Pogue-etry in (e)Motion

[amateriat]

Well, well: David Pogue gets busted at a sports event with his dSLR du jour, and posts a blog on the New York Times site about it. Oooh, the tasty replies to this one! 😛


- Barrett

 

[furcafe]

And I thought this was going to be a thread about the Pogues . . .

Yeah, this is a longstanding issue w/many "advanced" amateurs & entertainment venues & acts @ sporting events, concerts, etc. I think the biggest problem is that the standards vary by venue &/or act. Here in DC, for example, whereas the 9:30 Club often uses the "detachable lens standard" for concerts, the Nationals MLB franchise enforced the "dollar bill" rule @ RFK, i.e., no lenses longer than a buck; we'll see what the rule is @ the new stadium.

Well, well: David Pogue gets busted at a sports event with his dSLR du jour, and posts a blog on the New York Times site about it. Oooh, the tasty replies to this one! 😛


- Barrett

 

[bmattock]

Well, well: David Pogue gets busted at a sports event with his dSLR du jour, and posts a blog on the New York Times site about it. Oooh, the tasty replies to this one! 😛


- Barrett

I have experienced this, and in many permutations. No detachable lenses; or no tripods; or nothing over 200mm; or no leaving your seat to take a photograph. And so on. What he experienced is not that new - but it is advancing.

When I was a kid, I took my 35mm SLR to rock concerts - there was never a problem. I would not even consider it today.

The reasons why this sort of thing is no longer allowed in many venues are several.

First, many artists and shows have realized that their image is a giant asset. It is a tangible value to them, and if they do not control it, they lose control of it. Imagine the damage done to a star's image if they are photographed kicking a baby carriage, or spitting on widows, or whatever. They cannot stop the paparazzi from catching them doing things like that in public, but they can and do try to stop it from happening in venues they can control. The image they want you to see is the image THEY want you to see.

Second, many artists and shows have also realized that a huge portion of their overall revenue stream comes from licensing and directly selling items tied to their image - like posters, t-shirts, coffee mugs, and etc. If you're taking their photo - they want a taste of the gate, as well as to control the quality of the image.

In a public venue, artists, performers, and athletes have little ability to control how their work might be recorded, used, or sold. Many of them have permitted amateurs to photograph them for years, since it is good public relations. But in days past, high-quality images were simply not possible from the average camera a consumer might have. Now it is. I can sympathize with the artists, performers, and athletes to an extent - at least they're trying to still let their fans take crappy photos as momentos and keepsakes.

There is actually a slightly different war going on right now, but it is related to this battle. The various press photographer's associations are at war with various athletic organizations, such as the NBA and some others - over the right of the press to take photos at games, who owns the copyrights to such photos, and whether or not such photos should be submitted for approval to the athletic bodies before being published. You can guess which side the various press photographer's associations are on - many of them are calling for photography boycotts of certain athletic association's events.

I like taking photos at events, and I always try to find out first if I'll be allowed in with a camera, and if so, if there are any restrictions on my photographs or gear. I simply don't attend a lot of events because I won't be allowed to take photos. It is their choice and I respect it, but I'm not going to give them my money, either. Besides, I tend to enjoy the smaller venues where things haven't become quite so 'professional' yet.

It will be interesting to see how this all pans out as small cameras with super zooms, image stabilization, and high-ISO become more common. If it looks like a typical mom-n-pop point-n-shoot digicam...

 

[amateriat]

And I thought this was going to be a thread about the Pogues . ..

Yeah...sorry about that. Was thinking about a different title, but this was just so catchy. 🙂

Bill: You make a ton of good points, and I think your approach, and POV, are as balanced as can be. I, too respect the concern an artist or athlete might have over "image control", and even the concerns of the pros organizations hire as "official" shooters of events. But I do take a dim view of the uneven-handedness with which a lot of "crowd camera control" is conducted. And the way digital technology is going, it won't take a dSLR to grab a near-pro-grade shot (to a degree, we're there already; my fave digicam, an anything-but-new Olympus C-8080, has reasonable zoom range, fairly wide aperture, and looks mostly "innocent" to someone who doesn't know cameras, much as a Leica might seem), and this renders the "no interchangeable lenses" rule both moot and absurd.

Regarding bootleg recordings, of course, it was the Grateful Dead that decided to adopt the Quentin Crisp dictum of "swim with the tide, only faster" and sanction amateur recording of their live gigs under somewhat-controlled conditions, and this seems to have worked out for everybody (and several other bands have followed by example). I don't see how this couldn't work regarding photography, but there might be details I'm not thinking of at the moment. But it's nice to imagine...


- Barrett

 

[shadowfox]

"... but sir, it's film, see, no LCD. How good can a film camera be? I can't sell stock photos with this, let alone prints... "

"... this? yes it's Zeiss... yea, um... like the little puny lens on that sony digital P&S my daughter has..."

 

[bmattock]

Bill: You make a ton of good points, and I think your approach, and POV, are as balanced as can be.

Who'd a thunk it? Me, reasonable? Amazing.

I, too respect the concern an artist or athlete might have over "image control", and even the concerns of the pros organizations hire as "official" shooters of events.

In many cases, image is all they have. I don't mean that in a bad way - I mean their public image literally makes or breaks them.

But I do take a dim view of the uneven-handedness with which a lot of "crowd camera control" is conducted.

I agree, but it is probably going to continue to be a problem. Security guards tend to be low-paid, and are often not particularly well-trained or given a lot of instruction on any given event. They tend to go with whatever they think they were told, and if backed into a corner, they assert what little authority they have firmly. They haven't the authority to say 'yes' so they often say 'no'.

And the way digital technology is going, it won't take a dSLR to grab a near-pro-grade shot (to a degree, we're there already; my fave digicam, an anything-but-new Olympus C-8080, has reasonable zoom range, fairly wide aperture, and looks mostly "innocent" to someone who doesn't know cameras, much as a Leica might seem), and this renders the "no interchangeable lenses" rule both moot and absurd.

It does. And as such photos begin to surface and the proprietors of the 'image' of the artist/group/event in question begin to realize they can't stop it - new solutions will have to be devised.

Not unlike the advent of the DVD recorder - the movie industry had a fit. Once technology like that enables everyone to record what they like and possibly distribute it, their revenue stream is threatened.

I predict they'll swing this way and that, trying one draconian solution after another, making their fans and even the people they protect angry - then some workable solution will be found.

Regarding bootleg recordings, of course, it was the Grateful Dead that decided to adopt the Quentin Crisp dictum of "swim with the tide, only faster" and sanction amateur recording of their live gigs under somewhat-controlled conditions, and this seems to have worked out for everybody (and several other bands have followed by example). I don't see how this couldn't work regarding photography, but there might be details I'm not thinking of at the moment. But it's nice to imagine...
- Barrett

The Grateful Dead fortunately have remained firmly in control of their own marketing - unlike most musical acts, athletes, and so on. One deals not with Sony, or BMG, etc, but with the Grateful Dead. They set their own policies.

If more were free to do that, we might see more open and enlightened photo policies put in place. Not to paint the larger management organizations as uncaring, stupid, or ruthless, but one can comprehend that they don't really care to even contemplate what they see primarily as a threat to their revenue stream.

On the other hand, smaller (unsigned) acts have figured out that by encouraging people to tape their act and put it on YouTube or take photos and put them on Flickr, they can get cheap (read free) advertising that can build their reputation and image and drive customers to their door. Of course, such artists have to have actual talent, or viral marketing attempts like this won't work. This might be a problem for some of the bigger stars of today...