https://petapixel.com/2017/11/14/rock-l ... copyright/

He does this a lot - posting other peoples’ photos. The thing with the famous is that they play on the “fan-boi/girl” thing and hope that because they’ve chosen their image, that‘s good enough. He’s clearly not seeking permission before posting others’ photos on Instagram.

Ouch.
You can't have it both ways, Brian.

Mark

As a musician, I can see his reasoning behind his actions.

When a photographer takes photos of musicians playing live it is as much the subject matter as the skill of the photographer that makes the photo good/interesting.

Unless there has been a specific written agreement/contract beforehand, the subject of the photograph should have the right to use that photograph for free so long as the photographer is credited. Conversely the photographer must also credit the subject of the photograph. It does work both ways.

Unfortunately, it is the photographer who has the copyright, because it was their "skill" that made the photograph. If it was an unauthorised photo taken by a fan, I can see your argument having some value. But if it was a professional photographer, engaged to take official photos, then they belong the the photographer or the event organiser (depending on the contract).

If an artist paints you, you might be the famous subject of the painting, but he gets paid for producing the painting. The subject usually doesn't get any rights to the painting, they might get a few quid for posing, if it is a "no-name" subject.

But regardless, unless he sought the permission of the copyright holder, he doesn't have the right to post the image willy-nilly and thus infringe the creator's source of income.

But in this case it's the other way around. Brian May is being photographed because he is famous. And because the image he is projecting from the stage is inherently photogenic.

The photographer has chosen to photograph him for those very reasons. She isn't down the Dog & Duck photographing some no-name band in their scruffy jeans and t-shirts, staring intently and their instruments while their singer fails to project beyond the end of the microphone. And of course she isn't because no matter how good a photographer she is, a boring looking band in a dull setting are never going to make interesting photographic subjects.

Certainly if I was in Brian May's position there would be no professional photography at any of my gigs unless the photographer(s) were prepared to share the copyright of the photographs taken with the subjects of the photographs.

And that is the question, what sort of contact did they sign? Was it good concert and he prepared the contacts, or did the venue organize it? Did they buy the rights to the photographs or did they remain with the photographer?

It sounds like the rights remained with the photographer.

No professional photographer will give up the copyright to their images.

Brian May knows how the current copyright law works, he didn't abide by those rules in this case.

Mark

He says he and the photographer on question have come to an understanding over the issue, and will be explains more later.

In the meantime, this is on his soapbox website: