Why concerts aren't concerned about cell phone cameras

We saw "The Blue Man Group" Friday. This being the first concert with my Motorola Razor camera-phone, I was wondering how they got around the "no pictures" policy at concerts. Because cell phones were a key element of the concert experience (waving them in the air was fun), I had mine out the whole time. So I took a few pictures with it....

....and here is why they aren't worried about camera phones in concerts:

[NGRRFan]

Maybe BMG doesn't care, but Trans-Siberian Orchestra sure does.

[voyager529]

the question is how long they'll stay that way...or if they're intentionally designed to take poor pictures under suboptimal conditions for this reason (and to keep the digital camera market going) I'm holding out for the SLR phone =).

Joey

[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.

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.

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.

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.

[Sysmom]

Good for you guys, Greg!

[voyager529]

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.

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.

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.

(slight rant warning)

As a proud Canon Rebel owner, I realize that there are certain things that come with the territory. While my photos are generally some of the best when compared to those of my friends taken with a Kodak Easyshare, I realize that "social snapshots" suddenly become awkward. If I'm with a few friends at Applebees and they're like, "we should take a picture with the waiter", pulling out an Easyshare or a Casio Exslim is perfectly acceptable and no one second-guesses it. Pulling out a Rebel gets really weird really fast - especially when I have to show someone else how to use it to take a photo - that can take time, and by time they've got it, the moment has passed by.

I've also realized that while most people buy a camera, a case, and a memory card or two, I am also obligated to have a nice set of lenses, several filters, a flash, a flash filter, and an instruction manual the size of a pocket Bible. When I made my initial investment in a Canon camera, I realized that i wasn't just getting a camera, I was getting an ecosystem that would dictate a lifelong investment in either the Canon camp or the Nikon camp. So when it came time to drop the initial $1,000, and another $600 over the course of next several years in accessories (and counting), I realized that this *was* my camera. I considered getting myself a small point-and-shoot, but the issue I'd face would be psychological - if I took a picture with my P&S, i knew that I'd never be satisfied with the quality of the photo, regardless of whether it was simply a spontaneous picture or a place where large cameras were banned...I'd constantly think to myself, "if only I had my Rebel this would have looked so much better!"

The last thing I came to realize is that no matter where I was, no matter what event or venue or crowd (except a CMN convention lol), I would be asked if I was, or simply perceived as, a professional photographer. I played it off to the lovely ladies, and said something to the extent of, "no, I simply enjoy having a halfway decent camera and shooting in manual mode" to everyone else.

I have a point to this, I promise...but it's still a paragraph away. People are people. and if someone wants something or wants to do something bad enough, they will, regardless of rules or enforcement. If SLR cameras are banned, then they'll come back with a superzoom P&S camera. If all cameras are banned, then like Tim said, they'll just use camera phones. Of course quality varies greatly, but between the cell phone's industry that markets new and improved camera phones to existing camera phone owners, and concert producers who want to keep cameras out of concerts, from where I stand the cell phone industry has the edge for three reasons. They've got deeper pockets (unless the RIAA makes a unified stand for it, then this point becomes an arms race), they've got the support of the public (if it came between having to check your phone at the door and being denied entrance into a concert, you'd see at least half of the attendees turning around), and they've got the easier battle to win (making better camera phones is going to be a whole lot easier than banning them at concerts; banning phones is like trying to crack down on speeding on I-95).

So, the point as promised...I've got two of them. In the case of banning higher end cameras while letting lower end cameras through, I'm not happy about being discriminated against due to my choice in hardware. I'd gladly step to the side and have my camera sent through an X-ray belt, but to be denied entrance to a concert on account of having a camera that's less concealable is photographic profiling . Regarding banning all cameras, I think that the problem with this concept is that people are people and if they really want to take photos at concerts are going to do so. The only way to prevent this is to go so Draconian on the very people that are paying for the concert (I'm talking Sony Rootkit draconian or worse), that between the increased overhead of searching everyone and decreased revenue from people who will choose not to go to the concerts, they're gonna lose more money than they *EVER* lost by having a few people post minute-long clips on Youtube.

My solution: make a brief 30-second announcement that the performance is copyrighted and any photos or video taken can't be distributed on Youtube, Flikr, Myspace, Facebook, or any other means. The honest people who simply didn't know that it was illegal will now be informed and not distribute the content, while the people who were going to do it anyway will do what they intended to do. These are the kinds of people who would have to literally lose in court in order to not upload stuff onto Youtube; "because that's the rules" isn't - and will never be - good enough for them.

(/rant)

Joey

[gregdole7]

we do that too not sure how much it helps or does not, but we do make the announcement.

You're right in that no system is perfect, and ultimately we're relying on people to be honest.

[shayward]

Some performers even enjoy bootlegs floating around everywhere - as long as they aren't being sold. That's probably not the norm, though.

[voyager529]

Originally Posted by shayward

Some performers even enjoy bootlegs floating around everywhere - as long as they aren't being sold. That's probably not the norm, though.

I'm gonna take a wild guess that it isn't the artists who are getting all bent out of shape about the photo issue. It's the people who actually make the money =).

Joey

[shayward]

I think some artists are very protective of their artistic property, image, media, and concerts. And, by law, it is their right to protect them.

Metallica, who never sued any fans directly, was one of the few groups to take direct action themselves.

It seems to me that it's generally the labels, which makes sense since they have the cash invested in the "product" and they're out there to make the biggest return on their investment possible. They have the most to lose.

Whether the manner in which they are going about protecting their investments is giving them the desired benefit or instead causing them detriment... well... I suppose it depends on how you look at things.

[[Director] Joseph B]

I've been to some concerts where they have let me bring in (obviously) pro equipment and take pictures and others where they said no.
I've been to places where they said it was ok to take photo's with no flash and had ushers tell me I couldn't take pictures at all (even when I pointed out their own policy - pictures OK flash NO).
I've even been to places where they checked the lens to make sure it wasn't "too long" by putting a dollar bill on it, cause if it's smaller then a dollar it's ok.
Makes no sense but I play their silly game.

Originally Posted by shayward

Metallica, who never sued any fans directly, was one of the few groups to take direct action themselves.

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.

In the end the artist or those pulling the strings do have the last word on what you can and can't do. However, I see a day when you just won't be able to stop people from taking hi-resolution pics and video from their... watch or eye implant or something. Times are changing fast. Adjust or get left behind.