Jimi Hendrix cowboy pics

Yes, Kramer kind of sold out for $$$.

 

Understandable chasing down the Youtube and merch prolific profiteers but unless Exp LLC is getting heat from multiple and strict photography studios, the pix web ban is a weird zero tolerance approach.
What about fan art?

 

That one is probably OK, looks like Carlos Santana rather than Jimi.

 

Not allowed to post pics of Jimi Hendrix per Janie? Good golly Miss Molly, this world has gone crazy!

 

"Music business": the ultimate oxymoron. Always has been, always will be.

 

This is how not precious albums and posters were back then.
I hung the poster on my wall and pasted a cut out of Richard Nixon's face over Mitch Mitchell's
so that Noel and Jimi had guns on him ... we all laughed.

 

Here is the officially released poster image:

 

Noel always reminded me of Carry On star Charles Hawtrey (and the Deaf Aids).

 

I wonder what kind of hassle I'm in for when I get published (or, more likely, self publish) my book with the photos I took of Hendrix? No one seems to know the answer to this.

 

That's easy, a huge hassle and probably a lawsuit.

Unless you have a signed agreement with Jimi/Jimi's manager/EH to take and commercially profit off those pictures you took, then you can't do it.

The minimal you'd have to do is at least make the proposal to cut EH in on a piece of the action, and even then they may want editorial control of what's in there.

I'm assuming you'd have more in a book than just Hendrix pics, so unless you have a release for every artist you photographed your in a tight spot to exploit it for making money.

 

But but but. . . the photos are Brian Lux' own work. Why can't he use his work product as he wants?

 

Can we post pictures of Janie? I've not got any but it would be nice to know where I stand.

 

Brian Lux owns the copyright of his photos. BUT he cannot use someone else's image to promote a product, company, organization or cause without that person's permission. A model release is generally the form used to record this permission. So if Brian was putting together and selling a book, those photos would be promoting a product and hence he would need permission.

However, if for example Brian just displayed his photos of Jimi on this Forum, it would NOT be promoting anything; so in this case it would be legal to do so (as there would be no promotion for any product involved).

Of course, this is a simplified version. There are lots of gray areas when $$$ enters into the equation.

 

Like Arnold said, he's got to get permission to publish, and that takes a signed waiver, and usually a business agreement.

But look at it this way as well, why wouldn't a taper be able to sell his recording of a concert?
Its his work after all.....(you get it)

For reference, remember the scene in Song Remains The Same where Peter Grant is verbally dressing down the building manager (at MSG, no less) because someone set up a table selling unauthorized Zeppelin pics.
Pretty much the same boat.

 

Also: Many people wonder the following: If you cannot publish a book of photos of a celebrity (or any person) without their permission and make a profit, then how can papparazzi get paid for their photos of celebrities? The answer is that a photo of a person in a PUBLIC place can be considered as "News". And it is legal to publish public photos of any person as a "news" item in a form of "news" media, which can be newspapers, websites, magazines, etc.

Yes, it all is a con game, but that's how the legal rules have been set up.

 

I'm no expert---but the legal problem may lie with the copyright of the songs. With a photo, it is just a photo. But a taped performance includes copyrightable material.

 

Interesting. I think again, besides copyright, we're into "unauthorized" territory.

Of course it begs the question, what about unreleased material played live? (rhetorical question, Arnold...)
Someone probably could have turned a sweet buck taping and selling Pink Floyd's '72 tours, where a set was spent working through a pre-released DSOTM.

 

I'm afraid you're right, Efus. My book is a music related memoir that mostly covers my life from the time of my first concert (Beach Boys, 1964) until recent months. I talk about stand out shows I've seen, musicians I've met and known and a little about my life and the world around me through the journey. I'm not a great writer but I believe the stories are worthy of being told. I suppose I could leave out the photos but a couple of them (especially if properly cropped) would be very cool to share. Also, I would love to have this thing published (it's been a lot of work- two years and seven revisions) but I'll probably just shell out the dough and have a vanity press do the layout and printing.

 

How do they like them apples?

 

Ha Ha!

 

Thank you for replying! Well, you did get my main question: Were there pictures on the back of the poster? The answer is no. What about later editions of the US album? Any of the editions with a fold-out cover, including extra pics? A lot of photos were taken at the photo shoot. Some extras were included on the US CD-edition of Smash Hits, but not the ones with the gunfight.

 

On vinyl, the answer is no. The poster was soon withdrawn from the packaging, and the album cover remained the same. Perhaps a CD issue had additional artwork?

 

Jimi Hendrix Discussion :: View topic - Help! Jimi in cowboy photo with The Experience?
Jimi Hendrix Experience (Official Thread) - Page 35 - Classic Rock Forum

 

The bootleg "Way Down In texas land" featured an amusing take on the Smash Hits back cover (officially released!) photos:



Volume 2 inserted Billy "Badass" Cox:

 

Back to the Cowboy pictures. They are cheesy and pretty lame IMO. Glad they were not included in my Smash Hits.