Why concerts aren't concerned about cell phone cameras

[11210]

Tim - you answered your question in your post. Like you said they aren't too worried about it because of the quality. Now in the future that may change but they are pretty safe right now. Working in the Photojournalism world though things are sometimes different. Even though we are obviously press, we (the paper I work for) have been denied credentials many times for concerts. They'll let us send a writer but no photog. And for the photo staff that's fine with us. We have plenty of other things to cover than concerts. Most of the time they just herd you in let you have about 5-10 minutes and then kick you out. I'm always a little surprised because it's just free advertising for them but they're trying to protect their rights the best they can.

[shayward]

Adjust or get left behind.

Artists/labels have the rights, as per present law, to not adjust. But I wonder how economically viable this is going to be in the long term.

When Napster first became popular and the labels starting taking action (so this is, like, 8 years ago) I asked aloud:

"Why don't labels digitize everything they have rights to and offer it as either a pay-per-download service or a pay-per-month service."

That way, the general public (who was not that computer savvy at the time) would get hooked on high-quality, legal digital music. Make it bigger, better, easier, and higher-quality than Napster.

Those who pirate would still pirate but Joe Public, who wants it good and easy, would pay. Plus it would solidify the label's ownership of the digital content.

Think about it - people can download software and pay for a key. The software has no activation so the key can be freely passed around the internet (and it is) yet the software developers are still making money from their products because most people are willing to pay.

Maybe I'm living in a world of pink roses and magical pixie dust but it seems to me that the labels would have make a whole lot more money than they are by suing downloaders.

Especially considering the fact that a judge is allowing discovering into RIAA's per-download lost profits in Elektra v Santangelo II. Their $750-per-song is liable to be reduced to $0.30-per-song, meaning that they are spending tens-of-thousands of dollars per case to sue for, what? $28.52?

The Techology Age has changed everything and the more companies try to resist what the consumers want the more they are going to fall into obscurity.

I've got no cable but I would pay, say, $20/month to get streaming video including a reasonable amount of taylored commercials of just the shows I want.

[shayward]

What's really ironic about Metallica is their mainstream success is, in large part, due to the fact that they encouraged fans to record and share their concerts -- in the early days. In other words, it's okay to do whatever is in the best interest of the band/label.

Ah, that things were about the art. But when people start to achieve success the desire for more seems to start overriding the principals they previously held.

I wonder if Metallica just got caught up in the early, "What? People are giving our catalog away for free? No one is going to buy our music any more! We're going to go bankrupt! This must be stopped!"

Any time a major landscape drastically changes there are some big gaffs by people trying to find their footing.

Then again, maybe they are corporate sell-outs. Only they themselves truly know.

[Scott S]

In my opinion the camera phone market with catch up and offer better quality images in the near future. The artist better come up with something creative pretty quickly or they will be fighting against all concert goers.
As someone who moonlights as a pro photographer I have many times been questioned even when I am taking photos for the event. It is typically when I do not have my event ID in plain view.
I have noticed that most venues now adays have a lens length rule..............would be hard to get my 70-200 2.8 by them this way.

"Adjust or get left behind" is pretty much my personal credo these days. I don't claim to be a prophet, but with the way things are going, copyrights are going to be harder and harder to enforce. We can blame man's sinful nature to an extent, but it's really a reaction to the amazing technology that we have at hand. It can be fought to an extent, but in the end technology is going to win. Fighting technology with technology isn't working. DRM is already dying. I see its demise within 3-5 years max.

Don't get me wrong. I am a huge advocate for copyright protection and always have been. I just think we need to look at the whole picture. If copyrights become almost impossible to protect, then maybe we need to look at a new system.

It's a brave new world. Roll with it and try to keep the bills paid.

[voyager529]

I think that part of the issue with copyrights is the fact that it's so difficult to get the rights I want.
I would be 100% in favor of having the choice between a $50/no pix ticket to a concert, a $75/dollar-bill lens/non-commercial ticket, a $100/any lens/noncommercial ticket, and a $200/any lens/commercial ticket.

Same for songs on iTunes. I'd love to have a $0.99/no-derivatives song, a $1.99 noncommercial/nonbroadcast audio derivs, a $2.99 noncommercial/nonbroadcast video derivs, a $4.99 commercial/nonbroadcast audio derivs, and a $9.99
commercial/nonbroadcast video derivs option. This way the cost of licensing is baked into my initial purchase...or something to that
extent, even if not that pricing bracket. The point is that if I had a simple means of getting the licensing that I need, I think they'd see more money in it. After all, the people who aren't going to do it legitimately aren't gonna change their ways based if licensing is available, but I think it would both raise awareness of different licensing, and make getting the proper licensing as easy as it's gonna get, so it takes the 'inconvenience' excuse out of the equation for the use of unlicensed audio/photo/video.

Joey

[Lucas]

Originally Posted by voyager529

I think that part of the issue with copyrights is the fact that it's so difficult to get the rights I want.
I would be 100% in favor of having the choice between a $50/no pix ticket to a concert, a $75/dollar-bill lens/non-commercial ticket, a $100/any lens/noncommercial ticket, and a $200/any lens/commercial ticket.

Same for songs on iTunes. I'd love to have a $0.99/no-derivatives song, a $1.99 noncommercial/nonbroadcast audio derivs, a $2.99 noncommercial/nonbroadcast video derivs, a $4.99 commercial/nonbroadcast audio derivs, and a $9.99
commercial/nonbroadcast video derivs option. This way the cost of licensing is baked into my initial purchase...or something to that
extent, even if not that pricing bracket. The point is that if I had a simple means of getting the licensing that I need, I think they'd see more money in it. After all, the people who aren't going to do it legitimately aren't gonna change their ways based if licensing is available, but I think it would both raise awareness of different licensing, and make getting the proper licensing as easy as it's gonna get, so it takes the 'inconvenience' excuse out of the equation for the use of unlicensed audio/photo/video.

Joey

Utopia

[Ron G]

Tim,
Was that the "How to be a megastar Tour 2.0"? Having been to the regular show in Chicago, (at the theater) and knowing how much the whole theater is part of the performance I'm curious to know how that works in a large venue like some of the ones they're playing in. I'm going to see them in Feb at the Wacovia Center in Philly which is pretty big. Now I know that they won't seat anyone behind the stage and may not seat anyone in the upper tier but still that leaves a pretty big space to fill.

R

Originally Posted by Ron G

Tim,
Was that the "How to be a megastar Tour 2.0"? Having been to the regular show in Chicago, (at the theater) and knowing how much the whole theater is part of the performance I'm curious to know how that works in a large venue like some of the ones they're playing in. I'm going to see them in Feb at the Wacovia Center in Philly which is pretty big. Now I know that they won't seat anyone behind the stage and may not seat anyone in the upper tier but still that leaves a pretty big space to fill.

R

Oh, man! It was a fantastic show! Monica and I acted like kids (well, just me at first. Then I reminded Monica that we don't get out much and she should cut loose. ;^)). It was pretty much the same show as 1.0 (I have that on DVD). They mixed it up a bit and there were a few new things. They managed to play to the whole arena, not just the floor seats. They went all the way up into the stands to get volunteers. We were in the nosebleed section (thanks, Ticketmaster!! Grrr...) but it was still fun. The lighting was "just okay" and the projection was a bit sub-par for a group like them; but you mainly see them for the fun and the awesome music, of course.

[JordanN]

Crazy thought:
Why don't artists / bands start community sites, which concert-goers are ENCOURAGED to upload videos and photos to.

This turns those individual efforts into marketing ("1001 views of our latest concert"), and gives those contributors an easy way to share their videos and photos with friends. It also lets them feel important when someone gives their video a nice rating.

[tedanderson]

I would think that the no-camera rule is really based on the "give 'em an inch and they will take a mile" concept. I am sure that they know that there will be pictures and video taken at the concert, however, if they openly allow it, there is likely to be a situation where someone shows up with an entire rig of equpment and they will set up tripods, boom mics, etc. which can create an unnecessary nuissance.

At least if people think that they are "sneaking" their cameras into the venue, they won't be disruptive with it. But in a world where ettiquite and courtesy has gone by the wayside, sometimes permitting certain activities/behavior will result in chaos.

[EricE]

Originally Posted by gregdole7

I tour manage for Chris Tomlin. For us, its more of a realistic view. We don't want everyone searched upon entry as that creates a whole level of problems on its own. Also, the quality issue is in our favor right now. We don't let anyone use flash (distraction) or a professional SLR lens.

See, I don't get this. I can understand the flash, but if I have pro or semi-pro SLR (which I do) I also know how to take pictures without flash.

I forget which country group (Montgomery Gentry?), but they actually encourage their fans to take pictures and share them - not only with each other, but back with the band. They have a huge fan base that does this. And contrary to the fears of many tour managers, not that many do it - but it does breed good will for the fans that do like to take high quality imagry.

The main concern for us is that most small digital cameras now can shoot video, and people post those videos to YouTube, which is illegal of course, but it does not stop them.

Again, I don't see the problem with this. If I see a video of a concert or song or youtube and I like it, I'm not keeping the low quality youtube version - I immediatly go to iTunes or Amazon and see if I can find a version of it there.

So I think the real message is, stop trying to prevent copying (which you will never do anyway) and instead ensure you are ready with easily findable, reasonably priced high quality legitmate downloads and you will be there to convert folks to the better product.

Music revenue went UP during the Napster days, but forget trying to convince the traditional record lables about it...

We don't mind at all people having a keepsake from the night. It gets weird when they try to sell the photos of the show back to us (has happened) or post videos to YouTube.

Again, for those folks you just either polietly decline, or if it's really good and you like it you work out a deal. I just don't understand this desire to treat your fans like crimals before anything has happened...

I meet with security every night before the show and tell them our policy, so it definitely tends to be more of a tour by tour basis, rather than regulated by the venue.

Yup. I have worked multiple summers at a local concert venue - partly because I like the extra money for photography and computer toys but mainly because I really like music and to people watch. It's interesting to watch the different groups. Dave Matthews encourages his fans to record - indeed, the fans will work out deals with other fans in the pit seats to set up recording devices - we are instructed to let people who don't have pit tickets in the pit (normally forbidden) and a sea of microphones erupts - but it's just part of that concert experience.

Something tells me Dave isn't hurting for money

Then you have artists like Kenny Chesney that hate to have any video of him taken - I actually sat on stage with his security manager all night and if anyone was taking video we had to run down and stop the person and confiscate the video (and yes, there was a release/waiver on the back of everyone's ticket - it is perfectly legal as you are at a private venue). It only happened once and it was a cell phone camera - and that one person ended up very ticked off. In the days of the Internet and open collaboration and the previous discussion on the caveats of cell phone quality, if you are really heavy handed do you really want to risk ticking off your userbase?

I said it before and I'll say it again, I think the core problem is bands and record labels who traditionally have been unwilling to embrace digital media and thus were poorly positioned to provide people reasonable (and I am repeating that word for a reason) alternatives. You aren't going to stop illegal sharing unless we move to a Minority Report type world - and who wants to live in that? Instead I would rather see artists and lables partner with their fans, work out something reasonable and stop looking at every pirated song or video as immediate lost dollars out of their pockets - because that's often not the case!