Wil1972 Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 Didn't know if this had been seen... http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary/2016/04/22/rush-takes-down-calgary-photographer.html Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue J Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 The photo of Al and Ged in the article is a really nice one. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wil1972 Posted April 22, 2016 Author Share Posted April 22, 2016 The photo of Al and Ged in the article is a really nice one. I remember seeing this series of images posted before, I think on the Power Windows site, or maybe Rush Is a Band? They were amazing images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue J Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 The photo of Al and Ged in the article is a really nice one. I remember seeing this series of images posted before, I think on the Power Windows site, or maybe Rush Is a Band? They were amazing images. I think there are a lot of Rush photos I've never seen (only because I just don't look for them very often), but it's really cool to see things I haven't seen before. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x1yyz Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 Although I hadn't seen this particular article before, this is not unusual. Bands (and other celebrities) want to retain control of their image and have only "good" photos for sale; it is precisely the reason that professional-style cameras are not allowed into concert venues without prior approval (i.e. a photo pass). I'm not sure about the law in other countries, but in the US it is legal to photograph people in public places, and then the photographer would hold the copyright for those particular photos. Since a concert venue is a public place the bands keep this in check today by prohibiting cameras, but those prohibitions have not always been in place. These photos were taken in the 70s so that was before camera bans. Of course, the "trademark rights, personality rights and merchandising rights" mentioned in the article are valid and could affect the ruling here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wil1972 Posted April 22, 2016 Author Share Posted April 22, 2016 Although I hadn't seen this particular article before, this is not unusual. Bands (and other celebrities) want to retain control of their image and have only "good" photos for sale; it is precisely the reason that professional-style cameras are not allowed into concert venues without prior approval (i.e. a photo pass). I'm not sure about the law in other countries, but in the US it is legal to photograph people in public places, and then the photographer would hold the copyright for those particular photos. Since a concert venue is a public place the bands keep this in check today by prohibiting cameras, but those prohibitions have not always been in place. These photos were taken in the 70s so that was before camera bans. Of course, the "trademark rights, personality rights and merchandising rights" mentioned in the article are valid and could affect the ruling here. I have been to a handful of venues that allow cameras and I assume that is based on the artists' decision not the venue. And I have been thankful for that because I have gotten some nice pictures. But Rush shows, nope. Never have gotten a camera into those shows. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueschica Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 (edited) x1yyz is right, this is not uncommon. tomhealey could probably explain it better than I can, but basically, several court case rulings have meant that if an entity owns rights such as the merchandising, trademark, etc. rights named in the article, they have to keep defending those rights by suing others who try to use the same name, etc. Otherwise they could lose the right to the name. This happened in the 1960's with the company that made the Thermos container, they lost the rights to that copyrighted name. So I would guess that yes, the photographer owns the right to the photos, but Rush (Anthem, whatever) owns the rights to the name Rush, so they are saying he cannot use that name with his product, unless he wants to pay for it. I assume that's what the makers of the Rush lunch boxes, etc. do. Too bad, they look like awesome photos! Edited April 22, 2016 by blueschica 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wil1972 Posted April 22, 2016 Author Share Posted April 22, 2016 x1yyz is right, this is not uncommon. tomhealey could probably explain it better than I can, but basically, several court case rulings have meant that if an entity owns rights such as the merchandising, trademark, etc. rights named in the article, they have to keep defending those rights by suing others who try to use the same name, etc. Otherwise they could lose the right to the name. This happened in the 1960's with the company that made the Thermos container, they lost the rights to that copyrighted name. So I would guess that yes, the photographer owns the right to the photos, but Rush (Anthem, whatever) owns the rights to the name Rush, so they are saying he cannot use that name with his product. Too bad, they look like awesome photos! Interesting information.So he could sell the photos as long as he didn't advertise who was in the photos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueschica Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 (edited) x1yyz is right, this is not uncommon. tomhealey could probably explain it better than I can, but basically, several court case rulings have meant that if an entity owns rights such as the merchandising, trademark, etc. rights named in the article, they have to keep defending those rights by suing others who try to use the same name, etc. Otherwise they could lose the right to the name. This happened in the 1960's with the company that made the Thermos container, they lost the rights to that copyrighted name. So I would guess that yes, the photographer owns the right to the photos, but Rush (Anthem, whatever) owns the rights to the name Rush, so they are saying he cannot use that name with his product. Too bad, they look like awesome photos! Interesting information.So he could sell the photos as long as he didn't advertise who was in the photos? I'm not sure, haha, I'm not a lawyer, I only live near a law school and there are a million law students around here as neighbors and friends :D :D Probably he can't profit from them at all unless he pays for the rights but I don't know exactly why ?? Maybe someone else will know ?? It's so strange. We used to live in Colorado and there was a group of guys that did Frisbee tricks before little lawn concerts in the summer; I think they got paid like $ 25.00 once in a while. They called themselves the "Grateful Disc" , and we were there once when they announced they had just received a registered "cease and desist" letter from the Grateful Dead lawyers because the name was too close. They were trying to figure out how the heck the Dead had even heard of them! :o Edited April 22, 2016 by blueschica 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue J Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 x1yyz is right, this is not uncommon. tomhealey could probably explain it better than I can, but basically, several court case rulings have meant that if an entity owns rights such as the merchandising, trademark, etc. rights named in the article, they have to keep defending those rights by suing others who try to use the same name, etc. Otherwise they could lose the right to the name. This happened in the 1960's with the company that made the Thermos container, they lost the rights to that copyrighted name. So I would guess that yes, the photographer owns the right to the photos, but Rush (Anthem, whatever) owns the rights to the name Rush, so they are saying he cannot use that name with his product. Too bad, they look like awesome photos! Interesting information.So he could sell the photos as long as he didn't advertise who was in the photos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue J Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 x1yyz is right, this is not uncommon. tomhealey could probably explain it better than I can, but basically, several court case rulings have meant that if an entity owns rights such as the merchandising, trademark, etc. rights named in the article, they have to keep defending those rights by suing others who try to use the same name, etc. Otherwise they could lose the right to the name. This happened in the 1960's with the company that made the Thermos container, they lost the rights to that copyrighted name. So I would guess that yes, the photographer owns the right to the photos, but Rush (Anthem, whatever) owns the rights to the name Rush, so they are saying he cannot use that name with his product. Too bad, they look like awesome photos! Interesting information.So he could sell the photos as long as he didn't advertise who was in the photos? I thought about the same thing. It's an interesting bit of nuance. But no, I think they'd definitely find a way to put the kibosh on that, too. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraroc Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 (edited) I thought Rush was one of those bands that really didn't mind their fans doing stuff like that? They slap this photographer with a C&D, but they're okay with fans recording literally every show on the R40 tour? Edited April 22, 2016 by fraroc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbobby10 Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 I thought Rush was one of those bands that really didn't mind their fans doing stuff like that? They slap this photographer with a C&D, but they're okay with fans recording literally every show on the R40 tour? Actually Rush aren't really ok with Bootlegging http://www.rushtrader.com/rushon.htm 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueschica Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 (edited) I thought Rush was one of those bands that really didn't mind their fans doing stuff like that? They slap this photographer with a C&D, but they're okay with fans recording literally every show on the R40 tour? Yeah, it's complicated. My guess is that part of it is that with the photographer selling photos on Etsy for a set price, it is there in black and white that he is trying to profit from the band's name or personality or what ever. With a bootleg recording, who knows where it will go? If someone was blatant enough to make a stack of bootlegs and actually sell them for a set price on eBay or something they might hear from the lawyers also ??? (or robertrobyn :) bless his heart for looking out for us :) ) Edited April 22, 2016 by blueschica 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue J Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 I thought Rush was one of those bands that really didn't mind their fans doing stuff like that? They slap this photographer with a C&D, but they're okay with fans recording literally every show on the R40 tour? I don't think they're okay with bootlegging, but they know it happens- I'd imagine that's why there has been an official live release of every tour since Vapor Trails- CD and DVD/Blu-Ray. They do what they can to mitigate interest in (for the most part) inferior-sounding recordings- and make money at the same time. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upstateNYfan Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 (edited) It's their work, so they call the shots. It's almost impossible to control hundreds or thousands of recordings (audio and video) today because almost everyone has the instant ability to do either. The difference here is the selling. (He's using their likenesses to profit.) Granted, it's not something I'd pursue, but from a legal perspective it has merit. Edited April 22, 2016 by upstateNYfan 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upstateNYfan Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 (edited) I thought Rush was one of those bands that really didn't mind their fans doing stuff like that? They slap this photographer with a C&D, but they're okay with fans recording literally every show on the R40 tour? Yeah, it's complicated. My guess is that part of it is that with the photographer selling photos on Etsy for a set price, it is there in black and white that he is trying to profit from the band's name or personality or what ever. With a bootleg recording, who knows where it will go? If someone was blatant enough to make a stack of bootlegs and actually sell them for a set price on eBay or something they might here from the lawyers also ??? (or robertrobyn :) bless his heart for looking out for us :) ) Not complicated. He wants to profit on someone else's likeness without permission. The internet makes his intentions clear to a world audience (he isn't hawking photos at a strip mall once a year). Edited April 22, 2016 by upstateNYfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueschica Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 (edited) I thought Rush was one of those bands that really didn't mind their fans doing stuff like that? They slap this photographer with a C&D, but they're okay with fans recording literally every show on the R40 tour? Yeah, it's complicated. My guess is that part of it is that with the photographer selling photos on Etsy for a set price, it is there in black and white that he is trying to profit from the band's name or personality or what ever. With a bootleg recording, who knows where it will go? If someone was blatant enough to make a stack of bootlegs and actually sell them for a set price on eBay or something they might here from the lawyers also ??? (or robertrobyn :) bless his heart for looking out for us :) ) Not complicated. He wants to profit on someone else's likeness without permission. The internet makes his intentions clear to a world audience (he isn't hawking photos at a strip mall once a year). You are right, I just meant it's a bit complicated artistically. Not familiar with Canadian laws, but in the US he would hold the copyright to his own work. He would be able to use the photos, without profiting from them, in artistic displays, etc. to his heart's content. Mr. JD is a professional photographer, he would probably know more than my scrambled brain that needs lunch! :D Edited April 22, 2016 by blueschica Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JARG Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 I thought Rush was one of those bands that really didn't mind their fans doing stuff like that? They slap this photographer with a C&D, but they're okay with fans recording literally every show on the R40 tour?I suspect if the photographer wasn't trying to make a buck they wouldn't give a rat's ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JARG Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 (edited) “You what’s funny? I posted a photograph of Rush on Geddy Lee’s Facebook site. And he sent me back a compliment, saying, great shot.” Is there an actual verified Geddy Lee personal facebook page? Edited April 22, 2016 by JARG 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wil1972 Posted April 22, 2016 Author Share Posted April 22, 2016 “You what’s funny? I posted a photograph of Rush on Geddy Lee’s Facebook site. And he sent me back a compliment, saying, great shot.” Is there an actual verified Geddy Lee personal facebook page? I wondered about that and figured it was a fan profile for Geddy and the person running it probably said that, not Ged himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JARG Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 “You what’s funny? I posted a photograph of Rush on Geddy Lee’s Facebook site. And he sent me back a compliment, saying, great shot.” Is there an actual verified Geddy Lee personal facebook page? I wondered about that and figured it was a fan profile for Geddy and the person running it probably said that, not Ged himself. That's my take as well. Poor bastard thinks Geddy complimented him on his work. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HemiBeers Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 (edited) These images are from the 70s and the guy made $530 on them so far. Let it slide. Christ the letter from the lawyers cost them more than what the guy made. At a certain point, we need to tell Ray Danneils to f**k off...you made enough money off the loyalty. Edited April 22, 2016 by 2112FirstStreet 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. JD Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 Usually if you intend to make a profit from an image by selling it to someone other than the people or person in the image, you need a "model release" signed by the people or person in the image. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketom Posted April 23, 2016 Share Posted April 23, 2016 What a bunch of Jag Bags, I dont think the band members give a Shit, but it's the Assholes in Management. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now