Free but not so free – photography authorization and volunteer access to the photo pit

I read a news article today that detailed the practices of a global concert corporation in relation to photojournalists. In particular, it detailed the expectation that the corporation will authorize all the photos taken during the recent Polish show of a global star. This prompted a quick reaction from the publisher who made the photos public without authorization on purpose, and also prompted me to write my story and expectations of a volunteer Wikimedian-concert photographer for a healthier environment in the photo pit for the future.

I don’t have 20 years of experience like the journalist who went to photograph the said global star, just three years with a camera in the photo pit. It may not be much, but I don’t think I’m speaking from the “I don’t know, therefore I’ll speak up” position. So I will speak up.

Authorizing photos by band / artist management comes up for me every now and then as I get accreditations to shoot more concerts. I subject to this unpleasant necessity – I haven’t published a single questioned photo, while uploading thousands of files each year to Wikimedia Commons.

In Poland, we abide by the Copyright Act of 1994, which contains clauses about the personal image protection. The image of a person must not be published without their consent. There is, however, more to the relevant Copyright Act article – that the protection of the personal image is not applied to public figures, if the image was taken in connection with their public functions. I can snap a photo of a neighbor politician walking his dog, but I can’t publish it. Fine. However, I can snap a photo of that same politician at a rally and I have every right to publish it. The same goes for social activists, musicians, actors, famous business people, etc. Requesting, demanding, authorization of these pictures goes strictly against the law and is not only the domain of large international stars but also of smaller performers.

There are two aspects that have filled my thoughts ever since reading the press piece.

As a concert photographer, I’m competing for attention with the latest phase of Internet participation which is clearly visible in the External Trends analyses of the Foudation – making content for oneself and a group of close friends on social media, with a phone, all of rather questionable quality of there is a photographer at hand. On my most recent show, I was there where my place rightly was, right at the stage, I could theoretically grab the ankle of the vocalist and earn a well-deserved kick for it (I didn’t grab, he didn’t kick), the hair on the back of my neck sizzled from the stage pyrotechnics, and I could hear the drums from the stage better than from the sound system. Away behind me I saw a LED flash on some iPhone or Samsung, and I smiled a little – that LED certainly did not illuminate the stage, but at most the head of the guy in front of the person taking the photo. The 71mm diameter of the lens and 43mm diagonal of the sensor, which all weigh 2.5 kilograms and which I operate, is much more than the unknown diameter of the lens and 16mm diagonal of the sensor of the iPhone 15. The equipment I’m hoarding with me lets in really a lot of light, and photography, after all, is based on light, even if my DSLR has half the megapixels as the mobile phone (they are large pixels, though, each registering a lot of light). Lots of light, lots of detail, lots of dynamic range. The concert photography community seems to be just getting ready to talk about how bad and unlawful the practices of concert organizers are and use the strict word “censorship”.

I am a Wikimedian. A volunteer. Our photos live a long time, illustrating articles and keeping our readers visually entertained, for months, even years, even if we, the volunteer creators, do not even have a registered publisher according to the press law with legal person behind us. I basically built access to subsequent events of increasingly higher rank on my own, as a volunteer does, charming, making contacts, cultivating relationships, slowly getting fewer rejections.

And this is a wall that I currently cannot break through – the one where the concert organizer wants the photographer or their outlet to make an announcement of the concert for the accreditation issued, probably counting on increasing ticket sales, or a report after the concert, which I, as a Wikimedian, simply will not do because I have neither the place nor the way to do it; or the one where the organizer only issues accreditations to those who are supported by registered, actual press outlets. And so – standing in the pit shoulder to shoulder with other photographers: often fantastic people, representatives of media agencies, newspapers, magazines, music portals, TV stations; taking at least acceptable photos, if not on par with those of the said professionals; having long-term coverage at our disposal, not fading away a week after the concert or after the appearance of the next concert on the horizon – I am sometimes treated worse because I do not have a publisher behind me. Being able to provide good quality, multi-megapixel photos using rather good equipment – I am not able to take and deliver these photos because I am not a representative of an institution.

Apart from agreeing with the article that prompted my text, that photo approvals go against the freedom of the press and media, and in Poland, strictly against the law, I would also like us, Wikimedians, to have a chance to be treated in the same way as traditional media are treated in obtaining accreditations. We have the largest knowledge website behind us, Wikipedia, one of the ten most visited websites in the world. We have people who are deeply passionate, who take really good photos, so why is the only obstacle the required field in the form, where the editorial office must be entered, or the requirement to show that the event is being promoted?