Anyone who attends concerts regularly will likely encounter a concert photographer at some point. Before cell phone cameras became ubiquitous, concert photographers were among the few people able to capture images of the performance. These days, concert images show up in real-time on social media, and some fans even broadcast live videos.

Photographers must follow a process to obtain a photo pass. While it varies slightly from venue to venue, it usually involves contacting the band’s publicist directly or through a contact at the venue. An increasing number of approvals don’t come until less than 48 hours before the performance, making it challenging to plan for coverage.

A lot of this is pretty mundane, but since the photographer and the reviewer’s traditional role is that of the concertgoer’s eyes and ears, the visual element is crucial in telling the story, and yet it has become increasingly difficult to cover shows.

I have always been a writer, first and foremost, and I became a de facto concert photographer for practical and economic reasons. Nevertheless, I can understand why the photographic community has been increasingly frustrated with covering shows.

The standard policy for most shows is “first three, no flash.” In simplest terms, photographers are typically allotted the first three songs from a designated area and are not allowed to use a flash.

There is no definitive proof that that policy originated, but the few sources I have located state that Bruce Springsteen instituted it in the 1970s after a show in which many photographers were firing off flash bulbs during an entire Springsteen performance.

Most concert photographers I speak with think the policy needs to be updated. Most concerts these days have two or three photographers shooting the show, so if they can be courteous and not block sight lines, it would make sense for them to be able to photograph more of the show, especially at outdoor venues where the sun becomes a factor. Not only can the sun create less-than-ideal backlighting, but nighttime photos tend to be more aesthetically pleasing.

The sad reality of concert photography is that there is a tiny market for it, so most photographers are hobbyists. Even in my case, I rarely get compensated for my photos; they are usually an add-on to my written work. Unless something has changed dramatically, most nights, the majority of the photographers are shooting to bolster their personal portfolios, provide content for personal websites, or get a free concert ticket.

That makes signing photo releases complex because an increasing number of artists are requiring photographers to give up the rights to their work or requiring pre-approval of images for publication. This may seem small, especially if the photographer is a hobbyist. Still, it has stirred up some debate amongst concert photographers, especially as it relates to what a reasonable agreement is.

A few weeks ago, a photographer contacted me to say he refused to sign one of the artist’s agreements. The agreement stipulated that the artist gets copies of the photos and can use them with attribution. I didn’t have an issue with it and signed the agreement, but my friend was adamantly against it.

Ultimately, though, many photographers feel that it is not worth the hassle. From my perspective, if an artist grants you the opportunity to photograph them, you have to play by their rules, even if it doesn’t always feel like a quid pro quo arrangement.