No photographs please

Subject: No photographs please
From: Johnny J
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 08:02 AM

I realise that I'm probably very much in the minority here as everybody seems to want to be an exhibitionist these days and post photographs of themselves, their family, and pet cat on all the web sites in the world for everyone to see. That's up to them, of course.

However, I'm afraid that every time I see these pesky photographers wandering around gigs, sessions, workshops(even) with their cameras I can't help but get irritated.
Fair enough, if the performers give permission but the audiences should be left in peace. Also, I like to "enjoy a tune" in a session or a have a dance at a ceilidh with worrying about my privacy being constantly invaded.

Of course, I've no objection to friends taking my photograph especially if I'm asked first but I don't want to stumble upon my picture posted on some website or have all my "bum notes" available for everyone to enjoy on You Tube.

As I say, I'm probably a lone voice here but maybe there a few others out there who agree with me but are just "too nice" to complain?

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Will Fly
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 08:12 AM

Johnny, I think you're perfectly entitled to as much privacy as you want and should certainly tell would-be photographers if you want to retain it.

Personally, I'm an old musical tart and couldn't care less if people stick a camera up me nose - musical faults and all - but I certainly don't allow anything more personal than this on the internet if I can help it. Most people I know who take photos at gigs - and they're mainly the organisers - have the courtesy to ask if they can use the pic(s) on the net before just posting them there.

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Jack Campin
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 08:20 AM

I have no problem with it (and hardly anybody I know does) - what I do have a problem with is people not sending me a copy of the picture/video, or a link to it. I usually give photographers my card whe I know they've taken a picture - I get a reply about 5% of the time.

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: alex s
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 08:21 AM

I'm with you JJ - it's not so bad if they ask but many don't. we have several clips on youtube we didn't know about or necessarily want shown.

last weekend I was playing at a festival and got a bit annoyed with a chap who kept sticking a camera with a massive flash in my face as i was singing. the classic Derek Brimstone line "I wish you'd get that bloody lighter fixed" got a laugh but didn't make me feel any less pissed off.

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Mary Katherine
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 10:33 AM

A friend of mine who is a professional musician once chided a photographer who was being very annoying, big bright flash going off every few minutes, even during quiet, powerful unaccompanied songs - totally breaking the mood for both performer and audience.
He said: "You are destroying the moment in order to preserve it."

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Mooh
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 10:44 AM

Discovering photos of myself, ones I obviously wasn't aware were taken, was a little disconcerting at first. These days I guess I'm past the point of concern and simply accept that there are some things I cannot change. Sometimes such photos are a pleasant surprise, other times not. Not being particularly photogenic has helped.

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: GUEST,Jiggers
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 10:45 AM

yep - I hate it when someone starts to film the event in front of you so that all you can see is the wee brightly lit led screen. I hate it when someone moves in front of you to get a better a view thus blocking yours.

I hate it when an event is ruined by people's gadgets. What is more distracting than someone trying to be sooo discrete that they draw all attention to themselves as they move slowly into their discrete position like a stalker after some game.

Maybe there should be an announcement before any concert to say that photography is not allowed or perhaps there should be a 5 minute photo-window at the end or something like that.

I hate it when people buy rustly sweets at the cinema or crunchy popcorn. Whats worse is when they try and be discreet and open the sweets more slowly - just prolongs the agony - see parallel with 'discrete' phtographers. The cinemas sell these things so its partly their fault. I don't go to the cinema any more as these people just disgust me too much.

rant - fume - rant

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Crowhugger
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 10:48 AM

Johnny J, are you talking about professional photographers or the public taking souvenir stills and/or video?

Whether I'm performing or watching, I find them both annoying when they go overboard. I would be happiest if the pros would not get between performer and audience, nor use flash unless authorized by the performer. The clear exception IMO would be if the event is clearly billed in advance as a video-recording or photography session so that the audience knows up front that the priority is good camera angles, and that they may be in some of the shots.

These days cameras are everywhere. Often I've found them pointed at me and my dogs. I go immediately to the person and let them know please don't take any pictures of my dogs or me. One guy demanded to know why not--it astonished me that he didn't understand the most basic privacy issue. Duh, because I don't want you to!

But back to performance situations: The public is a hard thing to control with a video-recorder in every cell phone.

Intellectual property is how artists make their bread and butter, so where is the line between souvenir shots and theft? My a cappella quartet was hired for a BIA sidewalk sale last weekend, and perhaps the apparently spontaneous nature of the singing made people feel free to record. Several times, fully 50% of passers-by who stopped also whipped out their phones and started recording. (Yes, we're fairly good, but still that seems a high percentage!) We have an image to maintain and we deal with copyrights and permissions, yet the public usually thinks little, perhaps cares less about the fact that we want to control whether and where our image appears.

This has not been an issue at our formal performances. We are unknown enough not to be invaded by loads of thoughtless, unsolicited photographers. Our audiences themselves have been very respectful. A bit of an afterthought: Does alcohol play a role in some camera excess? We typically perform in unlicensed venues.

~CH.

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: wysiwyg
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 10:50 AM

I not only agree with Johnny, but our church website photo policy is pretty much along his preferred lines.

~S~

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: GUEST,erbert
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 10:59 AM

Perform with a very prominent notice on your guitar
or pinned under the front of your neckline.

"The Amateurish Photographer who took,
and published this image/video
without my permission
is an irritating insensitive sneaky c@nt"


..well.. errrm.. it's one practical option....


When I catch one of those cowardly annoying gits in the corner of my eye
trying to secretly snap me as some kind of 'local character curiosity'
at public events
I usually just turn and glare aggresively directly at their telephoto lense
and mouth "f@ck off" and trust to their lip reading skills..

It usually works..

and is quite satisfying and amusing.


I blame Photography hobbyist magazine cometitions
and evening class tutors setting the usual old unimaginative
beginners 'photojournalism' projects.

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: C-flat
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 11:01 AM

I'm not ever bothered by photography but have been slightly irritated to have been "You-Tubed" without my knowledge. Especially as both picture & sound quality was so poor from a mobile-phone recording.
In truth, I wouldn't have minded if was a flattering, or even fair, representation, but it wasn't.
Whoever posted it must have been having a good time and thought it worth sharing I suppose....

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: mauvepink
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 11:16 AM

I'm with Johnny J too. Cameras make me very nervous and the mere hint of one will have me missing chords and my words. I do that anyway, with little encouragement, but having to avoid shots and keeping one's head down when singing is not conducive to a good time. I know a great many photophobic people too. Flash is irritating and some cameras are plain noisy too. Being behind someone who is up and down like a yo-yo, keep taking shots and flashing all over the place, can also be off putting and annoying. All I want to do is sit and listen/watch the performer without somone's hand and phone/camera keep obscuring my view.

IF someone wants a photo they should wait until the break and ASK the performer would they mind a picture being taken

Cameras are not allowed at a great many events and it seems like folk clubs may sone be on that list sooon too because of inconsiderate flashers!

mp

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Deckman
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 11:18 AM

I have a damaged retina which resulted in my being VERY sentitive to flashes from cameras. Not too long ago at a jam session, this photographer asked permission of everyone in the room to take photos. I asked him not too, but he wouldn't take no for an answer. For the next few minututes, we would sneak out behind a post, or a corner and FLASH ... and it felt like a needle in my eye, again! I considered shooting him, but my gun was 30 miles away. bob(deckman)nelson

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 11:31 AM

Have a look at this collection

A valuable resource, a great record of times past or should your man have been kicked out on his arse?

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Johnny J
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 11:45 AM

"A valuable resource, a great record of times past "

That's as maybe but at least these pictures are of professional performers or, at least, people who had chosen to be in the public eye. Preferably, their permission should have been asked, of course.

However, for an ordinary guy(or gal) just going about his or her business it's a completely different matter. Yet, these "snappers" and "You Tubers" still think they have a divine right to capture and display your activities for everyone to see.

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: wysiwyg
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 11:56 AM

Deckman, you raise another issue which our parish policy also covers, which is that no FLASH wedding photos during the service are permitted. The person performing the service has to be able to read the legal language, and those flashes blind the clergyperson.

The bride and her mother understand-- this is covered in the wedding rehearsal: It's a sad wedding where the officiant has to say into his mic, "We all want this wedding to be able to hold up in court, don't we? So now we will pause for several minutes while my eyes recover enough from that FLASH to read the legal language that follows. Talk among yourselves; I'll be back in a little bit."

~Susan

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: mauvepink
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 11:58 AM

A great many of those pictures in that resource look staged and deliberate portraits. I am not saying that photographs should not be taken, either for posterity or for personal use, but the unus should be towards due consideration and respect of both performer and audience.

People's privacy has to be considered. I know one couple who often leave a club early once the cameras start flashing. They both cannot afford to be seen together for family reasons. Are their rights less than that of a person with a camera? They go to play and listen to music not be photographed and published. Why should the pleasure and need of the photographer be greater than theirs?

I love taking photographs of all sorts of places and situations but I do not assume I have the right to take pictures just anywhere and of everyone. In my job it is a sackable offence to allow photography of my clients without their express permission and due consideration of possible repercussions on them.


One would not dream of standing up in the middle of a major opera/concert and flashing away to get a picture of the performer/orchestra. You would get thrown out. Flash is banned at most golf events (and some cameras). Flash is banned at motorcycle events (and for me should be banned at Rally events too) for safety reasons. Why should consideration be too much to expect from people with cameras? I suspect that there is greater leniency in folk clubs because 'folkies' generally are more tolerant of other's misgivings, with a general "live and let live" philosophy being the norm.

Consideration of others must surely be part of being a 'folkie'?

mp

PS I guess if I considered fellow folkies I should give up singing ;-) lol

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: GUEST,erbert
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 12:01 PM

thanks for the link to that Folk Celebrity photo site Peter.


errrr.. I can't find the candid
'Upskirts & Nips - slips'

or 'Happy Slapping' section...????

I guess most of that photo library must have been collected
long before the mass introduction of camera phones
and the internet.

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 12:16 PM

There are a good few 'candid' shots of non professional musicians among Brian Shuel's collection. As well as commissioned work. The Anne Briggs ones for example strike me as someone singing in a folkclub. Would we be better off is they hadn't been taken?

I fully agree flash is a last option only although there are situations where it's unavoidable.

Tolerance is something that isn't one sided, I have said it before here: people go to gigs with different expectations and purposes and there is plenty of room to accomodate them all.

I mean, how would the reaction be if someone started complaining about 'those pesky dancers' who block the view of the audience and make a racket while they're at it as well.

Below two slideshows I posted about on another thread some days ago. Nobody complained and no flash was used. The event was the Willie Clancy Summer School in Co Clare.


WCSS 1

WCSS 2

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 12:18 PM

I'm with Johnny J, Alex S, and C-flat regarding video without permission.
Especially taken with cell-phones.

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: GUEST,Waddon Pete on the move
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 12:23 PM

Hello,

I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle of the excellent observations made. I think that if you stand on a festival stage or in front of a booth or perform on the street, then you must expect that people will want to photograph you. That's one thing. No problem with a personal memory recorded for posterity. Putting that photo or video on a social interaction web-site is another matter entirely.

I think that venues (whatever size or type) should have notices that prohibit photography. Many do. Something similar to the "No smoking" signs that we are well used to. If you run an organisation or a singing session etc. then you should know what your policy is towards people with cameras. There will always be those who don't give a stuff, of course. To deal with this the social web-sites need to be much more sympathetic to taking down images and film clips that those featured in do not want displayed.

Best wishes,

Peter

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: open mike
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 12:47 PM

hey, in that Collections photograph of Tom Paley, can anyone i.d. the autoharp player pictured with him?

And, I agree, that videos with poor sound, light, and made by people who can't hold thier camera still should not be posted on any public site. It is curteous (and should be required) to allow the artist to review it and not post unless approval is given.

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 01:04 PM

Keywords for the Tom Paley shot includes : Peggy Seeger.

That should answer your question.

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Crowhugger
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 01:10 PM

Deckman, in the situation you describe clearly the photographer was not seeking permission but coercion.

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: open mike
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 01:29 PM

that's who i thought it was...sorry did not see small print..

they were both such kids back then!

Whenever I video tape any performers, I have a written permission form I ask them to sign first...

we are just now working on archiving 10 years of t.v. music recordings
from a local show. 300 shows!

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Art Thieme
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 02:30 PM

Some o' the people can be offended by everything some of the time
And some of the people can be offended by part of it all of the time
Some never are offended by most everything and some can just go and work on ignoring the shit that doesn't matter a whit anyhow as far as I'm concerned.


Go to
http://rudegnu.com/art_thieme.html
There you will find examples of how I apparently committed a heinous crime by snapping my shutter.

Jeez you people piss me off some of the time!---------Art

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 02:40 PM

Art, rudegnu requires a password for your site.

---

See explanation below - user name and password are both "Mudcat."
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: wysiwyg
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 04:49 PM

...I think that if you stand on a festival stage or in front of a booth or perform on the street, then you must expect that people will want to photograph you....

Yes, and cell pix abound. That is why we went from requiring a release before ANY shot was taken to a policy that "public figgers" (handily they are wearing vestments) are fair game unless they state otherwise.

How they tell us? They don't make a face when the camera comes out. Cuz if they did we wouldn't click THAT shot-- it would be useless. Now for you musos-- I'd love a shot of Seamus glaring, but he's a nice guy, so I'd ask first. :~)

What is really reveling is when one becomes a victim of one's own policy. I liked our policy fine-- till they showed up to take MY picture. Th policy morphed a bit after I had to walk in their shoes! :~) But then a good policy is always in draft form.

~S~

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 05:39 PM

There are several strands to this.

For the professional performer, photographs of their performance belong in their revenue stream, and unpermitted snappers are no better than copyright (or performance right) thieves.   


Then there are rights of privacy. We haven't got much of one here in the UK yet, and different states in the USA have different ones there and various parts of the EU differ too. I am not wholly sympathetic to those who might get sued for divorce if seen with an extramarital squeeze. I'm all in favor of adultery, but if you're going to do it for Christ's sake have the balls the carry the can back.

But there is something much more sinister. I know of several people who have been snapped (or videod) in all innocence in a largely amateur setting, by a (presumably) innocent enthusiast. The enthusiast puts the stuff up on his or another website, and bingo the Chimpanzee Party steals the image and processes it into a still pretending that you are playing a support gig in favour of der Neue Fueher whereas you'd rather kiss a camel's arse (which der Neue Feuhrer so resembles).

Then, of course, the USAian operators of Youboob, Mucky Spakky, Pigg and so on refuse to take the offending photo down allegedly because of the First Amendment.

There is part of a way round this. If the terms of entry to a place of performance include a term that the copyright in any photographs or films taken there vest in the operator of the event (or other person of choice) then a takedown notice under the DMCA can be sent.

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: BobKnight
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 06:09 PM

In the UK, it is not illegal to photograph someone, "In the public domain." You don't need their permission to take photographs.

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Jack Campin
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 07:50 PM

If you are sitting in a bar playing your guitar with the punters as an audience, you are every bit as much a performer as if you were walking down the high street on stilts in a lurex bikini juggling live gerbils. Getting photographed comes with the role you've chosen to adopt.

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: wysiwyg
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 07:55 PM

..you are every bit as much a performer as if you were walking down the high street on stilts in a lurex bikini juggling live gerbils...

Oh, can I use that part in my website policy!?!?!??

Please?

~S~

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Charley Noble
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 09:05 PM

I'm not sure what to do. I don't like invading someone privacy but if they are performing before the public, as opposed to a private special event, then I think they are an appropriate subject to be photographed. However, no one should get in their face with a flash camera or stand in front of them blocking the view of the audience of their performance. If you have a decent lens you can take pictures much more discretely.

The second question is what one can ethically do with such photos. On one extreme no one should do anything commercially without getting a release from the performer. On the other extreme I would think most performers would be delighted to get some free publicity on a public forum such as ours or Facebook, as long as they were identified and the photos were showing them doing good work. However, I certainly would object if someone published embarrassing images of myself or other performers; it's easy to take such pictures but rude to post them.

If I know before hand that someone is adverse to being photographed I would certainly respect that. But seldom does one know that in a festival situation. I don't have a clue who "Johnny J" is (or if he or she even exists) but if I see the name on a list of performers I will find someone else to photograph. There's lots of choice.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Tyke
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 10:56 PM

Personally I find that taking the Photographs of Performers is a bit boring. The most popular ones I ever took were when I use infrared film as all the fokies grey hairs turned black. The use of a Red Filters on the Lens and Flash were also less off putting. People who blast away from the back of the room with a camera phone or compact camera will get some brilliant photos of the backs of peoples heads. You need to be able to hold your Camera still and use a fast film or the equivalent setting on your digital device. If you post a Video on UTube you are stating that you have permission to do so! If you are the performer you can complain and ask UTube to remove the offending Video.

The word Snapshot was born with the birth of photography and before taking a Snapshot was technically possible. To take covert Portraits of people needs a lot of thought trying to sneak about defeats the object. Most photographic devices are set up to take photographs in good light and their built in flash are usually only good at short distances from the subject. Your Video camera has sound so the nearest sound to your camera will be louder than the band on stage.

We are all photographed and filmed hundreds of times a day by CCTV as soon as you go out of the door. A friend of mine was telling me how her son asked her what she thought of a photograph of a packet of cigarettes on a table. Then he explained that he had taken that photo that morning whilst sitting at his office desk in London and that the Table and Cigarettes were outside a café in Brazil. So don't go making Whoopee Ilkley on Moor unless it's Cloudy and Overcast or you risk having your Photo taken of you without you hat on.

You are not allowed to take photos if you are on private land or to take Photographs of a Judge in his or her robes you are risking contempt of Court charge just taking pictures of the outside of the Court and inside is a definite NO! Having taken a photograph in a public place of a person without his or her permission you cannot use his or her image to advertise his or her endorsement of a product. In short you can hide in the bushes that have public access to them and take photographs of Royalty having her toes sucked by the side of her private swimming pool. But you can't use that image to warn people about the dangers of Foot and Mouth.

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Effsee
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 11:03 PM

Bob Knight is correct to a degree. But I think the actual term is a "Public place" which would exclude folk clubs and concerts etc.
Street performers such as buskers would be fair game I suppose.

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: GUEST,erbert
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 11:15 PM

"Voyeur Right Angle Spy Lens" £39.00

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Opteka-Voyeur-Right-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001TQ4X7U/ref=sr_1_1/277-4187296-6070666?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&q

"Point your camera one way and shoot the other with this right angle lens attachment.
This lens will allow you to film directly to the right or left of where your camera appears to be pointing.
Built-in rotating barrel to allow height adjustments. People will think you are shooting somewhere else.
This lens can be a valuable asset when shooting video (or still pictures) at the beach,
pool, and other public places."


..only few years ago some depraved guy got reported and arrested
for using a very similar cheap and easily purchased lens
sneaking photos of children
changing in and out of swimming costumes at a local beach...


.. But this is a perfectly legal product.
Of course there must be a perfectly legitimate reason
for purchasing and owning such a lens..

errrm.. fooling shy river mammals into thinking
you're taking photos of show-off ducks and geese...?????

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 12:13 AM

Hi, Peter Laban-
Go back to the Art Thieme photo site and read the fine print. You'll find that both the user name and password are Mudcat.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Johnny J
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 01:24 AM

Charlie,

I certainly exist and if you ever happen to see my name on "a list of performers" or advertised as playing a gig somewhere (Unlikely as I don't push myself as a performer), you would probably be welcome..within reason.. to take a photograph.

However, if I'm just going about my business... I would regard participation in a pub session or dancing at a ceilidh a social activity... I'd rather be left alone. Whether or not being photographed is legal or otherwise, I don't have to like it.

Jack says

"If you are sitting in a bar playing your guitar with the punters as an audience, you are every bit as much a performer as if you were walking down the high street on stilts in a lurex bikini juggling live gerbils. Getting photographed comes with the role you've chosen to adopt. "

Now this very much depends on whether or not you consider a pub session to be a performance and whether or not punters in a bar are an audience. There's varying views about this.

However, by the same token, someone playing darts or snooker would probably fall into the same category. After all, these are games/sports which punters pay to see in certain circumstances and are often televised. However, if you indiscriminately started filming people doing this at your local pub you'd probably end up with a punch in the mouth or worse.

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 04:50 AM

I never take a camera to an indoor gig, I would feel I was intruding. Recently, musicians I've seen have been setting up video cameras to record their own gigs and one band I see every week has 2 wives/significant others who take still photos & video all the way through, what they do with the ones they don't use on websites, Youtube and CD covers I don't know. Oh,yes, they've now put some on T-shirts! The joy of digital is they can assess the week's performance & then delete, I suppose. Makes it difficult to deter the audience from doing the same. Camera phones, don't get me started on them....

RtS

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Will Fly
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 06:47 AM

walking down the high street on stilts in a lurex bikini juggling live gerbils

Live gerbils... mmmm...

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 07:09 AM

The beauty of today's modern technology is that many camera fit nicely into the offenders half full pint pot :o)

D

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 07:20 AM

Wouldn't that get you a prosecution by the RSPCA, for subjecting animals to unnecessary stress?

Don T

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 07:22 AM

After all, a Lurex bikini would frighten most humans.

DT

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: meself
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 12:52 PM

I have no problem being photographed or filmed while I'm on stage - a rare enough event that it deserves to be recorded, like a sighting of the swamp hog - but when I'm busking, it's a different matter. I find it quite rude for someone to walk up and take my picture or start filming, especially as I can be quite certain that they will feel no impulse to support my presence monetarily. On the other hand, if they ask first, or merely make an inquisitive gesture with a combination of camera and eyebrows, or toss something into the case, then I don't mind - although I still don't particularly relish the moment.

I think I would feel differently about it if my act consisted of something more like walking down the high street on stilts in a lurex bikini juggling live gerbils. But when I'm just standing there singing a song or playing a tune and mostly being ignored by passers-by, until some dolt steps up with a camera, snaps, and walks away - well, as I say, it strikes me as rude.

Not much I can do about it, of course, and, don't worry, I don't expect a whole lot of sympathy.

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Jayto
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 01:04 PM

I feel that as soon as I enter the public eye on any gig my privacy is gone. I am giving permission to be photographed by simply showing up. There is no way to step out of you house in modern society and be private. If you step onstage you are not only without privacy you are asking people to look at you. This means you are giving permission to be photgraphed, video taped, recorded by voice recorders, you name it. I understand people not liking it but that is just how it is. My cigarette pack takes up more space in my pocket than my voice recorder. I have friends that are almost to the point of paranoia over being recorded or filmed (although I can't think of any that worry about pics). That is just a part of the game to me. Not that I seek out people taping or snapping pics but I just know it is inevitable. I really have no problems with it at all. Actually I think it is really funny bc I have no clue as to why anyone would want to pics, videos, or recordings of me but... haha

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: GUEST,Songbob
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 01:19 PM

Well, I am not at all happy when a flash-using photog gets all "capture the moment while destroying it," either, but what really gets me is the tendency of people to post all their photos, rather than just the good 'uns, on websites. I've gotten some really nice photos of myself and others I make music with from Getaway and WFF and musical-gathering 'diaries,' and I appreciate seeing those. I even like the photos I'm not in, sometimes.

But when they post seventeen photos of the same Morris team, shot from too far away and all looking the same, complete with a spectators' elbow in the frame, not to mention the sun flare and slightly sloppy focus, that just gets my goat. If you're going to take pictures, you probably have some sense of artistic feeling, so use that and choose the three or four best ones, maybe crop or enlarge and fix the red-eye (there are free and cheap options -- you don't have to spring the big bucks for PhotoShop). You'd think that pride would call for doing this, if nothing else.

Also, there is a place for the snapshot, breaking the rules I just mentioned, to present a feeling for an event others may have been at or even missed. "Last night's house-party" pictures, even with the not-so-carefully-chosen shots, can be fine. But if it's going onto a more permanent website, like Art's, mentioned above, use your head. Post the best ones, and you'll get more attention than if you just unload the camera chip and post it.

Sounding like a grump, just because it's too freaking hot to go outdoors (I'm even working from home), I remain

Yours truly,

Bob Clayton

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Jayto
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 01:27 PM

Haha I hear you on the grumpiness because it is too hot outside. It is currently 93 (33 C)degree F with a heat index of 103 degrees F (39 C)here right now. Normally around 3pm is the hottest part of the day so I hate to see what it is going to be this afternoon. Yep I am not too happy myself :)

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Jayto
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 01:32 PM

Just read it is suppose to hit 98 degree F (36 C) with a heat index of 108 degrees F (42 C) later today. They hit us with a heat advisory telling everyone to limit going outside. Thanks for reminding me haha jk.

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: breezy
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 01:55 PM

OK , so I play on the great outdoors and busk

along comes a person with a view of including me in their shot


Some ask first , thats good manners of course I say its fine.

Some dont and still drop a coin, to me thats honesty.

Some take a sneaky shoy and walk away even pretending they havent.

What would you call that ?

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Jayto
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 02:07 PM

Fine. haha I really don't have a problem with it at all. I mean I really don't expect any privacy anytime I play in public. I would get mad if someone walked in my living room and snapped a shot without asking or something to that nature but if I am out in public playing or talking in a public setting I do not expect privacy. In my opinion I am opening myself up to it by opening myself up to the public. I am not saying anyone is wrong for seeing it differently but to me if I play out in front of people then I am waiving any ounce of privacy I may want to preserve. If I don't want pics of my family I don't take them. If I don't want to be photographed I don't go. I get magazines (music and social indie magazines) all the time and open them to find pics of me that I never knew were taken. Some of them I am playing music and other times they are more private pics of me and my fiancee just hanging out talking to people or listening to a band. One pic in particular I was drinking a beer on the side walk smoking a cigarette and hanging with a friend from NYC I hadn't seen in a while. Why? Who knows but to some people they think it is cool just to see it I guess. Stardom and all that does not appeal to me at all and I am FAR FAR from that but I know that if people appreciate what you do they are going to do those type of things. I know by playing alot of gigs and being really active in the music scene and art scene in general you are going to give up a certain amount of privacy. That is just part of it in modern society. I can understand other peoples frustration and opposition to it but there is really little you can do about it. There are plenty of times I wished noone had photographed me. There have been times I have been furious bc of it. Really it was over my mood at the time of the pic or something like that though. I was not mad the pic was shot it was bc I was having a horrible night or was in a horrible mood or something and would rather forget about the whole night instead of sitting there looking at it all over again. For the most part though I have no problem with it at all.