Offended Ken Norton wrote:
>#1 Product sales. By taking pictures yourself, you are denying Mick
>Jagger and company additional sales of merchandise that they are
>entitled to.
In MY case I can't see how. I'm *not* selling or publishing my illegal
pictures, so the official photo book sales are not influenced; not even
by one single copy since I would never buy such a book.But of course
you're right that if picture taking was generally allowed, it could
have some negative impact on sales. Although... Very few people will
manage to get any decent results, while the offical photo's obviously
are taken with all the equipment it needs (fast super teles etc.)
>Their music and the staging is copyrighted. Even if you
>are only taking the pictures for personal use, this is still a
violation
>of copyright laws.
I can only agree with the music part; taping would be a violation. But
the idea that Mick Jagger's ugly face can be copyrighted could only be
part of an American dream (or rather nightmare).
>#2 Environment. By not allowing cameras into the facility reduces the
>flash bursts from the audience that are distracting to the carefully
>designed lighting of the stageshow.
Only photo-ignorant point-and-shooters try to use flash on rock
concerts in large halls. Yes there were plenty of them during the show
(no I certainly was not the only one carrying a camera but most likely
the only one with an OM-3 and a 80-200 zoom). Flash effect is
zero-point-zero and you'll only get darkness except for the back of the
heads of the people sitting in front of you. Besides if it does have
effect (when you're in front, and use a power flash) it kills the light
show effect. But even those occasional flashes where not distracting
anything.
>Along with that, the production
>company (band, and everybody involved) is trying to create an
>environment where audience members can kick back, relax and enjoy the
>show--not worry about trying to get a closeup shot of Mick scratching
>himself.
Bull. The whole show was not only video taped, above the stage there
was a large video screen that made you wonder if you where watching a
rock concert or a television show; it showed every scratch and ding on
Keith Richard's face. The musicians were very camera aware indeed.
>#3 Videotaping. Most concerts (of large acts) are videotaped for
Music
>Videos, promotional materials, or merchandising. Somebody standing
>against the railing blasting away with their C*n*n provides a nightmare
>for the filming crew.
They aren't worried about adience being present and enthousiastic, are
they?
>#4 It is absolutely wrong. Just because you paid a small fortune for
>that ticket, it doesn't give you the right to cheet and steal. As
>expensive as the ticket is, the money isn't made in the concert, it is
>made in merchandising. Concerts are really only a tool to sell
>merchandise. Did you know that those elaborate stages, sound systems
>and lighting systems cost $2-5 million dollars? (USD) And did you know
>that they have between 3 and 7 complete systems because it takes a week
>to set each one up?
Same point as #1: maybe I was cheating but I certainly was not
stealing, not from the Stones, and not from the official photographer,
since I'm not selling or freely distributing. And I don't give a damn
about this stupid Americano-Commercialized Rock And Roll Circus that
tries to sell stickers, posters, T-shirts, buttons, shawls. I'm not
interested and I don't buy. I only care about the music and the show,
and maybe the joy of taking pictures if they let me. I shoot a *lot* at
concerts, and most normal bands that haven't sold their body and soul
to some Commercial Apparatus and still live on the ground with their
heads below the clouds are very flattered that people are interested
enough to come, watch, listen, dance or maybe even take pictures of
them.
Even the Stones started like that, a long, long time ago. And they
probably have nostalgic feelings for that period when they played in
small clubs. As a matter of fact, two years ago they played
semi-acoustic, using a very small setup in the Amsterdam Paradiso. I
know these mega rock concerts are hardly cost effective. Although
tickets sell for $50 and the whole tour will generate millions of
dollars, the overhead is just too much - too many people involved, too
much equipment.
>If you really want to get decent photographs (or even halfway
acceptable
>"postcards") you should get a press pass from the record company ahead
>of time. If you can justify your need, they will be glad to provide
one
>for you. You might need to pay for one, but it can also get you access
>to the room during warmup.
Unless I'm actually working for some pop magazine I doubt if I would
get a press pass. Maybe a backstage pass that would give me an
interview and maybe one or two backstage shots, but certainly no
official photo rights.
"I just wanna have my kicks, on route, 66".
Hans
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|