At a recent gala orchestra opening in Madison, guest soloist Kathleen Battle paused mid-performance to wag her finger at someone in the balcony. It seems they had a recording device of some kind. Once she left the stage, an announcement reminded the audience that such things weren’t allowed. It’s a common problem at popular music events. It’s bound to grow at nonprofit events, as well.
The first question is: how do you stop it? Now that mobile phones are mini video production studios, and digital video cameras fit in the palm of your hand, it’s nearly impossible to spot them in action.
The second question is: should we stop it? If audiences are so enthralled with the live experience, and want to share that excitement with someone else, how is that bad for our team? If the video is low-resolution and the audio is scratchy, does the recording hurt anyone? Or is it just a new form of audience evangelism? It’s not that I want an audience full of electronic equipment pointing at the stage (that would be annoying). I’m just suggesting it’s a worth a moment to ponder both the harm and the benefit of audience-recorded content.
It’s an issue raised in a home-grown video weblog (yes, there are video weblogs now) from a cranky fan of a rock band who was detained for recording a live performance. Says the blogger in his on-video captions:
Welcome to the future…where phone cameras have replaced lighters. The genie is out of the bottle. Even the band’s web site has fan-recorded content. That’s what fans do! You may have noticed I’m not charging you for this crappy video. That would be stupid. There is no economic motive. The point is to capture and share fantastic fleeting moments…
So, inevitably the questions come: Who owns the moment in a live performance? Who’s allowed to share it? What conflagration would await us if we allowed that spark in our theaters? And finally, do we have any choice in the matter? Welcome to the future, indeed.
Often it isn’t an option for the venue to allow people to record. If an artist doesn’t mind and actually encourages the audience, then I will make an announcement to that effect. (Though I might ruin their experience by robbing them of the thrill of performing an illegal act.)
Most times though, the contract with a performer stipulates something like: “Purchaser will not permit and will make every effort to prevent the recording, filming, taping, videotaping or any broadcast of the artist’s performance or any portion thereof without the artist’s written approval…etc, etc.”
And it isn’t just performances. I have given backstage tours in theatres where people weren’t allowed to take pictures because the set/costume design was considered copyrighted intellectual property (as was the blocking and choreography during the show, but you weren’t supposed to be taking pictures then already).
This was all long before things like Napster brought IP issues to the fore. I could understand a concern that people would be selling audio recordings of a concert, but never really saw a big black market for set design.
This was most likely the first time these people had viewed the mysteries of theatre up close and they were excited to realize that what appeared to be solid rock from afar was actually carved styrofoam. I would be a little worried if people were blase about it and didn’t have the impulse to take pictures. It would mean one less thing the general public found had value in their arts experience.