IanDavidson Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 I have been attending a small music festival over the weekend. I could not get press accreditation, nor did any other photographer (more on this later). The conditions of entry to the gig was that photos could not be taken for commercial use. So I went with my family took my camera just for social media pics and a bit of practice. All fine, took lots of pictures; no problem. But, part way through a headliner act (who will remain nameless) a security guard rushed up to me shouting and telling me and another tog we could not take pictures and threatened to take my camera (not legal methinks my lord) he then pushed me out of the crowd. I made some discreet enquiries and it turns out that the headline artist insists on maintaining control of images and must approve all published images. I have had some allegations that not only does the artist control the images but the organisers/promoters are under a contractual obligation not to reveal that this control is in place and this is why no accreditation was given to photographers for the gig. This reminds me of an incident from my past. I was put under a High Court "super injunction" where I had to obey the terms of the injunction but also to reveal the existence of the injunction was in itself a breach of the court order! Thus as a photographer I am supposed to obey rules that I do not know exist. I guess no one said it was going to be easy... On a similar note, there has been much discussion in the UK over press freedom; but the same government departments, political parties and politicians make it very difficult if not impossible for freelancers to cover news events; pots and kettles spring to mind. I guess no one said it was going to be easy (repetition for effect) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starsphinx Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 2 hours ago, IanDavidson said: I have been attending a small music festival over the weekend. I could not get press accreditation, nor did any other photographer (more on this later). The conditions of entry to the gig was that photos could not be taken for commercial use. So I went with my family took my camera just for social media pics and a bit of practice. All fine, took lots of pictures; no problem. But, part way through a headliner act (who will remain nameless) a security guard rushed up to me shouting and telling me and another tog we could not take pictures and threatened to take my camera (not legal methinks my lord) he then pushed me out of the crowd. I made some discreet enquiries and it turns out that the headline artist insists on maintaining control of images and must approve all published images. I have had some allegations that not only does the artist control the images but the organisers/promoters are under a contractual obligation not to reveal that this control is in place and this is why no accreditation was given to photographers for the gig. This reminds me of an incident from my past. I was put under a High Court "super injunction" where I had to obey the terms of the injunction but also to reveal the existence of the injunction was in itself a breach of the court order! Thus as a photographer I am supposed to obey rules that I do not know exist. I guess no one said it was going to be easy... On a similar note, there has been much discussion in the UK over press freedom; but the same government departments, political parties and politicians make it very difficult if not impossible for freelancers to cover news events; pots and kettles spring to mind. I guess no one said it was going to be easy (repetition for effect) The evil "if I won the lottery" party of me would turn stalker for a few weeks and follow the headline artist everywhere take photos everywhere and publish them as many places as possible - possibly even going so far as to put a couple in the public domain. Then make sure every single media outlet knew about possible contractual obligations at gigs and the existence of public domain images - so every time said artist performed an image they did not have control over was used. Maybe have the public domain image include a notation to the effect the artist tries to control photography. Some people are dicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Ventura Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 While it may be the artists’ prerogative to not allow photography, it is super short sighted. Disney tried this with their theme parks but then gave in when books and magazines were using photos of other brand theme parks instead of theirs. A couple of years ago, I went to UB-40 concert and there was a message projected, before the show started, saying no photography. But just as the show started, dozens of people pulled out their mobile phones and started taking pictures and videos. I looked around for security to stop them and nothing happened. Before long, the musicians were hamming it up to the audience members shooting video and pics. Yes, sure, there were not “real” cameras being used but these mobile phones are getting better and better. Not sure what the point of the no photo message was. I think every PR person should learn the value of stock and stop convincing their clients that controlling the imagery is a good thing. But then I guess they would be out of a job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colblimp Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 13 hours ago, IanDavidson said: But, part way through a headliner act (who will remain nameless) I know exactly who it is... 😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanDavidson Posted July 14, 2019 Author Share Posted July 14, 2019 6 minutes ago, Colblimp said: I know exactly who it is... 😉 Please do not name them I do not need the litigation....😊 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colblimp Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 Just now, IanDavidson said: Please do not name then, I do not need the litigation....😊 Don't worry, I'm as discreet as the next man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbimages Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 16 hours ago, Michael Ventura said: While it may be the artists’ prerogative to not allow photography, it is super short sighted. Disney tried this with their theme parks but then gave in when books and magazines were using photos of other brand theme parks instead of theirs. A couple of years ago, I went to UB-40 concert and there was a message projected, before the show started, saying no photography. But just as the show started, dozens of people pulled out their mobile phones and started taking pictures and videos. I looked around for security to stop them and nothing happened. Before long, the musicians were hamming it up to the audience members shooting video and pics. Yes, sure, there were not “real” cameras being used but these mobile phones are getting better and better. Not sure what the point of the no photo message was. I think every PR person should learn the value of stock and stop convincing their clients that controlling the imagery is a good thing. But then I guess they would be out of a job. Very much off topic....but reading about UB40 made me laugh. Some years ago, I was returning from a holiday and the band had been playing in the same place. Members were strewn around the plane, and one of the band members (who I'll not name here....except to say he's very tall) was seated next to me. Within minutes of takeoff, he settled down with head on my shoulder to sleep the flight away. He obviously enjoys snuggling too! Trying to get out of my seat for the bathroom was a logistical nightmare & getting seated even worse....he'd taken over the whole area, and was snoring lustily! When I woke him for landing, he sheepishly admitted to partying non stop since their concert 2 days before! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.