amanda palmer's open poem to jonathan chait (and other crimes)

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/pat-pope/garbage-an-open-letter_b_6993366.html

for the record

An Open Letter to Garbage

Dear Shirley, Butch, Duke and Steve

I don't know if you will remember me, my name's Pat Pope and across a few years in the Nineties I worked for you as a photographer. That's one of my photos of you accompanying this letter. I worked pretty hard on that photo - actually, throughout my time as a photographer I hope I've always worked hard to make all the artists I've had the opportunity to shoot look as good as they can.

Today I received an email from your management company Big Picture Music Co. It's a very nice email, and in it they announce that you're working on a book about the band which you plan to self-release next year. The email says that you really like some of the photos I took of you and would like to use them in your book. It also says that in return for the use of my photos you will give me a "proper credit" but that given it is planned to be a self release the budget is "financially limited", by which your management company mean "we're not going to pay you". So I wanted to ask you a couple of questions, and I wanted to do it publicly because I think it's important that people know what your answer is. I don't expect as many people will see this Open Letter as Shirley's recent message to Kanye West, but I think it's important we know where you, as artists, stand.

Q1: I'm a firm believer that musicians and artists deserve to be paid for their work. I'll sign any petition that's out there supporting that concept, and even when I choose to stream rather than buy, I'm one of the fans of your band that will pay for a premium service because I think you should be paid. That's my point of view. Is it yours? When you think about artists being paid, does that include photographers? Do you think "content providers", whatever the hell that means, deserve to be paid for their work, or is that a special category for musicians? If I want to release a music album, can I use your music in it if I give you a "proper credit"?

Q2: If you're putting together a book, presumably someone at your management company or somebody in the band has written a budget. And if there's a budget, somewhere in that budget, against the line for "use of photos" somebody has written "no need to pay, we'll just give them a proper credit and get them for free". Against all the other lines, for writing, for printing, for distribution, for retailing, for marketing, for the management company, for the band, for Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, somebody, somewhere, working for you, has written a number down because that's what it costs. But that same person has written zero for photos, because that content, in their opinion, they can get for free. Who is that person? As a band are you happy to be employing someone who thinks like that? Because it seems to me that the person who writes down "zero for photos" today is the same person who will write down "zero for music" tomorrow because they don't respect the "content providers".

By writing this open letter, I'm obviously committing professional suicide when it comes to ever working with you again, and probably it won't do my reputation any good within the music industry to be seen as troublemaker. Obviously that worries me, but it worries me more that musicians and others are saying one thing publicly about the needs for artists to be paid for their work whilst privately people working for them are doing exactly the opposite. I'm not accusing you personally of being hypocrites, I don't know how involved you are in this process, but I'm letting you know it's happening and it's happening in your name.

So, very respectfully, .......no.

No, you don't have my permission to use my work for free. I'm proud of my work and I think it has a value. If you don't think it has any value, don't use it. I'm saying no to a budget that says you can take my work for free and make money out of it.

Thanks, and still a fan of the band

Pat Pope
www.patpope.com
PS: Just so you know, this is actually an improvement on the management of your Absolute Garbage album where the record company just used my work without even asking. I only found this out when I went into a shop and bought a copy, which, when you think about it, has a certain irony.

ok fair enough
fucking open letters

lol why didn't you respond to my Huffpost shaming letter privately?

Writing an open letter almost automatically makes you an asshole if it's someone you could just write privately. I mean - fair enough if you want to write Henry Kissinger an open letter or something but you're on shaky ground writing an open letter to a washed-up 90's band.

AN OPEN LETTER TO COUNTING CROWS

what kind of person would buy a garbage photo book is the real question here

I smell an open letter brewing...

pat pope should have said "yes, but you have to photoshop shirley out of the pic"

just three rockin' dads in black, that's all you get for free

I've seen a lot of garbage photo books in my day, what's the point of one more?

Amanda Palmer will be "opening" for "Morrissey" on his "tour"

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/6523980/morrissey-us-tour-2015-dates-blondie-amanda-palmer

well, as long as they aren't coming anywhere near maryland, i guess.

Brio2 is otm. It's unprofessional and uncouth. Take it to The People's Court or something. There are appropriate avenues in which to settle disputes.

well the issue is that pro photographers ownership and rights to their own work is routinely tested by people with tons of money who have no interest in paying them. imagine you were about to release a major label mix of live covers and dropped an artist who recorded one of those songs with a form letter that says "hey no pay but THE EXPOSURE and if you don't want to do it, no biggie; we'll take somebody else", I could understand taking umbrage

Just looks like one date on the Moz tour

apparently garbage had already used one of the photographer's pics in their liner notes without permission, i can see getting justifiably shirty about this new "art of asking" feint.

Seems like the label should be handling that tho. Getting permissions and licenses is a responsibility of production side of the things the artists and musicians should be focusing on the music.

they are now an independent band on their own label, according to the response letter.

Writing an open letter almost automatically makes you an asshole if it's someone you could just write privately. I mean - fair enough if you want to write Henry Kissinger an open letter or something but you're on shaky ground writing an open letter to a washed-up 90's band.

― Brio2, Friday, April 3, 2015 7:37 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

don't chat nonsense, calling out patterns of labour and copyright exploitation in an industry riven with them is very necessary to do as publicly as possible

and it's that exact kind of tut-tutting that enables it bc it makes people think twice about being seen to complain in public

Yeah in the long run my sympathy is with the photog on the issue, esp considering garbage has already used the open letter format to tell kanye west he's a butt. But when his response to theirs is IM NOT HOSTILE it sounds like both need to just step back

Yeah you guys are right.

Moral of the story is if you're going to ask people to give you stuff for free claiming poverty you should probably not have your manager do the asking

So was he really paid in 1995 for the shoot? Because if so then I'm back on Garbage's side. Unless they didn't give him credit I don't see why he could keep being paid for the same photo.

it has nothing to do w being paid at the time. when a photog sells their work it's a licensing situation where the purchaser gets to use the pictures for a certain price w certain terms (unless it's work for hire, which one should avoid unless the dump truck is full of money). it;s fair to say that even if he was paid in 95 those terms have expired and should be renegotiated. ppls thoughts on the letter aside, the content is 100% valid in this day and age and garbage is full of shit wrt begging.

I have to have variations on this conversation w people wanting my pictures weekly.

Do you use contracts or releases for your shoots? Because if he had something down in writing this all could have been avoided.

a) yes

"Because if he had something down in writing this all could have been avoided."

avoid what though?

it could all be avoided if garbage had money to pay their contributors?

pope pat XXIV

He was already paid in 1995, right?

Why didn't he decline to have his photo used when he heard they weren't paying him again?

he did tho?

i don't understand

We regret that you interpreted our request so negatively. HAVING ALREADY paid you in 1995 for the entire shoot from which these images were selected, we really didn’t expect such a hostile reception to our enquiry. We adore the photographs you took of us at such a special time in our career but it was never our intent to use the aforementioned images without your express permission.

from wikipedia
The exclusive right of photographers to copy and use their products is protected by copyright. Countless industries purchase photographs for use in publications and on products. The photographs seen on magazine covers, in television advertising, on greeting cards or calendars, on websites, or on products and packages, have generally been purchased for this use, either directly from the photographer or through an agency that represents the photographer. A photographer uses a contract to sell the "license" or use of his or her photograph with exact controls regarding how often the photograph will be used, in what territory it will be used (for example U.S. or U.K. or other), and exactly for which products. This is usually referred to as usage fee and is used to distinguish from production fees (payment for the actual creation of a photograph or photographs). An additional contract and royalty would apply for each additional use of the photograph.

so like, if a company licenses your song, and then wants to do it again for a different product, "WE ALREADY PAID YOU" ignores the issue

paid for the shoot and paid for usage are two separate things

throw in that the dude was already sore about their old label re-using a shot for a best-of without paying

also can we note that one of the three guys who allegedly can't afford to pay a photo royalty for a book of him, shirley, and The Other Two is Butch Vig

i mean maybe he's albini about this shit, but i'm guessing he's very familiar with the concept of royalties, and a fan of them

BV probably told shirley to do whatever the fuck she wants and just tell him what day to show up

He probably also realizes the importance of getting things in writing. Did the photographer have them sign a contract for these? Garbage being one of the biggest bands in the world in 1995, I would hope so.

i don't understand what your line of questioning has to do with the facts of the sutuation

Contracts typically hold a lot of weight in legal matters.

adam, garbage management wouldn't have contacted him if there wasn't a contract

i wonder how he'd react if billy corgan's management was like "hey billy wants to put an outtake you produced on a little collection of songs for his bestest of fans, would it be cool if he didn't pay you your royalty, he runs his own label now"

how butch, i mean

how butch, i mean

in case anyone else is confused.

1. professional photographers own their work, license it, and get a royalty

2. garbage management asked this guy to waive his royalty for their fun little book of memories as the band is now working at a smaller scale

3. having already been burnt by their label re-using a pic (and yes, he could have sued, but hopefully it's not hard to realize the career and financial cons of that) and knowing garbage has made public pronouncements about how artists should conduct themselves, the photog noted that he too is an artist and that he should be allotted the same respect they'd want

4. garbage was like "damn man we just asked for a favor geez we do pals favors all the time, thought you were a pal"

5. dude responds "YOU COULD HAVE ASKED ME YOURSELF"

6. the internet has a think

and even if you find this all a bit gauche and piddly (can't imagine his photo would cost much more than meal), the only reason to be on team garbage here is if you too are so through the looking glass that you don't know the difference between doing something and having your "team" do it, or if you're secretly one of those guys in the band not named shirley or butch

No im just saying from a purely legal standpoint, it sounds like he fucked up point 1. We are assuming management contacted him because they had a contract between him and them. If he was due royalties from a legally binding contract then you would assume they would offer him that rather than just credit. If the contract did not stipulate long term licensing then why should they be compelled to offer royalties?

There is a difference between having your royalty waved and not be entitled to it in the first place. It sounds as if they looked at his contract, realized they did not legally owe him money, and contacted him based on that reading of it. Maybe you are right and they read the contract and decided to try and get him to wave his right to license the work. But that would be legally fishy and seriously undermine any potential court case that resulted.

The only way to truly know would be to look at the contract.