Away Team

From the beginning, JANE’S ADDICTION has thrown the most unique parties in rock, mixing a fierce musicality with theatrical flair onstage. 2012 sees the band — who’ve always outrageously combined electricity, sex and danger — return in support of their acclaimed album “The Great Escape Artist” (Capitol Records), which features the now-buzzing-at-radio track “Underground“. Starting February 22, this special run of North American shows — called “Theatre Of The Escapists” — will bring the band to intimate venues, most of which are classic theatres. The alternative rock pioneers — frontman Perry Farrell, guitarist Dave Navarro and drummer Stephen Perkins, along with Chris Chaney on bass — are poised to deliver an immersive theatrical experience as only they can. Tickets go on sale January 14, with a pre-sale set for 10:00 EST this Wednesday, January 11. There will be a special package on JanesAddiction.com where fans can pair up their presale ticket with a high-quality lithograph. The lithograph will be signed by the band and sold only at the JanesAddiction.com presale.

“We chose to play as many of the great theatres that we could find because we wanted to immerse the audience in a unique experience unlike any they have ever seen at a rock show,” says Farrell. “Expect an orgy of musical and visual delights. We like orgies, and hope you do too.”

The cities for JANE’S ADDICTION‘s “Theatre of the Escapists” tour, with support act BLACK BOX REVELATION, are as follows:
Saint Louis, MO
Detroit, MI
Columbus, OH
Toronto, ON
Rochester, NY
Albany, NY
Portland, ME
Long Island, NY
Wellmont, NJ
Waterbury, CT
Richmond, VA
Myrtle Beach, SC
Atlanta, GA
Tulsa, OK
Kansas City, MO
Minneapolis, MN
Grand Rapids, MI
Milwaukee, WI












For more JANE’S ADDICTION click here.

LADY GAGA, COLDPLAY, STEVEN TYLER, BLACK EYED PEAS, KENNY CHESNEY, ALICIA KEYS, JENNIFER LOPEZ, CARRIE UNDERWOOD, JANE’S ADDICTION, NICKI MINAJ, JOHN MAYER. DAVID GUETTA, RASCAL FLATTS, BRUNO MARS, KELLY CLARKSON, SUBLIME WITH ROME, USHER, STING, these are the artists set to perform in Las Vegas September 23,24 and 25th.

The festival is Clear Channel‘s way of kicking off their revamped app iHeartRadio and their push to overtake Pandora Radio as the music app for smartphones.

Clear Channel is calling the festival “the largest concert event in radio history,” and will stream audio and video via its iHeartRadio service and through the company’s radio stations’ websites.









For more iHeartRadio Festival click here.

Janes Addiction have released the video for their first single End To The Lies off their upcoming album The Great Escape Artist. The album has no release date currently.









For more Janes Addiction click here.

Just released Jane’s Addiction “in the Studio #2″ behind the scenes footage of new CD. Jane’s Addiction will release their new album ‘The Great Escape Artist’ this August through Capitol Records.

When certain bands come to town I am forced not to photograph them because of something in the industry known as a rights grabber. A rights grabber is a contract that is normally handed to you right before you obtain your photopass at a show that you are forced to sign in order to get your photopass and be able to photograph the event.

Sometimes these contracts are harmless and state things like you will only use the photos for editorial uses and not for anything commercial. Which I am totally fine with like most concert photographers are, because we are in the business of licensing photos for editorial uses to music mags, websites, papers, etc. We are here to help promote that artist and get their name out as many places and outlets that we can. Publicity is the name of the game for concert photographers.

Publicity is the main reason why we are allowed to receive photo passes to get the access that we do to photograph all the amazing artists that we do. We rub their backs by having photos and stories published of them to promote their bands and tours and they rub ours back by allowing us to photograph them in exchange. In the world of concert photography we are very limited to access as it is, the norm is that we only get the first three songs of the show to photograph without use of any flash. With some bigger acts sometimes we have to stand all the way back at the soundboard to photograph the artist and we are not allowed close access up front in the pit. All of the limitations should be no problems for a professional. Sometimes we get crazy restrictions (first 30 seconds, only shoot from one
side, etc) but I wont bother to get into that as that is a totally different topic for discussion.

The main point that you need to know is that we get access to photograph artists in exchange for getting their bands publicity.

Then comes acts like Lady Gaga that recently appeared with a “rights grabber” contract in order to photograph her. In the past there was no contract for her and there were no problems. However Lady Gaga is not the first act to have such terrible contracts, she just got a lot of news lately mainly because she is a higher profile artist.

Artists such as Janet Jackson, Beastie Boys, Jimmy Eat World, Foo Fighters, My Chemical Romance, Stone Temple Pilots, KISS, Janes Addiction, Gogol Bordello, Steven Seagall, MGMT, Queens of the Stone Age, Cheap Trick,The Mars Volta, Matchbox 20, AFI, Sonic Youth, and many more have all felt the need to have rights grabbers. Some of these acts still have them while some have decided to change for the better on their policies.

There are two main types of rights grabbers out there at the moment, there are the full blown rights grabbers where artist owns all rights to your photos and then there are ones that state artists are allowed to you any of your photos for whatever they want without payment. Both types are totally unacceptable and a slap in the face to any photographer. I mean how would the artist feel if just by playing a venue they had to give up rights to their songs to that venue?

Why are rights grabbers bad in general?

When there are rights grabbers it basically means that any photo that the
photographer takes at a show, they no longer own them anymore and have no rights to use them in the future in any way. They are no longer the photographers photos. Which means it takes away their rights to license the photo editorially for any publications that
wish to use a photo of a artist for a story in the future preventing extra publicity for that artist. Not only do you not own your photos anymore, it also gives the artist or the management the rights to use the photographers photos for whatever they wish, whether it be to promote the band or for commercial uses such as t-shirts, cd covers, box sets, posters, etc. To add insult to injury most of these rights grabbers make you waive your moral rights also, which means when they use your photos that you no longer own, they do not even have to give you credit for using them. So in the future when you see the photo that you taken on posters, the bands websites or cd covers, it most likely
will not have your name on it. So you have nothing to show for your work because legally they do not even have to credit you not to mention they dont have to pay you for using them also.

Most concert photographers make peanuts to cover a show, they depend on owning rights for licensing their photos to editorials and publications in the future to make ends meat. With rights grabbers this is not possible for them to to license their photos anymore for editorial uses.

Why are there rights grabbers in the first place?

A lot of concert photgraphers notice that a lot of the above listed artists are represented by the New York publicity firm Nasty Little Man. When Steve Martin who owns the firm, was asked about the contracts, he said that those stipulations are up to the bands and their managers. and stated “In my experience it often comes from artists who’ve been stuck having to pay a ton for a shot they want for a box set, merch, etc. and that having the parameters set for such transactions in a legal document can keep that from happening in the future.”

Another reason that I was told by various managements was that it was there to protect the artists image so that the photos are not used for unethical uses such as tabloids, etc. They also mention that it was no big deal and if the bands ever wanted your photos they would still pay you to license them, even though legally they don’t have to and they already own them.

So basically, Steve is saying because one, two, or many bands had to pay a premium for good photography in the past for merch that they are forced to enforce the rights grabbers. I dont know specifics about these bands paying a ton for a photo for box sets, etc., or if it ever really happened at all or if its just a cop out that the management tells the band to scare them into using a rights grabber so that management can get free photos in the future. I do know however that if I asked all the bands they probably would not have a clue what I was talking about when I tell them about the rights grabber and why I was told that it was being used. Im not saying that it never happened, maybe the “ton” that was paid for that photo on a box set was really just a manager getting mad because the photographer refused to let the band use a free photo. Or maybe he was really asking for a million. Like I said, I never heard any specifics on the story to prove that it ever really happened and no one will ever fess up details about it. All in all this is no reason to go overboard and punish all the working professionals over one photographers actions.

Some photographers personally think that this excuse is a cop out used by managements in order to get free photos. Then again I personally know some photographers that have been paid for a photo usage of photos that they did not own because they signed the rights grabber. As stated above that some bands will still pay you for the usage even with the rights grabbers, which really just defies the point of the grabber in first place.

I have personally asked bands about these contracts when they had one, half the time the band has no idea about them and are oblivious to the fact that they exsist. As for the bands that are aware of them, they normally tell me what management has told them, that its there to protect their images from being used unethically, wheter the managment
does not want their photos on the wire, or tabloids, etc. But when you tell them what the contract is really saying and how it takes photographers rights they normally are shocked and or appalled about the issue. The sad part is that even when they are made aware of it, it never changes most likely due to managment decisions are final.

As for the excuse that these contracts are around just to protect the artists image from the photos being used the wrong way. Which seems to be the main reason that these contracts really exist. This is the most ass backwards thinking that could ever exsist.
Their reasoning is that if they own all rights to the photos, then they will not get used in anyway without their permission. Well they are right on that, but that only applies to professional photographers that play by the rules. But what they fail to realize is that the problem with photos ending up in the wrong places will always exist, with rights grabbers or no rights grabbers.

The rights grabbers are not really doing any thing to prevent the problem. Why is that you ask? Well the problem does not lie in the professional photographers, it lies in the unprofessional ones, and the fans that bring cameras into shows. Most of the photos of artists that are put into bad light, sent to tabloids, and used in unethical ways are from fan
photos from the crowd or the non professional photographers that will sign any contract handed to them because they plan on selling and using the photos unethically in the first place. With these people contracts do not stop them from doing what they are going to do in the first place. The only thing that will is better control on who gets passes or letting cameras into venues.

There is a big problem in the process of getting credentialed for photo passes. You will see anything in the pit these days from professional shooters, point and shoot cameras, to people with cell phone cameras. It is sad but true I must say when you are a professional trying to work when you see someone standing next to you with a photo pass and a camera phone taking photos.

But the major problem is the unprofessional photographers. When they are given a rights grabbing contract, they will take the contract and sign it and shoot. After the shoot, they will sell the photos to whoever is paying, unethical or not. They do not care about that rights grabber that they signed, they are going to do what they want to do.

Then you have a professional photographer, who is actually there working for a publication that is going to get the band some major publicity. They get the rights grabber, but have to refuse to sign it, and in return they do not get to photograph the show because of it. Why did they refuse to sign it? Because professionals actually play by the rules, and with those set of rules, it does not allow them to use the photos ever again. Not to mention that sometimes the company they are shooting for wont allow them to sign it because the company owns all rights to photos that they shoot because they are work for hire, the photographer actually has no legal ability to sign the contract cause they give their rights to the company they are shooting for and that company wont allow them to give up their rights thus killing any publicity. This is the case for most photographers that work for newspapers, they do not own their rights in the first place the paper does, so when they get these agreements, it just means that story that was going to run in the paper wont happen. Then there are the normal freelancers that will refuse to sign it out of ethics. Which again kills any publicity.

If by chance a professional is allowed to sign it, they sign, and they forfeit their rights to the photos and only get to use them for what they are shooting for and get paid from that company for the one time use of the photos. Then they can never use the photos again because they sign their rights away and no longer own them. They just photographed the show because they needed money to pay bills.

So if rights grabbers are around because of photos being used unethically, then they have to realize that they are not solving the problem by enforcing them and all it is doing is creating more problems because of it.

So here is where I am going to list the pros and cons of rights grabbers on the music industry side.

Pros : Bands / Management get free use of photos for whatever they want without having to credit or pay photographers.

Cons: No newspapers will cover bands with grabbers.
Most professional photographers will not sign them thus leaving amateur shooters taking less quality photos.
Unprofessional photographers will still use photos for the wrong reasons because they sign and shoot without reading contracts.
Less Professional Publicity is received.

Now you have to ask, do the pros out weigh the cons? In these days free photos are worth their weight in gold I assume.

Solutions to the problem?

There are alternative ways to make both parties happy but the voice of photographers is too small to make a difference in the big music industry as this has been the case for years as these contracts have gotten more and more out of control. The ideal contract
would be none at all and many big artists have realized this, and they normally play by the rule that any publicity is good. Some artists that do not have any contracts at all include acts such as Madonna, Elton John, U2, etc. etc. etc. Now if these big artists do not need rights grabbers, then why does any artist. It really makes you think about other motives for them.

So it comes down to managements saying that rights grabbers exist for these reasons but the wording in the contracts say noting about the reasons they say they are for in the first place. If these contracts were truly being used for these for the reasons that were stated the wording would read different. For example, if they were worried about paying too much to license a photo, the contract could say that you agree to license photos to the band at a fair market value if they want them. Or it would say you agree to only use the photos editorially. But managements refuse to change the wording because they know that the way they have it worded means free photos.

But if there has to be a contract, it should only state that the photographer will only use the photos editorially and not commercially without artist prior consent. Although this still will not prevent the non professionals from doing bad things with the photos. You have to realize that it is going to happen despite any precautions one takes rights grabbers or not.

If one wanted to take precautions for such they should be looking into a better process on screening photographers that apply for credentials and have better security measures at shows and fans bringing cameras in. By doing this it would probably stop a lot of the misuse from happening in the first place.

If the bands are worried about getting ripped off for licensing photos down the line, why not find a photo from the 1000 of other photographers out there that are willing to be fair with licensing, or if they really wanted that particular photo they could get it by other means. I can not say that I do not know one photographer that would pass up on licensing a photo to a band for a lower rate if not free, if that band gave the photographer unlimited photo access to their next event. Money is not the only thing we accept, we are able to barter. Then again, there will always be that one photographer who has a stick up their butt and trys to rip a band off. But that is life, there are always going to be bad apples out there.

If you are management, the real question you should be asking before deciding on having a rights grabber is should you be punishing all professional photographers for the actions of one or a few bad ones? Concert photographers are hard working artists that do this out of the love of the art and not in it for the money as most of us have multiple jobs on the side just to support us being able to pay for camera gear, gas, time, to get to the shows to support you, the artist, by giving you free publicity. The thinking that putting these rights grabbers out will prevent anything mention above is ridiculous thinking.

Why did I write this in depth article on rights grabbers when it comes to concert photography?

The main reason is that I want to make the world aware on this plague that our small community has to put up with on a daily basis and hopefully will make some higher ups in the industry realize what they are doing is not only evil, and wrong but it robs photographers of their art and lively hood. It also prevents the higher quality publicity that bands deserve and for what? To save a few dollars from that one mystery photographer ripping a mystery band off on a photo for their box set.

Also I am personally getting fed up lately of all the concerts that I have had to turn down because of these contracts, while I see unprofessional photographers still shooting them because they do not abide by these contracts, while the professionals sit out and miss the shows. Preventing professionals from using their own photos while the unprofessional photographers are using them in any way despite signing the contracts has to end.

The industry has this notion that concert photographers are making a ton of money off of their artists and are exploiting them, but what they dont realize is that 99.9% of professional concert photographers have to have multiple jobs just to keep doing what they
love. Its what we put all of our passion into, and that is making their artists look good while getting them the most publicity that they can receive at the same time.

who am I?

I vow to remain anonymous do to the nature of this industry because if someone disagrees with something that I said above then I would most likely be blacklisted from photographing certain concerts. I personally have been professionally been photographing artists for over ten years and supplying many photos to publications worldwide. I have been doing this out of the love for concert photography and I live off of my paycheck week to week from my part time job not photgraphy. I am well known in this industry and I can barely afford to keep my
camera gear running with the money I make from concerts. I will stay in the game as long as I can.

-Concert Photographer

This Manifesto may be re-posted anywhere at no cost.

Taken from here.

Dave Navarro, JANE’S ADDICTION guitarist, has penned an open letter to gay, bi and transgender teens urging them to seek counseling before giving up and choosing to commit suicide.

Navarro posted on his website the following open letter:

“OK, everybody, here is the deal.
“I cannot imagine what it’s like growing up in a closed-minded environment and being gay, bi or tans-gender. I don’t think any of us who aren’t can possibly imagine. The strength and character it must take to stay true to yourself in such an unforgiving microcosm are qualities that a major portion of the world lacks… Sad, but true. It’s just how it is at the moment. However, it’s that very strength and character that gives the world hope for a new way of thinking and acceptance in the future and when one of our children gives in and gives up, it is not only a tragedy but a victory for those who fear diversity.

“I know how overwhelming the feelings can get and how small the reality can feel, but the bottom line is that this is but a drop in the bucket in terms of the magnitude of life. You can get through this.
“High school is full of plenty of bullies and fear-based hate, as is the world.
“With any group of people comes a percentage of people who just don’t get it and probably will never get it. That’s OK. We all deal with this to an extent. The truth is that in high school, you are kind of stuck in the group you are a part of until graduation, but trust me… You can pick and choose who you associate with and there are plenty of like-minded people in the world that are understanding, accepting and loving. Sometimes we just have to stick it out to meet them.
“The hard cold reality is that once you have chosen suicide, that’s it. No going back. Sure, there is a public outcry and MAYBE the bullies feel remorse for a while, but it all dies down, life goes on, the bullies let the memory fade and get on with their lives. They learn to laugh, love, reach their goals and in many cases go on to have a full and productive life. Who loses? You do! Your family! Your friends! Other teens who need support in this area! Oh yeah… We all lose! Now the world has one less mind that is open and different and unique and sensitive. Instead, we inherit the bullies, the fear, the setback… Our world has one less soul to help it evolve with a new level of clarity.
“Personally, I have seen a lot of darkness and tragedy that has felt insurmountable. The murder of my mother, my battle with drug addiction, the loss of friends and family. Utter depression and despair. Of course the thought of suicide has crossed my mind a time or two.
“Let me share this. THANK GOD I never took that action. The friends I have made, the experiences I have had, the laughter I have shared would have all been missed. In hindsight, some of my darkest moments now seem so small and insignificant that I am amazed I gave them so much power at the time. I am even able to laugh about it now.
“When I think back to the times I have considered ending it all I end up saying to myself, ‘What was I thinking?’
“To those of you contemplating such a course, please do us a favor. Seek counseling first. Find a network of people who have gone through what you are going through. Help others in even more turmoil than you. I am certain that you can find peace.
“As you know, our society and political climate is SO divided right now. We need your voice. The world at large needs your sheer existence in order to come to terms with itself and where we are going as a planet and species.”

For more DAVE NAVARRO click here.

JANE’S ADDICTION said Monday it has parted ways with its latest bass player, former GUNS N’ ROSES member Duff McKagan , five months after announcing his addition to the oft-vacated post.

McKagan, 46, performed a few concerts with the band, and worked on new material for its first album in seven years, but musical differences cut short his tenure.

“Hey we wanted to thank Duff for helping us write songs for our new record,” the band said via email. “We love the songs we worked on with him — and the gigs were a blast — but musically we were all headed in different directions. From here Duff is off to work on his own stuff so we wish him all the best.”

Jane’s Addiction has been through five bass players since it formed in 1985, while the rest of the quartet’s lineup is unchanged.

for more JANE’S ADDICTION click here.

According to a source, speaking on condition of anonymity, best-selling rock act BREAKING BENJAMIN has broken up.  Lead singer Ben Burnley notified the other members about three weeks ago, that he was leaving the band.  Ben consistently stated that he was the only permanent member of the band, and the others were just “hired hands”.  The source further elaborates that, while he is not sure in what capacity, Ben Burnley has joined legendary rockers Jane’s Addiction.

The band began cancelling tour dates on June 3rd, and it was widely believed that the reason behind this was not the stated “illness”, but rather Ben’s upcoming solo tour.  Breaking Benjamin had been touring in support of their best-selling album to date “Dear Agony”.

Photo courtesy of Hollywood Records

UPDATE: Benjamin Burnley has issued the following statement via the band’s website, though we still stand behind the information acquired from our source. 

Hey everyone, Benjamin here. I am officially letting everyone know that Breaking Benjamin has NOT broken up! This is just a false rumor that, through the miracle of modern technology, has unfortunately spread.

I am currently taking some time off from touring to further address some health issues that I have been dealing with for some years now which has been posted previously on the shallow bay website and expressed in many recent interviews. I am performing two solo acoustic shows in July but this in no way means that I have left, or am ever going to leave, Breaking Benjamin.

In closing I’d like to thank our incredible fans for their concern. The only thing that I ask, is for everyone to not believe any rumors you hear on the Internet especially when it does not come directly from the band. We hope that our fans know that we love them and are forever grateful of their continuing support.

Much love,
Benjamin Burnley

Eagle Rock Entertainment has announced the simultaneous release on August 30 of the “Live Voodoo” DVD and Blu-ray from JANE’S ADDICTION. These are the first-ever JANE’S ADDICTION live visual releases and “Live Voodoo” includes classic tracks such as “Been Caught Stealing“, “Jane Says“, “Ocean Size“, “Stop!”, “Mountain Song”, “Three Days” and many more.
Filmed live on Halloween night 2009 at Voodoo Experience in New Orleans, “Live Voodoo” sees the reunion of the classic JANE’S ADDICTION lineup of Perry Farrell (vocals), Stephen Perkins (drums), Eric Avery (bass) and Dave Navarro (guitar). This spectacular show captures the band on top form, with Perry Farrell at his most mesmerizing and the rest of the band clearly enjoying the occasion.
The track listing is predominantly drawn from their first two albums, which both featured this line-up, and the band are joined on stage by twin girl dancers, whilst the show climaxes with a joyous all singing and dancing stage invasion.

Tacklisting:
01. Up The Beach
02. Mountain Song
03. Ain’t No Right
04. Three Days
05. Whores
06. Then She Did…
07. Been Caught Stealing
08. Ocean Size
09. Ted, Just Admit It
10. Summertime Rolls
11. Stop!
12. Jane Says
13. Chip Away

For more information on JANE’S ADDICTION you can visit their website here.