[MrCynical]

Actually Marc, I believe many performers copyright the visual or theatrical aspects of their performances just like they copyright the auditory aspects. This is especially true for performers who are also the composers or producers of the material. Just like a motion picture, the entire performance is, or can be, part and parcel of a collectively copyrighted work.

Leaving the copyright IN the performance aside, it's entirely possible for the concert organiser to claim copyright on all photographs taken at the concert (ie own the copyright on the photograph, whether or not the visual performance itself is copyrighted).

Now of course normally a mere property owner (etc.) has no such power. However those present at the concert are admitted to the property only as part of a contract (ie the sale of a ticket). I don't see any reason why that contract couldn't include a term assigning all copyrights in photographs, sound recordings and videos (made without a press pass) to the promoter. So then they can sue for violation of their copyright in the photographs, not violation of any copyright in the visual aspects of the performance - which would also avoid issues of the extent of copyright being different in the various jurisdictions the tour visits.

[RioRico]

Leaving the copyright IN the performance aside, it's entirely possible for the concert organiser to claim copyright on all photographs taken at the concert (ie own the copyright on the photograph, whether or not the visual performance itself is copyrighted).

Which ignore my other point -- that copyright is meaningless unless it is enforced. And ubiquitous recording would necessitate ubiquitous litigation. Imagine an (arbitrary) performance tour, 20 tour dates, 1000 attendees per performance, half of whom are holding up their phonecams and streaming each performance to varied websites in multiple jurisdictions worldwide. That's 10,000 lawsuits per tour. Yow.

To enforce the 'copyright' by pursuing each violator means hiring legions of lawyers. (And pretty soon, audiences stop coming to such performances.) To NOT pursue each violator means the copyright is unenforced and thus worthless. (And pretty soon, all desirable performances are online somewhere, everywhere.)

What to do? Pre-emption: confiscate or zap all devices carried by attendees. (And pretty soon, attendees stop showing up.) Spoiling: render the performance unrecordable. (Again, who'll bother to attend?) Or, submission to the inevitable: let the performance be recorded. ENCOURAGE the performance to be recorded! Take a look at Archive.Org for such, where even big-name performers (and lotsa wannabees) are abundant.

I suspect the fight for IP protection is a losing battle. I suspect that copyright is dead, it just doesn't know it yet. Like if you cut off a brontosaur's head, it takes awhile for the tail to notice.

[Lowell Goudge]

RioRico. The concert promoters don't give a $#!+ about a concert tour that draws 1000 people a night

These tours actually need free advertising to get off the ground. Its the ones that fill a ball park of 50,000 per night that matter

[RioRico]

RioRico. The concert promoters don't give a $#!+ about a concert tour that draws 1000 people a night

These tours actually need free advertising to get off the ground. Its the ones that fill a ball park of 50,000 per night that matter

That's why I said ARBITRARY. That was just for the math. Scale it up to 50k per night for 50 nights with 50% of the audience waving phonecams to stream the shows, and now we're talking REAL FIBER, as they say. 25k lawsuits per show? A million suits per tour? Ubiquitous litigation, indeed.

[Marc Sabatella]

However those present at the concert are admitted to the property only as part of a contract (ie the sale of a ticket). I don't see any reason why that contract couldn't include a term assigning all copyrights in photographs, sound recordings and videos (made without a press pass) to the promoter.

True, but this isn't usually done. They usually just forbid it entirely.

[magkelly]

Once upon a time it used to be near impossible to take a camera into a concert venue sans a press pass. As you walked into the door you had to pass by security people who would check any bag for cameras and who would confiscate them, put them in a baggie with your name on them, and tell you to come to the security office after the show to claim them.

Now faced with multitudes of cameras so tiny that they fit into a pocket you rarely see any venue even trying to stop the fans from bringing in and using their pocket or phone cameras. DSLR's that's another matter. You have something that looks vaguely professional, you might just want to have that press pass or it just might still get confiscated.

Most venues don't really care about the pocket/phone cameras in the crowd. It's the DSLR's and similar film cameras that they are worried about. Cameras capable of professional level photography. With everything having gone palm sized digital they pretty much know that they're out of luck in terms of stopping recordings, video, or pics from happening. When a digicam can fit into your hand there's not much that they can do to stop you from recording the whole concert. Catching you at it is hard and they don't have that much manpower that they can be that vigilant. The battle is already lost.

My favorite bands don't much care for video recorders being used (They like to market their own DVD's for each tour.) but they actually have an open camera policy for pics. In fact they quite often will pay fans who do have great photos for the use of said photos in promotional material. They're pretty decent about people taking pics. In the case of the one band they actually go out of their way to play to the fans and their cameras. They clearly don't mind at all. Pics from the fans do end up in the news from time to time and no one gets mad about it.

This venue they could go after the newspaper, sure, but it would be rather counter productive if they did. It would only create bad publicity for them and make the band in question less likely to book there again in future. There is no such thing as true copyright when it comes to band pics unless they're being used in promo type situations. They fall under the same situation as paparazzi photos at this point. Yeah, they push the question of copyright and image ownership to it's limits, but there's no way you can stop it, not really. If they could every rag mag in the country would be rapidly put out of business.

[Lowell Goudge]

Once upon a time it used to be near impossible to take a camera into a concert venue sans a press pass. As you walked into the door you had to pass by security people who would check any bag for cameras and who would confiscate them, put them in a baggie with your name on them, and tell you to come to the security office after the show to claim them.

Now faced with multitudes of cameras so tiny that they fit into a pocket you rarely see any venue even trying to stop the fans from bringing in and using their pocket or phone cameras. DSLR's that's another matter. You have something that looks vaguely professional, you might just want to have that press pass or it just might still get confiscated.

this is called discrimination. while I can understand that a DSLR in capable hands can produce superior images, I can't accept or agree to a policy where they let some cameras in and not others. If the conditions are NO PHOTOGRAPHY, that applies to all, not some

Most venues don't really care about the pocket/phone cameras in the crowd. It's the DSLR's and similar film cameras that they are worried about. Cameras capable of professional level photography. With everything having gone palm sized digital they pretty much know that they're out of luck in terms of stopping recordings, video, or pics from happening. When a digicam can fit into your hand there's not much that they can do to stop you from recording the whole concert. Catching you at it is hard and they don't have that much manpower that they can be that vigilant. The battle is already lost.

if this is the case, they should remove the clauses, but they don;t and in venues where there is a no photography rule, I have seen people asked to stop, and if they do not they are removed. All that is required is proper enforcement. If they do not attempt to enforce the policy or if they enforce it non uniformly, then it can easily be argued that the policy does not exist.

My favorite bands don't much care for video recorders being used (They like to market their own DVD's for each tour.) but they actually have an open camera policy for pics. In fact they quite often will pay fans who do have great photos for the use of said photos in promotional material. They're pretty decent about people taking pics. In the case of the one band they actually go out of their way to play to the fans and their cameras. They clearly don't mind at all. Pics from the fans do end up in the news from time to time and no one gets mad about it.

this is a more enlightened view, but not universally accepted.

This venue they could go after the newspaper, sure, but it would be rather counter productive if they did. It would only create bad publicity for them and make the band in question less likely to book there again in future. There is no such thing as true copyright when it comes to band pics unless they're being used in promo type situations. They fall under the same situation as paparazzi photos at this point. Yeah, they push the question of copyright and image ownership to it's limits, but there's no way you can stop it, not really. If they could every rag mag in the country would be rapidly put out of business.

One thing that some people may need to consider, and I have not seen this yet in the thread, is that photography can be very disturbing, especially to those around the photographer. part of the issue may also be consideration to the ones next to you.

[The Pentaxian]

MRRiley (above 09-17-2010 11:04 AM), is correct in as far as I know. Here in Australia, the media do this all the time. Not only with events, but with news worthy items as well. I have been told that any photograph, that has an added caption, automatically becomes a press release. Well, that is as I understand it in this country at least. The media generally pay alot for photos, as we all know. But I'm sure they save a bucket, across the board, when the images are given to them without the sender reading the "We Steal Your Copyright" blurb. Sydney had a Photographers rally just recently. With the emphasis being on the same restrictions that are being put in place all around the globe. In this country it is illegal to take a photograph of the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Yet there are hundreds of webcams all around the harbour. And thousands of tourists there every week. I often wonder, just what the real reason is, why photography is being persued the way it is today. I'm not saying that there is a conspiracy here. All I am saying is that it smacks of somekind of image/photographer registration process. Which means, if that is correct, that every image will probably have a number attached to it. And every person whom owns a camera, of anykind, will have to have a license. And at the end of the day, somebodies going to get even richer!