/ Technology

Look with your eyes, not with your iPhone

Smartphones recording at a live event

A great photo or video clip can capture a special moment, but it might be at the expense of the audience members around you. Should you be able to record and photograph at concerts and other live events?

Two years ago I went to see the legendary Prince perform at Camden’s Roundhouse. The superstar’s band, 3RDEYEGIRL, urged the attentive crowd to watch with our eyes and not with our iPhones – a gentle reminder that Prince didn’t appreciate his audience recording his performance.

I was very much appreciative of Prince’s rule. The gentle sway of arms holding Zippo lighters has increasingly been replaced by the lights of smartphones, all set to recording, Periscoping, Snapchatting or whatever else the socially able youth do these days.

Recording live performances

And it’s clearly a problem that Apple sees profit in tackling. Last week Apple secured the patent to block iPhone cameras from recording at live events. The patented technology will use an infrared beam to prevent photography and videoing on iPhones.

As someone who really does find serial gig recorders quite irritating, I’d be glad to see this technology in action. In my personal opinion, if you’ve spent the money on buying a ticket to see a live performance, you should really be observing it yourself and not via a camera lens.

Fun without your phone

Going back to Prince and 3RDEYEGIRL, there I was boogieing my way through ‘Raspberry beret’, ‘Little red corvette’, ‘Kiss’, ‘Let’s go crazy’ and many more legendary tunes for the near two-hour set, and you know what? I managed it without even the slightest inclination to take a photo, record a video or post anything on my Facebook profile.

But others just couldn’t resist the temptation, and I bet they wish they did soon after. Those who did disobey Prince’s request were sternly reminded ‘No photos, no videos’, followed by an extremely powerful torch repeatedly flashed at the camera lens, presumably so that taking a photo or video was impossible. The offenders were then swiftly uprooted from the crowd and dragged out of the venue. Really it wasn’t worth the risk.

What’s more, as someone who invariably ends up with the tallest person on the planet in front of me, I do struggle to see what’s going on in any case. The problem only compounds itself when someone whips out a phone to start snapping away. So I’m anticipating this Apple feature and hope other tech can soon follow suit for the benefit of both the audience and the performers.

Over to you

So would you, like me, welcome this technology for use at live events, or do you think the audience has a right to record?

Should people be allowed to record live performances on their phone?

No - they should enjoy the performance in person (51%, 813 Votes)

Maybe - just a short video or photo is fine (31%, 499 Votes)

Yes - they should be able to capture memories (18%, 290 Votes)

Total Voters: 1,602

Loading ... Loading ...

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Each one IS a ‘one off’.
And yes, you are paying a premium to watch it!
So why, having paid that premium, would you want to NOT watch it?
i.e. by fiddling with your phone throughout the performance.
And why would you want to interfere with the enjoyment of others (mostly behind you) who have also paid a premium to watch the performance?
Especially when the result is likely to be a really not very good video, with lots of backs of people’s heads, and pretty poor sound quality!
What are you going to do with this recording? Are you seriously going to watch it again?

There are similarities in buying a CD.
Doing so gives you the right to play the disc in a ‘private environment’.
But it does NOT give you the right to play it ‘in public’, nor to make copies of it.
Likewise, buying a ticket for a concert entitles you to watch & listen. But NOT to make recordings.
Many people infringe the ‘copyright’ rules, but it is actually illegal.
Money? Yes, money is relevant here. Money that the artist deserves to receive for their creative work.
If you buy a CD and copy it for all your friends, you are depriving the artist of their due income.
Ahhh … but why should they get paid for it? Especially when they seem to be having so much fun, AND getting paid!?
Would you work for free? Would you even be able to work for free?
How would you eat, pay rent, travel? Or buy musical instruments, pay for studio time etc.?

Ultimately, a performance is and should be special.
A special fleeting moment in your life, here to enjoy as it is in the present.
You don’t need to record everything, and keep copies forever of every concert you go to.
It’s pointless. It’s a waste of time.
And, most of all, it’s annoying to other people who DO want to experience LIVE music.
Not a recording … actual, real LIVE music.

Where there are large gatherings of people it is imperative to have a degree of regulation to protect both the public and the entertainers. For example at Wimbledon all still photographs, film, video tape and other audio-visual material recorded within the Grounds may not be sold or used commercially in any way whatsoever, unless authorised by the AELTC and may be confiscated if such sale or commercial use is suspected.

Flash photography, for obvious reasons is a definite no no at Wimbledon, and spectators are advised that the use of flash photography from the stands is strictly forbidden. At other large events there are people who suffer from epilepsy to be considered.

The Murray v Raonic final is imminent and someone has decided to operate a chain saw in the immediate vicinity!!!

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Doesn’t happen at the Ballet.

I think the emergence of this technology does need thinking about beyond the etiquette of pop concerts. Thinking of recent events in America, what if it were routinely deployed by the police and security services to prevent the use of phone cameras during street protests or other incidents?

I laughed at Ian’s remark that this is not a problem at the ballet. Indeed, thankfully, most live opera and drama productions and classical music concerts are not affected by this craze during the actual performance. But it is increasingly annoying at art galleries and museums to have people pushing to the front to take a snap of a painting or exhibit and then they move swiftly on to the next; they often work in little groups all getting the same shot. Perhaps they study them in detail afterwards and wonder why they cannot get the impasto.

I seem to remember a proposal (was it in the EU) that we would not be allowed to take pictures of many buildings because the designer/developer/owner owned the copyright? I googled it and from Mail Online 23/6/15 found “A proposed EU law could see photographers punished for breach of copyright if they snap famous landmarks and works of art in public spaces.
The UK, and several other EU member states, enjoy ‘freedom of panorama’, which allows pictures of copyrighted works in public spaces, such as the London Eye or the Angel of the North, to be used both privately and for profit.
However, the proposed changes to EU-wide law would require snappers to obtain permission from the copyright holder, even if the landmark, building or work of art is in the background of a picture.

I don’t know the outcome but it wasn’t mentioned by the brexiteers so maybe it was voted down.

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3136945/Absurd-new-EU-law-mean-ll-face-legal-action-taking-pictures-famous-landmarks-Photos-punished-breach-copyright.html#ixzz4E1eqtlkE
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I think the papers raked up a lot of “proposed EU laws” during the referendum campaign in order to prove the point that we were suffering abominably under the yoke of interference from Brussels. Many of them were shown to be figments of the imagination but they clearly had the intended effect. I think the selfie craze will fade away as some other novelty emerges.

This proposal was not referendum related, it was proposed over a year ago. But nuts, wasn’t it?

AIUI (and which was notably omitted from the DFM headline) the proposal only applied to the use of photos in commercial applications, such as advertising. I suspect it was merely an attempt to formalise an arrangement which exists in most EU countries, anyway.

True – any published image whether photo or video presumably would include newspapers, magazines, TV. And who on earth would police such a law – and look at infringements when including items “in the background”?

Reda had sought a Europe-wide adoption of Freedom of Panorama.

But, instead, the European Parliament’s legal affairs committee adopted ‘the most restrictive amendment on the question of Freedom of Panorama’, as follows: ‘[The legal affairs committee] considers that the commercial use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them.’

Read more at http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/photography-of-public-buildings-under-threat-after-european-rule-change-mep-warns-54506#Yupj97HWJRbzlcje.99

Why do tech companies keep coming up with new things some can be helpful but many will never be used by most people..To me just a con to make you want something new and buy the product you can do without and do not really need. People are falling for it every time. Must have the latest even though you will not use it. More money than sense???

The more money spent by people on things I do not need or want the better – it takes it out of competition for the essential things in life or the personally desirable things that make life more enjoyable.

I love tech gadgets and the ingenuity shown by their designers. Owners of new toys are often happy to give a demonstration and even let me have a play. I would love to find myself alone in a gadget shop after closing time. I don’t feel the urge to buy the latest gadgets.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

I know that site, Duncan. Tech writers often provide links. One of these automatic lawnmowers would be fun but I would be happy to sit in someone else’s garden watching one in action.

By buying my smartphone rather than having a contract, no-one has tried to get me to replace it after two years.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

I think I’ve already sold my soul to Big Brother, Duncan. So far I have escaped scams. At least I’m a marketing man’s nightmare. For example, I make a lot of use of the Amazon website and then buy from elsewhere. Maybe time to clear out the cookies and browsing history.

J. says:
11 July 2016

Lauren, how about a voting button so the Which? community could really let you know how we feel?

Hi, filling in for Lauren here. Sure, we could add a poll to this one… give me a moment 🙂

Hi J and everyone else, I’ve added a poll now. Happy voting!

Fran says:
11 July 2016

Yes, Please ban Private videoing of concerts . it’s unbelievably irritating . a “few ” still photographs aren’t too much of a problem as long as for private/ own consumption. However persistent / continual recording is really off putting for those around .The light from the phones, particularly if you are behind or to the side of somebody , is the main issue for me.

I agree with the filming, although personally it doesn’t bother me… but to block photos is ridiculous. We live in a social media world which is largely made up of photos… I don’t see why people would be prohibited from snapping a selfie of themselves (and friends) at a concert.

In fact isn’t this restriction just about more greed? Apple not satisfied with being one of the richest companies on the planet and now they want to make more money, by restricting people’s access to filming… concert tickets are expensive enough as it is, you would think it should also include an allowance for couple of pics of the artist you have come to see/hear.