Yeah typical him, give it to Morrissey to be so damn devious, truculent and unreliable. If it would have been his artwork, he would send a flotilla of lawyers to ruin the man.

Thank you Derek for sharing that story.

A lot of people will read Derek's account and be alarmed to hear that he was never paid. I used to work in the music industry in the 1990s and early 2000s dealing with photography research for magazines and, to put this story in perspective, it is sadly all too common for record companies to use images without proper permission. Moreover often one-usage type deals are verbally agreed only for the label to then repeat the image on advertising and merchandise all of which would normally involve extra payment outside of that one-off usage.

So Derek's story is a sad but sadly not unusual one and I say this only to give some balance so that people do not think Morrissey was purely to blame. Very often it is the major record companies and management teams who exploit photographers, rarely the artist.

Recently in the news there was a story about a major publishing house issuing a "copyright grab" on all their music photographers (whereby the magazines would own the work forever, not the likes of Derek who actually take them in the first place). Derek's story is a sad reflection on how the music business exploits photographers and in no way specific to any agenda Morrissey himself may have had.

the Legend Morrissey by accident sees a few pics
of an phototgrapher

As Ridgers said he was flattered, Morrissey asked
to use it, for a sleeve or one show, and he
said yes

I get a bit annoyed by this sorta Joyce actions.

[I'm think Mike did great in the Smiths, nothing
against him, but as I wrote thousand times here,
they travelled in the Van together, at least the early years, and UK definately, I can't believe
they never spoke about money issues, when I hear
a lifttruckdriver who get paid more than me, I
go to the office and ask why, so that's my reason
that I didn't like he went tot coutt 10 years after, even asking ridiculues amount, which he got]

Ridgers is moaning that he should get paid, well
if an artist ask you to want a pic of you, and
your flattered, and can be a step to get more
work, son't whine about money 19 years later.

Next!

Why not use one? Cast iron case.

I had a flip through the pre-view section of the book of his photos. It's one thing for American Skins to be Nazi's. The U.S. was untouched by the war in it's own territory. No one should be a Nazi there is no excuse. But England suffered so much under Nazi bombardment. Starving, so many civilian deaths. The V-weapons. It was 911 everyday in England during the Blitz. English boys raising their arms in Nazi salute ? Disgusting, confusing.

Well, it would leave a sour taste in one's mouth to not be paid. It's somehow ironic, in that I don't actually believe Morrissey admires "Skinhead girls". It's just another minority group he's pointing at, as is his way of "sociology"observations. Unfortunate that he didn't pay. Unfortunate that he didn't feel obliged to pay.
But possible he's not even aware and really!?
Solicitor. Solicitor. Solicitor.
As far as skinhead girls go, we had them here in the seventies. There were skinheads and sharpies. They didn't have the intelligence to associate themselves as being Neo-nazis or anything. They were drunken, loud and boorish hooligans. Just about every Friday night for a year twenty or so of them used to sit on my front fence. I was about twelve or thirteen at the time and a few of them, I actually knew quite well.
I didn't go out and speak to them. That may have
made me look like I was one of them. I chose to ignore them, and perhaps that's why I never copped a bashing. I have no affinity with "gangs". Never did. Never will.

I am certain that Morrissey's use of the image was completely legal in every sense.

Any professional photographer should have set up something in writing. If not, then you have to be happy with what you do or do not get.

I am not a professional photographer. At this point, it seems that the photographer should be thankful for any exposure.

As for the image itself, it may or may not provoke a response. The photographer agrees that the controversy was blown out of proportion. This "story" seems interesting, but it also seems to be a non-issue at this point. Morrissey's use of the image does not imply sympathy or endorsement of any group, faction, or organisation at all, in my opinion.

Thanks for reading.

Ken

The image does not seem, to me, to depict female skinheads at all. The young ladies have short hairucts---> that is all. The rest of the image does not reflect the skinhead "culture" (?) at all because of--

1) the facial expressions and posture,
2) the clothing, and
3) the context/environment

Am I missing something?

Ken

There seems to be some confusion as to what a "skinhead" is and what it represents, particularly in Morrissey's world.

The "skinheads" Morrissey alludes to in his "Your Arsenal" era is the subculture that came about in England in the late 60s/early 70s. Basically, they were, like Morrissey, Northern and from working-class backgrounds that dressed a particular way and enjoyed ska music. Richard Allen, and English author, had written some books about this subculture that dealt with the violence and alienation. Morrissey as a youth was familiar with his work.

The theme of Morrissey's "Your Arsenal" is about what it is to be English and how certain aspects of English culture were fading away. Skinhead culture was an original English invention, so that may be an explaination as to why he wanted to use the imagery.

By the time this photo was taken (1980) a certain faction of the subculture warped into something completely different from its origin, thus the controversy.

I am of the opinion that Morrissey is not promoting the skinhead agenda for using the imagery, nor is Ridgers, for that matter, in taking the photo to begin with!

As far as the alleged misuse of the photo, remember that we are hearing only one side of the story.

I love the man, but this seems a similar case to the Joyce/Rourke comment recently posted--that without Morrissey this photographer would be snapping pics of canned beets for local grocer adverts. That said, WOULD we really know this photographer's work without the connection to Morrissey? Doesn't excuse not paying him for such extensive use of his image, but there is a sense in which Morrissey aided his career immensely.

.... on my favourite ever Morrissey t shirt, bought from HMV in Autumn 1992, it still looks the dogs bollocks and it gets plenty of attention :)

When I saw Moz at the Hollywood Bowl in 1992, I saw this image on some of the tour merch, and LOVED it. I have a spare MINT condition sticker that was bought at that gig for sale if anyone is interested.

he's always been cheap.
and he's always painted himself THE victim of his business affairs.
it had to be said.

btw. the best songwriter ever.

Think that's a pretty fair blog from Derek
As much as I love Morrissey and his music a lot seems to point to him being a nightmare in his busimess dealings
If boot was on other foot and Morrissey had something of his used differently than he had agreed you can imagine his response

This is what happens when the paperwork is not done properly and everything is done verbally or via notes. Musicians and creatives beware. If *you* don't know your rights you are liable to be ripped off.

Thoughts of a pro photographer:

1) The copyright to an image is always with the photographer and it was in this case

2) In order to use images of people in advertising or for commercial use the "model" or subject of the photo would have to give written consent else they would have legal recourse to sue for the use of their likeness commercially without their consent (note: this doesn't apply to news or general shots taken in public).

3) The agreement between the photographer and the record company was for a single type of use. If Derek Ridgers had charged a nominal fee for this use then it would have indicated he placed a value on his creative work (just as Moz does on his creative works). But he didn't seem to. When you get something for free you're likely to keep on using/doing it.

4) All the further uses when discovered should have been billed/invoiced and if not paid once brought to the company attention, followed up with legal action (just as Moz would do if someone ripped off one of his tunes).

5) The girls in the photo would have been able (had they wanted) to sue the publisher (Moz's company) for damages had they approached a lawyer as they had not given consent for commercial use of their likeness. They may well have not bothered and seen it as some sort of flattery though.

This is the case of a photographer who didn't press his rights hard enough coupled with a company who got away with it because thety weren't stopped. One creative rips off another.

Very very unlikely it was anything to do with Moz personally.

A warning shot for creatives of all mediums to protect their copyright and charge for its use.

If Morrissey used any one of my pictures in any capacity I would consider myself paid. Handsomely.

Quite possibly the extended, unauthorized and unpaid for use of Ridgers’ skinhead girls photograph in this case may have been encouraged by the initial casual generosity on Ridgers’ behalf. However, if we are to allow ourselves to constantly operate within the parameters of what we can legally get away with then we lose the capacity for considering the facts that are before us in order that we can weigh up what we would deem as reasonable and fair behavior within our conduct, a cognitive behavior, which I would have thought to be of high value to any artist. The more we mindlessly conduct ourselves within what the laws, rules and regulations of any sort - be it that we are looking for a cover for our self serving actions (usually for monetary gain) or simply that we are too lazy to think for ourselves, then we lose our capacity for creative thought. No, I am not convinced that Ridgers can be criticized at all here.