>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).
Recently on the stock-photo list (where mostly working pros hang out and
compare notes), there was a big discussion regarding this very same issue.
Stagesets, trees, buildings, gazebos, etc not only can be copyrighted, but
often are. In the course of my stock work, I have to get model releases,
product releases, AND corporate image releases. If IBM can restrict usage
of its identifier, why cant Mick Jagger with his face? And, sorry, these
are not American copyrights, but Internationally recognised copyrights.
>They aren't worried about adience being present and enthousiastic, are
>they?
No, but they try to minimise views of people jostling for position with
their cameras. Also, flashes from that close will cause a flickering that
is a nusience. Ever seen a professional basketball game on TV?
>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.
Maybe, but I think the money rules! Just remember, Mick has a huge business
to run. He isn't a musician, but a businessman. Your problem isn't with
me, but with him. As much power as he wields, he could easily say that
cameras ARE allowed in his concerts and everybody would follow his orders.
Do camera restrictions bother me? Yup! I too, dislike being told what I
can and cannot photograph. This world is full of stupid and silly rules and
laws. But once in a while a silly rule or law has benefited me too.
Ken N.
< 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 >
|