Re: [Leica] Re: concert shooting (was Leica Camera-Handling)

["Dave Fisher" <tekapo@golden.net>]

> From: "Mark Rutledge" <markrut@ticnet.com>
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: concert shooting (was Leica Camera-Handling)

> - - Does Charlie Parker's estate or his descendants(if he has any) profit
from
> these illegal recordings? Is this going to ultimately become a "the ends
> justify the means discussion", which is what it seems you are advocating.

It seems I have opened a can of worms here, and possibly at the expense of
being called a socialist and a thief. What follows is a long post, and I'll
try to keep it as on-topic as possible.

I can't answer the question about Parker's estate. It would seem criminal to
me that a record company would release recordings, even if they were
illegally recorded, and not reimburse the artist or his estate. I don't
think that's happening. Even in the most recent past, bootlegs were flowing
legally out of Italy, because that country had a law that any performance
could be sold so long as there was a percentage set aside in accounts for
the artist. I would imagine that American record companies wouldn't release
Parker's recordings without proper recompense. (Indeed, perhaps Parker's
estate booted the boots themselves, much like Frank Zappa did, taking the
bootleggers tapes, cleaning them up, and releasing them under his own
imprint.)

As for my advocating an "end justifies the means," I suppose I am, and
here's where it gets sticky. We commodify and place monetary value on
everything. Sadly, even on art. Obviously, I am not advocating theft, but
instead a process of documentation and authenticity.

Many years ago the Rolling Stones' record label released a live album called
"Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out" that as a recording and performance was a pale
representation of their live show. Bootleg albums from that same tour, such
as "Bedspring Symphony," later appeared that were vastly superior as
documents -- superior in audio quality, performance, and purity (no
over-dubs, as was the case of the official live release). The Stones didn't
profit financially off the illegal recording, but as an artistic document
the bootleg is doing them a huge favour, because it captures them at their
best. "Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out" commences with the boast, "The Greatest Rock and
Roll Band in the World!" Uhh, sorry, not on the evidence of that official
album they're not, who are they trying to kid?. But the boot actually makes
a considerable argument in favour of the boast.

Similarly, Robert Frank's documentary of the Rolling Stones "Cocksucker
Blues" is arguably the best rock documentary ever made. The Stones forbid
it's release, so it's now only available as a bootleg. Nearly 30 years after
completion, the Stones are still forbidding an artistic genius like Robert
Frank (a great Leica photographer -- hey, I'm back on topic) from releasing
it to the public. The problem with Frank's documentary, as far as the Stones
are concerned, is that "it's too real, man." Well, that's precisely what I
want. Ask yourself if you'd rather see another dreadful Stones video or
Frank's "Cocksucker Blues." Ask yourself if you'd rather go to a gallery
exhibit of your favorite performers photographed in dull artificial studio
set-ups, or working in performance as they really are. As a Leica user,
philosophically and aesthetically I'm much more predisposed toward the
latter.

Getting back to the Bird, I have to ask myself whether Parker would have
wanted his cultural legacy to endure for generations, or would he have
preferred to remain in obscurity and never receive his proper respect and
credit as a musical genius. If bootleggers hadn't taped his shows, you're
looking at the latter scenario. And culturally, we'd all be the lesser for
it. The same applies to the Velvet Underground. The news and arts media
didn't care a crap about them, only a small handful of fans did. Thank god
those fans took photos and made tapes of live shows when they did, because
the band is now hailed by serious art critics as one of the greatest ever --
PBS "American Masters" did a big profile of Lou Reed, so we know they've now
been accepted to the pantheon -- and we've got documents outside of the
original official channels to prove it.

I can detail several significant first-time live appearances by bands on
this continent and country that I illegally shot when photographers from
official news organizations (Toronto Star, Globe and Mail) bailed rather
than get down into a mosh pit to get their pix. I know for a fact that I'm
the only person with visual documentation of many now-legendary
performances. Which just demonstrates to me the lack of passion the
"official" shooters often have when they're out filing assignments (or as
the case sometimes is, turning their backs on them), as opposed to fans who
actually share a stake in having the artists faithfully represented, and
documenting it all for future generations. In my opinion, this is not a
crime, but a public service.

> - -If you photograph/tape a musician w/o their consent and then in turn
profit
> from it, isn't that a bit shady?

Yes. But before we get too carried away, understand that I'm not invading
somebody's bedroom and secretly photographing them having sex, and turning
around and selling the images. Some people will argue what I'm doing is the
same thing, but I certainly see a big difference. I'm documenting them in
their working environment, I'm not interfering with their work (I never use
flash), and I'm not reproducing the images for sale. (Disclaimer: I have
sold some fb prints for the cost of printing and framing to individuals;
I've also given many away for free to the artists who requested them
themselves -- they saw them in fanzines I was published in and that I never
received nor expected payment. Several of them have told me that camera
restrictions are imposed specifically because they don't want flash bursts
in their face, and then again for no other reason than the promoters thought
that's what they wanted. I should note that I've been taking clandestine
photographs for 15 years -- never with flash -- and am now on a first name
basis with many international performers who have actually been disappointed
when I didn't bring my camera to the show. They also see value in my
documention, it has nothing to do with money and everything to do with
posterity.)

>What if someone in turn "illegally" uses
> your photo/recording and profits from it, do you have a leg to stand on?

Since it's not an assignment, no. But I don't care about that. If I take a
great photograph of a performer I admire tremendously, and that photo ends
up on a record sleeve without my credit or receiving payment, I'm chuffed,
because there wasn't any expectation of payment in the first place, and the
people ripping the photo off are more likely to be fans and curators than
profiteers. Crude reproductions of my pix have actually made their way onto
at least three bootlegs that I'm aware of, without my consent or knowledge.
All I can do is laugh. But if I'd known they'd wanted the pic in the first
place, I would have preferred giving them a print myself, rather than them
scanning it off a fanzine or newspaper. If I enter into an contract with
somebody and they don't give me the agreed credit or payment, that's an
entirely different story.