*This blog's got some excellent material – especially on copyright law creating orphaned works which spontaneously decay.
(...)
"While it would be pretty much unthinkable to ban cameras from live events today (most people’s phones are cameras after all), just ten years ago you would have required accreditation and permission to carry anything with a lens into a venue.
"The characteristics of film compared to digital raises another interesting issue (as does the publication of the book) – which is that the photos that see the light of day are a) physical artefacts; b) scarce; and c) selected. With the advent of near-limitless digital photography, Flickr and tagging, anyone who takes photographs can upload and share everything, and the viewers of those photos get to decide what is interesting and what isn’t.
"Of course, the very term ‘photographer’ becomes problematic, and a question of professionalisation or a recognisable core set of skills, rather than just the possession of something that can take photographs.
But most importantly to me, and in the context of this work, is the extent to which music photography interacts or integrates with the preservation of music culture – and the extent to which not only music recordings, but also music photography, music journalism, music flyers, music television programmes, music radio and music merchandise are also kept or lost – and the ways in which digital technologies, copyright and corporate interests impact upon that cultural aspect of music media.
"In other words – what is it about these photographs that is worth preserving in the same way that the recordings these people have made are worth preserving, how can digital media contribute to their preservation, and how are issues like copyright impacting upon that dynamic?
"Lots to think about here, and I’m only just getting start on this part of the terrain...."
