Gone are the days when you could get by with just one job alone.
It’s not enough to earn a crust working 37.5 hours a week. Soaring rents, rising taxes and inflated bills means you have to be savvy about how you keep your head above the water.
From cleaners to cloakroom assistants, to bookkeepers and bar staff, never have we worked so hard to put food on our tables and roofs over our heads.
And especially in the creative media do people hustle harder than their contemporaries; with journalism and fashion being shamelessly hijacked by the unimaginative and untalented, it’s harder than ever to make an honest living, especially if you’re a photographer.
But what happens if you have it all? The career, the wife and numerous successful business ventures? Surely you’d be grateful for the fruits of your labour, right?
No, not unless your name is Shawn Corey Carter.
“Please, no pictures.” Jay-Z live @ Coachella 2010. Photo taken from flickr user, ‘chickswithguns‘
The multi-million dollar rap mogul, founder of Roc Nation and former president of Def Jam Records, is following in the footsteps of other over-inflated egos by controlling his image and stealing from the mouths of hardworking snappers.
Photographers at the recent Wireless Festival were reportedly asked to sign away their copyright in exchange for the right to photograph the rap superstar.
*Read the full story over at Press Gazette.
For those not down with the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988:
-Copyright can subsist in an original photograph, from which an image by any means is produced which is not part of a film. By default, the owner of the copyright in the photograph is the person who creates it – the photographer.
-However, where a photograph is taken by an employee in the course of employment, the first owner of the copyright is the employer, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.
-Like music and performance, copyright in a photograph lasts for 70 years from the end of the year in which the photographer dies. A consequence of this is that many family photographs which have no market value, but significant emotional value, remain subject to copyright, even when the original photographer cannot be traced, has given up photography, or died. In the absence of a licence, it will be an infringement of copyright in the photographs to copy them.
Is this right or wrong? You decide, but to strip photographers of their artistic license is a catastrophe. On paper, Jay-Z’s management are taking advantage of photographers and their prerogative to sell pictures to newspapers and publications – which in turn garner publicity for the artist and their material. Surely this can only be positive?
In the current corporate culture where illegal file sharing is rife, musicians are taking steps to ensure the paper keeps rolling in.
Propaganda rules and musicians now furiously control their images and force their bed linens, computer games, fragrances and clothing lines on cash-strapped consumers. But this has set a precedent.
It can only be a sign of things to come.
♫ Tommy Stewart – ‘Bump And Hustle Music’.