|
by Fullofkittens 12/27/2018, 10:14am PST |
|
|
|
|
|
From their perspective they want to get out in front of these kinds of controversies, they'd rather be upfront about it and say "Listen, these are the terms. We do not want to hear from your lawyer," than re-litigate this thing over and over ad infinitum. There's some ambiguity re: who owns what when I take a picture of you without either of us signing anything. Those contracts remove that ambiguity.
The fact that they do it in a way that is very favorable to the artists is a reflection of the imbalance in who stands to gain from that relationship. Dave Grohl gets jack shit when you take a picture of him, he's already maximum famous. You could make a bunch of money off a picture of him or raise your professional profile, should he just let you do it? (I guess I sort of pictured Dave Grohl as the kind of guy that would just let you do it, but apparently not.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|