Camera Prohibitions

I'm baffled by the recent restrictions on camera use at selected shows. I'm not upset at the 9:30 – they're just doing their jobs, however, I don't understand how the artists can justify not allowing photography at their shows.

I agree that recording audio and live-motion video are at the discretion of the artist. But still frames don't allow reproductions of their intellectual property … you can't copyright your face. I know flashes can be annoying, and I don't think they should be allowed in a dark setting like a club anyhow (your flash won't work past 10 feet anyway). But for people doing longer exposures without a flash, what's the big deal? The artists are performing, we're paying to see them. Why is it so terrible to allow fans to have a memory of the show? Do they ever give a justification for this stance?

If I were to go to Disney World and tell management to disallow cameras because I was in the park that day they would laugh in my face. As far as I know anyone can photograph almost anything in public in the eyes of the law. It doesn't get more public than a concert.

I've seen so many kids get kicked out for this – why are these restrictions allowed?

<img src="http://www.ilovebacon.com/040204/ticketmaster.jpg" alt=" - " />

What about cameraphones?

Camera phones are next to be banned…they're already banned in some gyms.

artist whose image is as important as their music are likely to restrict fans from taking pictures at their concerts. they want to be compensated when pictures appear in publications and not on a bunch of fan websites the day after a concert. it's a control thing…

I understand they want control … but why do we let them have it? Would an artist not book at the 9:30 if it refused to stop people from using cameras? If the artists asked the club to not allow drinking or smoking in the club for a performance, would it go along with that? I'm sure a lot of artists would prefer not to have smoke while they are singing … it damages their "instrument". And rowdy drunken patrons can sometimes make offensive comments to the band, making them unhappy. Yet the club makes money off alcohol and cigarette sales, and would probably not comply.

Banning cameras takes away from the value of the show for the 1,000 some odd people who pay the artist's salary buying that ticket so that 1-5 people in the band can feel warm and fuzzy. Doesn't add up to me.

Originally posted by worktheweb:
If the artists asked the club to not allow drinking or smoking in the club for a performance, would it go along with that?

PJ Harvey 9-10-2001 - No Smoking.

There may be other cases.

Originally posted by worktheweb:
I understand they want control .

Some artists do not like cameras going off right in their face every 5 seconds either. But I dont go to shows to take pictures, although I do like to have some snap shots.

i find trying to restrict media recording funny. i mean, between cameraphones and mp3 players that record, how can you really stop it? i was on the balcony for a recent show and I can tell you it wasn't folks with cameras taking photos– it was all phones. and even when they searched our bags for the Dylan show they let me in with an mp3 player that could have recorded the whole show easily with pretty good quality.

<img src="http://www.digitaloddity.com/sayanythingjesus.jpg" alt=" - " />

I have no problem with artists banning photography…it's their face/image so if there's any $$ to be made they should get a royalty off it. I realize you probably just wanted a memento of the show, but they can't really say, "Okay, you can bring cameras in if you're only taking photo's for your personal collection, but anyone who's intending to sell the photo's, you're camera's are banned"

They could charge additional for people bringing camera's, that would work.

the club is in the business of making money, if xyz dosen't want picture or smoking at thier shows the club will try to enforce that… i don't see a club turning down a show based on a request that attendees can't taking pictures or smoke as another club will more than willing to take the business.

If I was a rockstar I'd demand that they not serve that doodle piss-poor excuse for beer at my gigs. ;)

Oh, and the ladies must be topless.

Oh yes, and no males allowed at all.

One more thing, beer is free!

I forgot….every ticket comes with a backstage pass, were there would be more free beer!

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
PJ Harvey 9-10-2001 - No Smoking.

There may be other cases.

the last eels show as well

Originally posted by worktheweb:
Banning cameras takes away from the value of the show for the 1,000 some odd people who pay the artist's salary buying that ticket so that 1-5 people in the band can feel warm and fuzzy. Doesn't add up to me.

I think it's a pretty small niche of concert-goers who are all bent out of shape about the camera issue. Even when shows do allow pictures, there seem to be maybe 50 folks with camera, out of a thousand people in the club? And I'd venture to say a good portion of those with cameras wouldn't be proactively pissed if they couldn't have cameras.

It's not a public space, it's a private club. They can do anything they want, and keeping artists happy is a pretty good business strategy.

I've never understood the desire to watch a whole show through a viewfinder rather than experience the show (which is how some real photo-bugs watch the show, not everyone, but I've certainly seen folks watching the whole show through the viewfinder hoping for the perfect photo op). Plus I rarely find concert photos that compelling, and they all look the same.

AND, when folks around me are all hell bent on getting photos, holding up cameras, having them flash – it can be a pain in my ass too.
So having cameras *banned* may actually add to myt enjoyment of the show, rather than the converse which you argue.

-edit-

Note, above I'm talking about the crazed, avid photo takers, not everyone who brings a camera to a show…. ;)

I'm all for not allowing flashes … and if I take pictures, it is just a couple – I'm there for the show not for the show on an LCD screen. But taking a picture or two for your scrapbook is harmless. It is a sign that you like what the artist is doing. When done within reason, it should not be reason to discharge someone from the venue. The baby is being thrown out with the bath water.

I'm of the opinion if you're performing, you want to be seen by people, you're getting paid for it, get over it. For those who are so protective of their image, don't go out in public, don't have people pay to see you perform. I understand all the reasons why they do it … I just don't think it is right that they do.

My $0.02