³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Here's an example from a recent Coldplay agreement for UK photographers:

You hereby transfer and assign to us with full title guarantee the entire copyright and all extensions and renewals throughout the world (including by way of present assignment of future rights) and all rights of a similar nature in the Photographs.

It goes on to say:

You hereby indemnify us and the Artist from and against any loss or damage (including all reasonable third party legal costs or expenses) howsoever arising in respect of any breach of any of the warranties, representations, undertakings and agreements given by you hereunder.

The first paragraph is what campaigners against these agreements refer as the 'rights grab' clause, while the second is an example of the kind of legalistic language that the untrained are simply ill-equipped to deal with.

A Facebook group, - while US-oriented - is beginning to receive more and more complaints from UK photographers. Its founder, Radko Keleman, explained that he started the group when he saw a release form for American band Stone Temple Pilots.

"My photographer friend sent me a photo release for them which demanded his copyright to his images. I too would have been photographing the show but due to the release I passed on it.

"So the page grew to my photographer colleagues, then one day I just see the numbers growing and to find out it was mentioned in Rolling Stone and that is when the page blew up!

"It is simply unfair, what is going on, and there is no reason such strict demands are in place for any artist. I have sacrificed my personal career because of this page, since I call out artists and management, but when they are shoving us in a tight corner we will fight back."

The Rolling Stone feature from March 2011, entitled , is not the only title to have begun reporting on the work of groups such as Music Photographers. When Washington DC website 's photographer was presented with Lady Gaga's 'rights grab' agreement they elected to publicise every last clause as a warning to photographers and news agencies. Some media outlets have, like Keleman, decided simply not to shoot events.

Adam Gasson is a UK music photographer. He takes the same line: "To be honest, if the contract is that strict now, I just don't shoot the gig".

He also points to a reduction in the ability of professionals like him to make a living: "In terms of the contracts forced on photographers - I say forced because on the whole they are presented to you at the venue shortly before stage time - they limit you to single use only, so if you're shooting for a magazine you can't resell the set.

"I've tried to argue against contracts before but a lot of the time it's a 'take it or leave it' situation, again not helped by it being presented minutes before the gig starts. The norm now seems to be a full copyright handover to the artist (or label) and also the photographer signs to be liable for any legal costs arising from improper use of the images.

"I personally have insurance, but I know a lot of music photographers who are part-time or simply shooting for the love of it who aren't insured. Potentially they could be leaving themselves wide open.

"Like many rights grabbing contracts I don't think the creator of the contract has much photographic experience and, therefore, seeks to control as much as possible. There's no need to sign over copyright and waive moral rights in order to photograph a band."

Some acts, including Radiohead and Arcade Fire, are gaining praise for having no agreements, and therefore no rights grab. But others don't actually know that their management are imposing restrictions. Vince Neil of Motley Crue responded to criticism of a recent agreement on , saying: "Hey don't blame the band... I have nothing to do with passes! That's our f**ked up management company. Blame them! Sorry!"

And the Foo Fighters have apparently climbed down after a cross-USA backlash against their agreement which required not only handing over of copyright but also approval of the photos before publication. This was too much for among many others. They chose to use a crude illustration of Dave Grohl, rather than a photograph, to drive home the point.

Some photographers, having seen Coldplay's agreement up front, have complained and been given an alternative one which doesn't include any rights grab clauses.

But can't a photographer simply sign an agreement as Mickey Mouse? Well, no, says Adam. "A lawyer friend has said you can sign it whatever you want, it's still legally binding". However, another old photographer friend of mine, , has an ingenious way of getting around it. "I always signed including the initials of my music picture agency included so that they were in fact agreeing with me to license it through my agency for general editorial use where it says 'only for use for the stated publication'."

But there may be a way out of the legal minefield, if photographers and their employers were to work together. I talked to James Rudall, solicitor advocate at , one of Wales' major law firms, to find out what advice he would give photographers presented with these agreements. It turns out that the circumstances under which the agreements are given out may mean they can challenged, thanks to rulings from the House of Lords.

In abridged form, this is what James has to say, and it makes fascinating reading for copyright holders:

The contract for the agreement may be negotiated by photographers to achieve a fair balance between the photographer and the persons to be photographed. I appreciate that in practice this may be difficult to achieve...

However, contracts of assignment of copyright are subject to the same legal principles as the laws applicable to contracts generally, and assignments of copyrights may be declared by the court to be unenforceable if they are determined by the courts as being unconscionable or contrary to public policy or amounting to a restraint of trade.

The House of Lords has held that a very one-sided agreement may be declared unenforceable if it is not fair... Where there is lack of negotiation and a superior bargaining power, the contract may be deemed by the courts as unenforceable...

When photographers are handed contracts for assigning their copyrights at the last minute there may be no time for negotiations between the parties to a proposed assignment. If a contract was entered into in such circumstances, it may be determined by the courts as unenforceable... on the premise that there was inequality of bargaining power.

For example, an artist being photographed may be deemed to have the superior bargaining power on the premise he or she has the ability to refuse their photograph being taken, thereby restricting the photographer's income...I would strongly recommend that any photographers who are assigning their copyrights to take legal advice, as it may avoid costly litigation after the event. In particular, if assignments are exposing photographers to terms which indemnify the artist in certain circumstances, then this may expose that photographer to substantive liabilities and expensive litigation.

So, legal advice says that the assignment of copyright may be challenged, and that the indemnifying of artists against misuse of photos may also be challenged. However, implementing this advice will only work if photographers and their employers move as one, because lone photographers, given the choice of 'sign this or don't come in', will normally make the compromise.

But does any of this actually matter in the end? In a world in which half of the front row of any gig you go to are recording the gig with HD cameras attached to smart phones or tablets (some of which have higher resolutions than DSLRs), how can pros compete and how can artists' management even begin to control their charges' image?

Jon Webster of says: "I think (and this is said without officially consulting our members) that the copyright in artistic endeavour should always reside with the creator, and that parties to artistic endeavour should respect the rights of other creators and agree a fee for specific uses beforehand. If that includes some prohibition of use (and I am guessing that this particularly applies to merchandising and unauthorised merchandising especially) then so be it.

"At the same time with the advent of high quality smartphones etcetera, then most of the restrictions are pretty unenforceable. How many instances do you know of where photographers have been sued?"

Is Jon right and the industry will go down some pragmatic middle ground? However things go, the irony of this situation is that artists will probably suffer from it. If professional photographers are increasingly unwilling to take music pictures, driven away by a combination of prohibitive agreements and the increasing prevalence of multi-megapixel mobile photos that are deemed good enough to , the quality of images that artists have available will diminish.

I can't imagine pictures like Pennie Smith's being taken now. She went on tour and could snap away - and came to agreement with the band for the use one of her shots on their album. That's music photography as it used to be... and maybe should still be.

Feel free to comment! If you want to have your say, on this or any other ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ blog, you will need to sign in to your ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ iD account. If you don't have a ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ iD account, you can - it'll allow you to contribute to a range of ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ sites and services using a single login.

Need some assistance? , or get some .