# "How I Got Banned from Photographing the Band Arch Enemy"



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Dec 27, 2018)

https://petapixel.com/2018/12/26/how-i-got-banned-from-photographing-the-band-arch-enemy/


----------



## eggy in a bready (Dec 27, 2018)

it seems that everyone involved, aside from the photographer, is suffering cognitive dissonance


----------



## Randy (Dec 27, 2018)

Spiraling thing that got out of control and nobody really looks good by the time it's done, but the writer/photographer opened the 'asshole' can of worms with what he KNOWS was a passive aggressive 'cease and desist' letter to the clothing company.

Yes, he's right that as the artist, without any contract signed between them, its at his discretion how the pictures are used, and it's not unreasonable to take issue with the pictures being used as a commercial advertisement without his consent BUT, he's gaining no points with:



> Your use of my photo is unauthorized and, as I’m sure you are aware, represents a clear and blatant breach of my copyright. This infringement is, of course, made more serious when we take into consideration that your use of my photo is in connection with your business, which you are trying to promote with this post.
> 
> In general, I charge a fee of *at least €500* (five hundred Euro) to businesses that have posted my work in an unauthorized manner.



Then further down saying



> Unbeknownst to me, instead of getting in touch directly with me, Marta Gabriel, the designer behind Thunderball Clothing, got in touch with Arch Enemy and *accused me of sending her a “threatening” letter “demanding €500”. While this was completely false*, that’s precisely the information that Arch Enemy‘s management decided to use to send me a series of messages



Mm yes, completely false. Competely. Nope, no threatening letter, no mention of 500 squigglies.

I'm also predisposed to hating this kind of fucking argument. The absolute worst thing to come out of social media culture is the obsession over pictures you post like it's the Mona fuckin Lisa. I can sympathize with not wanting people to steal your work and pretend it's theirs or profit off of it without your consideration but instagram/Facebook/Twitter culture has taken it to the extreme.

And I've have my pictures and video work (I'm a professional photographer and videographer) used without my permission but contextually, I don't think I've ever see anything cross the line to where I thought I needed to take legal action. Snapping pictures at a concert from down on the floor and then trying to extort people for money when they repost them is, even if legal, lazy. 

Cool, he thinks the quality of his art puts him above taking an '@' as fair exchange for reposting pictures he took. Fine. I bet he sends out dozens of those 'test balloon' cease-and-desist letters, usually they just take the pic down and move on but once somebody told him it's asinine, and it happened to be a big artist that he happens to be a fan of and all of the sudden he acts like he's being crucified.

This kind murky bullshit is exactly why increasingly bands and venues ban cameras and even cell phones. I don't even think I totally disagree with him wanting the picture taken down and I don't agree with how volatile and accusatory their reply was but he opened his argument cranked to 10, and coinsidering they're a band that's been around and playing big venues for 20+ years, with 100,000s of pictures taken of them over that time, I'm sure they're not especially appreciative of being threatened.


----------



## eggy in a bready (Dec 27, 2018)

Randy said:


> Spiraling thing that got out of control and nobody really looks good by the time it's done, but the writer/photographer opened the 'asshole' can of worms with what he KNOWS was a passive aggressive 'cease and desist' letter to the clothing company.
> 
> Yes, he's right that as the artist, without any contract signed between them, its at his discretion how the pictures are used, and it's not unreasonable to take issue with the pictures being used as a commercial advertisement without his consent BUT, he's gaining no points with:
> 
> ...


.......do you know what copyright law is?

guy takes picture, to which he is the sole copyright holder. company steals image for own benefit, thereby violating fair use agreements. guy wants company to pay in exchange for a license to use said image in order to advertise product. seems pretty cut and dry


----------



## narad (Dec 27, 2018)

I'm with the guy on the issue, but it's so drama-queeny. Memes never helped anyone come across in a professional manner, and reading Angela's email in a joke voice takes things out of "this is a serious situation that is worth you listening to and caring about" and into mud-slinging. It's possible he could have avoided all this blow-back by just phrasing his emails in a more earnest manner, instead of probably tripping all the alarm bells with the extortiony tone.


----------



## Lorcan Ward (Dec 27, 2018)

Not surprised at all by this. AE are known for crap like this.

They made loomis who was explaining in interviews how he wasn't allowed to contribute to the band do a 180 and tell all interviewers that he joined too late to write, completely contradicting what he said a week or two prior. Exact same thing happened with Alissa when she openly complained about her ideas being turned down when she first joined. She wanted to ad a lot more clean signing and her own lyrics but Michael said no.

The whole situation would be a lot worse if they had removed his watermark, will wait and see of this blows up on social media and what AE's response is. He really could have done with out the Glenn Fricker voice on the email.


----------



## lewis (Dec 27, 2018)

Problem is, no approach he takes would work or paint him in a good light.
What is he supposed to do?

He makes these issues public and he is a whiney drama-queen. He doesnt and sits on them hoping it just works out in his favour, and it doesnt etc once people find out they accuse him of being a pussy for not exposing them.

Its lose/lose for the poor guy tbh.
Arch Enemy have spent years creating a Gimmick and a mentality that goes hand in hand with said gimmick, and their actions and this getting exposed, shows them up as liars and hypocrites that completely contradict what they supposedly stand for.

They are absolutely no different from the Corporate bullies stamping on the little man, that they claim to hate so much.

f*$k Arch Enemy


----------



## Andromalia (Dec 27, 2018)

First, I'd like to say how much I hate people just posting videos without any kind of written summary.
Second, whether the photograph is an asshole or not, his ownership of his work stays the same. Using a picture for a commercial venture without authorisation from the rights holder is, to the best of my knowledge, forbidden in all western block countries.


----------



## SD83 (Dec 27, 2018)

Come on, we all know that everything on the internet is free. Music, videos, photos, everything. Paying for digital data is so 2000 or something... seriously though, this "we won't pay you, but you get exposure!" thing has been a problem for years, that's basically how all those streaming services work (although I guess they technically pay you... 0.1 cent if someone plays your entire record?), and from reading what the photographer wrote about the incident, it was clearly not the first time it happened to him. Still, beginning the letter with stating that he is also an attorney is probably as passive aggressive as it gets and turns it from "I'm an artist that rightfully wants to be paid for his work, but I'll let this slide if you donate for charity" to "Just so you know it, I could sue you for this, so you might want to cooperate  ". I can totally understand why he did that, though, and not only is he right (and he could have been WAY more aggressive), the way Arch Enemy reacted to that was just bad. A few years ago that might have even shocked me a bit, but being self employed for a few years, it seems that's basically how business works. You take whatever you can get, and when somebody has a different opinion, it routinely either becomes a dick measuring contest or if they can't really deny being wrong they act like a spoiled child and try to at least harm you as much as possible. Small business, international corporations, Arch Enemy, same story...


----------



## Flappydoodle (Dec 27, 2018)

Photographer is mostly at fault IMO.

If you post on social media, people are going to re-post it. That's something you have to accept. There's a grey area with what happened here. The clothing company reposted the image using the built-in reposting facility in Instagram. They didn't edit it. They didn't cut off his logo or watermark. They didn't claim it was theirs. They didn't take the photo and host it on their own website. They simply re-granned it.

A crappy photo of a singer on stage isn't worth €500. His tone was irritating and pushy. I'm not surprised they got irritated. And all of that "donate to charity" stuff just makes him sounds like a cunt. "Oh, look at what a nice guy I am. I'm only doing this on principle, blah blah".

As @Randy said, there is a massive abundance of photographers out there. Great gear is super cheap. It's not hard at all to stand in the photo pit and get good shots. IMO it's a dying profession, since the barriers to entry have come way down and there are so many amateurs who can pull off great photos and will do it for free. AA can choose from an abundance of keen photographers at every venue they play, who won't cause fuss and threaten people, then deny threatening them.


----------



## Randy (Dec 27, 2018)

eggy in a bready said:


> .......do you know what copyright law is?
> 
> guy takes picture, to which he is the sole copyright holder. company steals image for own benefit, thereby violating fair use agreements. guy wants company to pay in exchange for a license to use said image in order to advertise product. seems pretty cut and dry



Correct. He still could've worded his initial reply in a way that got the point across and descalated this issue rather than getting them where they ended up.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Dec 27, 2018)

He’s in the right but wrong way to go about it. 

What’s with all this do this or I’ll sue garbage. Just sue. Just do it. Sue first. Ask questions later.


----------



## Lemonbaby (Dec 27, 2018)

If I were the photographer, I would have used direct snail-mail with a significantly clearer wording to charge them for using his photo for advertising. No donation back door, no excuses, just an invoice. The legal facts are very simple in this case...


----------



## GunpointMetal (Dec 27, 2018)

He said pay me for using my image in an advertisement with which your company is hoping to generate a profit by using, or donate some money to charity. So if everything mentioned about copyright laws is accurate, he's in the right, and that's totally fair. Maybe he is a douche, but he's right. 
Ever have a promoter get salty because they're using your band to draw for a "national touring act" and you ask for a guarantee? Sure, maybe it a dick move to ask for a guarantee for a show that's 8 blocks away, but they wouldn't be asking if they didn't think it would help bring people in to cover the guarantee for *insert-band-that-won't-draw-much-on-a-wednesday-even-though-they-had-a-radio-song-in-2011* why shouldn't we get a slice of the pie? Artists accepting "exposure" for payment is how we ended up in a place where Otep convinces promoters to charge local bands to open for them/tour with them. If you're good at something, never do it for free.


----------



## Fraz666 (Dec 27, 2018)

Flappydoodle said:


> A crappy photo of a singer on stage isn't worth €500. His tone was irritating and pushy. I'm not surprised they got irritated. And all of that "donate to charity" stuff just makes him sounds like a cunt. "Oh, look at what a nice guy I am. I'm only doing this on principle, blah blah".


agree


----------



## Edika (Dec 27, 2018)

In any case, regardless of the wording and regardless if you think the guy was passive aggressive and if his profession is a dying one, he is still legally right. If the clothing agency just reposted the Instagram on their official gram it still counts as advertising. Putting a link to their site is even worse.

I'd say, him being an attorney, the time was quite tame. If you think asking to donate to charity is him trying to appear holier than though this whole thread has made me want to donate to the Danish cancer charity.

Arch Enemy promoting anarchist ideas? The only anarchist idea I can see them promoting is "everything is good as long as it profits me". Which is the notion capitalism tries to convey as anarchy and more or less is what capitalism does. I never paid any attention to their imagery and haven't found them appealing to listen to since their first records but Angela and Michael should take a chill pill. They're obviously in the wrong and should have tried to de-escalate the situation themselves instead of playing the "oh we're sooooo edgy everyone is attacking us to try and profit". 100 euros to a charity is change for them and they would have looked better than whiny children.


----------



## SDMFVan (Dec 27, 2018)

I recommend clicking the link and reading his entire write up, because it offers more clarity than the video. He did try and contact the company through Instagram DM about it but they ignored him, hence the emails. 

I did concert photography semi professionally from around 2003-2010, and I can't imagine handling a situation like this worse than AE did. Angela's email is completely laughable, and in my mind makes her look like she's probably a terrible manager overall. Copyright and use/ownership of photos a photographer takes of a band is completely common knowledge throughout the industry, and that's why when a band does want to maintain control/ownership they do like the Foo Fighters and make photographers sign something acknowledging it. As this guy mentions in his write up I think musicians in particular are extra sensitive about ownership rights of other artists and try to do everything above board. 

As an example, sometime in I think 2009 I shot Megadeth while they were opening for Heaven & Hell. A month or so after the show Dave Mustaine was selling a bunch of old gear off on ebay, including the Von Dutch shirt that he was wearing the night I shot them. Dave tracked me down and emailed me personally to ask if he could use some of my photos in his ebay listing. I of course told him yes and thanked him for asking. If this is something that Dave Mustaine is cognizant of, what excuse does AE have?


----------



## narad (Dec 27, 2018)

SDMFVan said:


> Dave tracked me down and emailed me personally to ask if he could use some of my photos in his ebay listing. I of course told him yes and thanked him for asking. If this is something that Dave Mustaine is cognizant of, what excuse does AE have?



What charity did you make him donate to?


----------



## Andromalia (Dec 27, 2018)

> A crappy photo of a singer on stage isn't worth €500.



Not your call, and if you find it too expensive you're free not to buy it and not use it. 500€ for having to enter a legal procedure to recover the money seems actually pretty cheap.


----------



## SDMFVan (Dec 27, 2018)

narad said:


> What charity did you make him donate to?



Alcoholics Anonymous.

Seriously though, I feel like that would have been a situation where he could have used it without asking, but he respected the process enough to just do it. As a matter of fact, Heaven & Hell wanted to use my photos from that same show on their official website which would totally have been fair use, and they still hit me up and asked for permission. It's not that hard really.


----------



## Randy (Dec 27, 2018)

Edika said:


> In any case, regardless of the wording and regardless if you think the guy was passive aggressive and if his profession is a dying one, he is still legally right.



Cool, go through this thread and pick out one time somebody said he wasn't legally right.


----------



## Edika (Dec 27, 2018)

Randy said:


> Cool, go through this thread and pick out one time somebody said he wasn't legally right.



This from flappydoodle makes a good argument of the legality of his claim.

"Photographer is mostly at fault IMO.

If you post on social media, people are going to re-post it. That's something you have to accept. There's a grey area with what happened here. The clothing company reposted the image using the built-in reposting facility in Instagram. They didn't edit it. They didn't cut off his logo or watermark. They didn't claim it was theirs. They didn't take the photo and host it on their own website. They simply re-granned it.

A crappy photo of a singer on stage isn't worth €500. His tone was irritating and pushy. I'm not surprised they got irritated. And all of that "donate to charity" stuff just makes him sounds like a cunt. "Oh, look at what a nice guy I am. I'm only doing this on principle, blah blah"."

Plus while you do admit he's legally right, the tone of your post softens the approach AE has chosen to pursue. Which I found surprising as your posts are always against the kind of behaviour AE is exhibiting, regardless of assholery of person instigating the contact. If I received various IM's on Instagram from reposting a photo that I don't have the copyright, from the copyright owner, regardless of the tone I'd take it down and not try to justify why I did what I did. I wouldn't ignore the IM's and wait for an email or formal contact by the copyright owner.

Maybe there are some unwritten laws in the music industry but it is quite hypocritical to be super protective of your copyright and regard as extortion and whining when they're at the receiving end.


----------



## Randy (Dec 27, 2018)

Edika said:


> If I received various IM's on Instagram from reposting a photo that I don't have the copyright, from the copyright owner, regardless of the tone I'd take it down



Your bias belies your objectivity on the issue. A reminder of what his FIRST contact with them was:




Did he say 'take the picture down'? No, he said you used my image, now pay me. He didn't even offer taking the picture down as a resolution.

THEN



> Dear Marta,
> 
> My name is J. Salmeron, I’m a photographer and [an] attorney based in the Netherlands.
> 
> ...



Again, where do you see taking the picture down offered as an option? It wasn't. It was "you used the picture, now pay". The two things at issue are his tone (which absolutely comes across as extortion-esque) and the fact he (and his defenders) are declaring absolute right on the basis of a strict reading of the law, but then he decided to serve notice in an especially informal social media direct message and then in a 'half in, half out' email.

Show me the part of the 'fair use' copyright law that says 'not previously defined' sum of money to charity is considered a legal binding licensing practice. That's right, it's not in there. It's an option, a total and a charity that was chosen at HIS discretion, which means he had a range of options he was open to in resolving this, which means this was less about following the letter of the law and more about him seeking his pound of flesh.

You'll notice above somewhere when I 'liked' a post of someone saying he should've just sent him a paper copy of a legal cease and desist letter and/or invoice and called it a day.

The man was legally right to take action and to make a complaint, but he was also an asshole about how he handled it. As has been said several times in this thread, he could have asserted his rights as copyright holder in a less prickish way and either gotten his money or gotten the picture taken down, and likely still had an amiable resolution with the band.

As a moral thing, I believe everyone has a responsibility to try to de-escalate things but once fists start flying, you can't blame everyone else for swinging back. The Arch Enemy response has little to no legal viability and it's childishly handled, but I stand by my position that it got to that point with provocation and it didn't need to end that way.


----------



## ArtDecade (Dec 27, 2018)

People still expect money for art and music in 2018? Man. Y'all crazy.


----------



## GunpointMetal (Dec 27, 2018)

The ad/post was already running. If they messaged him back and said "Shit, sorry dude, we pulled the ad" it probably would have been over. But they ignored him completely and contacted the band, who was not even involved in the situation, who then responded like spoiled children. Everyone on both ends was kind of a dick about the whole thing, doesn't change the fact that he was well within in his rights to request payment for use of the image. 

I guess the moral of the story here is if you're involved in a dying profession or art, just assume everything you do is simply for exposure and you should never expect compensation when someone else tries to use your work to make money. My landlord accepts Exposure Bucks(TM) for rent anyways, so its all good.


----------



## Randy (Dec 27, 2018)

GunpointMetal said:


> The ad/post was already running. If they messaged him back and said "Shit, sorry dude, we pulled the ad" it probably would have been over.



That's assuming a whole lot, especially considering that was NOT defined in either correspondence. I assume you've never been on the receiving end of a copyright or patent troll before?


----------



## GunpointMetal (Dec 27, 2018)

Randy said:


> That's assuming a whole lot, especially considering that was NOT defined in either correspondence. I assume you've never been on the receiving end of a copyright or patent troll before?


I'm basing it off of the fact that he mentioned a bunch of times in the article that he lets people use his images if they ask and my personal experience of thinking that even if I'm not planning on making any money using a photographer's image, I still ask them before I share it in any sort of official band capacity because I'm not a dick and I respect other artists' grind. I've also known several product photographers and they are ALWAYS fighting this crap, because everyone thinks they're a photographer because they have some PhotoShop App on their phone so nobody respects the work that goes into doing it properly. The lame metal bracelet company didn't even TRY to work it out, they just went and cried to the band and made it sound like somebody was being mean to them.


----------



## Randy (Dec 27, 2018)

GunpointMetal said:


> I'm basing it off of the fact that he mentioned a bunch of times in the article that he lets people use his images if they ask and my personal experience of thinking that even if I'm not planning on making any money using a photographer's image, I still ask them before I share it in any sort of official band capacity because I'm not a dick and I respect other artists' grind. I've also known several product photographers and they are ALWAYS fighting this crap, because everyone thinks they're a photographer because they have some PhotoShop App on their phone so nobody respects the work that goes into doing it properly. The lame metal bracelet company didn't even TRY to work it out, they just went and cried to the band and made it sound like somebody was being mean to them.



Yeah, I mean, bits and pieces of that I can sympathize with. Like I've said numerous times, the guy has a right to pursue this legally, I guess my bigger complaint is bellyaching about it on top of it. Didn't need the cringey video and the tete-a-tete to get that point across. He obviously acts like this bothers him beyond just the legal issue of someone using his stuff, despite the fact he comes across as kind of a prick in HOW he verbalizes things. That's kinda where it begins and ends for me.

Also, yeah, *I'm not saying this as a legal or even a moral issue* (bolded since these seem to keep getting ignored) but I personally find it kinda funny when he compares himself snapping pictures from down in the audience at a concert to Arch Enemy writing/recording/producing music. Maybe it's just ignorant of me but the bulk of the photographers I know typically work under contract for shoots that are usually done in a closed environment and the files are delivered directly to whoever's paying for them. Forgive me if I don't necessarily put snapping pictures at concerts on the same level as, you know, writing 'Dark Side of the Moon' or something.


----------



## GunpointMetal (Dec 27, 2018)

Shooting open-air at a concert is probably harder than shooting in a studio where you can control lighting, distance, talk to the subject (or handle it in the case of product photography). For some reason these things, when associated to music, aren't serious. But there's a reason sports photographers don't complain about this stuff. They have contracts that define how their images are used and they get paid pretty well from the people hiring them. When it comes to music stuff though, everyone is just supposed to do it for the love, or something.


----------



## Randy (Dec 27, 2018)

GunpointMetal said:


> Shooting open-air at a concert is probably harder than shooting in a studio where you can control lighting, distance, talk to the subject (or handle it in the case of product photography). For some reason these things, when associated to music, aren't serious. But there's a reason sports photographers don't complain about this stuff. They have contracts that define how their images are used and they get paid pretty well from the people hiring them. When it comes to music stuff though, everyone is just supposed to do it for the love, or something.



How do concert photographers that aren't under contract make the bulk of their money? This is alien to me.


----------



## tedtan (Dec 27, 2018)

eggy in a bready said:


> .......do you know what copyright law is?
> 
> guy takes picture, to which he is the sole copyright holder. company steals image for own benefit, thereby violating fair use agreements. guy wants company to pay in exchange for a license to use said image in order to advertise product. seems pretty cut and dry



That's not how it works in the real world, though.

From the point of discovering that someone was using the image without permission (and I'm not sure if re-posting on a social media site counts in this context), the photographer would have to 1) spend the money to sue the clothing company, and 2) prove that he lost money from their use of the photo. At this point, that lawsuit seems more likely to result in the judge ordering the clothing company to stop using the picture than to award monetary damages, especially if the photographer has a history of allowing his photos to be used without compensation.

Plus, the party with more money usually wins because they can afford more and better attorneys, more and better expert witnesses, etc., so that edge would likely swing to a business over an individual.


----------



## GunpointMetal (Dec 27, 2018)

Randy said:


> How do concert photographers that aren't under contract make the bulk of their money? This is alien to me.


I'm not really sure how it works at these big festivals, but at smaller levels, usually what happens is a band/tour package hires a photographer for a set rate with the idea that they can use the images of THEM as they see fit. There's a lot of shows where a band has a photographer with them and they will offer the other bands their services for a flat fee (usually like $50 or something) and then they can keep the images and do with as they please.


----------



## Sogradde (Dec 27, 2018)

Flappydoodle said:


> If you post on social media, people are going to re-post it. That's something you have to accept. There's a grey area with what happened here. The clothing company reposted the image using the built-in reposting facility in Instagram. They didn't edit it. They didn't cut off his logo or watermark. They didn't claim it was theirs. They didn't take the photo and host it on their own website. They simply re-granned it.


That's not what happened though. They didn't simply repost it, they used it in an advertisement.
Imagine someone uses samples of your music in his records to make money off of it without asking you for consent.


----------



## Lorcan Ward (Dec 27, 2018)

This is starting to blow up over social media now. I checked out that guy's IG page. He has a talent for taking photos, most of those would be passable for album art and way better than the majority of photos I used to see in music magazines.


----------



## narad (Dec 27, 2018)

Yea, the photo in question's pretty awesome IMO. I mean, her hair's doing 90% of the work, but still, good capture.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Dec 27, 2018)

Lorcan Ward said:


> This is starting to blow up over social media now. I checked out that guy's IG page. He has a talent for taking photos, most of those would be passable for album art and way better than the majority of photos I used to see in music magazines.



It's almost like this whole thing has been entirely to his advantage. Weird.


----------



## Randy (Dec 27, 2018)

GunpointMetal said:


> I'm not really sure how it works at these big festivals, but at smaller levels, usually what happens is a band/tour package hires a photographer for a set rate with the idea that they can use the images of THEM as they see fit. There's a lot of shows where a band has a photographer with them and they will offer the other bands their services for a flat fee (usually like $50 or something) and then they can keep the images and do with as they please.



Well, I appreciate your take on that.

What I'll assume are my final thoughts on it are this... I'm not ACCUSING the guy of copyright trolling but it's a term that's been used against complainants in copyright cases, and the broad definition says that a 'copyright troll' is someone that produces original material, and then posts it in a way that makes it especially easy for people to find and reuse, then they spring the trap to make them have to pay for the use, typically with legal action.

In my original post, I said it was murky because of the fact he posted it on social media (no, I know that's doesn't make it fair game) and allowed it to be reposted by several other individuals, including the artist themselves (who seemingly would also have a financial motive in sharing the image), and he only spoke up when the clothing company posted it, and we can choose to interpret what goes on inside his head all we want, but he DID lead with asking for money.

They should've asked for permission, he should be compensated for his work. Feel free to stop reading there if you're so inclined.

Like I said, I'm not accusing him of copyright trolling but allowing it to be freed openly on social media and then the first correspondence with the company that posted it (I don't know how big they are, for all I know, it's a guy and his wife and they have zero legal background) was asking for money, no option B. It most likely leans in his favor legally and even ethically, but him making clear he'd decide who he allows to repost his images without his permission and going straight for cash in one case IS pretty close to at least the thought process in copyright trolling.

Also, I'm not behind his 'hurrah!' against artists for banning independent photographers from their shows, especially if they have the same practices as him. He leaves out the fact that the musicians are the ones shouldering the weight of writing/recording/producing the music, and funding the tour and stageshow itself. If you're not contracted by the band to take pictures, you're paying the ticket price to get into the show, which is supposed to be you paying to WATCH the show, not what you pay to make MONEY off the show. He willfully chooses to turn a blind eye to the fact that, without the artists and the money they put up to put out music, promote themselves and perform on stage, there IS nothing for him to take pictures and profit off of. 

EDIT: He also mentioned an interview he gave with Alissa for his website. I wonder how much she was paid to give the interview? Or was she just expected to just do it in exchange for the exposure, while he profits off the traffic to the website? Hmm..


----------



## Mr Violence (Dec 27, 2018)

Just popping in to point out that if you remove the emotion and the responses from all of this, all parties involved removed the image immediately after the threat. And that would be the end of the story if the drama didn't drum up bullshit.


My interpretation:
He approached it all wrong and put a sour taste in the clothing company's mouth before anything. He used no tact. His very first correspondence was "You must pay a licensing fee. Where can I send an invoice?"

Then he added the charity thing. Whether he usually does that or not, I would bet every dollar in my wallet that he knew this would either be a gold mine of publicity, look bad for him, or both. So he added the charity thing as a fall back, and reminds the reader/viewer ad nauseam in the article and video.

He was hostile, they were hostile back. They also IMMEDIATELY took the pictures down.

They aren't implying he or anyone else should work for free. They are just saying "We don't like assholes. You are an asshole. Please fuck off."

That's what I think.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Dec 27, 2018)

Randy said:


> Again, where do you see taking the picture down offered as an option? It wasn't. It was "you used the picture, now pay". The two things at issue are his tone (which absolutely comes across as extortion-esque) and the fact he (and his defenders) are declaring absolute right on the basis of a strict reading of the law, but then he decided to serve notice in an especially informal social media direct message and then in a 'half in, half out' email.
> 
> The man was legally right to take action and to make a complaint, but he was also an asshole about how he handled it. As has been said several times in this thread, he could have asserted his rights as copyright holder in a less prickish way and either gotten his money or gotten the picture taken down, and likely still had an amiable resolution with the band.
> 
> As a moral thing, I believe everyone has a responsibility to try to de-escalate things but once fists start flying, you can't blame everyone else for swinging back. The Arch Enemy response has little to no legal viability and it's childishly handled, but I stand by my position that it got to that point with provocation and it didn't need to end that way.



I'm on board with pretty much everything Randy's said so far, but this post especially. The DM intro was hilariously bad and out of touch.
I didn't listen to the video; I just read the article, and as soon as I saw that first DM to the clothing company, I knew how this was gunna go.
It really isn't hard to do something like this non-aggressively. "Hey, I don't really want to be 'that guy,' but I saw that you're using my photo on X post and it comes off like an advertisement for your clothing company. Would you mind maybe either removing it, changing the text of the post to not be commercial in nature, or licensing it? While it's a simple photograph and I'm glad you like it, copyright law still applies, and it makes me uncomfortable to see people using my work in a commercial manner unlicensed. Feel free to either DM me here or text me at 123-456-7890; cheers."

EZ. How can you get pissy at that? Might just be a by-product of being an attorney that you just think in legal-speak, but I have a hard time believing that anyone can read those emails and think "Yeah, this comes across as polite but firm," I totally read every message from the guy as a legal flex.



GunpointMetal said:


> The ad/post was already running. If they messaged him back and said "Shit, sorry dude, we pulled the ad" it probably would have been over. But they ignored him completely and contacted the band, who was not even involved in the situation, who then responded like spoiled children. Everyone on both ends was kind of a dick about the whole thing, doesn't change the fact that he was well within in his rights to request payment for use of the image.



What our parents never told us was that "he started it" as actually a valid argument, especially in the court of public opinion.
So while I read how AE and the clothing company handled this and roll my eyes; at the same time, I can't really blame them too much. If someone's an ass to me sometimes I'm an ass back. I'm a petty son of a bitch, sure, but you know. Eye for an eye and all that.


----------



## JohnIce (Dec 27, 2018)

If the "clothing company" in question was Adidas or H&M, I'd see his point.

However, "Thunderball Clothing" is a polish girl with two items up for sale on etsy. When she all of a sudden got contacted by a lawyer demanding a €500 penalty fee for reposting a picture on instagram, she probably freaked out and turned to the band for advice.

The band probably values their relationship with this girl, they may even be very good friends, causing AE to say "Don't worry, we got you!" and proceed to go full Mama Bear on this guy for harassing their friend with unreasonable demands of money.

The dude is obviously in the right on principle, and AE's response was uncool for sure, but I do think the guy would've been treated differently if he'd just said "Hey Thunderball Clothing, that picture you posted was mine, so we should work out a licensing fee if you want to use it for advertising, otherwise I want you to take it down". After all he's an amateur photographer dealing with an amateur seamstress over an instagram repost. But instead he chose to make it look like he was a lawyer demanding a non-negotiable penalty fee for a crime she committed.

In other words, photographer dude was indeed wronged but the rest of this he brought on himself.


----------



## Xaios (Dec 27, 2018)

My thoughts on Arch Enemy can basically be summed up by Porcupine Tree lyrics: "Music of rebellion makes you wanna rage, but it's made by millionaires who are really twice your age."

My thoughts on this photographer can basically be summed up by this image:


Spoiler


----------



## prlgmnr (Dec 27, 2018)

SDMFVan said:


> As an example, sometime in I think 2009 I shot Megadeth while they were opening for Heaven & Hell. A month or so after the show Dave Mustaine was selling a bunch of old gear off on ebay, including the Von Dutch shirt that he was wearing the night I shot them. Dave tracked me down and emailed me personally to ask if he could use some of my photos in his ebay listing. I of course told him yes and thanked him for asking. If this is something that Dave Mustaine is cognizant of, what excuse does AE have?



Being made to look bad _by comparison with Dave Mustaine_ in terms of general dickery is about the lowest you can get.


----------



## Andromalia (Dec 27, 2018)

GunpointMetal said:


> I'm not really sure how it works at these big festivals, but at smaller levels, usually what happens is a band/tour package hires a photographer for a set rate with the idea that they can use the images of THEM as they see fit.



In bigger festivals you need a sponsor to get a pass: either the publication you are working for, or the company you take photos for, etc. Then there are multiple tiers. When I covered Hellfest I only could shoot the small bands. the big ones (Priest, Ozzy etc) are reserved for the big media and the small fry is just barred from entry. And you'd better not get caught in the pit on the public side taking pictures. 
Baiscally it all works like the mafia. The barrier to revenue is who lets you photograph what. Because technical skill becomes more and more irrelevant. You can also see this in the fact that half the photographs are pretty teenager girls for some reason. I can't fathom why.


----------



## Descent (Dec 27, 2018)

I think the problem is that the guy should've asked to donate to PETA or some vegan causes and it would've been ok.


----------



## Edika (Dec 27, 2018)

@Randy I see your point and now that I read the exchange it comes heavy handed going for the license fee DM. But he didn't get a reply either. Maybe they thought better to not acknowledge the claim as it would give more legal fodder against them. I didn't watch the video so it might to the cringyness of the guy.

I probably didn't expect the level of immaturity from AE's part and that is what threw me off. In any case it seems that he has come on top on this and I'm guessing he was expecting that. I'm not sure if he have went in such lengths if Angela didn't "name and shame" with other members of the music business. I do agree with the statement that what AE do is creating the opportunities for photographers to make money and their contribution is more significant than this guy's snapshots. I don't think anyone would argue against that regardless if they enjoy AE's music.

In any case all this message was an unnecessary drama fest. Will it set a precedent? We'll see.


----------



## JohnIce (Dec 27, 2018)

Edika said:


> @Randy I see your point and now that I read the exchange it comes heavy handed going for the license fee DM. But he *didn't get a reply* either.



In his second message to Marta, the long one where he demanded the money, he writes: "I’m contacting you because *yesterday* you posted my photo Alissa White-Gluz..."

So sure, he hadn't received a reply but he waited less than 24 hours to get one. You can hardly say they were deliberately ignoring him after such a short wait. Maybe Marta was simply at her day job and didn't have time to deal with an instagram comment at that moment.


----------



## MFB (Dec 27, 2018)

I guess this truly _is _the age of dehumanization


----------



## Edika (Dec 27, 2018)

JohnIce said:


> In his second message to Marta, the long one where he demanded the money, he writes: "I’m contacting you because *yesterday* you posted my photo Alissa White-Gluz..."
> 
> So sure, he hadn't received a reply but he waited less than 24 hours to get one. You can hardly say they were deliberately ignoring him after such a short wait. Maybe Marta was simply at her day job and didn't have time to deal with an instagram comment at that moment.



Yeah that was quite premature from his part for sure. 

Maybe I am biased after all as I've been in a situation were a contract was involved and the other party wasn't holding their end. After numerous amiable emails and several excuses the threat of legal action got some things moving and the actual small claim court papers made the other party do in 3 weeks what they have been avoiding for almost 6 years. So my viewpoint from now on is if people don't comply to their obligations in a timely manner and don't respond to a couple of friendly reminders (but I do mean friendly not like this guy) I go full blast in still a respectful manner (full blast for my standards which would be quite tame for a lot of poeple).


----------



## Lorcan Ward (Dec 27, 2018)

Most people and companies would send a cease & desist first in a situation like this? warning them that they would have to pay to use the photo for advertisement purposes. 



MaxOfMetal said:


> It's almost like this whole thing has been entirely to his advantage. Weird.



Not if he ends up banned from working at concerts lol


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Dec 27, 2018)

Lorcan Ward said:


> Not if he ends up banned from working at concerts lol



Weighed against publicity and notoriety gained from this drama, at worst he'll break even. People love themselves some stupid drama.


----------



## Lorcan Ward (Dec 27, 2018)

He's certainly got the publics side on this one. Alissa and Angela both posted terrible statuses on FB. Are they really that unaware he posted screenshots. 

I'm guilty for loving drama like this. FO76 has been a bit quiet lately.


----------



## narad (Dec 27, 2018)

More than you ever wanted to read about this here:

https://www.metalinsider.net/video/...j3p6VwlJPO0qba7lB5PAr3kFztvX4qqMaUS31d00XaFYM


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Dec 27, 2018)

narad said:


> More than you ever wanted to read about this here:
> 
> https://www.metalinsider.net/video/...j3p6VwlJPO0qba7lB5PAr3kFztvX4qqMaUS31d00XaFYM



That _link_ is more than I wanted to read about this.


----------



## Sogradde (Dec 27, 2018)

Lorcan Ward said:


> Alissa and Angela both posted terrible statuses on FB.


I just read up on it and I love how she managed to shoehorn her anti-Trump sentiments into a post about a possible copyright violation.


----------



## Descent (Dec 28, 2018)

She's Canadian and a vegan, I don't even have to read that 

Both women seem absolutely unaware of photo copyrights, which is amazing, considering how long they've been in the biz


----------



## JohnIce (Dec 28, 2018)

Descent said:


> Both women seem absolutely unaware of photo copyrights, which is amazing, considering how long they've been in the biz



I wouldn't say that. The common practice when someone makes a copyright claim is to cease & desist. This is what both Marta and AE respected by taking down the picture. What they also knew was that he was in no position to demand a fine (which €100 to a charity of his choosing still is) from Marta. Especially not when introducing himself as a lawyer when doing so. It seems to me that AE reacted so strongly because they saw a lawyer demanding a fine for copyright violation, which is a punishment not in proportion to the crime.


----------



## Andromalia (Dec 28, 2018)

And, as it seems it needs to be said again, "free advertising for your photos" doesn't pay the bills. It is unfortunately a well known scam in the art world to get work done for free. If you do free pics for AE, why should I pay you ?


----------



## Descent (Dec 28, 2018)

JohnIce said:


> I wouldn't say that. The common practice when someone makes a copyright claim is to cease & desist. This is what both Marta and AE respected by taking down the picture. What they also knew was that he was in no position to demand a fine (which €100 to a charity of his choosing still is) from Marta. Especially not when introducing himself as a lawyer when doing so. It seems to me that AE reacted so strongly because they saw a lawyer demanding a fine for copyright violation, which is a punishment not in proportion to the crime.



I don't know, this is not the reply that I would expect from 2 business people. Usage rights - after all both have been in the biz forever and should know better. Hell, I am an indie artist and before release I always get written and witnessed statements from graphic artists, photographers, etc. that they've given me permission to use their work and it has been paid for. In this case I think they freaked out as the photographer also mentioned that he is a lawyer. Yet, he was quite amicable, allowing them use as long as they make a donation, which I think was rather nice. They both bitched him out afterwards and even went over to further whine as to the business owner being single mother, etc. which was absolutely immature. Banning the guy was also absolutely immature as well, because a professional photographer usually works for a fee, and that is what the guy asked for


----------



## Randy (Dec 28, 2018)




----------



## narad (Dec 28, 2018)

Descent said:


> She's Canadian and a vegan, I don't even have to read that



He's a photographer and a lawyer, I didn't even have to read that either.


----------



## SD83 (Dec 29, 2018)

German metalcore band Heaven Shall Burn decided they could probably get some free laughs out of this.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Br-FOT6hEzf/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet


----------



## ArtDecade (Dec 29, 2018)

You'd think Arch Enemy would have a lawyer. As soon as the photographer sent a message, it should have been forwarded along to the appropriate suit.


----------



## _MonSTeR_ (Dec 29, 2018)

ArtDecade said:


> You'd think Arch Enemy would have a lawyer. As soon as the photographer sent a message, it should have been forwarded along to the appropriate suit.



You'd think! I don't know the ins and outs but a good lawyer should either know or have a colleague that specialises in IP law and how that relates to the T&Cs of social media. This should have been a click to forward the message to the lawyers and an email back from the legal people telling the band where they stand and what they needed to do based on Instagram's sharing and copyright policies.


----------



## JohnIce (Dec 29, 2018)

Descent said:


> I don't know, this is not the reply that I would expect from 2 business people. Usage rights - after all both have been in the biz forever and should know better. Hell, I am an indie artist and before release I always get written and witnessed statements from graphic artists, photographers, etc. that they've given me permission to use their work and it has been paid for. In this case I think they freaked out as the photographer also mentioned that he is a lawyer. Yet, he was quite amicable, allowing them use as long as they make a donation, which I think was rather nice. They both bitched him out afterwards and even went over to further whine as to the business owner being single mother, etc. which was absolutely immature. Banning the guy was also absolutely immature as well, because a professional photographer usually works for a fee, and that is what the guy asked for



Sure, permissions and fair pay and all that is probably nothing new to AE. The thing is, a) This photographer was not hired by AE nor shooting for any type of AE release, and b) The photographer wasn't even accusing the band of anything. He accused Thunderball clothing, demanding a legally unreasonable (and unauthorized) fine from her, posing as a lawyer. This is nothing more than a mafia tactic to be honest, and as far as I can tell that was the root of the problem and what pissed AE right off. They repeatedly said that he WAS well within his rights to object to how the picture was used, so they immediately took it down per his wishes (both Thunderball and AE, even though he only asked Thunderball to do it). That was the end of it, and they only "bitched him out" as a response six months later after he threw the first stone, by publishing the whole thing trying to create a scandal.

Agree to disagree on the rest of it, I wouldn't want a guy like that in front of me when performing. Imagine trying to put on a show with a guy who pulled this shit on you, a year later pointing a camera up your nose. Why would they want that when they're well within their rights to just not let him in their photo pit.


----------



## TedEH (Dec 29, 2018)

The drama is dumb. A simple interaction that shouldn't have ever been a big deal to anyone.

I will say, though, that I kinda get it, from the photographers point of view. In the sense that more often than not people seem to be entirely ignorant of the legal details behind what they use. Either ignorant or they don't care. I've had to have the same conversation several times, with several bands, with people at work, etc.:

"Hey I made this cool bit of background art / music / etc. for something!"
"Oh nice, you made this?"
"Well, most of it."
"Where did you get that piece?"
"....? Google images?"
"And you want to use that as our album art / website / part of a promo video / etc?"
"Yeah! Why not!"
"Did you get permission for the images?"
"You don't need permission, it was on google. They posted it there."
"That's not how anything works."
"Oh ok, I'll make sure I put their name somewhere."
"Pretty sure that's also not how it works."

Repeat for every time a new background image, sound effect, album art, etc. is needed. I feel like I have this conversation with someone pretty much yearly. Often in contexts where you'd think people would know better.
I won't claim to know the actual legal details behind what you can/can't use, but I'm not going to just grab whatever I find on the internet and run with it.


----------



## ArtDecade (Dec 29, 2018)

If this is really how AE is being managed as a business, imagine how well off they would be with competent management.


----------



## Kovah (Dec 29, 2018)

For some reason it reminds me of AE's War Eternal artwork which was "heavily" influenced by Bloodbath's Unblessing the Purity.

That being said, I can't see how the guy can be considered an asshole when he explicitely suggests donating to a cancer foundation instead of paying him. Even though he approached them as a lawyer they really can't play the "we don't know how copyrights work" card.


----------



## JohnIce (Dec 29, 2018)

Kovah said:


> That being said, I can't see how the guy can be considered an asshole when he explicitely suggests donating to a cancer foundation instead of paying him. Even though he approached them as a lawyer they really can't play the "we don't know how copyrights work" card.



They do know how copyright law works, he's the one who apparently doesn't. Being subjected to Copyright infringement doesn't mean you get to set an arbitrary fine that the person has to pay. Whether that fine goes out to him or a cancer fund doesn't matter, he's in no position to issue a fine to anyone. Only a judge can do that, and a judge is highly unlikely to do so for this type of case anyway. Him being a lawyer, and including that information when demanding her to pay the fine, just makes him even worse in my opinion. Because then he didn't just demand money as a photographer, he made it look like it was a legal demand issued by a lawyer.


----------



## Kwert (Dec 29, 2018)

JohnIce said:


> They do know how copyright law works, he's the one who apparently doesn't. Being subjected to Copyright infringement doesn't mean you get to set an arbitrary fine that the person has to pay. Whether that fine goes out to him or a cancer fund doesn't matter, he's in no position to issue a fine to anyone. Only a judge can do that, and a judge is highly unlikely to do so for this type of case anyway. Him being a lawyer, and including that information when demanding her to pay the fine, just makes him even worse in my opinion. Because then he didn't just demand money as a photographer, he made it look like it was a legal demand issued by a lawyer.




He's not charging a fine. He's quoting his fee, and then offering another, less expensive option to paying the fee required to use the image. The fee that is necessary to pay somebody to use their work. He does get to charge/request that fee, because that is the value he has set for use of his work to be used commercially (which it was).


----------



## JohnIce (Dec 29, 2018)

Kwert said:


> He's not charging a fine. He's quoting his fee, and then offering another, less expensive option to paying the fee required to use the image. The fee that is necessary to pay somebody to use their work. He does get to charge/request that fee, because that is the value he has set for use of his work to be used commercially (which it was).



I'm not saying he did anything illegal, just saying he worded his letters in a such a way that it seems less like a fee for his (optional) services like you're describing, and more like she's being told she's legally required to pay a penalty fee/fine according to a lawyer. And that pissed AE off, it seems. But you're right, me saying he "doesn't understand copyright law" was a bit uncalled for on my part. Either way you interpret his letters he didn't specifically say anything wrong while implying a lot, so basically classic lawyer


----------



## Descent (Dec 29, 2018)

I don't see anything wrong with the guy's original letter. Maybe saying that he's also a "lawyer" pissed them off or they're scared from legal challenges. Technically, the guy could sue the clothing company for using his image for 2 days. It won't be much $ but he can claim damages even for those 2 days.


----------



## JohnIce (Dec 29, 2018)

Descent said:


> I don't see anything wrong with the guy's original letter. Maybe saying that he's also a "lawyer" pissed them off or they're scared from legal challenges. Technically, the guy could sue the clothing company for using his image for 2 days. It won't be much $ but he can claim damages even for those 2 days.



Since he didn't even send it to AE, I doubt they did it because they were scared. Just pissed. It wasn't their fight to begin with after all.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 29, 2018)

Arch Enemy sound like cheapskates.


----------



## fps (Dec 29, 2018)

eggy in a bready said:


> .......do you know what copyright law is?
> 
> guy takes picture, to which he is the sole copyright holder. company steals image for own benefit, thereby violating fair use agreements. guy wants company to pay in exchange for a license to use said image in order to advertise product. seems pretty cut and dry



I'm just quoting this so I can repost it. Anyone who's not siding with the photographer, especially anyone who's saying *not worth the money yaddayaddayadda* (don't use the bloody image then) doesn't really get it.


----------



## Descent (Dec 29, 2018)

JohnIce said:


> Since he didn't even send it to AE, I doubt they did it because they were scared. Just pissed. It wasn't their fight to begin with after all.


Yeah, why did they get into it and bitch him out then, and ban him on top of everything? Ohhh, cause the clothes shop us run by a single woman and a mother on top of that....baah


----------



## JohnIce (Dec 29, 2018)

Descent said:


> Yeah, why did they get into it and bitch him out then, and ban him on top of everything? Ohhh, cause the clothes shop us run by a single woman and a mother on top of that....baah



Most likely because she's a close friend of the band, and they felt partly responsible for her mess even though they shouldn't. But that's just my guess.


----------



## Descent (Dec 30, 2018)

I think it is about time Mike brings back Chris Amott and Johan Liiva and make it a man's band again. At worst you'll have a real fight with the photographer on the next fest


----------



## eggy in a bready (Dec 30, 2018)

real nice sexist comments there, guy


----------



## narad (Dec 30, 2018)

Descent said:


> I think it is about time Mike brings back Chris Amott and Johan Liiva and make it a man's band again. At worst you'll have a real fight with the photographer on the next fest



The post is bad on so many levels. You should have to donate to a charity of my choice just to compensate me for reading it.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Dec 31, 2018)

narad said:


> The post is bad on so many levels. You should have to donate to a charity of my choice just to compensate me for reading it.



You have been fined 5 narad-minutes for flagrant shitposting. Alternatively, you can make a non tax-deductible donation of $100 to the non-profit narad gear fund.
im a lawyer btw


----------



## jwade (Dec 31, 2018)

The photographer seems like an aggressive opportunist prick that got excited by the chance to squeeze money from a small business. Angela has always been an aggressive piece of work towards everyone, so her response isn’t even a bit surprising, but the custom clothing lady is receiving death threats for reposting a reposted photo? Like what the fuck happened to humanity? Everyone’s just biding their time, ready to lash out and fight anyone immediately over social media. And hey, why not send a death threat to someone on behalf of some p.o.s photographer? 

Shit is embarrassing, man.


----------



## JohnIce (Dec 31, 2018)

jwade said:


> The photographer seems like an aggressive opportunist prick that got excited by the chance to squeeze money from a small business. Angela has always been an aggressive piece of work towards everyone, so her response isn’t even a bit surprising, but the custom clothing lady is receiving death threats for reposting a reposted photo? Like what the fuck happened to humanity? Everyone’s just biding their time, ready to lash out and fight anyone immediately over social media. And hey, why not send a death threat to someone on behalf of some p.o.s photographer?
> 
> Shit is embarrassing, man.



Not sure he was trying to squeeze money out of her, but he sure was trying to publicly demonize her. In the process he ended up drumming up so much hate towards her that she had to shut down her business due to threats. All this over an instagram repost, yeah people really do fucking suck.

Copy pasted from Thunderball's Facebook, for reference:

"_The photographer, J. Salmeron, accepted my apology for reposting the photo he took, without having his permission, and as this was his request, I made a donation to the charity organization of his choice (the Dutch Cancer Society). I believe we can say this ends the dispute between us.

However, as I'm not able to handle the amount of hate and threats that I received and keep on receiving, I decided to do what I think is best in this situation. To end the being known as Thunderball Clothing (it's hard to use a word "company" here, as since day one it was just one person - me). I apologise for not being strong enough, and for not being next Internet hero that keep on saying "haters gonna hate". Within last 2 days I received literally hundreds of comments and messages that I'm a whore, a nazi, a communist, a worthless cunt, and that I either should quickly die, or that I should kill myself. There is no anger in me, and I apologise everyone that felt hurt or upset by this situation. Anyway, there is no Thunderball Clothing anymore. You won._"


----------



## narad (Dec 31, 2018)

Read the guy's response (ugh, why am I doing this?) -- what a vindictive piece of shit. Dude was wronged in the teensiest way and now relishing in the all-out war he created with this volunteer militia of bored social media users.


----------



## Randy (Dec 31, 2018)

The guys name looks too much like 'Salmon' and that fills me with an irrational level of anger.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Dec 31, 2018)

But I thought all press is good press ("...Unless you're Michael Jackson." - Courtney Love) and that they should just do it for the exposure?


----------



## Kovah (Jan 1, 2019)

I do not condone the death threats but you guys should really stop blaming the guy who wanted payment for his own work. Start blaming those who sent the threats/AE and how they handled the situation.

Playing the victim card when your disdain backfires is too easy. Next time respect copyright laws/don't be a dick and you'll be fine.


----------



## narad (Jan 1, 2019)

Kovah said:


> I do not condone the death threats but you guys should really stop blaming the guy who wanted payment for his own work. Start blaming those who sent the threats/AE and how they handled the situation.
> 
> Playing the victim card when your disdain backfires is too easy. Next time respect copyright laws/don't be a dick and you'll be fine.



Taking down those posts _is_ respecting the copyright laws. A cease and desist is the standard move here, not extortion and internet whining.


----------



## Kovah (Jan 1, 2019)

narad said:


> Taking down those posts _is_ respecting the copyright laws. A cease and desist is the standard move here, not extortion and internet whining.



Oh so now copyright law is extortion? Are you serious?

The posts have been taken down. Cease and desist may be the standard move but banning him and ruining his reputation to promoters, venues and whatever else isn't. AE killed a small business and if the guy relied entirely on photography to make a living they would have killed two.


----------



## narad (Jan 1, 2019)

Kovah said:


> Oh so now copyright law is extortion? Are you serious?
> 
> The posts have been taken down. Cease and desist may be the standard move but banning him and ruining his reputation to promoters, venues and whatever else isn't. AE killed a small business and if the guy relied entirely on photography to make a living they would have killed two.



Copyright law isn't extortion. Law happens *in courts*. Sending emails asking for arbitrary amounts of money is extortion -- here the threat being a thinly-veiled legal one. Not happy? The legal option is taking the person to court, but it's already pretty obvious to everyone that the guy didn't have a leg to stand on in terms of damages, and so pre-emptively abiding a hypothetic cease-and-desist is the best legal recourse for AE+clothing brand if they don't want to pay $500 or $100 to charity.

If the photographer dude isn't happy with that outcome 6 months later *and* a lawyer, he should have taken it to court. Funny he didn't do that.


----------



## Kovah (Jan 1, 2019)

narad said:


> Copyright law isn't extortion. Law happens *in courts*. Sending emails asking for arbitrary amounts of money is extortion -- here the threat being a thinly-veiled legal one. Not happy? The legal option is taking the person to court, but it's already pretty obvious to everyone that the guy didn't have a leg to stand on in terms of damages, and so pre-emptively abiding a hypothetic cease-and-desist is the best legal recourse for AE+clothing brand if they don't want to pay $500 or $100 to charity.
> 
> If the photographer dude isn't happy with that outcome 6 months later *and* a lawyer, he should have taken it to court. Funny he didn't do that.



Except that this is no arbitrary amount of money. This is the amount he's charging for the use of his material. They didn't want to pay and they removed the picture. This whole case is about AE banning him, not AE/Thunderbolt refusing to pay.

There is nothing to bring to court since the picture was removed, but it is everyone's right to know and have an opinion on AE ways of managing disagreement. Again if you don't want the shitstorm you're causing with your behaviour, it's a good idea not to be a jerk in the first place.


----------



## narad (Jan 1, 2019)

Kovah said:


> Again if you don't want the shitstorm you're causing with your behaviour, it's a good idea not to be a jerk in the first place.



Advice he could have heeded himself.


----------



## Randy (Jan 1, 2019)

Kovah said:


> if you don't want the shitstorm you're causing with your behaviour, it's a good idea not to be a jerk in the first place.



How right you are


----------



## Demiurge (Jan 1, 2019)

This shitshow is about as fair a decision as you'll get from the internet kangaroo court, so let's hope the plaintiff is satisfied.


----------



## Edika (Jan 1, 2019)

This has taken a turn for the worse. What the actual fuck is wrong with people? Death threats to any party for such a trivial matter shows that they are obviously in need of a mental health professional and I'm not saying this as an insult.

Honestly aside from this forum discussion here, personally I wasn't even remotely motivated to post about it to any party or other social media. I might have an opinion, right or wrong, but it's not my fucking business in the end of the day.


----------



## Randy (Jan 1, 2019)

Kovah said:


> you guys should really stop blaming the guy who wanted payment for his own work



Yes, how dare we have a position on this that differs from yours. Shame on us.


----------



## Kovah (Jan 1, 2019)

Randy said:


> Yes, how dare we have a position on this that differs from yours. Shame on us.



The keyword here being SHOULD. Stop playing the victim card yourself.



narad said:


> Advice he could have heeded himself.



So... was he supposed to just bite the bullet and accept the ban for no reason? 

I don't deny that there has been misunderstanding in this whole case and it has gone out of control. Doesn't seem fair to me, to Thunderbolt Clothing of course but also to the photographer and in my opinion he shouldn't take the blame (or at least not entirely) for calling out Arch Enemy.


----------



## Randy (Jan 1, 2019)

Kovah said:


> The keyword here being SHOULD. Stop playing the victim card yourself.



I'm no victim, I'm being sarcastic because we're all in here debating our thoughts on the situation objectively and you see fit to tell us what we're supposed to be thinking.

I'm no victim and I'm not offended by what you say, I just thought the tone was asinine and I'm letting you know that. Carry on.


----------



## Kovah (Jan 1, 2019)

Randy said:


> I'm no victim, I'm being sarcastic because we're all in here debating our thoughts on the situation objectively and you see fit to tell us what we're supposed to be thinking.
> 
> I'm no victim and I'm not offended by what you say, I just thought the tone was asinine and I'm letting you know that. Carry on.



Sorry for trying to convince people in a debate that my point is valid... Let's move on.


----------



## Kwert (Jan 1, 2019)

The guy never publicly attacked the independent clothing company. It's a damn shame that she received/is receiving threats and has had to shut down the company. This isn't really about that.

This is ENTIRELY about Angela Gossow/Arch Enemy's reaction to a situation that legit had nothing to do with them. What a lot of people are missing is that Angela tried to sabotage his photography career for essentially no reason - what else would you call forwarding all that nonsense to contacts at Century Media and various major festivals? There are other e-mails that have come out with photographers asking her for payment for usage of their work, and her responding in exactly the same shitty way.

The guy didn't try to extort anyone for anything. He just said that if they wanted to use his image for commercial purposes, he would normally charge a 500 euro licensing fee. He said that instead of this, he would be happy to give licensing rights to the photo for a 100 euro donation to a charity. She could have chosen to either do that, or remove the photo. Instead, she went to Alissa, who went to Angela, who responded like an absolute fucking idiot. THEN the dude went public.


----------



## Kovah (Jan 1, 2019)

Kwert said:


> The guy never publicly attacked the independent clothing company. It's a damn shame that she received/is receiving threats and has had to shut down the company. This isn't really about that.
> 
> This is ENTIRELY about Angela Gossow/Arch Enemy's reaction to a situation that legit had nothing to do with them. What a lot of people are missing is that Angela tried to sabotage his photography career for essentially no reason - what else would you call forwarding all that nonsense to contacts at Century Media and various major festivals? There are other e-mails that have come out with photographers asking her for payment for usage of their work, and her responding in exactly the same shitty way.
> 
> The guy didn't try to extort anyone for anything. He just said that if they wanted to use his image for commercial purposes, he would normally charge a 500 euro licensing fee. He said that instead of this, he would be happy to give licensing rights to the photo for a 100 euro donation to a charity. She could have chosen to either do that, or remove the photo. Instead, she went to Alissa, who went to Angela, who responded like an absolute fucking idiot. THEN the dude went public.



THIS. Thank you


----------



## Vyn (Jan 1, 2019)

^The point is that none of this would have ever happened if the photographer in his original message had of simple gone "Hi, you happen to be using one of my images without permission. I am happy to work out some sort of licencing deal for x monies. If this is not agreeable, I ask that you please take my image down." There'd be no AE getting pissed or ridiculous letters from Alissa and Angela, no death threats and a small business would still be open. While the photographer is in the right about asking for money for his work, he did not have to be a dick about it. Rule #1 in any situation - Don't be a dick.


----------



## eggy in a bready (Jan 1, 2019)

Vyn said:


> "Hi, you happen to be using one of my images without permission. I am happy to work out some sort of licencing deal for x monies. If this is not agreeable, I ask that you please take my image down."


except this is more or less exactly what he said. he didn't say, "you better pay me or else i'm going to take you to court." there is no dickishness here. honestly, he could have been wayyyy more of a dick. sure, the initial DM was a little disgruntled, but you'd be too if you had your work stolen before... as he claimed he has.

it's sad that it devolved into death threats, but photo dude didn't explicitly tell hordes of shitty people to personally attack this woman. honestly, i think this woman brought all of this upon herself. that first e-mail response really highlighted her ignorance to her actions. then dragging the band into it? another mistake. having the band threaten to throw their weight around to get you banned? lol, fuck that. dude had good reason to go public.


----------



## Vyn (Jan 1, 2019)

eggy in a bready said:


> except this is more or less exactly what he said. he didn't say, "you better pay me or else i'm going to take you to court." there is no dickishness here. honestly, he could have been wayyyy more of a dick. sure, the initial DM was a little disgruntled, but you'd be too if you had your work stolen before... as he claimed he has.
> 
> it's sad that it devolved into death threats, but photo dude didn't explicitly tell hordes of shitty people to personally attack this woman. honestly, i think this woman brought all of this upon herself. that first e-mail response really highlighted her ignorance to her actions. then dragging the band into it? another mistake. having the band threaten to throw their weight around to get you banned? lol, fuck that. dude had good reason to go public.



It's not more or less exactly what he said. What he said was "You need to pay for this, I'm a lawyer." There was nothing polite about it, it came off as threatening as fuck and there was no option given to simply remove the content. Legally speaking he's in the right to ask for monies for his work, no one is questioning that. The point is if he had of actually not been a dick going about it, none of this would have actually happened.

FWIW I'm not condoning AE's actions on this either, their statements have been fucking dumb as well. However that being said, if the dude didn't want to come off with a reputation as a copyright troll then maybe he shouldn't have acted like one.


----------



## eggy in a bready (Jan 1, 2019)

Vyn said:


> It's not more or less exactly what he said. What he said was "You need to pay for this, I'm a lawyer." There was nothing polite about it, it came off as threatening as fuck and there was no option given to simply remove the content. Legally speaking he's in the right to ask for monies for his work, no one is questioning that. The point is if he had of actually not been a dick going about it, none of this would have actually happened.
> 
> FWIW I'm not condoning AE's actions on this either, their statements have been fucking dumb as well. However that being said, if the dude didn't want to come off with a reputation as a copyright troll then maybe he shouldn't have acted like one.


he merely states that he charges businesses who use his photos with unauthorized use. *maybe* you can detect a veiled threat between the lines, but that's all up to interpretation.

anyways, it seems like a confrontation like this was inevitable anyways, given the reponse he got from her. she probably wouldn't have taken the photo down if he had asked, because she thinks she is somehow entitled to all photos of Arch Enemy, copyright be damned.


----------



## eggy in a bready (Jan 1, 2019)

also, LOL at calling this guy a copyright troll.


----------



## Randy (Jan 1, 2019)

eggy in a bready said:


> he merely states that he charges businesses who use his photos with unauthorized use. *maybe* you can detect a veiled threat between the lines, but that's all up to interpretation.



He asks them where he can send the invoice to in the first message, brah.


----------



## Randy (Jan 1, 2019)

eggy in a bready said:


> she probably wouldn't have taken the photo down if he had asked, because she thinks she is somehow entitled to all photos of Arch Enemy, copyright be damned.



*Maybe* you can detect veiled refusal to comply between the lines


----------



## eggy in a bready (Jan 1, 2019)

Randy said:


> He asks them where he can send the invoice to in the first message, brah.


which was ultimately ignored, brah. in which he later clarified his stance in an e-mail, brah. to which she also brushed off, brah.


----------



## eggy in a bready (Jan 1, 2019)

Randy said:


> *Maybe* you can detect veiled refusal to comply between the lines


interpretation, brah.


----------



## Randy (Jan 1, 2019)

eggy in a bready said:


> which was ultimately ignored, brah. in which he later clarified his stance in an e-mail, brah. to which she also brushed off, brah.



Moving goalpost. We're talking about what he said in his initial point of contact with them. You said it wasn't a threat, it was simply him stating what he charges. I point out no, he actually asked where to send the invoice because he was making clear HE'S CHARGING THEM in his first message. You decide to invoke the following two or three exchanges.

I get it, you think he's 100% in the right and they're 100% in the wrong. You're entitled to that. That's completely aside from the fact you seem to take it personally when people don't agree with you on that. That's sloppy.


----------



## eggy in a bready (Jan 1, 2019)

Randy said:


> Moving goalpost. We're talking about what he said in his initial point of contact with them. You said it wasn't a threat, it was simply him stating what he charges. I point out no, he actually asked where to send the invoice because he was making clear HE'S CHARGING THEM in his first message. You decide to invoke the following two or three exchanges.


ok, i'll concede this.



Randy said:


> I get it, you think he's 100% in the right and they're 100% in the wrong. You're entitled to that. That's completely aside from the fact you seem to take it personally when people don't agree with you on that. That's sloppy.


i do think that he conducted himself just fine. he's entitled to his money. so, you're right about that. what you're wrong about is me taking anything written on this forum personally. i'm on here to waste time. however, when you use my quote in a mocking manner like that, on some grade school shit, then i feel obligated to do the same.


----------



## narad (Jan 1, 2019)

eggy in a bready said:


> i do think that he conducted himself just fine. he's entitled to his money. so, you're right about that. what you're wrong about is me taking anything written on this forum personally. i'm on here to waste time. however, when you use my quote in a mocking manner like that, on some grade school shit, then i feel obligated to do the same.



Well he's either entitled to his money or a legal decision on whether he's owed any money. People are so quick to say, "That's not an arbitrary amount, that's what he charges!" He could have asked for 5 million dollars. It's an arbitrary amount. And if he thinks that's what he's legally entitled to, he should legally do something about it, to see if legal jurisdiction agrees with him.

Let's not pretend that a woman re-gramming a photo of the band (that is being similarly shared by hundreds of people) is somehow the same as stealing some photographer's work and slamming it on an album or magazine cover. We all know that there's not a shortage of free-use photos of Alyssa singing at a concert, and if push-comes-to-shove, we all would just delete the post and repost it with one of those, if we were the small business owner.

Of course, he didn't suggest that the photo could be pulled as an agreeable solution. It was "You done F'd up, now you have to pay a huge amount -- I'm a lawyer"


----------



## Randy (Jan 1, 2019)

I'm referring to earlier in the thread when I deleted your post for telling someone they were "talking out of their ass" over a pretty benign post, and then deciding to engage people directly on very weak points (such as when is a suitable time to read between lines and isn't), like it's more important to disect anyone who's viewpoint is different than yours rather than holding firm on the points that mean the most you your argument and concede those that don't.

He could be a total ass and still be legally and morally right (hypothetically), the guy doesn't need to be a saint for your viewpoint to be justified.

As far as your tone toward me, that doesn't bother me any. I gave it to you and you gave it back. I'm not mad and I don't yhink it rose to the level of being something that needs moderating, I'm not here to swing my dick. Just, in context, you seemed a little combative or at least moreso than who you've been debating.


----------



## eggy in a bready (Jan 1, 2019)

Randy said:


> I'm referring to earlier in the thread when I deleted your post for telling someone they were "talking out of their ass" over a pretty benign post, and then deciding to engage people directly on very weak points (such as when is a suitable time to read between lines and isn't), like it's more important to disect anyone who's viewpoint is different than yours rather than holding firm on the points that mean the most you your argument and concede those that don't.
> 
> He could be a total ass and still be legally and morally right (hypothetically), the guy doesn't need to be a saint for your viewpoint to be justified.
> 
> As far as your tone toward me, that doesn't bother me any. I gave it to you and you gave it back. I'm not mad and I don't yhink it rose to the level of being something that needs moderating, I'm not here to swing my dick. Just, in context, you seemed a little combative or at least moreso than who you've been debating.


¯\_(ツ)_/¯ i thought my points were fairly viable?

i'm no master debater, just some asshole on the internet. pay no mind.


----------



## eggy in a bready (Jan 1, 2019)

narad said:


> Well he's either entitled to his money or a legal decision on whether he's owed any money. People are so quick to say, "That's not an arbitrary amount, that's what he charges!" He could have asked for 5 million dollars. It's an arbitrary amount. And if he thinks that's what he's legally entitled to, he should legally do something about it, to see if legal jurisdiction agrees with him.
> 
> Let's not pretend that a woman re-gramming a photo of the band (that is being similarly shared by hundreds of people) is somehow the same as stealing some photographer's work and slamming it on an album or magazine cover. We all know that there's not a shortage of free-use photos of Alyssa singing at a concert, and if push-comes-to-shove, we all would just delete the post and repost it with one of those, if we were the small business owner.
> 
> Of course, he didn't suggest that the photo could be pulled as an agreeable solution. It was "You done F'd up, now you have to pay a huge amount -- I'm a lawyer"


i'm not a lawyer, but i don't see how it can be arbitrary when $500 is a previously established fee that he charges for his photos. i could see what you mean if this was his first copyright claim, but it seems like he has offered this deal before. does that not set a precedent?


----------



## narad (Jan 1, 2019)

eggy in a bready said:


> i'm not a lawyer, but i don't see how it can be arbitrary when $500 is a previously established fee that he charges for his photos. i could see what you mean if this was his first copyright claim, but it seems like he has offered this deal before all this. does that not set a precedent?



I kind of agree with the logic, but I didn't see any evidence to suggest he was getting $500 for people using his photos in similar situations. I think he suggested this "donate to a charity" tactic before, but that does nothing to establish the $500 licensing value. 

And, while I'm super out of my element here, just judging by the frequency of shows x the number of people in photo pits, I have to go out on a limb and say $500 is probably not market value for top photos of this caliber -- it feels like a saturated market. I could be wrong, no idea.


----------



## Randy (Jan 1, 2019)

eggy in a bready said:


> i'm no master debater



I've been accused of similar things


----------



## fantom (Jan 1, 2019)

For anyone saying this is extortion, read the legal side of things. He tried to resolve the situation in a way he deemed acceptable before writing a cease and desist. Maybe he worded things too blunt, but he pretty much offered them a license for cheaper than court fees or a lawyer consultation. If he went straight to a court, things would have been much worse for the businesswoman. It is no different than your credit card asking you to reach out before filing a dispute.

She either illegally used the photos and reached out to AE for help (in which case, AE should have just counteroffered with an apology) or someone in AE gave her the photo to use (in which case, AE, as a rather big name should have gotten the Nuclear Blast lawyer involved and shut their mouths).

The fact that Angela tried to ruin this guy publicly is a rather ridiculous choice for a professional to make. I'm shocked that nuclear blast or any promoters haven't called her out for being in the wrong and escalating a stupid situation instead of resolving it amicably.

Why didn't they just say something like, "hey we really liked your photo. Apologies for using it. Our friend can't afford the money, can we offer tickets to a show instead?"

I'm really curious, as AE used the image too, if the problem was that the license was offered to the friend and not to the band. In that case, the lawyer could settle the license with the friend and then still file suit with the band if he wanted to screw them over.


----------



## narad (Jan 1, 2019)

fantom said:


> I'm really curious, as AE used the image too, if the problem was that the license was offered to the friend and not to the band. In that case, the lawyer could settle the license with the friend and then still file suit with the band if he wanted to screw them over.



In the account I read, AE asked permission and credited the photographer in their post, so let's nip that speculation in the bud.


----------



## fantom (Jan 2, 2019)

narad said:


> In the account I read, AE asked permission and credited the photographer in their post, so let's nip that speculation in the bud.



Timeline. That appears to be after Alissa had taken them down according to what I read. It looks like Angela reacted and threatened him around the time Alissa took the tagged photo down. The photographer gave her permission to put them back up, and she didn't.

I agree we can shut down the speculation. The more of the direct correspondence I read, the more I think Angela is just a bully with no concept of how to be a professional. She didn't seem to be protecting anyone from actual harm, just throwing an aggressive fit to scare him off.


----------



## JohnIce (Jan 2, 2019)

fantom said:


> He tried to resolve the situation in a way he deemed acceptable before writing a cease and desist.


He didn't write a cease & desist, he asked where he should send an invoice for the license fee she owed him. This while informing her she'd committed a crime and that he was a lawyer. That was pretty much his initial contact.



fantom said:


> If he went straight to a court, things would have been much worse for the businesswoman.


For an instagram repost? Extremely unlikely, it would most likely result in a judge ordering her to take the picture down. And as such, no lawyer in their right mind would recommend anyone taking this to court.



fantom said:


> She either illegally used the photos and reached out to AE for help (in which case, AE should have just counteroffered with an apology) or someone in AE gave her the photo to use (in which case, AE, as a rather big name should have gotten the Nuclear Blast lawyer involved and shut their mouths).


AE (at that point) had nothing to apologize for, they only got involved out of free will because they were pissed off at how the photographer acted. There was no need for them nor Nuclear Blast to involve a lawyer, that would be giving this dispute far, far too much credit. Even now, after it blew up beyond any sane proportions, it's still not much of a legal dispute at all, it's literally a few people posting shit about each other on social media.



fantom said:


> I'm shocked that nuclear blast or any promoters haven't called her out for being in the wrong and escalating a stupid situation instead of resolving it amicably.


What on earth would any of them have to gain from that? Even assuming they'd sided against Angela in the first place, which is a big assumption to make.



fantom said:


> I'm really curious, as AE used the image too, if the problem was that the license was offered to the friend and not to the band. In that case, the lawyer could settle the license with the friend and then still file suit with the band if he wanted to screw them over.


Again, I think you're giving the legal gravity of this dispute too much credit. AE was pissed and didn't think he had a leg to stand on asking for that money, and if they'd paid him they wouldn't even recoup that by involving lawyers. €500 is pennies if you're paying lawyers by the hour.


----------



## fantom (Jan 2, 2019)

JohnIce said:


> He didn't write a cease & desist, he asked where he should send an invoice for the license fee she owed him. This while informing her she'd committed a crime and that he was a lawyer. That was pretty much his initial contact.



Agree he didn't write a cease and desist. My personal opinion is that he tried to resolve the situation in a way he thought was fair. Arch Enemy had no reason to respond to the initial contact. That isn't extortion. He offered the clothing company a license that he felt he was owed (and right to think so).



JohnIce said:


> For an instagram repost? Extremely unlikely, it would most likely result in a judge ordering her to take the picture down. And as such, no lawyer in their right mind would recommend anyone taking this to court.



Maybe this is a culture thing. I've see a far stupider lawsuit cost my parents in USA 3 years of time and several thousand dollars in court fees (not including lawyer fees). To me, someone offering 100 bucks, to a charity, to resolve it is generous



JohnIce said:


> AE (at that point) had nothing to apologize for, they only got involved out of free will because they were pissed off at how the photographer acted. There was no need for them nor Nuclear Blast to involve a lawyer, that would be giving this dispute far, far too much credit. Even now, after it blew up beyond any sane proportions, it's still not much of a legal dispute at all, it's literally a few people posting shit about each other on social media.


They shouldn't have gotten involved. That is what they need to apologize for now. They are making the situation worse by aggressively antagonizing someone who clearly sees a problem with Angela's behavior and attitude towards not only him, but other photographers.

As far as before.... At my work, if a lawyer contacts me, I shut up and forward it to a company lawyer. I would be fired for replying publicly (or privately)


JohnIce said:


> What on earth would any of them have to gain from that? Even assuming they'd sided against Angela in the first place, which is a big assumption to make. If the issue is bad publicity for one of the label's biggest bands, then calling out that band would be idiotic. Even when a band is accused of something really bad, like hate crimes or rape, the label is gonna be the last people in the world to make any sort of comment on it.


The photographer has nothing to lose here. Imo, Angela is making an idiot of herself and the band. The label should give a crap about fans getting upset at the band and possibly not going to future shows.


----------



## narad (Jan 2, 2019)

fantom said:


> The photographer has nothing to lose here. Imo, Angela is making an idiot of herself and the band. The label should give a crap about fans getting upset at the band and possibly not going to future shows.



Fans don't get upset. Random internet troll kids get upset. Revenue lost to AE: 0. Probably going to be more of a Chik-Fil-A effect with actual fans going out more to the shows.

I mean, there's some high school going through every Arch Enemy social media post going back months and pasting links to a write-up on this with a "KNOW THE TRUTH" message. Ugh. That's the type of person that's getting upset about this shit.

As far as looking like an idiot, the band's entire premise is idiotic. If they can write another "Rise of the Tyrant", I don't care how many dumb arm bands they wear.


----------



## fantom (Jan 2, 2019)

narad said:


> Fans don't get upset. Random internet troll kids get upset. Revenue lost to AE: 0. Probably going to be more of a Chik-Fil-A effect with actual fans going out more to the shows.
> 
> As far as looking like an idiot, the band's entire premise is idiotic. If they can write another "Rise of the Tyrant", I don't care how many dumb arm bands they wear.



You are probably right... They can probably crowdfund a photography studio with this drama and sell behind the scenes tickets. (I wonder if I can patent the idea ....)


But can we agree on Burning Bridges instead?


----------



## narad (Jan 2, 2019)

fantom said:


> But can we agree on Burning Bridges instead?



That's my #3, but certainly the most apt for this situation


----------



## Randy (Jan 2, 2019)

Transition from Burning Bridges to Wages of Sin was near seamless, hence the amount of respect Angela got and her impact on women in metal thereafter. Those are my two of choice. The albums before were too unpolished, the albums afterward were well produced but rehashing of what they did in WoS.


----------



## narad (Jan 2, 2019)

Randy said:


> Transition from Burning Bridges to Wages of Sin was near seamless, hence the amount of respect Angela got and her impact on women in metal thereafter. Those are my two of choice. The albums before were too unpolished, the albums afterward were well produced but rehashing of what they did in WoS.



That's my #2 

The Young Guitar vids for Rise of the Tyrant were just too cool though. I can't shake that association.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Jan 2, 2019)

fantom said:


> Agree he didn't write a cease and desist. My personal opinion is that he tried to resolve the situation in a way he thought was fair. Arch Enemy had no reason to respond to the initial contact. That isn't extortion. *He offered* the clothing company a license that he felt he was owed (and right to think so).



This was totally his intent, and it's somewhat easy to see this as a third party looking in, but if you re-read the message from the perspective of the recipient, it clearly does not come across as an "offer." As has been reiterated in this thread repeatedly, he didn't mention the possibility of simply removing the picture, or anything else, for that matter. He just informed them that they violated his copyright and asked where to send the invoice. A very utilitarian message, but not one that does a good job at making an amiable first contact.

Think you're pretty spot on with the other points though. Nobody involved whatsoever handled this well. I feel bad for Marta. No "oops" is worth the wrath of the internet mob.


----------



## Descent (Jan 2, 2019)

Kwert said:


> The guy never publicly attacked the independent clothing company. It's a damn shame that she received/is receiving threats and has had to shut down the company. This isn't really about that.
> 
> This is ENTIRELY about Angela Gossow/Arch Enemy's reaction to a situation that legit had nothing to do with them. What a lot of people are missing is that Angela tried to sabotage his photography career for essentially no reason - what else would you call forwarding all that nonsense to contacts at Century Media and various major festivals? There are other e-mails that have come out with photographers asking her for payment for usage of their work, and her responding in exactly the same shitty way.
> 
> The guy didn't try to extort anyone for anything. He just said that if they wanted to use his image for commercial purposes, he would normally charge a 500 euro licensing fee. He said that instead of this, he would be happy to give licensing rights to the photo for a 100 euro donation to a charity. She could have chosen to either do that, or remove the photo. Instead, she went to Alissa, who went to Angela, who responded like an absolute fucking idiot. THEN the dude went public.



This...

Maybe it should be time for AE to get proper management. The reaction was so drastic and scary by both of these vegan women, that all I can say is that someone should force feed them some steak


----------



## Smoked Porter (Jan 2, 2019)

^ You're reeeeally fishing for a negative reaction, huh?


----------



## GunpointMetal (Jan 2, 2019)

Smoked Porter said:


> ^ You're reeeeally fishing for a negative reaction, huh?


It's so try-hard it's not even kind of edgy, just sad.


----------



## chopeth (Jan 3, 2019)

I sense a shitload of drama coming from here and I pass on reading through this huge thread but whatever happens with AE I hope everything ends with J. Loomis out of it creating some proper mindblowing music.


----------



## Edika (Jan 3, 2019)

chopeth said:


> I sense a shitload of drama coming from here and I pass on reading through this huge thread but whatever happens with AE I hope everything ends with J. Loomis out of it creating some proper mindblowing music.



Not before he gets a cool Jackson Sig .


----------



## narad (Jan 3, 2019)

GunpointMetal said:


> It's so try-hard it's not even kind of edgy, just sad.



Women bad! Vegan bad! Man world! MAN WORLD! ARRGHGH!


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jan 3, 2019)

narad said:


> Women bad! Vegan bad! Man world! MAN WORLD! ARRGHGH!


----------



## Kovah (Jan 3, 2019)

narad said:


> Women bad! Vegan bad! Man world! MAN WORLD! ARRGHGH!





Randy said:


> Yes, how dare we have a position on this that differs from yours. Shame on us.



Lolz


----------



## Randy (Jan 3, 2019)

Kovah said:


> Lolz



See a page or so ago, when I said a guy was justified in getting chippy with me when I was chippy with him. I don't think 'someone should force feed them steak' comes across as the kind of post begging to be taken seriously.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jan 3, 2019)

Freud would have an absolute field day with that post.


----------



## tedtan (Jan 3, 2019)

eggy in a bready said:


> i'm not a lawyer, but i don't see how it can be arbitrary when $500 is a previously established fee that he charges for his photos. i could see what you mean if this was his first copyright claim, but it seems like he has offered this deal before. does that not set a precedent?





fantom said:


> Agree he didn't write a cease and desist. My personal opinion is that he tried to resolve the situation in a way he thought was fair. Arch Enemy had no reason to respond to the initial contact. That isn't extortion. He offered the clothing company a license that he felt he was owed (and right to think so).



That's not how the legal system works.

The owner of the intellectual property (IP; the photo in this case) is free to ask whatever they want for a license to use their IP before someone uses it. But after someone uses that IP without the owner's permission, things are different and the owner cannot expect to receive a fee for it's use.

The first step is to issue a cease and desist letter. Basically, "Hey, I saw that you are using my picture without my permission. Stop using the picture without my permission."

From there, the IP owner is certainly free to ask for a fee for it's use, but they are not necessarily entitled to monetary compensation just because the IP was used without permission. From a legal perspective, the IP owner would be entitled to receive the amount of money they lost from their IP having been used without their permission (this is called the damages), and the IP owner has to prove that s/he actually suffered these damages in order for a judge to award them. In some jurisdictions, a judge can also award punitive, statutory, or other types of damages, but this would only happen in "extreme" situations, such as if the person using the IP were doing so intentionally and maliciously in order to cause harm to the the IP owner (black mail, trying to put the IP owner out of business, etc.).

If this were to go before a judge, the judge would ask how much money did the photographer lose because his photo was re posted on a social media site? Can the photographer prove this? With what evidence? I doubt that there were any actual damages in this case, so the judge would most likely rule that the clothing company would have to stop using the photo without permission and award damages of $0.

All parties involved handled this poorly and without any thought to the way this actually works in the real world, as if playground bullying were the way to go. But that only works for Trump and organized crime.


----------



## Descent (Jan 3, 2019)

narad said:


> Women bad! Vegan bad! Man world! MAN WORLD! ARRGHGH!



Sure enough, male or just proper management would've never reacted this way. They would've had their legal team look into this and send a proper lawyer letter back. It costs $100, money they could've easily donated to cancer research


----------



## Randy (Jan 3, 2019)

Descent said:


> Sure enough, male or just proper management would've never reacted this way. They would've had their legal team look into this and send a proper lawyer letter back. It costs $100, money they could've easily donated to cancer research





> The photographer, J. Salmeron, accepted my apology for reposting the photo he took, without having his permission, and as this was his request, I made a donation to the charity organization of his choice (the Dutch Cancer Society)


----------

