This should, hopefully, be a lighthearted discussion but please feel free to be as serious or difficult as you wish!
It's not something that bothers me too much, although it can be distracting at times, but photography seems to be on the increase at sessions these days. The main culprits are often "visitors" to the pub/area/country even, although you get "fanatics" with magazines, web sites etc. Occasionally, "musicians" themselves get carried away with it all. You'd think they'd know better.
So, how do you feel about being constantly "snapped", filmed on camcorder etc while you're just having a good tune. Often it's not the best musicians who have their photographs taken but those who are the most eccentric or photogenic(I fall into the latter category, ha,ha). Is it all quite harmless or an invasion of privacy? After all, you never know where your picture could end up these days. I've come across my own image on different web sites and magazines, in recent years. In some ways, it's quite flattering but I'm sure that everyone doesn't wish this attention--especially, if they're somewhere they shouldn't be.
Let's have your opinions on the matter and you might have some amusing experiences to relate. You can even tell me to stop worrying about it and "get a life". I won't mind.
Hey John, that's showbiz, man! Don't pretend you don't like smiling for the camera. You ain't foolin' no-one! (Despite the double negative...) Don't the big bucks and endless stream of girls make up for it? C'mon, man, deal with it! Get a life, buddy!
The thing is, though, that I'm just an ordinary guy "and my pockets are empty"(as the song used to go). So, no big bucks and no endless stream of girls, though I've had my moments .
When you do ceilidhs, particularly for weddings its a way of life. The thing thats the worst is the massive video camera stuck right in your face when you are trying to call a dance or when you have to do specific dances just so they can get a nice shot on the camera. Mind you revenge is sweet when you suggest video man stands in the centre of the circle and then you instruct the drunken mob (sorry dancers) to rush into the middle making as much noise as possible!!!!
Surreal is when I did a gig for some top celebrities and their friends with a strict "no cameras, mobiles or autograph chasing" instruction to the band ...and the guests took photos and videos of us.
Seriously though, it's good manners to ask before videoing someone in a session. I've only done it once or twice, like someone's final session in England before he emigrated to Tasmania.
ALWAYS ask permission before videoing a tutor (or anyone else) in a teaching workshop or lesson. This is particularly important with summer schools coming up and the present legal climate regarding photographing or filming children.
No, bribajo, it's not the taxman that's my concern. It's the sensitive issue of a perceived danger of child abuse and such-like arising out photos and videos of children.
A particulary bad example of this was a couple of months ago when a few hundred local Bristol schoolchildren gave their annual orchestral and choral concert in Bristol's 2000-seat Colston Hall. This event was very well attended by parents, family and friends, as you'd expect. What was not expected was Bristol City Council's prohibition of any photos or videos of those children performing on stage by anyone in the audience - family, friends, even the local press. Photos and videos of this concert would of course be family treasures and mementoes for decades.
The reason given by the nanny Bristol City Council was that paedophiles might get hold of the photos or videos. Sometimes I think this political correctness is going well over the top.
Photos? I hope not! I get into enough trouble what with joining every session and jam in a hundred miles. My sweet wife puts up with a lot especially since she's not in the least interested in performing and / or listening to live music (other than Prince which she paid good money to see and the beer at the arena is thin). I had a theory if I came in with lipstick on my collar, beer on my breath and strands of hair on my shirt (borrowed from the dog), she'd accuse me of faking a romance and sitting in yet another session.
My wife was one of the official photographers at a recent musical event that had over 180,000 people in attendance. She had a helper who followed her around, and got a RELEASE FORM signed from anyone who could be recognized individually in a photo. Not large group photos, but shots where an individual or two would be the focus of the photo. If they would not sign, the pic was deleted (digital cam) on the spot.
This is what should be done when you get people coming in and taking their pics. Ask them if they are prepared to pay you for your "photo session" (as a model certainly would get paid), or at least if they have a release form to sign. Get their info, and tell them if they use the shot, or sell it to someone, you want to know.
All that said, its hard to get all of that, and you really don't want to be caught up in all that whilst simply enjoying your play!
enjoy it, really.
if any of us start getting annoyed and ask people not to take photos, it dampens the fun and enjoyment.
if visitors to the pub, end up taking photos, GREAT! glad that they have enjoyed themselves that much! maybe they may come over to the dark side and end up playing an instrument themself!!!
..and what really gets me, are these people who come up to you and buy you a drink, just because you're playing (or pretending to) in a session. I mean, who gave them the right?
i think photos are a compliment. the photographer infers that who you are, or what you're doing. is interesting but if you are a celebrity reproductions can become very bad:
Today on the walk home I saw a portrait-blend of michael jackson and ET.And both persons were instantly recognizable in the caricature
I work in an industry where the subject of unsolicted photos comes up often. These days when a photograph can be posted on the web, doctored up in photo paint or whatever, it is serious business. I recently found out that a photo taken of me for a very specific purpose for a single film, has been in the possesion of members of the film art department for the last 10 years. It has subsequently appeared in every scene shot in a "police station" since then. On the one hand it's kind of humourous. On the other hand, it's a grand assumption on the part of the art dept that as they know me, it's ok. Truthfully, it's not. I work in a position where the financial management of the project is up to me.. and the photo and slug line depict me as a heroin adict who steals from the company to support her habit. For someone who doesn't know me, they actually could believe that at one time, I was arrested for theft. The photo has been made to look official. I signed a photo release but only to the first film that used it. Everyone else.... well they either owe me money or an apology. I've recently had to chase pavorazzi away from our set and still photos of our lead actress ended up in the Enquirer. We've recently instituted privacy laws, that are quite serious. Basically, taking someone's photo or publishing any information about them without permission... is against the law. It's against the law to posses it. So what happens with the casual photograph on the street? If a person cannot be recognized, it's ok, but if they can... you need permission. Me personally... I hate getting my picture taken and, when asked, I usually say no. It's just not something that I'm comfortable with.
During our trip to Ireland last year we spent a very pleasant evening listening to a session in a pub in Ennis that was unfortunately ruined by a large busload of tourists who arrived with Video Cameras glued to their faces.
I couldn't belive the rudeness of one lady who apparently desided that the flute player (who was sitting down playing with his back to her) would make a great stablizer for her filming, and was leaning on him so hard that he had to stop playing. Eventually she went back to tour group. Taking photos is one thing, but to actively interfer with the playing at a session is something else.
No Photographs!
No Photographs!
This should, hopefully, be a lighthearted discussion but please feel free to be as serious or difficult as you wish!
It's not something that bothers me too much, although it can be distracting at times, but photography seems to be on the increase at sessions these days. The main culprits are often "visitors" to the pub/area/country even, although you get "fanatics" with magazines, web sites etc. Occasionally, "musicians" themselves get carried away with it all. You'd think they'd know better.
So, how do you feel about being constantly "snapped", filmed on camcorder etc while you're just having a good tune. Often it's not the best musicians who have their photographs taken but those who are the most eccentric or photogenic(I fall into the latter category, ha,ha). Is it all quite harmless or an invasion of privacy? After all, you never know where your picture could end up these days. I've come across my own image on different web sites and magazines, in recent years. In some ways, it's quite flattering but I'm sure that everyone doesn't wish this attention--especially, if they're somewhere they shouldn't be.
Let's have your opinions on the matter and you might have some amusing experiences to relate. You can even tell me to stop worrying about it and "get a life". I won't mind.
# Posted on July 31st 2004 by John J.
Re: No Photographs!
Doesn't worry me that much, might worry the likes of Michael Jackson though.
# Posted on July 31st 2004 by Justintime
Re: No Photographs!
Hey John, that's showbiz, man! Don't pretend you don't like smiling for the camera. You ain't foolin' no-one! (Despite the double negative...) Don't the big bucks and endless stream of girls make up for it? C'mon, man, deal with it! Get a life, buddy!
Jim
# Posted on July 31st 2004 by Worldfiddler
Re: No Photographs!
If there are any girls up for grabs, divert em towards me . . strean ,divert, get it?
# Posted on July 31st 2004 by Justintime
Re: No Photographs!
Now you're gonna try and tell me this is going to *branch* off into a sensible discussion??!!
Jim
# Posted on July 31st 2004 by Worldfiddler
Re: No Photographs!
The thing is, though, that I'm just an ordinary guy "and my pockets are empty"(as the song used to go). So, no big bucks and no endless stream of girls, though I've had my moments
.
# Posted on July 31st 2004 by John J.
Re: No Photographs!
When you do ceilidhs, particularly for weddings its a way of life. The thing thats the worst is the massive video camera stuck right in your face when you are trying to call a dance or when you have to do specific dances just so they can get a nice shot on the camera. Mind you revenge is sweet when you suggest video man stands in the centre of the circle and then you instruct the drunken mob (sorry dancers) to rush into the middle making as much noise as possible!!!!
Surreal is when I did a gig for some top celebrities and their friends with a strict "no cameras, mobiles or autograph chasing" instruction to the band ...and the guests took photos and videos of us.
Sarah
# Posted on July 31st 2004 by Sarah the Flute
Re: No Photographs!
...go on then ... the moments...tell all ...go on....what's it like ? Eh? Eh? Go on! tell us! fnaaaaaar fnaaaaaaaaaar....
Jim
# Posted on July 31st 2004 by Worldfiddler
Re: No Photographs!
Hey, publicity is publicity isn't it, good or bad?
Trevor
# Posted on July 31st 2004 by Trevor Jennings
Re: No Photographs!
Seriously though, it's good manners to ask before videoing someone in a session. I've only done it once or twice, like someone's final session in England before he emigrated to Tasmania.
ALWAYS ask permission before videoing a tutor (or anyone else) in a teaching workshop or lesson. This is particularly important with summer schools coming up and the present legal climate regarding photographing or filming children.
Trevor
# Posted on July 31st 2004 by Trevor Jennings
Re: No Photographs!
No, bribajo, it's not the taxman that's my concern. It's the sensitive issue of a perceived danger of child abuse and such-like arising out photos and videos of children.
A particulary bad example of this was a couple of months ago when a few hundred local Bristol schoolchildren gave their annual orchestral and choral concert in Bristol's 2000-seat Colston Hall. This event was very well attended by parents, family and friends, as you'd expect. What was not expected was Bristol City Council's prohibition of any photos or videos of those children performing on stage by anyone in the audience - family, friends, even the local press. Photos and videos of this concert would of course be family treasures and mementoes for decades.
The reason given by the nanny Bristol City Council was that paedophiles might get hold of the photos or videos. Sometimes I think this political correctness is going well over the top.
Trevor
# Posted on August 1st 2004 by Trevor Jennings
Re: No Photographs!
Photos? I hope not! I get into enough trouble what with joining every session and jam in a hundred miles. My sweet wife puts up with a lot especially since she's not in the least interested in performing and / or listening to live music (other than Prince which she paid good money to see and the beer at the arena is thin). I had a theory if I came in with lipstick on my collar, beer on my breath and strands of hair on my shirt (borrowed from the dog), she'd accuse me of faking a romance and sitting in yet another session.
# Posted on August 1st 2004 by jrathbun
Re: No Photographs!
My wife was one of the official photographers at a recent musical event that had over 180,000 people in attendance. She had a helper who followed her around, and got a RELEASE FORM signed from anyone who could be recognized individually in a photo. Not large group photos, but shots where an individual or two would be the focus of the photo. If they would not sign, the pic was deleted (digital cam) on the spot.
This is what should be done when you get people coming in and taking their pics. Ask them if they are prepared to pay you for your "photo session" (as a model certainly would get paid), or at least if they have a release form to sign. Get their info, and tell them if they use the shot, or sell it to someone, you want to know.
All that said, its hard to get all of that, and you really don't want to be caught up in all that whilst simply enjoying your play!
STEPHENjohnson
# Posted on August 1st 2004 by steve johnson
Re: No Photographs!
enjoy it, really.
if any of us start getting annoyed and ask people not to take photos, it dampens the fun and enjoyment.
if visitors to the pub, end up taking photos, GREAT! glad that they have enjoyed themselves that much! maybe they may come over to the dark side and end up playing an instrument themself!!!
hang loose
andy
tightening my helmet straps!!
# Posted on August 1st 2004 by briggfoot
Re: No Photographs!
I don't mind the odd flash during a session, unless they're really ugly.
# Posted on August 1st 2004 by petemay
Re: No Photographs!
Sorry John J, just re-read your post, and you were just asking peoples oppinions, as you can tell from the post above, i dont mind photo's.
andy
# Posted on August 1st 2004 by briggfoot
Re: No Photographs!
..and what really gets me, are these people who come up to you and buy you a drink, just because you're playing (or pretending to) in a session. I mean, who gave them the right?
# Posted on August 1st 2004 by Bren
Re: No Photographs!
I quite like pictures of good sessions I've played in. It helps remembering them.....
# Posted on August 2nd 2004 by snorre
Re: No Photographs!
i think photos are a compliment. the photographer infers that who you are, or what you're doing. is interesting but if you are a celebrity reproductions can become very bad:
Today on the walk home I saw a portrait-blend of michael jackson and ET.And both persons were instantly recognizable in the caricature
# Posted on August 3rd 2004 by vboyd100
Re: No Photographs!
Vboyd, You mean you could distinguish between them!
Trevor
# Posted on August 3rd 2004 by Trevor Jennings
Re: No Photographs!
I work in an industry where the subject of unsolicted photos comes up often. These days when a photograph can be posted on the web, doctored up in photo paint or whatever, it is serious business. I recently found out that a photo taken of me for a very specific purpose for a single film, has been in the possesion of members of the film art department for the last 10 years. It has subsequently appeared in every scene shot in a "police station" since then. On the one hand it's kind of humourous. On the other hand, it's a grand assumption on the part of the art dept that as they know me, it's ok. Truthfully, it's not. I work in a position where the financial management of the project is up to me.. and the photo and slug line depict me as a heroin adict who steals from the company to support her habit. For someone who doesn't know me, they actually could believe that at one time, I was arrested for theft. The photo has been made to look official. I signed a photo release but only to the first film that used it. Everyone else.... well they either owe me money or an apology. I've recently had to chase pavorazzi away from our set and still photos of our lead actress ended up in the Enquirer. We've recently instituted privacy laws, that are quite serious. Basically, taking someone's photo or publishing any information about them without permission... is against the law. It's against the law to posses it. So what happens with the casual photograph on the street? If a person cannot be recognized, it's ok, but if they can... you need permission. Me personally... I hate getting my picture taken and, when asked, I usually say no. It's just not something that I'm comfortable with.
# Posted on August 4th 2004 by ANNY
Re: No Photographs!
During our trip to Ireland last year we spent a very pleasant evening listening to a session in a pub in Ennis that was unfortunately ruined by a large busload of tourists who arrived with Video Cameras glued to their faces.
I couldn't belive the rudeness of one lady who apparently desided that the flute player (who was sitting down playing with his back to her) would make a great stablizer for her filming, and was leaning on him so hard that he had to stop playing. Eventually she went back to tour group. Taking photos is one thing, but to actively interfer with the playing at a session is something else.
# Posted on August 5th 2004 by Ptollemy