Oasis Reunion Tour Put Concert Photographers in a Bind

Liam and Noel Gallagher reunite on stage in Cardiff, July 2025, on the opening night of Oasis’s Live ’25 tour.

The Return of Oasis – And a Photo Pit Controversy for Concert Photographers

When Oasis announced their first show in 16 years, fans rejoiced – but for music photographers, the comeback quickly turned a little sour.

At the band’s reunion gig in Cardiff on July 4, 2025, Oasis’s management imposed restrictions on concert photography, in what is undoubtedly a growing trend that has the potential to put music photographers in a position that impacts both their rights and their income.

The Oasis contract saw selected agencies only allowed to photograph the first concert in each city of the band’s 41 gig tour, with ‘long lenses’ being mandatory as they set up to shoot  from a platform, 34 metres back from the stage. (Historically, the area between the stage and the crowd barriers referred to as ‘The Pit’ was the choice for a high proportion of concerts, allowing concert photographers to roam freely for ‘Three songs and no flash.’)

The announcement and contracts for the Oasis Tour 2025, saw photography News outlets and agencies being told they could use photos from the first night for one year only, after which all rights to the images would revert to the band.

This “expiry date” on editorial photos is highly unusual and has sparked a row between Oasis’s camp and the press. The Guardian subsequently report that an industry coalition representing major newspapers and wire agencies lodged a formal complaint, arguing that such limitations break with decades of standard practice.

Under normal circumstances, photographers and media outlets agree to usage rights for concert images in perpetuity – meaning a magazine could publish a great Oasis shot not just today, but again in a retrospective 5 or 10 years down the line.

Oasis’s one-year clause upends that norm.

Andrew Moger of the News Media Coalition, urging Oasis’s organisers to drop the photo “shelf-life”restriction stating, “News photography has had a significant role in amplifying interest and telling the visual cultural story of artists such as Oasis – it’s part of the legacy, and that does not stop after 365 days,” Why Photographers Are Crying Foul

For professional music photographers (many of them freelancers), rules like these aren’t just a minor annoyance – they threaten their livelihood.

Capturing an iconic live moment is only half the battle; being able to license and resell that image later is key to earning a living.

If photos self-destruct after one year, a huge chunk of their value vanishes.

Publications often pay modest fees for concert images initially, with the understanding that photographers or agencies can recoup more by syndicating those shots elsewhere over time.

Oasis’s terms would cut off any future income from Cardiff reunion pictures, no matter how historic they turn out to be.

Concert Photographers are facing more and more restrictions

Lee Blanchflower, founder of More than Just Music, a dedicated Concert and Music industry site that forms part of Blanc Creative, a Norwich based, commercial photography and video production company.  Shooting Music Photography, Concert Photography and Festival Photographs for over ten years, he said,

I’ve been shooting concerts for over ten years and don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying my portfolio is anywhere like some of the pother photographers I know. It’s battle living in Norwich, because getting to the major concerts involves traveling to London,Manchesterm Sheffield, Manchester, and being located in one of these areas makes a difference. but 2025 has hands down been the toughest year I’ve known when it comes to getting photography access.

Even while working with Splash News by Shutterstock – a global agency with serious reach – the knockbacks have been constant.

What’s worse is the amount of PR teams who don’t even acknowledge accreditation requests anymore. You put in a professional, well-worded request and… nothing. Not even a ‘thanks but no thanks’.

Now don’t get me wrong – this isn’t across the board. There are still some PR teams who go above and beyond to help, and there are plenty of artists who genuinely understand and value the role of photographers.

In fact, some of the best experiences I’ve had have come from artists who take the time to build a relationship with the people behind the lens.

Take Danny O’Donoghue and The Script, for example. They’ve been absolutely incredible – not only allowing me to shoot their full sets on stage (instead of the usual first three songs from the pit) but also just being genuinely open and welcoming. I’ve had the chance to hang out with them and that makes a huge difference. When artists encourage the work photographers do, it’s like a breath of fresh air.

Moments like that remind you why you do it. Because when you’re being blocked, ignored or hit with impossible restrictions, it can be disheartening.

But when you get those rare opportunities where trust and creativity are allowed to flow – it reignites the passion all over again.

Music Photographers Up in Arms Over ‘Rights Grab’ Contracts

Veteran shooters have pointed out that this isn’t the first time a famous band has tried heavy-handed contracts and bizarre restrictions are imposed.

Back in 2009, Coldplay outraged photographers with a contract that grabbed full ownership of all images taken at their shows – requiring photographers to assign copyright to the band’s management and forbidding any resale of the photos. “This is one of the worst contracts I’ve seen in my career,” said renowned music photographer George Chin at the time.

A few years ago, the Foo Fighters had a similarly draconian release: any photographer shooting their concert had to agree that the band would approve which photos get published, the shots could only be used once for a single article, all copyrights transferred to the band, and – cherry on top – the Foo Fighters would have “the right to exploit all or part of the photos in any and all media… throughout the universe, in perpetuity” without paying the photographer.

One Washington, D.C. newspaper blasted that contract as “exploitation of photographers, pure and simple,” refusing to sign it and opting to boycott the Foo Fighters show entirely.

Compared to outright copyright grabs, Oasis’s one-year limit might seem mild – but it still breaks the principle that news photos are part of the public record.

“Oasis Live ’25″ will attract editorial coverage throughout the 41-date tour and for years to come,” the press coalition argued, noting that revoking usage rights after a year would “diminish the [photographers’] copyrighted work” and erase these images from future history.

Essentially, Oasis is giving independent photographers a choice: shoot our show on our terms (and watch your work expire), or don’t shoot it at all.

Many shooters fear that if they accept these terms, it sets a precedent that other artists will follow – further shrinking their already meager opportunities.

Life in the Photo Pit: From “Three Songs, No Flash” to No Photographs at All

Seasoned concert photographers are accustomed to certain rules: it’s standard at most gigs to allow credentialed photographers to shoot only during the first three songs and without flash. Those limits are a time-honored compromise – photographers get a few chances to nail their shots, and the band isn’t too disturbed by camera crews.

Onerous contracts and bans, however, are a newer trend that goes beyond the usual etiquette.

In the 1990s and 2000s, Britpop legends like Oasis were regularly photographed at festivals and arenas with relatively few strings attached.

(Many of those classic Oasis shots in magazines and books – like Jill Furmanovsky’s famous images of the Gallagher brothers in their ’90s prime – came from an era with little paperwork beyond a photo pass.)

Fast forward to today’s reunion: photographers weren’t even allowed in the front-of-stage pit in Cardiff, with agency shooters relegated to the sound desk halfway back in the stadium. It’s ironic – the biggest Oasis gig in over a decade, and the pros tasked with documenting it were kept at arm’s length.

Oasis isn’t alone here. In fact, several major artists in recent years have opted to ban outside photographers entirely and hand-pick the images that get released.

Pop superstar Beyoncé infamously did this during her 2013 Mrs. Carter World Tour, after unflattering Super Bowl photos of her went viral.

She barred all press photographers from her concerts and instead supplied media with a curated selection of shots taken by her personal photographer, Frank Micelotta. The result?

News outlets that wanted pictures of Beyoncé had to use the official images or resort to low-quality fan snapshots. (In Beyoncé’s case, some websites did choose to publish grainy crowd-taken photos of her new stage outfits – which undermined the very image control she was trying to enforce.)

 

More recently, promoters have experimented with similar tactics. For example, on Coldplay’s 2024 tour in Australia, media were not given photo pit access; instead Live Nation (the promoter) distributed “free-to-use” official photos from the shows for any outlets that needed them.

While that sounds like a generous gesture, it effectively sidelines independent photographers – why would a news site hire a freelancer if the promoter is handing out slick, ready-to-print images?

Critics in the Australian media slammed this approach, with one concert promoter even warning that excluding freelance photographers is causing an “extinction event” for the profession.

 

From the photographer’s standpoint, these developments are alarming. Shooting live music has never been a particularly lucrative hustle – many do it for passion, free tickets, or the faint hope of “getting the shot” that lands on a magazine cover.

Images can sell for as little as 50p to online outlets and it’s a public misconception that music photoghs in the news command £100’s or £1000’s. It’s not how it works. Combine agency fees and the fact that at Big Festivals like Glastonbury or Isle of Wight Festival, you may be competing with 50or more photographers all looking to syndicate their images to as many publications as possible.

Now they face a landscape where even access is dwindling. If you can’t get into the pit, you can’t do your job. If you do get in but have to sign away your rights or limit usage, you’ve cut off your ability to earn anything beyond a one-time fee.

It’s no wonder many music photographers feel, as one open letter to Live Nation put it, that the “poor treatment of media and credentialed photographers” is only getting worse.

Noel, Liam, and the Solo Years – A Different Story for Concert Photographers

It’s interesting to note that prior to this Oasis reunion, both Gallagher brothers had been touring and performing separately for years – and those shows generally did not come with such heavy photo restrictions.

Noel Gallagher with his High Flying Birds and Liam Gallagher as a solo act have played countless gigs and festival sets since Oasis split in 2009.

Photographers covered those concerts under the usual three-songs rule, and images from those shows have circulated in the press without incident.

For instance, when Liam set out in 2024 on his Definitely Maybe Tour, Photographers were given ‘one song, no flash from the pit but had no contractual obligations whatsoever.

Pofessional photographers were present and their shots were syndicated through agencies as normal.

Fans could see crisp images of Liam strutting on that historic stage, or Noel rocking at a festival, in newspapers and online galleries the next day – not just official social media posts from the artists.

 

This contrast raises a question: why would the Gallaghers, who didn’t seem bothered by press cameras on their solo tours, clamp down now that they’re reunited as Oasis?

The answer likely lies in the high stakes and hype surrounding the reunion.

Oasis Live ’25 is projected to be one of the most profitable tours in UK history – we’re talking millions of tickets, a global audience, and a legacy to cement. With so much money and attention on the table, the band’s management is in full control-freak mode.

They’re not just managing a concert tour; they’re curating a narrative. Part of that narrative is visual – ensuring that only certain photos see the light of day (and perhaps reserving the option to publish an official tour photo book or documentary down the line).

Liam and Noel Gallagher have always been image-conscious (Liam with his parka swagger, Noel with his cool composure), and they’re savvy enough to know that in the age of social media, an unflattering photo can go viral in minutes.

By tightening the spigot on independent photos, there’s speculation that believe that it may just prevent any concert photographers pushing out off-message imagery or unauthorised profiting from Oasis’s likeness.

Why Bands Do It: Control, Image, and $£€

From the bands’ perspective, there are a few justifications usually given for these restrictive policies. One common line from management is protecting the artist’s brand. In the Foo Fighters case, their reps called the strict contract “standard” and necessary to “protect the band” – implying that without it, photographers might sell images that the band doesn’t approve of or use them in ways that could harm the band’s image or revenue. Oasis haven’t publicly commented on the photo policy (when asked, their team “was approached for comment” but gave no answer), but it’s easy to imagine similar reasoning: they want to avoid a scenario where a photographer’s Oasis shot gets used in, say, a random commercial product, or plastered everywhere without the band getting a cut or control. Band managers often worry about unapproved commercial use – for example, a live photo ending up on unauthorized merchandise (t-shirts, posters, etc.) sold by someone else. By keeping tight reins, they believe they’re safeguarding their intellectual property.

Another motive is the vanity/PR angle. Simply put, big artists want to look good – literally. They remember those not-so-flattering pictures (like Beyoncé’s mid-dance grimaces) that spawned memes. By only allowing hand-picked photographers (or only releasing select shots themselves), they can try to ensure the public sees only the best side of the performance. Liam Gallagher famously has a unique singing pose (leaning forward into the mic, tambourine in hand) that fans love but can yield some odd facial expressions in photos. No artist wants to see a goofy or out-of-context shot become the defining image of their tour. Onerous contracts can include clauses giving the artist approval rights over photos – meaning they can kill any picture they don’t like. (The Foo Fighters had this in their contract – they reserved the right to approve or reject any images before publication.) From a photographer’s standpoint, that’s tantamount to censorship, but from the band’s view it’s quality control.

Lastly, there’s a financial calculus. Tours are major businesses now, with revenue not just from tickets but from exclusive content, documentaries, and memorabilia. Oasis’s reunion is even being filmed for an official concert movie. In that context, exclusive photos and footage are valuable. If every newspaper can build an archive of Oasis tour shots for free, that slightly diminishes the novelty of the band’s own releases. By limiting independent photos, bands might hope fans will hunger for the glossy official photobook or the behind-the-scenes coffee table book down the road. It’s a bit of a stretch – hardcore fans will often buy that stuff anyway – but control over images means the band can essentially monetise scarcity.

The Backlash and the Bigger Picture

The music press and photography community aren’t taking these changes lying down. As mentioned, industry groups like the UK’s News Media Coalition are pushing back hard in negotiations with Oasis’s management. In the U.S., organizations like the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) have intervened when contracts overreach. A notable win came after the Taylor Swift incident in 2015: Swift’s original tour contract was so strict (it even said violators’ cameras could be confiscated or destroyed) that photographers spoke out, and major publications boycotted her shows. The backlash prompted Swift’s team to sit down with the NPPA and hammer out a more photographer-friendly agreement. The revised contract removed the egregious “we can destroy your gear” clause and allowed photos to be published more than once (for bona fide news use) instead of the one-and-done rule originally in place. The NPPA even commended Swift for listening to concerns and setting an example by changing the policy. That episode proved that when media outlets unite and say “we won’t work under these terms,” even the biggest stars can be forced to compromise.

There have been other creative protests too. When the Foo Fighters wouldn’t budge on their rights-grabbing contract, the aforementioned Washington City Paper not only boycotted the photographer pass – they sent a cartoonist to the concert to sketch the band, and asked fans to contribute photos from the crowd. It was a bit of cheeky rebellion that also highlighted the issue to readers. Similarly, some Irish newspapers refused to publish any official hand-out pics from a Garth Brooks tour because the contract was restrictive; they preferred to run blank spaces or fan tweets rather than cave in (in one case, a paper printed a review with no photos, explaining the singer’s policies to readers instead).

For music lovers and average readers, this tussle might seem like inside baseball. Does it really matter whether the concert photo in your news feed was taken by Joe Freelancer or provided by the band’s PR team? To those of us who work in the live music scene, the answer is yes. Independent concert photography isn’t just about stroking photographers’ egos or wallets – it’s about journalistic integrity and cultural history.

When Oasis stepped on that stage in Cardiff, it wasn’t just a private event for those 74,000 fans; it was a newsworthy moment in rock history. Independent photographers aim to document such moments truthfully, without being under the band’s direction. Their images belong in newspapers, magazines, and archives for future generations to see – not to vanish after a year, and not to be restricted to only what the band wants to show. As Andrew Moger of the media coalition put it, these photos are part of Oasis’s story and legacy. If bands continue down this path, we risk losing the unfiltered visual record of live music.

We’ll be left only with sanitised, pre-approved images – essentially advertisements – and the gritty, unpredictable magic of concert photography could fade away.

On the business side, there’s also the worry that aspiring photographers will simply give up. It’s already tough to break into shooting concerts (lots of competition, low pay, expensive gear, and you often start by working for free).

If now the few paying gigs come with strings attached that prevent you from ever building a portfolio or earning future income, why would a talented photographer bother?

An entire ecosystem – from local press shooters at clubs, to agency photographers at festivals – could be stifled. Some editors have hinted they might stop assigning concert photographers and just use official pics or none at all if contracts keep being so unfavorable. That would be a loss for music journalism, which has always been about both words and images.

Think of Pennie Smith’s iconic photo of The Clash’s Paul Simonon smashing his bass (which became the London Calling album cover), or the countless live shots of Bowie, Jagger, or Kurt Cobain that have become part of music lore.

And let’s be real

The photographers performing at the very top, the Dave Hogans and Brian Rasics of this world, have built iconic careers. Both are absolute titans in the music photography space.

Hogan’s portfolio reads like a who’s who of global music royalty, and Rasic’s live and portrait work has helped define the visual legacy of everyone from Bowie to The Rolling Stones. But it’s important to note — despite their status — they’re often still working under agency umbrellas, shooting gigs on spec, and relying on editorial licensing to earn from their images.

The Ross Halfins? They’re in a different league entirely. Working directly with the likes of Metallica or Guns N’ Roses, on stage, backstage, and everywhere in between. That level of access – where the artist trusts you enough to bring you into their world – is rare air. The vast majority of music photographers, even those at the top of their game, aren’t getting that kind of gig. And that’s why restrictive contracts and limited usage windows sting. Because even the best-known freelancers are often still hustling – and if they’re subject to “shoot it once and forget it in 12 months” terms, what chance have the rest of us got?

Those were taken by independent photographers in the moment, not by an official tour employee under orders to make the star look invincible.

Striking a Balance: Can We Protect Both the Artist and the Photographer?

It doesn’t have to be an all-out war between artists and photographers. There are signs that a middle ground can be found. After the Coldplay controversy in 2009, a group of photographers drafted a model contract that aimed to address bands’ concerns while preserving photographers’ rights.

It suggested reasonable limits – for example, photographers would agree not to sell images for commercial merchandise use without permission (a fair ask, since most have no intention of doing so anyway), but in return the band would let the photographer retain copyright and use the images for editorial purposes freely.

Likewise, Taylor Swift’s revised contract showed that artists’ teams and press reps can sit at a table and come to a solution that’s “fair to everyone involved,” as the NPPA’s counsel Mickey Osterreicher said.

From the fans’ perspective, a more balanced approach is also beneficial. Fans ultimately want to see great moments from the shows they couldn’t attend, or relive the ones they did. They’ll get that either via professional photos or a deluge of smartphone pics on social media. If bands shut out the pros, they might actually encourage the spread of worse imagery. (Beyoncé learned this – ban the photogs and suddenly the media is running blurry fan cam shots of her, which is even harder for her team to control.)

Allowing independent photographers also adds to the buzz and coverage that big tours rely on. Oasis’s reunion has been massive news, generating front-page photos and spreads around the world – many of those images coming from agencies like Getty, PA, and AFP who negotiated entry. Had they not been there at all, Oasis might have lost out on some media spotlight, or only gotten cookie-cutter press release images published.

As an Oasis fan (who didn’t get a ticket for the tour) and a music photographer writing this, I’d argue that the best outcome is one where both the band’s interests and the photographers’ creativity can thrive.

That means setting some reasonable ground rules (sure, limit shooting time, don’t let anyone use the pics for T-shirts without OK) but not muzzling the press or strangling the photographers’ rights.

Oasis’s music famously inspired a generation – “Champagne Supernova” playing to a sea of raised hands is the kind of scene that lives on in memories and, hopefully, in photos.

Let’s make sure those moments can be captured and shared, not locked away. In the long run, easing up on the restrictions will only endear bands to the media and fans more.

After all, as Noel and Liam Gallagher themselves once sang, “Don’t look back in anger” – and certainly not at the photographers who are just trying to shine a light on your glory.

Sources & Acknowledgements:
This article includes publicly available information, commentary, and quotes sourced from respected outlets including The Guardian, PetaPixel, Loudwire, and historical reports from the British Journal of Photography.

All referenced quotes remain the property of their respective publications. This feature combines factual reporting with original commentary, analysis, and lived experience as a working concert photographer.

Sources: The Guardiantheguardian.comtheguardian.comtheguardian.com;

The Guardian (2013)theguardian.comtheguardian.com;

PetaPixelpetapixel.competapixel.com;

The Guardian (Mark Sweney)theguardian.comtheguardian.com;

PetaPixel (Taylor Swift)petapixel.competapixel.com;

Coldplaying (BJP report)coldplaying.comcoldplaying.com.