me know if there is really a problem here or merely a misunderstanding.

Best regards.

The message was putting forward the idea (a common one among some people) that because members of the band were in my photos, it meant that the band (and their sponsors) were authorized to use it however they wanted. This made no sense since, although there are some restrictions (for example, I can’t use a photo of Alissa to promote a product, unless she expressly authorizes me to do so) I am the only one who gets to decide how and where my work is used. To put it in legal terms: I own the copyright over my photos.

The message also sought to perpetuate the ridiculous system that some bands expect to have with photographers: They let them come into the pit, expect to have the absolute and perpetual right to use the photos in whatever way they want, and pay photographers in “exposure,” by using their work before a massive audience. In the past, artists like Taylor SwiftLady Gaga, and even The Foo Fighters, have gone beyond merely assuming that they have this right, choosing instead to force concert photographers to sign contracts where they have to, quite literally, surrender all of their rights over the photos. Aware of the fact that most photographers are not exactly versed on legal terminology, that photo pits aren’t great places to read contracts, and that many photographers simply can’t afford not to shoot a big band, artists have been able to profit from the many photographers that, for whatever reason, end up signing their rights away.

Still, trying to give them the benefit of the doubt (as I still thought that I was dealing with Thunderball Clothing and not with Arch Enemy directly), I sent a reply where I again explained my position:

Dear Marta:

Thank you very much for your message.

I believe that there is a fairly significant misunderstanding regarding how copyright works, and which leads to your confusion on this matter. I am happy to explain the current state of the law here, so as to highlight the strength of our position.

It is not correct, as you assert, that “Alissa’s sponsors and fan clubs are authorized to share photos of her.” This is not at all a legal argument, as the only person who can authorize the use of a photo is the copyright holder. In this case, as you certainly know, I am the copyright holder of the photo, and therefore the only party who is able to authorize its use.

While, in general, I might  allow fans or even the musicians [themselves] to use my work, this does not change the fact that I hold the right to authorize or deny the use. Additionally, here the images are used for promoting a business. In this case, as you undoubtedly understand, the images are used to increase the visibility of your products and drive up sales, allowing you to profit from my work without any revenue being reported on my end.

In regards to your assertion that many photographers are happy to see their work exploited for free for “exposure”, I can only say that other photographers are free to deal with their work in whatever manner they please. Their right to oppose such a use, however, remains the same.

It is in light of the above that I would like to give you the opportunity to remedy the infringing use of the photo by donating to a cancer charity (the Dutch cancer [society]) in lieu of a direct payment of a license.

As soon as I sent the e-mail I realized that, in reality, I had been contacted by Arch Enemy‘s management, and not by Marta Gabriel. To avoid any confusions, I immediately sent a follow-up:

Hello again,

I just realized that the message was not sent by Marta, but by Arch Enemy directly. Could you tell me who I’m speaking with here?

As for Arch Enemy, I did not object to Alissa‘s use of my photo (I even spoke about the use with her after she posted it) although, of course, this would be my right. The problem is that now my work is being used to promote a product.

I hope the above clarifies the situation.

Although this wasn’t the first time a company used my work illegally, it was definitely the first time a band came out to defend the infringer. Most people realize that they screwed up and simply apologize. This is especially true when you’re dealing with artists, who obviously are much more sensitive to the problem of not being compensated for their work. It was because of this that it felt so humiliating to have to explain to another artist why my art, and my work deserved the same level of protection and respect as their art.

Starstruck

Having sent what I was sure was a clear explanation, I assumed I’d get cookie-cutter apology arguing that there had been a “misunderstanding” about the rights over the photo. By then I knew that the cancer charity wouldn’t get anything but, at least, I thought someone would acknowledge that they screwed up. What I absolutely did not expect was that I would be contacted by Angela GossowArch Enemy‘s manager and former singer, who’d send me what basically amounted to a “Fuck you and your photos”, fabricating facts, and copying other people in the music industry in the hopes of affecting my future as a photographer:

Fair enough, Mr Salmeron.

We have immediately removed the picture you took at FortaRock. By the way, we are sure you don’t mind that you are not welcome anymore to take pictures of Arch Enemy performances in the future, at festivals or solo performances. I have copied in the label reps and booking agent who will inform promoters –  no band wants to have photographers on site who later send such threatening correspondence to monetise on their images.

Btw, the email below was not from Marta, but from Alissa herself personally. The artist you blatantly wanted to sell the picture to. Nice price tag. 500 EUR. In bcc the band so they know about you in the future.

Thank you and have a nice day!

Btw – we do frequently donate to charity, but on our own terms and free will.

best regards,

Angela Gossow

A photo of Angela Gossow that I took back in 2012, well before I knew how to properly use a camera. Note the “Anarchy – Equality” patch on her jacket.

Although I was bothered (and slightly starstruck by the fact that a singer I liked in my childhood not only knew my name, but also thought I was an asshole), I tried to keep my cool. So, copying the same industry insiders that Angela had gone out of her way to include in the correspondence, I sent a short reply:

Dear Angela,

Thank you very much for your message.

As I explained directly to Alissa on Instagram, she was free to use my photo on her Instagram, and welcomed her to do as much. I routinely allow fans of the band to use the photos I take of her, and even [others] musicians [that I have photographed]. As an artist yourself, however, I’m sure you believe that you should be compensated for your work when it is being used to promote products.

I think it’s regrettable to see that your reaction to an artist reasonably requesting compensation for the use of the work is so dismissive and disrespectful. I fail to understand the rationale behind it, since I have maintained a respectful tone throughout my communications with you.

As for the price tag, I routinely work for much higher amounts. In this case, however, I requested a donation of €100 to the Dutch cancer foundation by the company that was exploiting my work. I would receive absolutely no part of this money.

I sincerely regret the reaction of banning me from the band’s performances as a photographer, but that’s certainly your prerogative.

Have a fantastic day. 

For reasons I absolutely failed to understand, I had been accused of “threatening” someone for merely explaining that licenses need to be paid, mocked for the value of my work, and had my words and actions blatantly misrepresented. To make matters worse, Angela Gossow was very openly stating that she expected all photographers that cover Arch Enemy‘s shows to do so for free, to the benefit of the band. After all, as she herself had said, “no band wants to have photographers on site who later send such threatening correspondence to monetise on their images.” Considering that, in her view, “threatening” meant asking for payment, it was obvious that she expected most photographers to work “for the love of the art”.

Just to get them out of the way, I think it’s worth clarifying some of the points raised by Angela, so as to avoid confusions as to what I did or did not do:

  1. I have never tried to sell Alissa White-Gluz or Arch Enemy anything. In fact, I had briefly spoken with Alissa on Instagram telling her that I was happy she liked my work after she reposted it.
  2. The only party that I contacted about a licensing issue was Thunderball Clothing. I never contacted Arch Enemy or made any “demands” from the band or their label.
  3. I never sent any “threatening correspondence” (as the messages clearly show). It’s not only that asserting my rights as an artist is not a “threat,” but also that none of my messages had even included any mention of legal actions or repercussions.
  4. I never “demanded” a payment of €500. Instead, I explained that this was an amount that I could charge for the use of my material in a commercial setting, but that I was happy to let it go for €100 to be given directly to a charity benefiting cancer patients and cancer research, the KWF Kankerbestrijding. Some might argue that even bringing up the €500 is obscene, but try going to a store, walking out with something without paying, and see if you can haggle over the price after security stops you on your way out.

Later in the evening, considering that I had already been in touch with her directly, I reached out to Alissa in the hopes of clarifying what clearly seemed to be a misunderstanding. It didn’t go well. Sadly, Alissa was quick to  portray me as some sort of bottom-feeding scum trying to score an easy buck. I was even accused of, potentially, being the kind of person who would “pursue” fans for sharing the image, even though right now there are dozens of fans that have exactly that same image on their fanpages, and against whom I have taken no action (other than occasionally asking them not to crop or edit them, and to make sure they tag me), despite being fully entitled to do so.

Dying of Exposure

Arch Enemy‘s stance in regards to photographers, as demonstrated by the band’s very aggressive approach against me for simply seeking some form of compensation from one of their sponsors, shows their absolute disregard for artists whose art isn’t their art. They (as they should) expect compensation for their work, but they don’t seem to think that others should be compensated as well. As a matter of fact, and as Angela Gossow‘s actions clearly show, they will try to stomp and trample on anyone who seeks such compensation. Nothing else can explain why she went out of her way to contact bookers and promoters, hoping to end my photographic career.

What I find most terrifying about Arch Enemy‘s behavior is that it creates a chilling effect among photographers, all of whom are now expected to simply shut up and take the abuse, unless they are willing to risk their artistic careers. While I have the good fortune of not depending on photography for my income, many other photographers aren’t so lucky, and so they cannot afford to run the risk of being blacklisted, knowing full well that it could, quite literally, make it impossible for them to make a living. As evidence of this, in the writing of this story I approached a number of high-profile music photographers who, once they realized the band that was involved, did not want to be anywhere near it. They agreed that the system was terrible, and that what Arch Enemy and their sponsor did was wrong, but they did not want to risk ending on the band’s bad-side.

Another problem with Arch Enemy‘s approach to copyright (in this case to protect one of their sponsors) is that they don’t use the same standards when it comes to their own content. After all, Alissa herself had told me that they regularly take down sites that illegally profit from their intellectual property, and Angela herself recently shared a link highlighting the problem with counterfeiting. Of course, it goes well beyond the mere selling of counterfeit material, as I discovered with a very simple experiment: I uploaded the full version of their song “The World is Yours” to Youtube, where it was immediately flagged as infringing on their copyright, and filled with ads that would go to benefit them instead of me (don’t worry Angela, I deleted the video already). Incredibly enough, Arch Enemy are not satisfied with the exposure that this video would give them.

It is certainly ironic to see that this situation was created by a band of alleged anarchists that proudly parrot anarchist and far left slogans like “No Gods, No Masters” and Under Black Flags we March,while exhibiting the same kind of bully behavior that you’d expect from their corporate nemeses. They exhibit a worrying willingness to perpetuate the power structures that trample over the weak to benefit the powerful.

It is certainly disappointing to see that it is a band that sells an anarchist image that has taken this approach. Maybe now that they have attained the fame and money that they so eagerly criticize in others, they fear that there isn’t enough to go around.


If you are interested in donating to the Dutch Cancer Fund, please click this link!

Author’s Note: This article was supposed to be published back in July but, due to a  number of health and professional reasons, its publication, together with the accompanying video, had to be postponed. Since we consider the topic to be equally relevant today, we are publishing it in full. We apologize for the delay.

41
Leave a Reply

avatar
37 Comment threads
4 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
38 Comment authors
Greg PittzLarry KongMikeDannySadistikexekution Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Greg Pittz
Guest
Greg Pittz

So…. the fact that you quoted your emails in here rather than post screen-shots lends credence to Arch Enemy’s claim.

Perhaps it was truly a misunderstanding, but your choosing not to show direct screenshots of these messages gives their position legitimacy.

Terry Gorle
Guest
Terry Gorle

This is the triple-edged sword… the photographer believes he is allowed to take photos and own exclusive rights of the photo; the artist believes they should have free use of any photos taken of them simply because they should own rights to exploit their own likeness; meanwhile, the clothing manufacturer feels just like the artist in the sense that they should have the right to use the photo to promote their product endorsed by the artist. The fact that the artist has the power to deny the photographer access from taking photos implies that the photographer needs their permission… the… Read more »

Larry Kong
Guest
Larry Kong

No you dumb shit, you can’t give a photographer permission to take pictures (aka a press pass) and then later change the conditions. Unless he’s signed a contract, unless there was ANY kind of agreement he’d give away the copyright, it belongs to him. Also, just because you get permission to use a copyrighted work for one purpose, doesn’t mean you get the right to pass that permission on to someone else. The band being good friends or having a deal with the clothing company doesn’t change anything about them being different companies, with different purposes, in the eyes of… Read more »

Mike
Guest
Mike

Time to head to pirate bay and download some AA.

André Stanley
Guest
André Stanley

A battle of egos

Jaro
Guest
Jaro

What part of the amount of 500 euros should the artist receive from the photo? Because you did not want to keep this money only for yourself? If you want to use someone’s image to earn money from it, then you should pay for it, do not you? You should also respect the artist’s rights. If you want to make money on taking photos of the artists, then you should first get their permission. Is not it?

Lynn Garrow
Guest
Lynn Garrow

It’s sad that this escalated to the level it did. I came here fully intending not to like you, being a long time fan of Alissa White Gluz. That being said, I’ve been here reading your blogs and interviews for hours, and I like your level headed and fairly non-biased attitude. Still a huge fan of Alissa. This whole thing was just handled badly, and I feel terrible about the damage to everyone involved.

Umrath
Guest

I’m a but puzzled here. Not a lawyer, so just asking maybe a but naiv.
Where you officially there as a photographer? Did you have some kind of agreement to take pictures for commercial purposes?
If so, then this is indeed a dick move.

If not, then I see this from a different point of view. It’s a picture of her (Alissa) and from my point of view, she has the primary say on who is taking pictures of her and for which purpose.

Marc Aguilar
Guest
Marc Aguilar

I have a special place in my heart for Arch Enemy, they where the ones to get me into melodeath, which which led to death metal, which eventually lead to grindcore and all sorts of stuff. But lets be honest here I can’t listen to this bands new material and feel like it dosen’t sound like them playing it safe just for the sake of a paycheck. This kind of reaction from the band and Angela is just piss poor and doesn’t reflect on the band well at all. Also thankyou for bringing up all the stuff about anarchy signaling… Read more »

Issar
Guest
Issar

That’s not the first time a
band is bullying a photographer. It is a shame that something like this happened on the metal scene. I don’t understand the decision of closing the business. She lost a few orders and got some unpleasant emails but you can not give up so quickly. Everyone can make a mistake, but Marta was the only person who said I’m sorry in this whole soap opera.

God Plutonium
Guest
God Plutonium

You are legally right. However, you are also a jerk and an asshole. End of story. Have a nice day.

natasja
Guest
natasja

Thats how the reposting app works. Be mad at the app not at the band. It wasnt even Alissa who didnt put your name under it because she did. It was the clothing company. Nothing to do with Arch enemy.

r3dd3v1lL .
Guest
r3dd3v1lL .

Well I hope you are all proud of yourselves. You have successfully destroyed a woman’s business with cowardly bullying and threats. I have never before been this disgusted in the metal community and ashamed to call myself a “metalhead”.

https://www.facebook.com/thunderballclothing/posts/2018793868216787

NailGun
Guest
NailGun

I’m not shocked the band wants free photography to use as they see fit. High quality photography can be expensive. What I’m shocked about is their willingness to defend one of their sponsors over copyright infringement. Clearly the image was used to promote the clothing brand and that’s illegal without a contract stating otherwise. Just because other photographers are willing to give away their art for free does not make it the standard.

I’ve lost respect for Alissa and Angela. They are in the wrong here. Implying a photographer cant charge what they want for their photos is ludicrous.

Nicolas Quintana Zunino
Guest
Nicolas Quintana Zunino

You are right on this, but you can’t deny that your first email did indeed look like a scam, I mean, I would have ignored it too, I receive weekly one or two emails that kinda look like yours, and the fact that you said you are an attorney is quite intimidating once you realize this is the real deal. Maybe next time a better introduction with a nice presentation about yourself and your work would save everybody such an ordeal. Now, on the other side, Angela really needs to think things better though, I know managers try to fix… Read more »

Disciple_of_Oedon
Guest
Disciple_of_Oedon

Fuck you Salmeron, you cost a woman her livelihood. I get what Arch Enemy did was wrong but, maybe have some fucking tact before you slam people. Thunderball didn’t deserve this shitstorm YOU caused. Settle your shit with bands offline and don’t drag others into it next time you dumbfuck.

Jerry
Guest

does alissa speak in 1st person? if the first response was from her thats a strange way to speak about yourself in a reply.

Dani Pardo
Guest
Dani Pardo

Looks like Marta is a friend of the band, to say the least. Let me put it this way: You took a photo of her work (the leather jacket which she created) and published it without the author’s (Marta Gabriel) consent, for commercial purposes (selling yourself as a photographer). Does it still sound wise? My argument might be stupid in legal terms, but this are the facts: You got banned from some gigs, and Marta had to close their small business (a single person business) because you wrote this whole post in order to send her the haters as a… Read more »

Don Ball
Guest
Don Ball

If the clothing company donated €100 to the Dutch Cancer Foundation that
would had been a better way to go than being so anal? Next release to
be called: Anal Alley.

Terry Gorle
Guest
Terry Gorle

Now that Thunderball Clothing (essentially one person, Marta Gabriel) has announced the end of their business due to the backlash of personal threats by Internet trolls AFTER paying $100 to the charity suggested by the photographer AND receiving his acceptance of their apology, I hope you’re all happy. Marta’s band has also suffered massive hate backlash from this for no reason. I think this incident may create a situation where artists demand they have the right to use photographs of their images in any way they like… sure, a photographer can take a photo and sell it, and use it… Read more »

Jason Crabtree
Guest
Jason Crabtree

Arch Enemy are still a thing? I haven’t heard of them since 2009. They must be doing the daytime slots at festivals.

And everyone is an anti-capitalist, anti-Police, “equality for all” activist…until they have a business and income that pays for their multiple mortgages, loans on their brand new cars and the law actually protects their product. And if not, the Police and Courts will protect their property and product!

Zurbum
Guest
Zurbum

fuck you and your stupid photos

wintertoburn
Guest
wintertoburn

what a bunch of shit. but hey, its just arch enemy no big deal. your photography career will continue to grow, all the while their career is in the tubes. and there are plenty of other, actually notable bands you can still cover.

Dan Wax
Guest
Dan Wax

Well, Mr Salmeron. Thanks for the story, you’re marine sir! Well done…and regarding Arch Enemy…boy, Alissa sucks and Angela sucks too… two overrated gals, simple as that. The last really good album was Wages of Sin and that was a long time ago…since then this band has been riding the wave of exploding the fact that they have a woman as a singer. Also, is pathetic how Michael Ammott got pussywhipped so hard, to a point that is valid to ask if Arch Enemy is still his band.

Norman van den Wildenberg
Guest
Norman van den Wildenberg

So.. you are reposting their letter without licence.. That is copyright infringment.. Also you caused Metalblast to be on the blacklist by other bands and festivals now and in Dutch law, (as a ‘Lawyer’ you should know: Art. 261 Sr….) you do have a juge problem now…

Dat Guy
Guest
Dat Guy

”Maybe now that they have attained the fame and money that they so eagerly criticize in others, they fear that there isn’t enough to go around” <3

Mike Ousey
Guest
Mike Ousey

… even more interesting when you notice that the most epic line in “War Eternal” , “just a matter of degrees from being up on your luck to…. down in your knees” was lifted straight out of “All You Got” a song from Boston guitarist Barry Goodreau’s and singer Brad Delp’s first post-Boston project album RTZ-Return To Zero. Didn’t see any credit given there either.

Bollthorn
Guest
Bollthorn

Arch Enemy were never that good to begin with, and have only gotten more laughable as time has gone on.

They care more about profits and sponsors than making worthwhile music, but the scene kids and mall moshers will just eat up any garbage they put out.

Fuck Arch Enemy

Sadistikexekution
Guest
Sadistikexekution

I hope the photographer/attorney sues their ass.
If only for the shit noise they pass off as “music”.

more beer
Guest
more beer

What’s up Sadistik.

Sadistikexekution
Guest
Sadistikexekution

Whatup, more beer.
Haven’t seen u in a while.
Stil got that metalsukks ban?

disqus_mGPvd3HnU8
Guest
disqus_mGPvd3HnU8

Arch Enemy sucks anyway. Not sure how they got so big, because I’ve never met anyone in person who actually liked them.

JCMCNL
Guest

Congratulations on being the only party in this exchange with the integrity to leave comments turned on. The band and their supporters have been posting responses while deleting and blocking comments. Is there a way for a Canadian to donate to the Dutch Cancer Society? I tried on their page but it didn’t seem to work for me.

b_d
Guest
b_d

I wonder how Arch Enemy would react if this clothing manufacturer would start using band’s logo without their permission.

Ardra Diva
Guest
Ardra Diva

No mention that Marta Gabriel of Thunderball Clothing is also the lead singer for Polish metal band CRYSTAL VIPER? She does make awesome stage gear in addition to being a kick ass metal singer herself.

Micahel Schenker
Guest
Micahel Schenker

What a cunt. Fuck her and her band. If I randomly asked ten metalheads who Arch Enemy is, nobody would care. It was a great photo. She (and management) should have been thanking you.

Brian Reily
Guest
Brian Reily

Unless your photographer has a contract with the venue that says otherwise, they are in violation of the terms and conditions of their ticket which state (translated from Dutch) “3.2 The customer is bound to FortaRock to in no way advertise or make any (other) form of publicity in connection with the event and any part thereof.”

Loppis
Guest
Loppis

I just found more “free exposure”. Their whole musical catalogue is now available as HQ mp3 in 50 well-known-impossibletotakedown websites. Talk about stepping on a shit-mine…

Brian Reily
Guest
Brian Reily

Unless your photographer has a contract with the venue or somehow got in without a ticket, they are in violation of the terms and conditions of the ticket, which state (translated from Dutch) “3.2 The customer is bound to FortaRock to in no way advertise or make any (other) form of publicity in connection with the event and any part thereof.”

Danny
Guest
Danny

Have you ever heard of this thing called a “press pass”? They allow him to take pictures. And unless he’s signed a contract for that press pass (like he mentions in the article that he never would), the rights to any picture remains with him.