For press photographers there’s an industry standard when it comes to covering concerts. They’re typically given access to the pit at the front of the stage, to photograph acts during the first two or three songs. It’s a tight window, and challenging to work with, but on the whole it’s fair. The media get decent images. The artist doesn’t get overly distracted. And, most importantly, photographers get in the eyeline of the audience for only a fraction of the show.
But in recent years this minor gesture to fair and accurate coverage has been slowly squeezed by acts intent on controlling every aspect of their image. Beyoncé at Croke Park last weekend was the latest example. Press photographers were barred from working at the show, and the media were instead offered selected images taken by her tour photographer.
Taylor Swift ran afoul of the media when her management tried to impose ridiculous rules on photographers covering her 1989 tour. The original contract that media were asked to sign said that photographs could not be used more than once without approval, and gave Swift's management control over the distribution of the images. The landgrab for photographers' work was particularly poor with its timing: Swift was in the midst of a row with Apple, which she criticised for not paying artists for their music during the three-month free trials that it was offering of its Music streaming service. In the end Swift's management backed down and issued another contract more in keeping with industry standards. (Apple also backed down from its stance against Swift.)
Perhaps the worst case I’ve seen puts Tay Tay and Bey in the shade. And – irony alert – it came from Public Image Ltd. During a festival show in Ireland John Lydon’s outfit issued photographers with a contract that demanded prior approval for any shots taken during the set. (How one would go about this was not clear. Is there a 24-hour PiL office you can ring for picture approval in time for an early-morning deadline? Does Lydon sit by the stage after the show and go through the ones he likes?) PiL also said it would retain copyright of the images. That’s hardly the most punk approach to someone else’s work. In the event we thought the best solution was to ignore the contract, and PiL’s set, entirely.
Beyoncé's approach is subtler but just as troubling. Media were given a login to her site, where they could choose from several images. (The Dublin shots are incorrectly labelled "Glasgow – UK"). These were shot by Andrew White for Parkwood Entertainment, Beyoncé's management company. There is nothing wrong with the quality of the shots, but news agencies have no idea what level of processing or alteration has gone into them. A concert is essentially a large news event, and it's up to media to cover it as fairly and accurately as possible. When part of that reportage is being filtered through a third party who is being controlled by the subject you are covering the conflict of interest is clear.
Parkwood Entertainment is well known for the steps it will take to control the message. After BuzzFeed featured a selection of shots from Beyoncé’s Super Bowl halftime show in 2013 a member of her team got in touch and asked that “unflattering photos” be removed. BuzzFeed instead printed the email with the shots again, under the headline, “The ‘unflattering’ photos Beyoncé’s publicist doesn’t want you to see.”
An interview with GQ magazine in 2013 showed just how much effort goes into maintaining this image. Beyoncé described her official archive, which contains almost every existing photograph of her, and countless hours of private footage, compiled by her "visual director". (The Croke Park audience saw some of this footage on the giant screens between songs.)
Music labels might correctly point out that media organisations already rely on pool photographers and supplied images. Media organisations can’t afford to send photo staff to all events, which means that promoters and festivals often supply pictures, giving newspapers and other media an option they might not otherwise have.
But banning photographers from shows is deeply problematic. If all media are working from the same small pool of photos it will make arts and pop-culture coverage blander, and further damage a sector that is struggling to maintain diversity in its coverage. (The Irish Times chose to ignore the supplied images; we instead used our own images of the atmosphere around the stadium before the show.) It also means that media will rely on fan images from social media, the quality of which, while certainly atmospheric, is rarely high.
The main question, of course, is what, precisely, does Bey have to hide? Her show at Croke Park was an electrifying experience, a call to arms to women everywhere to be confident and comfortable with who they are, and to celebrate it to the hilt. Watching thousands of women flow out of Croke Park afterwards, drunk on Lemonade-flavoured inspiration, was brilliant. That she wouldn't permit professional media images of her, taken by people not directly controlled by her management, contradicts everything that she and the message of her Formation tour appear to stand for.
