new camera policy

[SarahC]

I sometimes see a disturbing trend here. People are very quick to buy lots of Wilco goodies - sometimes very expensive Wilco goodies, but they are quick to dismiss the work that is shared by other Wilco fans for free.

 

I think we should remember than not everyone has the means to go to shows, so the audio and video out there may be the only way they can experience the band live.

Fantastically said A-Man! Bravo.

I agree with you whole heartedly on everything you said, especially the 2 I've got quoted above.

 

I remember when I first started posting, I was one of those who had yet to experience a show(I posted here for almost 4 years before I ever even saw the band live) and lived vicariously through the photos and discussions of shows. Some of the best Wilco-related memories I have are from seeing pictures other people here have taken, and reading their experiences. It helps everybody have more of a tangible connection to something in a medium that is not tangible at all.

 

Maybe after everything dies down the band will revert back to the old policy.

[SeattleC]

PS I coined the phase "scary tweedy" and it stuck. It's like my 15 minutes of fame!!!!

 

or my 15 mintues for now perhaps. I liked that scary tweedy comment after you posted it, but then someone actually renamed the jpeg that, which gave me the 'scary renamer' vibe.

 

Anyway, the real bottom line here is: are you all better off without photos like 'scary tweedy' or not? It seems we are headed into rough seas for awhile in that regard, and I for one am taking my camera 'out of the picture' (pardon me, I think that's a Son Volt song)

[H.Stone]

Is there "shunning" happening?

[bjorn_skurj]

Good post, A-man.You know, I don't think of myself as one, but I suppose I am a professional photographer, as taking pictures is something I do as part of my work as editor of a weekly newspaper. Photography is both like an art and like a sport - there is a real, tangible thrill when one takes a good pic, and it is a lot of fun trying to get them, which I think explains why people like taking pictures at rock concerts. That said, the pursuit of a good shot should absolutely not interfere with anyone else's enjoyment of the show, and I don't blame the band for trying to regulate the taking of pictures, as long as making the show more enjoyable is what's behind it. And even if there's something else behind it, that would simply put Wilco in the same category of pretty much every other band on Earth when it comes to these things. Personally, I prefer to enjoy the concert and not be bothered trying to take pictures. Much more important to me as a record of the concert is a recording; I am profoundly grateful to the band for allowing this practice.

[Beautiful & Stoned]

A visual keepsake could never compare to the aural memories I leave a Wilco show with.

[Shakespeare In The Alley]

Well, I am going to do a write up for my college's paper. So that may have helped.

 

I emailed Deb, and she graciously is giving me a pass and permission to shoot the 1st 3 songs.

 

I've never shot with a pass, and my seats are in the pit anyway, so I might just shoot from my seat for the 1st 3 songs. I would hate to get in the way of the REAL professionals.

 

I'm at a community college, so it's not going to be some fantastic spread or anything. Still gonna be cool to have a write up about them in the paper.

Blast. I emailed her and told her I was in art school, and wanted to try taking some pictures in concert. But she said no. Which is fine, really. But I had to ask.

[SeattleC]

Ok, I give up this topic PJ over there on my left is in the dark as well....

[creativetype]

Many of you will recall this event from a few years back ...

 

I'll always have a fond memory from Wichita in '06 when Jeff took my camera as the band came back onstage for an encore ... I was in the front row and had been alternating between rocking out and politely photographing all night ... As he headed back on stage, Jeff saw me take a photo of some friends we'd met at the OKC show (the only time I turned my flash on b/c it was dark) ... Walking up to the front of the stage Jeff said, "Did you want to be in that shot?" ... Holy crap! ... I turned as Jeff reached out for the camera. I thought he was gonna confiscate it, as he acted like he was going to set it atop one of the amps (we've all heard how legendary those Tweedy tantrums can be) ... instead he turned, smiled to show he was just kidding and aimed the camera for a group shot of the giddy crowd. He handed the camera back to me as I grinned ear to ear.

 

 

Another fan captured the moment.

 

 

After the show, we waited in line to get an autograph and I told him he had me scared for a second. He chuckled and apologized for freaking me out. From what I've seen after shows, Jeff's always been very receptive to fans. (Now the next night some yahoo in Springfield, Mo. jumped on stage and tried to hug Tweedy before Jeff decapitated him, but I wasn't there for that ...)

 

 

On to the main subject of the thread, I see the need to control the annoying nature of cell phone cameras, LEDs, and the like, but I'm afraid unless they ban every portable device, this is the brave new world we live in. The way technology has exploded (even since 2006), cameras are everywhere. The fans who continue to use flash and disrespect others may ruin it for the rest of us, though. However, I realize that they just want to capture the memories and I think a majority are completely unaware of their breach of concert etiquette, and yes there is such a thing, even in rock 'n roll.

 

I'm a fan who loves the music but I am probably more of a visual person, where the image and sound of a concert are inextricably woven. As "just a fan" who takes photos as a hobby, I am in awe of pro photographers mentioned before like Harris, Orlic and Wireman, and I always look forward to their amazing galleries on WilcoWorld ... but I truly appreciate the opportunity to capture and share my own memories from shows where those "big city" guys will likely never be, places like Wichita, Tulsa, OKC, etc. -- venues that aren't like the Vic or the Chicago Theater. Likewise, I love to see what other magical moments have been captured by other fans around the country/world.

 

One thing I've always liked about Tweedy and Co. has been their loyalty to the fans, to tapers, photographers, etc. ... Hopefully there can be compromises down the road on this situation.

 

Okay, there's my 2 cents.

 

 

P.S. I work in the sports industry and I think it's funny to see how there have historically been bans on cameras at major sporting events/venues, yet during the NCAA Final Four when you watch the "One Shining Moment" video, take note of the hundreds of flashes popping during the tip-off of the championship game ... apparently more than a few fans didn't get that memo.

 

Also, I'm addicted to ellipses ...

[Analogman]

Is there "shunning" happening?

 

There will be.

 

At least I see people being down on those that take photos.

 

All I am saying is - people have been taking photos and posting photos here for years.

 

And now it seems there is some sort of backlash about taking them.

 

Is it because now there are a whole wall of people taking them, instead of just those who go to a lot of shows?

 

I don't know. I have not seen the band in several years.

 

Speaking of rock photographers, Jim Marshall died the other day. You may not know the name, but you have seem his photographs.

[tinnitus photography]

I have been around here going on eight years, and I don't recall ever seeing anyone complain about photos of Wilco posted in various After The Show threads.

 

I find it is quite the opposite - people enjoy looking at them.

 

true, but this decision isn't driven by members of viachicago, but by the band and/or their management.

 

I would rather look at a Wilco fan photo over a so-called professionally shot Wilco photo.

 

that's an interesting perspective. what gives a fan photo more relevance and emotional connection for you? and how can one tell the difference?

 

The same goes with regards to fan shot videos. Although the band is against such practices, and the links get removed when they are posted here (usually), does not mean that people do not enjoy them.

 

That is what people do at events. They take photos, videos, record shows, write down set-lists, share stories, etc.

 

Sometimes it is annoying, sometimes it is not.

 

I sometimes see a disturbing trend here. People are very quick to buy lots of Wilco goodies - sometimes very expensive Wilco goodies, but they are quick to dismiss the work that is shared by other Wilco fans for free.

 

i've addressed the annoying/not annoying point in the final quote below, but i am unclear on what you mean about the 'quick dismissal' of work by Wilco fans.

 

I think we should remember than not everyone has the means to go to shows, so the audio and video out there may be the only way they can experience the band live.

 

this is not true. there are loads of fan-sourced recordings available, as well as at least four official DVD releases from the band.

 

 

At least I see people being down on those that take photos.

 

All I am saying is - people have been taking photos and posting photos here for years.

 

And now it seems there is some sort of backlash about taking them.

 

the problem as i see it is that there were no guidelines about when taking a photo or two for a personal keepsake crossed the line and became taking photos and/or video non-stop throughout the whole show. obviously the band felt that the fanbase couldn't self-regulate this behavior, and it was (in their opinion, which is shared by some fans, who i suppose are the ones called out for this 'backlash') interfering with people's enjoyment of the show. so rather than modify the policy to some sort of unenforceable situation like 'all fans can take 20 photos during the show' they really had no choice but to put in the perceived draconian option. at least w/ photogs working under credentials, the band and their management can control exactly when and where photos can be taken, which is why the standard '1st 3 songs/no flash' rule has been so wide accepted, as it's a good compromise between both parties. do i wish i could shoot the whole show, from wherever i could? of course, but that's why bands hire tour photographers, and not everyone can be one.

 

i swear that there was also some comment about pro photographers charging for people to view photos online, but it seems to have been edited out, or my searching capabilities are sub-par. anyway, that's really a moot point - how many newspapers/online music blogs do you know who charge for content? zero is the number i come up with (not including print mags here). credentials are granted as a symbiotic relationship between the band and the media outlet...the band wants to get free publicity (they are not paying for the photos to be taken), and the media outlets wants to attract readers. it's pretty simple.

 

some bands figure that they no longer need the publicity, or severely curtail the conditions that pro shooters can work under. Dylan hasn't granted a photo pass in years. Beyonce famously restricted photographers to a mere 30 seconds, and any photos had to be cleared by her management prior to publishing. others (leonard cohen, motley crue, paul mccartney, etc) restrict photographers to shoot at the soundboard, from a great distance; the lens i rented for the mccartney shot retails for as much as my car is worth. in the end, it's entirely up to the band as to how they wish to control their image.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Speaking of rock photographers, Jim Marshall died the other day. You may not know the name, but you have seem his photographs.

I am very saddened to hear that. I think someone was using his image of Johnny Cash flipping the bird as an avatar. Some incredible stuff.

 

http://www.marshallphoto.com/

[tinnitus photography]

I edited my post. Sometimes I speak in anger. I apologize.

 

no worries. i've certainly exceeded my quota of posts/emails/things said that i'd rather have back.

 

I am surprised that a professional photographer would even post their work here. On some other message boards I am on, I have seen people get jumped on for snagging such photos. I guess it is different if the person who took the photos is the one posting them.

 

Don't you put watermarks on your photos, or have them right click protected?

 

i mainly do it to promote the piece i was on assignment for, as i know that the fans would likely want to see/read about it. i do this for a lot of the stuff i shoot (post links on facebook pages, last.fm events and band pages, myspace comments, etc). it's of no use if very little people see it.

 

the other issue (use of photos/watermarking) is a contentious one...each photographer has to make up his/her mind about what sort of control they wish to exert on how the images are used. the best way to make sure that no one uses a photo w/o yr authorization is to never put it online. personally, i don't watermark my shots as i think it detracts from the image, but i think that i'm slowly changing my mind and actually had a watermark created...i use it for web-sized shots that bands want to use for myspace/web sites, etc, more as an advertising tool than to deter theft.

 

my website doesn't allow right click/save as, but really, if it's on a screen one can easily just hit 'print scrn' and crop out what they want...i do protect my full resolution files, but if someone really wants to use a photo of mine on their own fan-centric site i really don't care. however, i do know that some shooters do care, to the point of sending DMCA notices to their ISPs if the content isn't taken down.

 

life is too short for me to devote that much energy to something that no one would pay for anyway...a fan's not gonna license the use of a photo. they will just move on to another (free) option. unfortunately, a lot of media are also following that method...asking for use of images w/o payment (but you'll get credit! credit doesn't buy me gear or pay for insurance, gas, etc) and if you kindly say no, they will go along and ask someone else until they find someone who accepts.

 

the explosion of technology has really devalued the concert shooting market to the point that it's increasingly difficult to make any sort of $ doing it. compounding this is the rights-grabbing nastiness that certain bands impose on photographers wishing to get a photo pass...where the agreement states that the photographer hands over all images to the band, for their unlimited usage, with no compensation due to the photographer EVER. i've declined to shoot Cheap Trick and MGMT for this very reason, and have heard from other shooters that it's standard practice (or at least been instituted at times) for bands like Beck, Foo Fighters, Ryan Adams, Them Crooked Vultures, Coldplay, Morrissey, AFI, etc...then there are high profile bands that i've not had to sign *anything* for, like Neil Young, Radiohead, Ray Davies, Green Day, Roger Daltrey, etc...

 

sorry for derailing this thread.

 

 

I just think they are being too drastic about the photo deal. I think in a lot of ways, it has nothing to do with the band. It is just a cultural phenomenon. There are devices that make it possible for people to record everything they do, so that is what they do.

 

I have my views. I am not saying I am totally right (I guess you have to post that disclaimer on message boards). But that is just how it is to me at the moment.

 

I have never totally understood the no video rule, and neither have a lot of people. So I just think a no photo rule will be just another hassle to deal with.

 

i think the video rule does make sense...otherwise, in the back of their minds the band must be thinking they need to self-regulate/censor some of their behavior so that embarrassing moments don't get documented for all to see for perpetuity. i don't know what led them to institute the photo deal, but my guess is that it's directly tied to video...most digicams and phones can do stills or videos, so it's impossible for regulation of one w/o affecting the other.

 

 

Thank you for posting a thoughtful response.

 

thanks, and i am enjoying this dialog as well. glad to see that my words didn't come off as overly bristly, which can happen.

[RaspberryJam]

Wait a minute. I'm sensing this thread is digressing into, what could it be, civility? This is not what I come here for

[Rusty Shackleford]

A-Man makes some good points, as usual. I must admit I enjoy seeing fans' photos of shows on here, and if I could take a decent picture without a flash, I'd snap a few myself.

 

But it does seem like the whole phenomenon of cell-phone photography has exploded recently, and it's gotten out of hand. Ideally, some fraction of the audience would discretely take a few snaps each and be done with it, but that's not how it seems to be working out.

 

I mean, I enjoy the audience recordings of the shows, and I am very grateful for the folks who tape them and make them available, but if the floor was full of mike stands, the band might have to change its policy on that too.

[Sunken mountain]

.

 

I just think they are being too drastic about the photo deal. I think in a lot of ways, it has nothing to do with the band. It is just a cultural phenomenon. There are devices that make it possible for people to record everything they do, so that is what they do.

 

I have never totally understood the no video rule, and neither have a lot of people. So I just think a no photo rule will be just another hassle to deal with.

 

That´s exactly my point of view.I think A-Man is right,yesterday I found very drastic the new policy.

That could be the "brand" idea someone talk about.

I can understand the band: people,sometimes isn´t very respectful with them,but in Spanish we use to say "No se pueden poner puertas al mar"

[bigshoulders]

because sometimes it isn't always about getting the crispest, clearest, perfectly framed shot...sometimes the unexpected happens...with a cellphone no less.

Great shot. I concur—focus is overrated. We used to joke about that in photography school, but not all images need to be tack sharp in order to be good.

[bigshoulders]

Ok, I give up this topic PJ over there on my left is in the dark as well....

I thought that was Leslie Feist. I heart me some PJ.

As you were...

[Guest Runaway Jim]

I'm generally very annoyed by all of the cameras/cellphones at shows. It takes away from the experience for me. So I'm glad to see the new policy (not that I think it will really change things that much).

[The High Heat]

 

 

Another fan captured the moment.

 

 

Unfortunately the overwhelming majority of fan shots have the quality of the second pic here.

[tongue-tied]

Unfortunately the overwhelming majority of fan shots have the quality of the second pic here.

 

and yet somebody's grateful for it.

 

 

also, I haven't been to a show recently, but is it true Muzzle of Bees now goes "half of it's me, half of it's you doing what I tell you to do"?

[Guest Runaway Jim]

also, I haven't been to a show recently, but is it true Muzzle of Bees now goes "half of it's me, half of it's you doing what I tell you to do"?

 

 

This isn't 'Nam. There are rules.

[Central Scrutinizer]

This isn't 'Nam. There are rules.

I think rules in 'Nam was one of the conditions of the WTO.

[u2roolz]

So like if they play Kamera doesn't that like make them hypocrites or something?!

Dude. Good.......call.....man.....

[tongue-tied]

I think rules in 'Nam was one of the conditions of the WTO.

 

Wilco (The Ordinance)

[drop dead ed]

wolftrap. he tends to do that when they start "I am the Man Who Loves You"

 

I love the Glenn moments. I missed a perfect shot in Dallas last year where he flipped the bird to this guy for trying to trade his shirt for Glenn's famous one. It was a great moment.

 

The fact that they've gotten rid of cameras, makes me treasure the ones I've already taken.