Live Nation RANT Update: WE DID IT!!!

[@65WZ]

I'm from Saudi Arabia, so it's a bit different: - Calculate your cost (gear, props, assistants, models, travel, lodging, insurance, ..) - Add risk margin (hazardous assignments). - Add profit margin. - Apply discount. - Present the total bill. It doesn't matter what venue or cause I carry out, the above formula worked for me. For charities and startups, I apply a very large discount at the end.. NEVER say your services are free, just submit your bill with 100% discount, but NEVER state it's free. The client needs to know the cost and how much you're donating for their cause. As for rights, I give the client unlimited full usage rights, without the right to resell, donate, or transfer the license. I retain FULL intellectual rights.

[@ThomHiatt]

Way to go, Jared Polin . Per photographer: $150 base plus $150/hr on site. Includes copy of raw files, and shared copyright. Photographer credited with any use of photo. Photo editing time is additional per client needs; $X per photo. Artist may not use photos commercially (album art, etc) without additional contract and payment to photographer.

[@seanchin]

Thom Hiatt What about time for editing? Parking at venue?

[@ThomHiatt]

Sean Chin I mentioned editing is extra. Parking in employee lot.

[@ParallaxFPV]

Thom Hiatt Uh so you think $150/hr is reasonable? you're dreaming. There's no way a photographer's time is worth $150 an hour. Yes they deserve to be paid for their time but they aren't brain surgeons ffs, they didn't have to study for a decade to get to where they are.

[@RyanPortsmouth]

Alex Smith Depending on the client and the shoot my fees vary from $50 per hour to $300 per hour including editing, I have found that rates for photographers does change dramatically based on where you are so in your area or market $150 may be too much but, to tell me that "There's no way a photographer's time is worth $150 an hour" is a bit of an insult not only to photographers but to clients who happily pay that rate and much more. My average fee (based on my billing not the range) is $165 per hour, today I have a shoot that is paying $225 per hour (a shopping center) and yesterday I had a shoot that paid me $53 per hour (a school). In context to this specific scenario however, I cannot say what the correct dollar amount is, for my business my rates change based on the rights I am giving to my client, the extent of editing we agree to, number of editing variations, size of the business, context of what I'm shooting, why it is being shot, etc.

[@ParallaxFPV]

Ryan Portsmouth I couldn't care less if it's "an insult" or not. Whether photographers charge ludicrous amounts of time because their ego is so inflated they believe they are the only one in a 10 mile radius with their particular set of skills is another matter. Say you want to have something manufactured in a machine shop that has to pay tens of thousands of dollars in wages, insurance, power, consumables and often millions in machinery, that machine shop will charge you $60-100 per hour depending on the kind of work, done by highly skilled machinists who have invested years of their life upskilling. So forgive me when i think you're a narcissist for thinking $150+ an hour is over the top for something i can learn to do in my free time.

[@JKGeary]

Thanks guys. I am getting paid from Live Nation now for the upcoming event in Ft. Lauderdale.

[@JKGeary]

but to clarify… I do not shoot the live show. I shoot the meet and greets.

[@ryanhinz4776]

Great news! One recommendation as a beginning photographer--try to see if they can set up a few spots for newbies/beginners who are trying to cut their teeth on the trade and get experience. I'm in a place (overseas) where concert photography is hard to get into, even on local venues. Giving the young blood a chance to get their foot in the door has a lot of goodness and I'd hope they give the new guys a chance to get their shot at the gold. Also, ask them to put limits on how many people the pack into the pit. Regulating the number of people in the pit does reduce the number of photos that can be used, but if we're not all "assholes and elbows" in the pit, I think it will give photographers to get a better quality in their shots and that would pay dividends both for the company as well as the photographers. Rock on brother!

[@itsmejoeyc2504]

So cool! I saw you're video and tweeted micheal! I feel so cool for being part of something for once lol

[@scttg5697]

I love it how companies only listen if someone, somewhat famous makes a deal about something. Anyway, nice job Fro!

[@SeanHunterMusic]

Just got a tweet from Michael Rapino, as is everyone else right now, saying 'agree we are fixing.' Well done Jared! We did it :)

[@billmoran3812]

What an excellent example of using the power of media to affect change for good. Kudos to you Jared.

[@kevindiossi]

Huge. Great work, Jared and everyone who helped appropriately.

[@MattisProbably]

No idea about the rates, but as for the use of the photos the photographer should be able to use all shots for their portfolio abs they should be allowed to use those photos commercially that Live Nation didn't want.

[@Amicitas2]

The restrictive artist photography agreements should be another point of discussion. LN has >280 artists and >60 managers. They could lead and help bring the rest of the industry along. I get where some artists don't permit syndication (make that clear and don't approve wires), but for the others the photographers shouldn't have the use of their images so tightly controlled that they can't run them but once.

[@1Wendymae]

That is very cool. I lost count how many time I seen help wanted ads looking for photographer and wanted the services for free. Well done Jared.

[@MyJeanf]

Great stuff Jared. You are and always have been a vanguard for photographers rights

[@bob_345-g3d]

This is awsome. It is amazing what this community that has accomplished. Even got a reply back from him. Definitely shows that they are taking initiative. Great work everyone!

[@msmarykay10034]

Thank you for taking the initiative, Jared. You Rock.

[@Mr.HarryPotter]

Thank you. You got a phone call on Shabbos?!!!

[@anotherrandomer]

Jared Polin brilliant work. I'd rather not comment on the t&c part since am not a professional. But if it was for portfolio building, and I'm talking from the POV of a guy trying to get a gig, I'd not mind doing it for free if the venue was nearby unless I get the acknowledgement I needed. To say, these images are mine and there is some kind of reference in Live Nation's website or wherever they are posting it, so that I can use it as a reference point for my future customers. I should have all the rights to the images. To shoot and just hand over the images is just asking for a free ride especially without a proper form of acknowledgement which in itself fails the part where they mention the portfolio building of a photographer. I would not however entertain this for multiple dates, one or two at the max. But great job nonetheless in calling them out and getting it fixed. You have saved loads of amateur photographers who would not understand the repercussions of the contract.

[@Jasshands1]

Nice work man. I've been in that situation and gave just walked away. I offered my Provincial government images that I took and they wanted it for free. Then when I asked why do you pay the people that design your logos. Make you tv ads or any creative artist they told me there are 10 of me willing to work for free why would they pay. As photographers whether pro or amateur we have to stop do this or letting it go on. It won't be easy.

[@Tfmusicmaker]

Good Job. That is awesome to hear. I respect you as a photographer and how you give back to the photography community. I am an upstarting photographer so this helps ease my mind on this issue at least.

[@EyeCanShootFL]

I have always been confused by Live Nation Venues. I have shot house of blues here in Orlando and it was always confusing. The usage rights (at least over a year ago) were basically a phone book of you can't do anything, and you can't even have the photos up for over 3 months I believe it was. I was actually covering bands that had me come out, but was still bound by their contract. They were always cool with me etc... so never had much of an issue. Seeing as I have wanted to cover more events there and have tried on numerous occasions to reach out to them and never heard anything back from their marketing teams, it's good to see you actually were able to get a response. As far as rates go. I think that there should be a base rate no matter for X amount of hours and size of event. 2 bands or 4 bands or all day? As far as usage, I shoot NCAA football games all of the time and I retain all the rights to my photos. YES I allow the school to use them for all the things the school needs (ie. media guides, promotions, side of a semi if I was ever that lucky) but outside of that if SI wanted to use a photo that one of our photographers had, we had control of that situation. We just had to work with trademarking etc to make sure it was something that reflected the school in good light. Same should be said with any Live Nation venue. Maybe they could put a usage term on the photos. Meaning sure, they get a flat rate for shooting and giving digital images. However if they wanted to use them for huge promotional pieces, then there is flat rate paid for x,y,z along with photo credits etc... Sorry I rambled here, hope it makes some sense...

[@UlricWolf]

There, in Latvia (Europe) for event photography I take 40-50eur/h (depends on assignment) but minimal 80eur (even if I must shoot just 20min - it is 80euros = 90usd). We don't have Live nation, but the same goes for concerts.

[@johnlegg9869]

This is a great topic, and i look forward to seeing the results. I believe it differs from situation to situation. One thing that i noticed at the Tortuga Music Festival that i covered in Ft. Lauderdale, as well as CMA music festival in Nashville, the house photographers had "card runners" that would deliver photos to the appropriate person who was in charge of editing. According to one of the togs that i spoke to, they did not delete the images on their cards. The photog would still be granted the RAW Files. This was great for them, because a few were shooting for big publications as well (Getty, Rolling Stone, etc...). Basically shoot, then the runner would deliver the card and then return it. Now, i don't know if this would be the best issue for smaller 3-4 band sets in a amphitheater. If this was the case, What if something "happened" to your card during delivery of the photos during the show. I believe a great solution would be the photographer deliver the RAW photos at the end of the show, or have 12 hours to deliver photos ( like previously stated in other comments). As far as rates go, it really depends on the show. Also, what kind of access does this entail? If you're shooting for the venue, i believe you should be granted all access. That way you can get the shots you need, and are not in the way of the press photographers. Don't limit the house photographers to the first 2-3 songs as well. Maybe work out a relationship with each artist, and try and get special access granted. I would say a $150-200 per gig price would be sufficient with these ideas that i've presented. It's only my opinion, but i'm glad we have the opportunity to discuss this. I look forward to reading everyone's comments.

[@MonteComeau]

This is a win win situation. Live Nation will now be getting qualified artists to photograph their events and their content will be better. No longer will Uncle Bob be showing up to shoot the event with 20K in gear and no vision using it as a training ground with zero pay. On the other side true professional photographers will be paid for their work and have the rights to the content.

[@Officer323]

As with pricing with other photography services, i'm torn between where I start and where I would like to get paid. Live nation being big as it is could potential afford to pay photographers top dollar. But is that also saying every concert photographer should get paid the same? I know quite a few "concert photographers" who know the right people to get in and shoot a show without actually having the knowledge in photography. I guess my rant would be how is LiveNation going to decipher who's a professional and who should get paid. Also, does this mean that they would pay media sites to be there as well?

[@Zepeyoig]

On top of that, kudos to you, Jared Frolin (as I will call you from now to commemorate this feat). Thank you for cleaning some gunk out of the system.

[@Zepeyoig]

Perhaps a good way to answer the question of the payment would be to deduct a small percentage of the total ticket revenue for each event. This way, LN won't lose out on their return because of the performer's inability to draw a crowd, or any other circumstances. On the topic of copyrights and circumstances which question the the rights of use, the answer is simply. If a contract grants the photographer the right to sell it or use it for promo, then s/he may do so. If it does not mention, ASK, if it states against it, simply you can't. LN could provide a royalty fee contract to solve this, if it was to be a problem.

[@apoeticdevice]

Payment of course will vary depending on venue and artist. A huge national act at an NYC venue should cost more than a smaller regional act in a small to mid market venue. As far as rights...photographer retains all rights & Live Nation & the venue get a non-transferable, non-exclusive license for their branding & websites.

[@transoptic]

Jillian Clark I think it could easily vary by venue, but it would be impractical to vary by artist. It would make sense if LN negotiates a flat rate per venue, but it would be too big a hassle to come up with a varying fee structure for different artist billings. If however LN doesn't think a certain show will draw enough ticket sales or networking buzz, they could just easily not have a photographer shoot that particular show.

[@FTTPRO]

What live nation had set up was much more of an internship type mentality. However, when hiring a in house photographer. conditions are pretty much the same. The photographer should be hired on as an employee. Photos taken at "work" are for the company not you. The only thing I expect is a check at the end of the week. Realistically a minimum rate would be $18/hr. On the contrary, if Live Nation is bring in session photographers, or sub contracted photographers than the expectation changes. You have your nightly rate, my assumption is that this would start at $120 for one night. This would be equivalent to a $15/hr gig for 8 hours of shooting. Of course hiring an individual would require the photographers fees & trade negotiations. Many times, at this point, photo rights are something that have to be negotiated with the photographer. However, I think offering a commercial license for both parties to use the pictures is much more reasonable. ASMP.org explains that Commercial refers to photography that is used to sell or promote a product, service, or idea. This is something I feel should be mandatory for all transferred ownership contracts. In short ASMP.orh says it best in my opinion, "Commercial, editorial or retail, photographs are intellectual property. Unless you are an employee or have contractually transferred ownership, you become the owner of this property when you create the image." I don't that anything else needs to be said.

[@FTTPRO]

***** In short ASMP.org says it best in my opinion, "Commercial, editorial or retail, photographs are intellectual property. Unless you are an employee or have contractually transferred ownership, you become the owner of this property when you create the image." I don't that anything else needs to be said.

[@FTTPRO]

***** A business friend of mine just asked a great question. Who in fact is creating the photograph; the person paying for the picture or the person taking the picture? In other words, who has the photographs rights to begin with? Shouldn't that person set the negotiated terms? Well, it's simple. If you are hiring a photographer because of his "style" of photography and how they get the photograph. Then the pictures belong to the photographer. If you hire a photographer just to take the pictures, because you can't do it yourself, then you own the pictures. But at this point you are responsible for any editing, printing, retouching or any other work taken by your photographer. this is best for a company who plans to have a photography team hired on in house. The photographer is hired on for picture taking only. In both cases, no matter what the photographer is HIRED on and deserves to be paid. The terms should be agreed upon in a contract before the shoot. This is why it's important to ALWAYS HAVE A CONTRACT! It is important for both parties involved, always!

[@froknowsphoto]

***** If you take the photo you own it unless stipulated otherwise in an agreement. The agreement will stipulate it.

[@SteveNoblin]

Congrats! This is a start to something great.

[@ChakraW]

Yep. I got my reply from Michael (i.e., probably the assistant). Very happy someone is listening.

[@froknowsphoto]

ChakraW no, it's him.

[@markmorinii]

Live Nation’s restrictions on media have become outrageous. Photo escorts, making us essentially coat check our gear after the first 3 songs, not allowing us to sit in our ticketed review seat without bringing our gear back to our cars. Total bullshit.

[@MACmySTUFF]

I think it should be dependent on the tour size- a Chris Tomlin concert is much different than a Taylor Swift concert. They should find a scale to determine which category each tour falls into, and then have different prices for different categories- Minimum should be $100/hour, going up accordingly. They also need to get over the "3 song limit"or whatever it is now, because most of the time certain songs make for better photos with various special effects and sequences. They should be treated as an employee of the tour.

[@zachstepek6722]

MACmySTUFF The 3 song limit is as much for our safety as it is for the artist and the venue. It gets rowdy up there sometimes!

[@zachstepek6722]

Kevin Blevins Definitely not clueless, Kevin. I guarantee that I know a little about shooting concerts; I've logged hundreds of concerts and festivals, most with large national headliners at some of the largest venues in the United States. I, too, have had the ability to shoot full sets before due to relationships with the band or tour manager, something that I've been very grateful for when it has been possible. I'm also familiar with the "Springsteen origin story" of the three song limit, but I'm aware that it has been attributed to Rush and Led Zeppelin, among others, as well. Regardless of the origin, though, the overwhelming reason it is still enforced to this day is to limit liability for injury for both the venue and the artist. I can guarantee that not a single venue owner, promoter or tour manager out there is thinking about the origins of the three song limit when instructing their crew or security staff. They're thinking about liability and your safety. I've had a tour manager decide that around a dozen photographers had to leave the pit after the first song because the stream of people coming over the barricade ONE SONG IN was relentless enough that the 20 security guards they had on the barricade that night could barely keep up I have a good working relationship with the security staff at the venues that I regularly shoot because I know that, many times, they're the only thing between me and a boot to the head. Also, if the band you're shooting is a quality act, it shouldn't take them five or more songs to "open up." They should be bringing their full energy from the second they play the first note. It's simple: if you're a concert photographer, you should hope to be able to shoot the first three songs, no flash. Anything more is outside the norm and a gift. Anything less, and I'm sure there's a reason.

[@transoptic]

MACmySTUFF Agreed that the 3 song limit is for considerations of safety and liability. Also, photographers create an added buffer between performing artists connecting emotionally with paying audience members. Photographers have no need to feel entitled to come between that connection more than is necessary for completing their jobs. If you're being hired to shoot a concert, getting the shots you need to adequately cover a performance within a 3-song limit should really be the least of your worries.

[@maryswift5441]

wow this is amazing. go jared

[@tiagopadua]

Wow, this is a big win!

[@rogueguineapig]

At the very least, usage should include the rights for a photog to use the images for his own advertising and/or portfolio in addition to the cash compensation.

[@jackneri9]

I say let them have the rights and be able to use them wherever they want but they should let you have a watermark on the photos. Just a thought. I'm a photographer for my own high school and I'm only 15 and Tbh Jared you opened the whole world up for me lol. I haven't even been a photographer for a year and now everyone in the whole school knows my name. "jack Neri photography " lol sometimes they call me that... So I even have a watermark I use sometimes because all the students use my pictures everywhere on Instagram and Twitter and stuff so now people can know I'm the one behind the work... :) I also have a question Jared... What is your opinion that if I do EXTENSIVE work for the school at events and such and I let the school use the pictures whenever and wherever they want but I don't get paid a penny... Do you think there is a way of approaching the school in asking to be paid for photographing if that is even appropriate to ask my school in the first place... Thanks for your opinion Jared. Love u man (no homo doe) :D

[@SMentor568]

Photographers that work for no fee are not benefiting themselves or their professional peers!

[@A7Photography]

Photographers have to be sensible about this if you are going to be an in-house photographer or hourly paid as a freelancer, you either negotiate a salary or an hourly rate (dependant on the job spec and venue size), editing should be included in the hourly rate and if salaried, then the editing is part of the salaried position, shared copyright, photographer credits should be standard whether salaried or hourly paid. Artists should not be able to use the images for any commercial, promotional or album cover work without a separate contract with Live Nation and photographers (the fee/payment can be negotiated by either Live Nation or photographer as they hold shared copyright, personally I would leave that up to Live Nation to negotiate). My opinion about rates are: it should be one figure and not a bunch of figures, i.e. hourly rate, the editing rate, then printing rate, etc. Give one rate that includes everything, this gives the client security while also allowing them to budget correctly and does not lead to photographers ripping off clients by adding extras along the way, bad for business this type of practise.

[@froknowsphoto]

A7 Photography You are really close to what I am thinking. I think LN should have the rights to use the images for non commercial use online in some promotions via facebook but if it turns into an advertisement thats where extra fees are shared. The photographer can still use the images personally but they can not sell them to a wire or service. Thats how I see it when you are a house photographer getting paid.

[@RyanPortsmouth]

Disclaimer: I am not affected by this situation but as a photographer I am happy that the profession has taken a big step forward as getting paid as a photographer isn't easy. I do have clients in the US but am not based in the US. A7 Photography I agree also, I don't charge extra for editing regardless of my hourly fee. As far as prints go I charge a set fee per print subject to size. For large format printing (e.g. billboards) my clients ad agents deal with that but they do pay an additional license per photograph. Jared Polin I generally agree on the rights but I would say that LN has unlimited commercial rights with attribution to use the photographs with attribution for use in social network promotion limited to Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Google+, this allows them to use the images on their page(s) and for use in "sponsored posts", Facebook ads, etc within the social networks. I would then specify the images may be used in LN email marketing and for use on the LN website. One other thing I would add is the RAW files are not provided. What we all need to remember as business owners is ambiguity in a contract or agreement opens the door for abuses and situations that are not intended to occur in the nature of the contract. 500px for example allows for the sale of photography, by not including 500px in the social network list in the contract the risk (even though it is very small in this scenario) is entirely mitigated or removed as it is a social network. As the band's legal rep likely won't be signing the contract they cannot be given rights in the contract. To allow the band to use the images, the contract between the photographer should have a clause that subject to the band signing document X the band has the following limited commercial use rights. The band legal rep should sign document X that LN should include as an annex in their contract with the band and a copy of document X should be provided to the photographer as an annex to their contract. A bit complicated I know but I believe this is required because the band cannot be held responsible or liable if they do not sign anything regarding the rights and if the band does overstep LN is not likely to take responsibility for the 3rd party rights violation. The contract needs to specify exactly what LN can do and what the photographer can do, it needs to specify anything not included within the contract needs to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis and documented somehow. I hope this helps you guys out.

[@A7Photography]

Ryan Portsmouth the mention of printing was an error on my part and should not have been part of it.

[@EyeCanShootFL]

A7 Photography Jared Polin I concur on the being sensible. 150 an hour times god knows how many venues and hours worked is nuts. Plus my nights shooting at HOB were 4/5 hours at best. 3 song max in the pit and some photographs from upstairs if we were allowed were all part of it. HOWEVER what you're ALSO not seeing is the big picture. (Excuse the pun) The artist. For example Pat Benatar requires all images any photographer takes at any venue to be available to her at no cost. If you don't agree to the agreement, you don't shoot the venue. She's not a kind person any how, but is really bad with photographers. I could show you the agreement I had to sign and some of you would shake your head. so when your booking an artist the last thing on Live Nation's mind is (photography). And when the stage manager gets there and said we want rights to all photos or you guys aren't taking any - you have a mess.

[@A7Photography]

Damon T. I understand the artists are a pain in the arse when it comes to photographs, this is where the photography world should stand up and say no pay, no photos. The artists will soon realise that the best photographers not taking photos will ruin the promotional side of things for them. Artists get paid for all their music being sold, played on radio, played in public, streamed, etc. because they hold the rights to the music, but a photographer is expected to do a shoot, provide all the images for FREE AND HAND OVER THE RIGHTS to the artist, bullshit! If photographers (and I mean ALL) round the world took a stand against this discimination, this practise would cease in a heartbeat. Photographers have to make a living too, and I am sick and tired of these prima donnas, namely actors, musicians, sports stars, etc. taking a living away from people who work damn hard and get paid peanuts. All the artists do in shove alcohol down their throats and shit up their nose, sleep until noon or later and then expect a photographer who has been working an 18 hour day to do it for free. No Sirree, fuck 'em....................

[@ahmadsatriani963]

I charge my clients SD$300 per event... For weddings $600 minimum for 6hr of shoot...

[@joeindovina681]

So what exactly is the position / AKA "House Photographer"? Are you a Live Nation employee? Are you considered a contractor? Are we talking W-4 or 1099 or self reporting? If LN wants full rights to the images - then I'd say the rate goes up considerably. If LN is willing to share the rights - then the rate is halved. If the images are to be used/distributed by LN then credits to photog & possibly royalties as well. Images of entertainers - can photog sell/distribute or will LN add a clause to their contract w/the entertainers having them agree to no rights of the images of them taken by "House Photographers"? Liability? Who covers the photog if he/she falls and breaks a finger? Who is liable if the photog drops a camera on an event goer from a catwalk and that event goer sustains an injury? Prior to coming up with a dollar figure - I think the above needs to be detailed a little. Just my $0.02

[@v3c70r6]

Sorry jared i didn't have twitter

[@jackneri9]

JARED I hope you see my comment before this!! Please read it all. Thank you!

[@KathyDodwellWilson]

Well done Jared :)

[@tru2cali]

To say you are going to do something and to actually do something is totally different. I will reserve judgement until I actually something more than lip service.

[@MrAnkit84Patel]

I am sick of tried of people who want free shit just because they think your job requires to just push a button. Hahahehohihehahiheha, I wish my job was that easy. Photographers are here to make money so stop treating us like numbers we are human beings !!!