First I apologize if this has been covered before but I can't find an answer to what I hope is a specific and hopefully simple question. I have been photographing bands in smaller venues for awhile as a hobby. I call ahead and ask the camera policy for the event and when I'm told the performer permits photography I bring my gear. I've never had to use or apply/ask for a media pass of any kind nor has there ever been any discussions or requests for releases. Does this permission give me all rights to do as I wish with the photos I take? Thanks in advance.
If you're shooting as a ticketed attendee, consult the fine print on your ticket. For ticketless admission, you'll need to consult the venue directly on a per-event basis.
Conditions vary by venue, promoter, and act. In most cases, resale (licensing) will be prohibited but you can probably use it in a portfolio.
+1 to what Colin said. Terms and conditions on a ticket or posted at the venue can constitute a contract which might limit your rights.
If no such contract exists then you own the copyright and are free to do what you want, within the limits of the law. One of those limits in the US is that you can not use someone else's likeness to advertise/market/promote a company/product or cause (even if no money is involved).
However apart from that you are free to sell the images to the press or as prints or display them in a gallery/exhibition.
Terms and conditions on a ticket or posted at the venue can constitute a contract which might limit your rights.
But has any limitation written on a ticket ever been borne out in court as an enforceable contract?
We know there are standing limitations of using personal likenesses or corporate trademarks, but those limitations already exist under law regardless of what's written on a ticket. Can small print on a ticket actually invoke any enforceable further legal limitations?
Knowledge of writing and of terms: If the recipient of the ticket knew that there was writing on the ticket and also knew that the ticket contained terms, then the recipient is bound by the terms of the contract.
Reasonable person: If the recipient did not know of the existence of the terms, then the court will consider whether a reasonable person would have known that the ticket contained terms. If that is so, then the ticket-holder is bound by those terms; if not, then the court will return to the general test of whether reasonable notice of the terms was given.
That particular case was found for the ticket-purchaser because the court ruled that a reasonable person would not realize the back of the ticket held those terms.
But I think another English common law case is more significant.
This point: "Moreover the contract was already concluded when the ticket came out of the machine, and so any condition on it could not be incorporated in the contract."
The question is: Do you have a chance to study the terms of the ticket and accept/reject them before you've paid your money?
Ian Ivey wrote:
Sure. You pay for the ticket, the ticket is provided to you with clearly stated terms, you agree to the terms by using the ticket for admission.
What would be unenforceable about that?
John Houseman is not amused and wants to give you a dime:
