Anaxagoras said:

At a tangent - I read yesterday of a music venue that allows amateur photography (in some situations) but not professional. Their definition of professional? An SLR camera with changeable lens!

Not defending the rule, but I expect that it's written that way just for simplicity's sake.

msmoto said:
Great Bland... I think when folks want photographs, it is up to the photographer to set the shooting guidelines. If someone else is going to decide how I shoot photos, they will have to also decide on another photographer.

Very true msmoto.

If it's a private/ticketed event they have every right to set the guidelines. But the photographer has every right to refuse to attend.

Remember, as a general guideline, the artist needs the photographer (for publicity) more than the photographer needs the artist. Simply boycott them.

At a tangent - I read yesterday of a music venue that allows amateur photography (in some situations) but not professional. Their definition of professional? An SLR camera with changeable lens!

Yes I always thought it was the shooter who sets the guidelines. For me as long as nobody gets hurt its every man for himself just come back with the shots! My editor will be angry if "the shot" is lacking and of course no post processing manipulation. A press pass goes a long way with regards to security and police in Korea so you can pretty much go where ever you want during most events.

anyone remember when the singer taylor momsen was on stage with no pants on and the photographers got a picture of the string of her feminine hygiene product hanging out of her undergarments? well needless to say they blamed the photographers, not the girl who decided to walk around like that knowing she invited the press. a few situations like that and the managers get wary of the press. i doubt the photographers even noticed that considering the fact that they had to sort through hundreds of pictures late at night and edit and upload in a timely manner!

andyp said:
At the Bumbershoot arts festival in seattle there is a short list of fair rules one of which states that no professional cameras with interchangeable lenses allowed. This applied to entry to the grounds (the ticket for entry is $50), the fair is held on the old world's fair grounds and consists of multiple venues some paid some free with various art exhibits and performers (so it wasn't just into the actual venue buildings but on the grounds itself). There was a lot of local blog and forum discussion about this and the reply from the organizers was that the artist contracts could best be complied with overall if no professional cameras were allowed on the grounds.

thats why we all carry our leicas around right ;)

I think a lot of it is what tcole mentions - one or two bad experiences, and it's just easiest for the artist's camp to "just say no." Also, the high end artists generally do have promotion contracts that limit who has rights to their promotion (obviously) which includes control of any publicity, i.e. photographs.

The bit about not "professional" cameras is a joke, but again, it's easiest to put that blanket prohibition on. Don't bitch about it too much, saying, well, what about high end non-interchangeables? Guess what the response will be ---- no cameras, at all, allowed. I've run into that on many occasions, but, being me, which is not always good, I usually get a camera in somehow.

TaoTeJared said:

It would be interesting to hear their side of why. I'm sure there are reasons, I just can't fathom what they would be.

I feel your pain Bland - seems like you are running into this a lot lately.

I'd like to hear their reasoning as well and I mean that in a good way. Be interested in knowing the why and the why nots.

I have been running into it a lot lately but the bands and etc I've shot of late have been a higher tier of what I normally shoot. Quite frankly I like the lower tier bands better as they are more friendly behind the scenes, no release forms and etc.

It seems to me the bands that have been on top and now are playing for a meal ticket appreciates the fans more and are more forth giving. I was backstage before the Montgomery Gentry concert and Eddie Montgomery came out of his bus, got us some chairs to sit on and then opened up the side of his bus where he had a TV set up so we could watch the OKC Thunder game, no kidding! Those are the guys I want to shoot.

How cool is this of Eddie Montgomery! :)

At the Bumbershoot arts festival in seattle there is a short list of fair rules one of which states that no professional cameras with interchangeable lenses allowed. This applied to entry to the grounds (the ticket for entry is $50), the fair is held on the old world's fair grounds and consists of multiple venues some paid some free with various art exhibits and performers (so it wasn't just into the actual venue buildings but on the grounds itself). There was a lot of local blog and forum discussion about this and the reply from the organizers was that the artist contracts could best be complied with overall if no professional cameras were allowed on the grounds.

Anyway, on one hand it made me not go and on the other hand it made me want some compact portable camera (which are allowed at the festival, even though many are as good as pro dslr's).

That is too bad and you know it is either because of a single bad experience, single rumor or hearing of a bad experience or an unknowledgeable person.

Here at my work someone at one time made a lackluster hand drawn map. It somehow got out to the press and all the sudden it made everyone here seem like fools. After that we have whole committees and everyone is worried about how maps are made and who gets them. In reality it isn't really a problem at all and who knows the actual circumstances that the one incident came about. It probably costs us tens of thousands of dollars now? But it took the one instance to light the fuse. Too bad everything has to be like that these days.

warprints said:
My two cents - if it is a private (i.e., tickets required), as opposed to public, event, the artist has a right to put any rules he wants on people attending the event. Those rules may be stupid, or they may be lenient. If you don't like the rules, you can exercise your own rights, and not go.

I much as I think it is dumb, I have agree with warprints.

There is a Pop artist from my hometown who has a couple of songs that has shot to the top of the charts. She was trying to get one of her friends, who is a photographer from our hometown, to shoot concerts when she is in the area. Behind scenes etc. The record label would not allow it. That was something I never expected to hear. I guess that is what happens when the control freaks run things.

It would be interesting to hear their side of why. I'm sure there are reasons, I just can't fathom what they would be.

I feel your pain Bland - seems like you are running into this a lot lately.

So everyone is going to wind up with the same photo? They should save some money and just rent a camera / long lens / tripod and put the whole rig on intervalometer back in the sound booth...

My two cents - if it is a private (i.e., tickets required), as opposed to public, event, the artist has a right to put any rules he wants on people attending the event. Those rules may be stupid, or they may be lenient. If you don't like the rules, you can exercise your own rights, and not go.

I wonder how the artist would like it if the photographers dictated what songs they were allowed to perform or in Jeff Dunham's case which puppets to use? :) (just kidding)

I still think it's a power/ego thing on the artist or they wouldn't allow people to run down front and shoot a quick one with their cellphone to float bad shots of them over the internet.

I have experienced much worse...certain artists require you to sign a release giving away the copyright of your photos to them...some only give you one song to shoot. I had to shoot another from the back of a stadium where a 500mm lens was necessary. fact is, they are the artist and it is their choice to let you in at all, let alone set the guidelines. there are too many 'photographers' now to give people free reign to do as they please.

If they're asking you to do it/paying you they're not the ones who should be setting limitations

Typical concert venue or artist guidelines. My buddy shoots concert events almost exclusively, and from what he tells me this comes with the territory. (he rents a lot of big/fast lenses for these situations)

There are venues that not only set a five minute limit and corral the shooters to one area, but they force you to coat-check the camera until after most or all of the show is done.

Happened to my wife of all people at a show in LA, while she was taking pictures of me playing, at MY show, with MY camera!

Venues and artists set the rules. Sometimes it's mellow, sometimes it's draconian.

I agree msmoto! And you bring up a very good point, we need to set the guidelines, not them.

Great Bland... I think when folks want photographs, it is up to the photographer to set the shooting guidelines. If someone else is going to decide how I shoot photos, they will have to also decide on another photographer.

When do you that shoot events throw the flag when you've had enough of the artist's ego/envy? I threw my first flag this afternoon when getting this. I called them and said I will not shoot anymore when artist behave in this manner.

"For the Jeff Dunham show tomorrow night please abide by the following media-photography guidelines as stated in our artist contract:

•Shoot only from the area around the sound-control booth, with long lenses (it is about 120 feet from the stage); no shooting up front.
•Shoot only still shots.
•Shoot only during the first five-minute monologue, before the puppets come out. There is no shooting allowed with the puppets.
•If you desire copies of photos with puppets let me know; we can send you the artist's publicity/promotional shots.

Please make sure the Security Team is aware of these guidelines for tomorrow night."