Last year, this tour was due to stop at a venue I worked for, but the date got moved to a bigger city, meaning I missed out. Fortunately, I was able to shoot it this time around, at London’s Hammersmith Apollo. Good things come to those who wait, I guess.

For In Flames, we were allowed to use flash, which is quite a rarity. I’m not a big fan of using flash for live shots – it doesn’t suit my style that well, and it tends to just cover the whole scene in a harsh light, making the photos come out quite amateurish. Despite endeavouring for a minute or so without flash, the sheer volume of smoke and lack of front lighting forced me to add some light of my own. A diffuser was used to smooth out the light and remove harsh shadows.

I later noticed the tally of crowdsurfers kept by venue security. In Flames generated 138 coming over the top, and from what I saw later, a good few of them ended up in the first aid room…

Killswitch had quite a late stage time of 21:50, giving them only just over an hour to headline the tour. Judging from the action in the pit, KSE had a far greater number of crowdsurfers, and although I don’t know the actual figure, I’d reckon two or three times as many as In Flames. I’ve never known security have to deal with so many in the first three songs before.

About the author

1 Comment. Leave your Comment right now:

  1. by Abril

    1. 是否只引用有版權的材料作 “commentary and criticism” [ 包括作教學 新聞報導和研究用途 ] “Fair use is a cghprioyt principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of cghprioyted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. …. if the cghprioyt owner disagrees with your fair use interpretation, the dispute will have to be resolved by courts or arbitration. If it’s not a fair use, then you are infringing upon the rights of the cghprioyt owner and may be liable for damages.”這劇的內容 我所理解 並不是以 comment / critcize “Hello Kitty 公仔” 為主題 儘管劇團都可試從這劇的主題是批判 Hello Kitty 背後所代表的文化 / 社會現象作為抗辯的理由之一 2. Parody – “A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. … Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to ‘conjure up’ the original.” 關於幾時至算 “parody” ? 我的理解是 若這劇團有直接售賣印有類似 Hello Kitty logo / 肖像 / trademark 的商品 / 海報 從中獲取商業利益 它不能用 “parody” 作抗辯理由 如果它並無這類利益 它可試用 “Parody” 作抗辯 指這是基本法給予的創作和言論自由 利用類似 Hello Kitty 做型的公仔作海報 只是做為一種諷刺 是表達手法之一 : 近年 Starbucks 就成功禁制一位創作人 Dwyer 改左 Starbucks 的人魚 logo 印 T 恤賣 有淺釋關於 Chesney 法官對 Parody 的理解 :” … While Dwyer does not use Starbucks’ name or a pun on its name in his parody, Judge Chesney did find that Dwyer’s was “confusingly similar” to the mermaid logo, and that the phrase “consumer whore” could be considered offensive to some and thereby constitute a tarnishment of the Starbucks mark. She further found that Dwyer’s sale of merchandise bearing this ‘confusingly similar’ logo constituted a trademark infringement. ” In other words, while Judge Chesney agreed that Dwyer’s image was a legitimate parody in and of itself, and thereby protected by the First Amendment, the sale of items bearing that image constituted an infringement on Starbucks’ trademark. Dwyer cannot profit by this image, because the only reason that people would buy the t-shirt, mugs, or stickers was because they bore a logo “confusingly similar” to Starbucks’. The temporary restraining order she eventually signed now bars Dwyer from selling any such merchandise. “Starbucks 今年亦曾發過警告信 阻止 “高登” 某網友印用它的人魚 logo 改成 “小丑 tee 恤” 在高登給網友訂購 [續]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>