Re: [Leica] Re: concert shooting (was Leica Camera-Handling)

["Bryan Caldwell" <bcaldwell@softcom.net>]

>>think of the classic iconic photograph (I think by Jim
Marshall, somebody else might be able to confirm or deny this) of Jimi
Hendrix torching his guitar at Monterey Pop. Unless I'm wildly mistaken,
that was shot from the audience. <<

Actually, that shot was taken during a sound check - not during a public
performance.

Bryan


- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Fisher" <tekapo@golden.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: concert shooting (was Leica Camera-Handling)


> > From: Bmceowen@aol.com
> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: concert shooting (was Leica Camera-Handling)
>
> > Hey, I don't understand why musicians don't want photos taken but they
> don't.
> > Apparently it is a copyright isssue or at least an attempt on their part
> to
> > preserve the value of their image. Photographers, of all people, ought
to
> be
> > sensitive to the copyright concerns of others. A rock concert is a
> > semi-public event so one could make the argument that anything that
takes
> > place in public is fair game. But to get into  the show you have to buy
a
> > ticket which, as I understand it, is something of a license to attend or
> at
> > least an agreement with certain stipulations. Usually one of the
> stipulations
> > is no pictures. How would we, as photographers, like it if people so
> > blatantly disregarded OUR contracts and copyright protection statements?
> > Bottom line, though, is that I just generally have a problem with
deceit.
> >
> > Bob (call me Killjoy) McEowen
>
> Well, we can agree to disagree, but this sounds like piffle. If I take a
> better and more representative photograph of a performer from an audience
> than some glam studio shots that management paid tens-of-thousands of
> dollars for, I'm supposed to apologise for this? I'm somehow stealing
> somebody else's copyright? I'm not stealing anybody's compositions or
> recordings and pirating them for profit here. It's all about
documentation.
> I go back to the Charlie Parker argument. Without the bootleggers, the
world
> would be deprived of some of this greatest recorded music of all time.
Those
> tapers don't have to apologise to anybody for anything. Without those
boots,
> much of Parker's catalogue would never have seen the light of day, that's
a
> proven fact. We should be thanking them for doing the job. When it comes
to
> photography, think of the classic iconic photograph (I think by Jim
> Marshall, somebody else might be able to confirm or deny this) of Jimi
> Hendrix torching his guitar at Monterey Pop. Unless I'm wildly mistaken,
> that was shot from the audience. It's now part of our collective cultural
> memory, and perhaps THE definitive photograph of the greatest rock
performer
> of all time, possibly the most dynamic musical performer of the past
> century. Two and three hundred years from now, we'll be dead, but people
> will still be talking about Hendrix and many of them will be thinking of
him
> in relation to that photograph. You're telling me that we would all be
> better off without it. I say otherwise.
>