BJP artcle by Pete Jenkins
Posted on: Wed, 09/17/2008 - 13:38
BJP artcle by Pete Jenkins
Pete Jenkins, vice chair of the NUJ Photographers Sub Committee, has written a useful article about performers and management rights-grabs contracts:
For a number of years now bands’ tour managers have sometimes presented music photographers with contracts or agreements as they enter venues to shoot gigs. Almost always detrimental in terminology to the photographer, these contracts are presented in such a way that to not sign is to not be allowed entry to the gig. It (usually) doesn’t matter who the photographer represents, how far they may have travelled, or who they are. No signature equals no access.
The article in full is available from BJPOnline as a PDF,
This article raises a number of interesting issues but has missed a lot of detail out. As mentioned in the article, these agreements are contracts but what it doesnt say if what happens if you dont stick to the term of the "contract".
There are four different types of damages for breach of contact;
* Compensatory damages which are given to the party which was detrimented by the breach of contract. With compensatory damages, there are two kinds of branches, consequential damages and direct damages.
* Exemplary damages which are used to make an example of the party at fault to discourage similar crimes. Fines can be multiplied by factors of up to 50 for such damages.
* Nominal damages which include minimal dollar amounts (often sought to obtain a legal record of who was at fault).
* Punitive damages which are used to punish the party at fault. These are not usually given regarding contracts but possible in a fraudulent situation.
If you take the first point of the "contract";
"LK must approve all pictures before any publication."
If you were to publish a picture without the approval of LK (and it was a good picture), what could you be taken to court for ? LK himself would have no losses from the publication of the pictures so what Judge would award him any damages.
Also the article makes a point of the "unclear meaning" within the agreement. Again this would make the agreement unenforcable in a court of law.
Post new comment