Copyright: Comic blows fuse

Dave, without getting into the rights and wrongs I think there is a difference between filming a stand-up comic's stage act and taping off the telly. The stage show has taken a long time to develop and will be repeated around the country pretty much Joke for joke for quite a few months until the tour is finished. By contrast a TV show is a one-off (not counting the repeats on Dave). If you can watch bits of her latest show on Youtube why go to watch her show? The Youtube clips then become spoilers. I think I've seen Sarah Millican on HIGNFY where I thought she was well up to normal guest standard and gave me a good laugh or two.

A local band in Las Vegas politely asked fans (via Facebook) to not take videos of them simply because the audio and video quality is generally crap and they don't want YouTube flooded with a bunch of junk videos that compromise the quality of the band.

M has apparently not realised that her regular TV appearances (including 20 to 25 minutes of stand-up) can be recorded in high definition in their entirety by anyone who chooses to do so.

What information shows the comedian is unaware that these things can be recorded?

There is a common misconception that comedians are happy, jolly people.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Comedy is a defense mechanism, and the bigger the comedian, the more defensive they are. They also steal from each other constantly, and often get aggressive and violent with each other about it.

All in all, they're about the angriest, most confrontational group of people you'll ever meet. If they didn't have "handlers" when doing stage shows or filming TV shows and movies, they'd be going after everyone: the audience, other performers, directors, you name it.

The best thing performers can do for their reputation and fan base is to encourage or at least graciously tolerate video recordings of their performances. As long as it doesn't interfere with anything or create safety hazards, no real harm is done.

The worst thing they can do is have public tantrums over unauthorized recordings. It just makes a performer look bad. Bootleg audio and video aren't a substitute for being there, so I don't agree with the argument that it harms them financially.

I watch anything and everything I can find for my favorite performers. If it's a shaky handheld camera or the mix sounds crappy, I don't care. Even if the performer has an off night, it won't matter to real fans. Even the worst recordings and worst behaviors are still interesting to fans as historical artifacts.

If it's a shaky handheld camera or the mix sounds crappy, I don't care. Even if the performer has an off night, it won't matter to real fans. Even the worst recordings and worst behaviors are still interesting to fans as historical artifacts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjAYLBE7NDc

Have you seen how small this camera is? And they're getting smaller and smaller.

"Have you seen how small this camera is? And they're getting smaller and smaller."

Why am I reminded of Phil Greenspun's "dickless yuppies" wisecrack from 1990s era photo.net?

If big cameras and long lenses are the e-penor of the well heeled dilettante, what does it mean when they brag about how tiny their video cameras are?

It's not the size of the camera. It's the circumference of the lens, even for a gurlyman camera. :-)

Dave, without getting into the rights and wrongs I think there is a difference between filming a stand-up comic's stage act and taping off the telly.
Colin, SM has indeed appeared to good effect on “Have I Got News For You” but also on the shows “Live At The Apollo” and “Dave’s One-Night Stand”, which are 1-hour comedy package shows with 3 comics, each doing approx. 20 minutes stand-up. I understand that, because of the competitive atmosphere, comics try to pull all the stops out and do their best material on these shows. Which is why, John H., I think SM is crazy to make a fuss about 10 seconds on a camera phone.
I totally agree here with Lex – of course, any unauthorized use whatsoever of copyright material is technically theft, but the vital criterion here is whether the copyright holder suffers material loss. Today, the opposite is very often the case – there are many smart young performers who have used video clips of themselves as free advertising which reaches a vast audience and can be used to persuade punters to buy a download or a CD or go to a live gig.
Quite frankly, having had first-hand experience of life as a starving musician in the 1960s, doing two-bit live gigs in the hope that one day (never in my case) there would be a record contract at the end of the rainbow, I think today’s model of making a record in your bedroom and advertising it free on facebook or youtube while you lie in bed is far preferable. There are of course some performers who take the attitude that Eric describes, but I think they lose out because of this.