|
|
Post by martindn on Jan 18, 2009 23:08:22 GMT
Hi Annie,
It is good that you are involved in making real music. That is a wonderful thing, perhaps you don't realise it now, but one day you will know that it gives you the power to raise people's spirits, and inspire them to do their best. I'm not sure that even Hayley fully realises that, even though she is a huge inspiration to me and I'm sure many others. That is despite the worst that politicians and the media can do. Whatever else, they cannot destroy the human spirit, and it is art that nourishes that spirit. I say that as a scientist.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by stevemacdonald on May 22, 2009 22:34:21 GMT
One thing I've noticed about HWI values lately is that there seems to be a lot of gray area where sliding rules apply. For instance, we are ultra-persnickety about copyright infringements and piracy, yet we allow on the boards loads of pictures and videos which were obtained against the rules -- in venues which explicitly forbid photographs or video-recording of any kind. The wonderful duet of Hayley and Rhydian in Cardiff is an obvious example. They clearly don't want this sort of recording to go out and yet it did, with HWI's apparent blessing. I felt a guilty pleasure watching this on YouTube thanks to enzian's recent post. I almost expected the camera-person to get hauled away mid-song, and that was part of the fun! I'm happy when there's a double-standard that works in my favor, and this is among the best so far.
|
|
|
|
Post by roger on May 23, 2009 8:09:07 GMT
So what would you prefer, Steve? That we allow illegal file sharing and link to copyright material in future, or that we ban all future videos and photographs?
These are two vastly different situations and the rules which govern one do not determine (and have little relevance on) the rules of the other. I don't believe there are any double standards here and I resent the suggestion that there might be.
Roger
|
|
|
|
Post by postscript on May 23, 2009 11:14:00 GMT
So what would you prefer, Steve? That we allow illegal file sharing and link to copyright material in future, or that we ban all future videos and photographs? These are two vastly different situations and the rules which govern one do not determine (and have little relevance on) the rules of the other. I don't believe there are any double standards here and I resent the suggestion that there might be. Roger Perhaps Steve didn't express himself quite as clearly as he might. There is a seeming contradiction but the real question is one with which we have toyed but to no conclusion. Who actually is stopping the photography? The implication seems to be that the artists do not have a problem (except with flash) but the promoters do. I would argue that promoters don't fully understand what they are into and over-cosset their artists out of fear of a perceived great responsibility. Certainly they are rightly concerned about disturbing the other members of the audience and cannot differentiate those of the calibre of our members from those less sensitive to the audience around them. I suspect that what may worsen the situation is the increasing perception in this country that you cannot do anything without being in danger of being sued by someone for something that seems perfectly natural and inconsequential. It is nervousness and lack of clarity of liability guidelines that cause the most officiousness rather than the inherent nature of the individuals concerned. Looking from the officials' viewpoint, they are concerned about an audience member suing them/the establishment for not attempting to take appropriate action over audience disturbance during the show, which would include a sense of responsibility to the artists to ensure audience 'discipline'. None of these points have anything to do with copyright. In terms of sound recording, this clearly is an infringement of copyright. Copyright on still photography I am only going to touch on lightly since it needs research but speaking NOT in legal terms, I could see an argument for the photographer's copyright BUT since the artists' are in stage costumes and presentation, do the artists and the stage designers not have a copyright on their originality? As regards the theatre, it is technically a public place when an audience is invited in by what ever terms are expressed on the ticket and I believe there was a case recently when someone managed to stop photographs being published of him. Despite the fact he was in a public place at the time the pictures were taken it was perceived an invasion of his privacy to have singled him out within that public space? Like so much of this contentious issue, does anyone lose any rights or money in relation to this activity? Categorically NO as is indeed the case with sound reproduction. Hayley has commented that she feels a distraction if she sees anyone writing copious notes during the performance and presumably red glows of indicator lights must equally distract. Because i do not have any suitable camera the only occasion in which I have experienced this problem was when I saw Torvill and Dean at the indoor Arena in Birmingham. I recently acquired a very basic camcorder as I wasn't certain what good I would be with it and thought that if I took to movie work I would buy a better quality camera with greater knowledge to make the right selection. I won't weary members with the details but simply say that right at the beginning, as the audience was still coming in when one official approached me I complimented him on the way he approached me and had handled the situation, explaining that I had experience of other's experience in certain circumstances. He appreciated that emphasising 'no flash photography' implied nonflash was okay. He said that 'no flash' was crucial for safety in the potentially dangerous moves in ice skating. Another official was unhappy by the fact I was using a camcorder, but at that time I was using it during the interval for the crowd, the arena and watching the ice-machine smoothing the surface with which she was perfectly happy but emphasising they particularly did not like camcorders during the performance because of the sound recording. I think that major problems lie around the inexperience of the officials who may be drafted in on short call for short periods and therefore are concerned at their vulnerability to re-employment as perceived by those who employ them. I could also imagine that some legal sage may have observed the possibility of audience disruption through allowing 'provocative' behaviour. One has to remember that theatres are licensed and have responsibilities to public care as a result. I recall an incident when I was Town Mayor and opening a new public canal facility. It had been thought a good idea if the Mayoral Party arrived by narrow-boat. After a safe arrival and debarkation I was chatting over tea and cakes with the best solicitor in the town (and also the most expensive!) who was the Town Council's official legal adviser. In a few seconds he reeled off a whole list of contingent liabilities and cross-division of insurance liabilities and asked if I had even considered a single one of them, let alone checking with the Town Council's insurers if the event was covered by its clause on 'mayoral eccentricities', or was i personally liable? As for the boat was its owner insured for public as opposed to private use in carrying official public dignitaries and was that covered by its boat-worthiness certificate for private use? I will not weary members with the list, other than to say that in those few seconds he reminded me why he is generally regarded as the best lawyer in town! Peter S. |
|
|
|
Post by roger on May 23, 2009 15:59:16 GMT
There is a seeming contradiction but the real question is one with which we have toyed but to no conclusion. Hi Peter, I think we have done rather more that. The Management Team have discussed it at length, come to an agreement and implimented our guidelines years ago. We frequently discuss specific issues as and when they arise but have kept pretty much within those guidelines (subject to the inevitable grey areas) as best we can and have never received a complaint yet. As you suggest, the venue staff may well be concerned about disturbance but, if photographs and videos have been taken without disturbing anybody then there is no additional harm in posting them to the forum. That is usually only to the degree of the performers copyright and Bedlam Management have told us that Hayley has no objection provided she is not distracted by it. I can't speak for Rhydian of course, so I have to leave that to the discretion of his fans. The exceptions about copyright are when the performance is to be broadcast on radio or television, in which case we embargo all videos until after the broadcast, or if it to be released on DVD, in which case we bar it completely. Reasons for such an embargo are always clearly stated as and when the situation arises. Logically, there may be a copyright issue with set design (as I know is the case with Cirque du Soleil, for example), or Hayley's dresses and so on but it has never been mentioned in the past as a reason for not taking photographs at any of her events. All things considered, I think this forum and its members are far more protective towards all artists and far more aware of copyright issues than almost any forum on the internet, including the offical ones. I therefore don't believe we need to make any changes. Roger |
|
|
|
Post by postscript on May 23, 2009 16:17:51 GMT
There is a seeming contradiction but the real question is one with which we have toyed but to no conclusion. Hi Peter... I think we have done rather more that. The Management Team have discussed it at length, come to an agreement and implimented our guidelines years ago. We frequently discuss specific issues as and when they arise but have kept pretty much within those guidelines (subject to the inevitable grey areas) as best we can and have never received a complaint yet... That is usually only to the degree of the performers copyright and Bedlam Management have told us that Hayley has no objection provided she is not distracted by it. I can't speak for Rhydian of course, so I have to leave that to the discretion of his fans. ... All things considered, I think this forum and its members are far more protective towards all artists and far more aware of copyright issues than almost any forum on the internet, including the offical ones. I therefore don't believe we need to make any changes. Roger Hi Roger, I think that last paragraph is a very fair and accurate statement of which we have every cause to be proud. I am also glad you took the opportunity from my post to provide some more factual detailed background which is good for us to have been made aware. In fact, while I know things happen haphazardly and it is all very informal, would some sort of 'Admin Bulletin' be worth issuing, vaguely quarterly, just to illustrate the sort of things discussed? I appreciate there will be matters that must be confidential, like the recent sporadic intrusions of unwanted material but a general review, now and again might not be unwelcome. Contrarily one could argue that if anything disturbs members they can raise them in the open forum or by PM and perhaps those triggers for debate are a sufficient communication medium in themselves? Peter S. |
|
|
|
Post by Jono on May 27, 2009 6:08:31 GMT
How do people manage to "get away" with taking videos and photos at venues where this is against the rules anyway? Do they turn a blind eye to this if there aren't any disturbances to the concert and/or others?
Just a general question, I guess it would vary between venues...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dori on May 31, 2009 22:42:04 GMT
Hi Jono,
Most photos and videos taken, as far as I'm concerned, are not against rules. When I was at Hayley's concert last year, it was clear that as far as the videos are were not professional and for commercial purposes, they're fine. Also, some venues allow non-flash photography to not disturb the performer.
And yes, some videos have been removed due to copyright breech of rules. It does vary from venue to venue though!
Dori
|
|
|
|
Post by roger on May 31, 2009 22:53:56 GMT
Hi Jono, Just to add to Dori's comment and at the risk of repeating something from two years ago, several of us arrived at an outdoor event early enough to catch the soundcheck. A few photographs were taken and the ground staff quickly asked us not to take them during the soundcheck but added that we were welcome to take as many as we wished during the actual concert.  So yes, the rules vary - enormously! Roger |
|
|
|
Post by comet on May 31, 2009 23:16:26 GMT
Hi Jono and Dori ( Fellow Aucklanders  ) Our photographers and videographers here on the forum take the risk for the rest of us, of being embarrassed and possibly ejected from the auditorium by taking these photos and videos. It certainly detracts from their enjoyment of the concert, trying to keep a camera concealed from some over zealous 24 stone meatloaf of a security man can be quite daunting. Many of us have been "caught" with cameras or video recorders out at concerts. It is embarrassing and humiliating to get caught  If it was not for those who are prepared to take these risks, there would be NO PHOTOS or VIDEOS on this forum of the concerts themselves. How awful would that be ? I think EVERY concert by EVERY performer is a special moment in time that should be captured. If it is not being done OFFICIALLY then it is just left to us , the fans to capture it. Try using a camera without a viewfinder or a screen in near or total darkness  we're lucky we get anything at all  Some of the other members are scattered all over the world, some may NEVER get a chance to see Hayley sing at a concert, so this is IT for them, Seeing Hayley live on HWI or YouTube. Thank you to all our risk takers, your work and dedication is much appreciated, especially by those who would just love to be there too, but for one reason or another can't be . It makes missing these great concerts just a little more tolerable ( I know many of you have bought better cameras just for this purpose ) even though we may not admit that to our nearest and dearest I sometimes suspect we will not know the true value of these photos and videos until long into the future and I mean sentimental not monetary value. This is all very much part of our lives and we are enjoying every minute of it.. |
|
Jillian
Global Moderator
Posts: 3,050
|
Post by Jillian on May 31, 2009 23:22:23 GMT
Amen, comet! i.postimg.cc/9fYxy370/smilie-big-grin.gif I am so grateful for everything that HWI does. Otherwise, all I'd be left with is a few plastic discs that only capture a tiny percentage of the amazing talent that is Hayley. |
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Jun 1, 2009 10:40:12 GMT
Well said, Comet, I think we do periodically express our thanks but it does no harm to bring to a head just what these guys are prepared to do for us, which raises the question from the other thread, picking up on Dave's point there, whether one or two HWIers could be designated official photographers, dependent upon the show they are attending?
Peter S.
|
|
|
|
Post by roger on Jun 1, 2009 10:50:06 GMT
Hi Peter, Steve and Stuart have been our Site Photographers for years as is denoted in their profiles.  Roger |
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Jun 1, 2009 11:32:47 GMT
Hi Peter, Steve and Stuart have been our Site Photographers for years as is denoted in their profiles. Roger But are they always there, that was the essence of my comment? In any case your statement is a good reminder for all of us regulars who do not read the 'intro' when we come on to comment and for new people in whose consciousness it may not have registered.  Peter S. |
|
|
|
Post by comet on Jun 2, 2009 9:56:28 GMT
Hi Folks, The reason I asked that some members would post a few photos on the official forum is quite simple. IT IS THERE ! There are six million or so CDs out there with that address on it. Whether we like it or not it is there and it is highly visible, It is like having the prime advertising spots on Piccadilly Circus, Times Square and Las Vegas and every major city in the world. To leave them blank is a disgraceful waste of a prime resource that CAN promote Hayley.
This was the main point of my post, Nothing else intended  Just a few photos there would be great and a link to here will bring over the more enthusiastic fans anyway. They all make it to here in the end I am not suggesting identical posts on both forums, Because the two forums are very different. Leave the personal banter off the post and just post a few pictures and maybe a formal report about the concert. The reason I said the file size of the photos on the other forum did not matter was because in many cases there were NONE, not one ! In truth, they are not as strict, so slightly larger or higher definition pictures could be posted there |
|
