|
How SFX discriminates
against digital photographers at it's concert venues
Written by Kevin
Ryan
The other night, I was at The
Meadows Music Center in Hartford, Connecticut enjoying a
concert. I was supposed to have a photo pass waiting for
me at the Will Call window, but for some reason, it wasn't
there. I brought my camera in anyway, figuring that I'd
watch to see if other people were allowed to snap shots
from their seats. If they were, then I'd just do the same.
After seeing three people stand up and take photos of the
first act, and witnessing the venue's security personnel
watch the people take the photos and not say a word, I decided
to pull out my camera and grab a few shots. It seemed to
be OK.
I snapped about a dozen shots
before someone from the venue came over and called me out
of my seat. They told me that I could not take pictures.
I told them that I had seen others do it from their seats
and not get hassled, and that I was given complimentary
tickets to the show by one of the main acts and just wanted
a few shots to go with the concert review. They were for
editorial purposes only. Well, apparently I didn't have
the "right" kind of camera. You see, I shoot with
a digital camera. After all, I run a website, not a print
publication, and shooting digital makes the most sense.
But I'm getting ahead of myself.
They escorted me to an area behind
closed doors and told me that I'd have to bring my camera
out to my car. I pointed out that I was covering the show
in order to do a concert review for my website, that I was
supposed to have a photo pass, and that others in the audience
were taking pictures without a word being said to them.
They told me that the problem was that I was using a digital
camera, and that because of "what you can do with the
photos afterwards," they were not allowed. I pointed
out that a regular photographic print could be scanned in
and modified after the fact, so that argument didn't hold
any water in my eyes. One of the security folks went to
the back to retrieve the guy who handles all dealings with
the press and photographers. Finally, someone who would
understand!
How wrong I was! A thin man looking
like the unholy offspring of Kid Rock and Chris Cornell
entered the area. He introduced himself as Aaron and told
me that I could not take pictures with a digital camera
inside any SFX-owned venue as it was against their rules.
I asked him when the no digital cameras rule was instituted.
He said that it had been in place all of last year. I explained
to him that I had shot several shows at SFX venues last
year, and never once received a copy of these "rules"
with my photo pass. He said, "I personally escort every
photographer into the pit (this would turn out to be a lie,
as I saw a photographer enter the pit later that night with
Aaron nowhere to be seen), and I've never seen you before.
So if you shot some shows last year and I've never met you,
that's a problem. How did you get into the pit?"
Let me stop here for a minute
and expose some of the B.S. this guy was flinging. THERE
WAS NO PHOTOGRAPHY "PIT" AT THIS VENUE LAST YEAR
FOR ANY OF THE SHOWS I PHOTOGRAPHED. You'd think a guy who
knew so much about the venue's rules and the fact that they
were in place all of last year would know that there WAS
NO PIT. When I took photos of Kansas at this venue, I flashed
my photo pass to the security worker and he let me walk
up to the front of the stage and shoot. There was no metal
barrier creating a "pit." Same goes for the Poison/Cinderella/Dokken
show.
When I pressed him about the
rationale behind the digital camera rule, he stated that,
"Video cameras aren't allowed in the venue, and some
digital cameras can shoot video. Since we obviously can't
keep track of which ones can and which ones can't, we just
ban all digital cameras." WHAT?!? To me, the guy may
as well have said, "Crime isn't allowed in this country,
and some foreigners commit crimes. Since we obviously can't
predict which ones will and which ones won't commit crimes,
we just keep them all the hell out." Pure genius, I
tell you.
I tell the guy how ridiculous
that is. Then he tries to tell me that the rule is actually
demanded by almost all of the tours. If the tours really
think it's so damn important, then why have I never received
a note with my photo pass saying, "NO DIGITAL CAMERAS
ALLOWED"? Why, when requesting a photo pass from a
band's publicist, have I never been asked whether I intended
to shoot with a digital camera? Because they don't give
a crap! Classic move - when someone tells you your idea,
rule, whatever is dumb, blame it on someone else. Weak.
So I say to Aaron that he has
basically just told me that I cannot shoot at the largest
concert venue in the state of Connecticut any longer. "I
didn't tell you that," he replies. "Just not with
a digital camera." I explain to him that I run a website,
and it is a waste of my time to shoot with film and have
to scan the photos in, and besides that, I cannot afford
to buy a good, professional film camera. He has the nerve
to say... get this... "Well, that's how Rolling Stone
does it. Their guys shoot with film and the photos get on
the website." OK, first of all... DO I LOOK LIKE I
AM FROM ROLLING STONE? Do I look like I have been given
$10,000 worth of photographic equipment by a major publication?
NO! Secondly, Rolling Stone is primarily a PRINT publication.
Their website is secondary. All I have is a website! DUH!
Personally, I can't wait to see
music publications in about five years when digital cameras
have relegated film cameras to collecting dust on the shelf.
If this digital camera ban takes hold, every music publication
will be filled with five year old stock shots of musicians
instead of new shots of the band on stage! "Wow, Frampton's
really holding up well - he looks as good as he did five
years ago!"
This is digital discrimination.
And I won't stand for it.
|
