Concert Photography: Part 3—The Rights-Grab Economy, Copyright, Control, and Why Concert Photography Is Journalism
By Scott W. Coleman
Jonathan Davis of Korn performing in Houston, Texas — Copyright Scott W. Coleman, All rights reserved.
You shouldn’t have to pay for parking to do your job. And you shouldn’t have to sign your copyright away to cover a concert.
That’s the core problem with today’s rights-grab economy around live music: the people asked to produce independent journalism are being treated like unpaid brand ambassadors — with contracts to match. These agreements aren’t just annoying; they strike at the foundation of how editorial photography works, how journalists keep the public informed, and how photographers make a living. (Yes, we can do all three at once. It’s called “Tuesday.”)
Copyright 101 (in 3 paragraphs you can hand to your editor)
In the United States, the photographer owns the copyright the moment the shutter fires. That’s black-letter law under Title 17: an original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium is protected upon creation.
No special form. No watermark. No “©” in the metadata. It’s yours unless you assign it to someone else or it qualifies as a narrow “work made for hire.”
“Work made for hire” is the exception, not the rule. It applies when you’re an employee acting within your job duties, or when a commissioned work fits specific statutory categories and there’s a written agreement saying so.
Most freelance concert shoots for news outlets are not works for hire unless you sign something that makes them one. (If the contract says “work for hire,” stop. That’s a red flag the size of a stadium LED video screen.) See the U.S. Copyright Office’s Circular 30 and its photographers’ guidance for the details.
Registration isn’t required for ownership, but it is required before you can file a lawsuit in the U.S., thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Fourth Estate v. Wall-Street.com. Translation: if your images matter to your bottom line, register early and often — especially group registrations for published or unpublished photos (Circular 42). Early registration also preserves eligibility for statutory damages and fees.
Real-world takeaway: If a release tries to convert your shoot into a work-for-hire or demands an all-rights transfer, that’s not “standard.” That’s a rights grab. You can negotiate — and you should. (ASMP has plain-English primers that back this up.)
Why this is journalism (and not free promo)
Concert photography isn’t a souvenir service. It’s news coverage. When things go right, we document culture. When things go wrong, the pictures are the record.
In Houston, the Astroworld tragedy wasn’t a “vibe”; it was a mass-casualty event that sparked investigations, settlements and sustained scrutiny of concert safety. Photographers and local newsrooms built the public record in real time, frame by frame, as officials and lawyers later reconstructed the timeline. That is journalism.
Same in Las Vegas in 2017. Press photographers documented the Route 91 Harvest massacre and its aftermath — images that informed a stunned country and shaped policy conversations for years. It wasn’t branding. It was public service during the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
If that sounds lofty, remember the mundane but still public-interest stuff: taxpayer-funded venues, police and fire staffing, gridlock that clogs a city’s arteries for hours, and attendance records that matter to local economies. Our pictures help communities understand themselves — whether it’s 500 people or 50,000.
That’s why professional ethics (NPPA’s code) emphasize accuracy, context and independence. Handout photos are PR; editorial coverage is journalism. Confusing the two is how the public loses the plot.
The modern rights grab: from Taylor Swift to Foo Fighters to Oasis 2025
Let’s be specific.
Taylor Swift (2015). Photographers pushed back when a tour contract surfaced with tight limits on editorial reuse and expansive rights for management, prompting an open letter from photographer Jason Sheldon — “How are you any different to Apple?” — after Swift criticized Apple over artist compensation. Irish news outlets refused to sign. The dispute made global headlines and forced a broader conversation about fairness.
Foo Fighters (2015). When that camp’s contract attempted to strip away control and limit editorial use, The Washington City Paper protested by sending a cartoonist to the show rather than a photographer. The point landed: if you block journalists from doing the job under normal editorial terms, coverage will reflect that choice.
Guns N’ Roses. This band has a long history of tight media control (remember the Axl Rose DMCA blasts). Coverage of the 2016–17 “Not in This Lifetime” era referenced strict photo terms common in mega-tours, a trend that nudged outlets toward either accepting rights-limiting paperwork or finding workarounds, like syndicated pool photos or wire service exceptions — none of which are ideal for independent freelancers.
Oasis (2025 reunion). This summer’s blockbuster reunion tour tried a new wrinkle: a 12-month limit on editorial image use taken at shows, with rights then reverting to the band. Major agencies and publishers refused to sign and suspended photo coverage. The News Media Coalition (which includes AP, Reuters, Getty) publicly challenged the terms; UK press solidarity, bolstered by a strong union culture, amplified the pressure. Result: by late August, Oasis lifted the restrictions ahead of North American dates. That’s what coordinated resistance looks like.
Why it matters: time-limited editorial rights defeat the whole point of archives. You can’t build future retrospectives if your legal right to publish evaporates after a year.
📌 What a Fair Release Looks Like
- Photographer retains copyright ownership
- Unlimited editorial use in perpetuity
- Clear definitions for promotional use
- Pre-set fees for commercial uses
- No work-for-hire language
- Credit line required
A note on “good actors”
Some artist teams have issued fair releases that preserve photographers’ copyright, allow normal editorial reuse and even pre-set reasonable fees for specific band uses (tour promo, album art, merch). That kind of clarity respects everyone’s time and recognizes the value created on both sides. If you’re an artist camp reading this: you will get better pictures and better coverage when you take this road. (Editors: if you have a publicly shareable example, send it — we’ll link it in a future update.)
The market reality: when reuse is banned, everyone loses
A growing number of releases don’t merely block resale; they curtail any reuse beyond immediate coverage. That means a paper that pays to cover a show can’t legally reuse those photos later when the band returns, runs a feature, or when a former member dies and an obituary requires file art. That restriction shrinks the value of archives for outlets and erases a crucial revenue stream for freelancers, who rely on fair editorial relicensing. It also starves the artist’s own news ecosystem of quality imagery over time—short-term control for long-term loss.
If that sounds abstract, consider previews. Using last tour’s images to promote the next stop helps bands sell tickets. Blocking that editorial use doesn’t help artists; it helps the handful of companies that want all the leverage, all the time.
Meanwhile, the crowd shoots everything (and posts the worst of it)
Here’s the irony. Fans can record and post a firehose of shaky video and unflattering frames with near-zero friction. Entire businesses exist to stop phones at shows (Yondr pouches, anyone?), precisely because the smartphone lens has swallowed live events whole.
Surveys suggest people increasingly prioritize filming over being present, which is their right as ticket-buyers — but let’s not pretend that a thousand vertical clips equal the work of trained photojournalists filing to a broad audience under an editorial code.
Locking down pros while the crowd posts fights, groping, and worst-angle screen grabs is a reputational own-goal. If you actually care how your show looks online, you want independent professionals up front, not fewer of them.
The British lesson: solidarity works
The Oasis dispute felt different because UK outlets and agencies moved together. The News Media Coalition coordinated statements; national press culture — and the National Union of Journalists’ long memory for this stuff — gave it backbone. The industry had been here before (see previous disputes around restrictive tour terms), and that institutional memory mattered. When big publishers and wires draw a line at once, the “take it or leave it” contract suddenly isn’t. And within weeks, the terms changed.
Could that happen in the U.S.? Yes — if editors stop normalizing handouts and freelancers stop treating abusive terms as the price of admission.
Common pushbacks, and how to answer them
“But the artist owns their image.” In the U.S., the copyright in the photograph belongs to the photographer. Rights of publicity and privacy are separate issues, and editorial coverage of newsworthy events is protected. In Germany and parts of Europe, right-of-image rules are stricter, with consent often required to publish identifiable individuals — but exceptions exist for events of contemporary history and public gatherings. That doesn’t make a band the copyright owner of your frame; it just changes when and how an image can be published.
“It’s safer to use the handout.” For PR? Sure. For journalism? No. Handouts are controlled messaging. NPPA’s ethics code emphasizes independence and resisting staged manipulation. If the story is a safety failure, a protest, or a political moment from the stage, the handout won’t show it. That’s the point.
“Photographers should be grateful for the exposure.” Exposure doesn’t pay rent. The way editorial photography pays is reuse over time, licensing across outlets, and a reputation built on real assignments, not on signing away copyright. That’s not greed; that’s how a small business survives.
“We need to protect the brand.” Excellent. Hire professionals and stop handcuffing them. Editorial coverage isn’t the enemy of a brand; bad policies are.
📚 Further Reading
- NPPA Code of Ethics — standards for truth and independence in photojournalism
- U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 42: Copyright Registration of Photographs
- Petapixel: Music Photographers Up in Arms Over Rights-Grab Contracts
- DPReview: Newspaper Sends Cartoonist to Foo Fighters Concert to Protest Contract
- News Media Coalition: Oasis Photo Restrictions Challenge and Coverage Suspension
- Irish Times: Why We’re Not Running Photos of Taylor Swift’s Concert
The freelancer squeeze: write the review, shoot the show, sign the rights away…for free?
Another corrosive trend: outlets that “pay” with access only, while expecting one person to produce photographs and a review. That’s not a small ask. An honest review can get you blacklisted in some markets. If your rent depends on access, you’re less likely to write what you saw. That compromises the journalism and punishes the people who take the ethics seriously.
There’s a documented pattern of outlets protesting rather than participating. The Foo Fighters cartoonist stunt was a joke with teeth. The Oasis refusal was no joke at all—and it worked. Solidarity is leverage. Use it.
What to do next (artists, editors, photographers)
Artists & managers: Adopt fair editorial releases. Preserve the photographer’s copyright. Allow perpetual editorial use. If you want promotional rights, license them at set fees. You’ll still control your brand — and you’ll get better coverage, because pros will want to work your shows.
Editors: Stop normalizing handouts. If a contract is abusive, say no and publish why. Readers understand leverage when they see it. They also understand the difference between journalism and marketing.
Photographers: Register your work. Quote your licenses (term, territory, media). Refuse work-for-hire language unless you’re being hired as an employee for staff-rate money and benefits. Know your code of ethics and carry it into the pit.
All of us: Treat concerts as the news beats they are. We don’t know when the big story will happen. That’s why independent, ethical coverage must exist before it does.
Footnotes / Sources
17 U.S.C. § 102: “Copyright protection subsists… in original works of authorship fixed….” Cornell LII. Legal Information InstituteU.S. Copyright Office, Circular 30: Works Made for Hire; “What photographers should know” overview. U.S. Copyright Office+1U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 42: Copyright Registration of Photographs; Circular 1: Copyright Basics. U.S. Copyright Office+1Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC (2019) summary. Justia / LOC Copyright blog. Justia LawThe Library of CongressNPPA Code of Ethics: accuracy, context, independence. nppa.orgTaylor Swift 2015 contract controversy: Jason Sheldon’s open letter; The Irish Times decision; TIME overview. PetaPixel The Irish Times TIMEWashington City Paper protests Foo Fighters contract by sending cartoonist (2015); DPReview recap. DPReviewGuns N’ Roses reputation for restrictive media control (DMCA/press control context). ITPro. WikipediaOasis 2025: agencies boycott over 12-month rights limit; NMC statements; later lifting of restrictions ahead of North American dates. The Guardian; News Media Coalition; CityNews/Canadian Press. The Guardian News Media Coalition CityNews TorontoAstroworld coverage timelines and settlements reporting. Houston Chronicle investigations; KTRK/ABC13 timeline. Houston Chronicle ABC13 HoustonRoute 91 Harvest (Las Vegas) background; TIME on news photo coverage. Wikipedia summary; TIME interview with LVRJ photographer. WikipediaTIMEEuropean/German right-of-image context and exceptions (KUG and contemporary-history carve-outs). Zeller & Seyfert; Bolex summary. ZELLER SEYFERT bolex.deFan-camera reality and phone-free efforts: Yondr; survey trends re: filming. Yondr; We Rave You (Heineken survey). Yondr We Rave You