Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

GMC Forum _ CHILL OUT _ A Wild Arch Enemy Controversy Appears...

Posted by: Rated Htr Dec 29 2018, 09:55 AM

Link to the news:
https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/owner_of_clothing_company_in_arch_enemy_photographer_controversy_has_issued_an_apology.html

I just had to share my thoughts on the matter, especially because it's one of the bands that's close to my heart.

I've read a lot more and dug up far more things from this since I've read the article this morning. I've encountered passed backlash from Alissa (the current singer) with her previous band The Agonist due to this.

It just saddens me that a band whose image is of "attack the rules of a system" and uses a lot of the same arguments to defend their brand and concept would do the complete opposite when it's about other people's material.

Even if the guy was a total douche and really tried to do the things that both Angela (AE's current manager) and Alissa claimed, he would still have THE RIGHT TO DO IT! Since it's his work, he has the right to do anything he pleases with it.

This comes off as if I had to pay Fender for any music I make since I use their guitar on the records. It's what the defense's argument sounds to me when I hear "we have permission to do it because it was a picture of a piece of clothing in MY body".

It's still HIS work and the whole "exposure argument" has been constantly used for ages and it's a sure way to kill the creative development of a lot of people. Even though we all have a passion for our art, if it doesn't get us basic survival necessities, we will have to sacrifice it to a certain degree for it.

And that's why many of us tend to stop pursuing a career and turn our craft into a hobby. It's because of stuff like this.

However, I don't accept that people criticize AE's art because of that. This has nothing to do with it as well.

Just good artists who have done a disservice to a creative environment and are suffering a deserving backlash from it, from my point of view at least.

Quick side note since I've made my stand on Article 13 which can relate to this matter. This is why it was brought up and deservingly. I still maintain that it's not the way to turn this type of events around.

Posted by: klasaine Dec 29 2018, 06:05 PM

Since I have not seen the 'original' Instagram content nor within it's original timeline I can only comment on the posted article. So, presuming all this is 'truthful' ...

If a clothing company (it doesn't matter if it's only one person or the Gap) wants to use a registered image by someone else, they have to at least ask for permission and/or pay for said image. It's cut and dry. The fact that more than one of the respondents mention, "most photographers would be happy to share their images" and "we thought you'd appreciate us sharing" etc. is complete bullshit and totally patronizing.

*This type of dispute has been going on forever. The only difference now is that you get to see it play out in real time, with pictures.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Dec 29 2018, 10:09 PM

There's no such thing as bad publicity

Posted by: bleez Jan 1 2019, 03:05 PM

LOL! so this escalated pretty quick!