CLEVELAND, Ohio – Is it protecting intellectual property? Is it safeguarding your "image"? Or is it mere vanity?

Whatever the "reason'' – and I put that in quotes because I'll tell you right up front, I don't think there is a valid one – more and more artists and bands are restricting professional and amateur concert photography.

If we're allowed to shoot at all – Bob Dylan, Lady Gaga and Bruno Mars are among the big names who refuse to allow media pros to photograph their concerts – it's usually limited to one, two or three songs, and way too often from the soundboard.

So you don't get nearly enough time, and you're shooting from Siberia. Great combination, don't you think?

Now before you go thinking, "That's your problem,'' let me point out something: There's a structure on the shores of Lake Erie that houses some pretty amazing photographs. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum has stage shots of everyone from Chuck Berry to the Beatles and more.

Those pictures, black-and-white and grainy, are the visual history of rock 'n' roll, and in their way are as important as the scratchy old 45s of Elvis, the Beach Boys and Patti Page.

Few of those images came from "the first three songs,'' or were taken from the back of the arenas or concert halls. Some of the most famous are from right ON the stage, even.

The position of the soundboard paradoxically is called "front of house.'' But that's exactly OPPOSITE where it is. At Blossom Music Center, you'll find it in front of the bank of seats just before the pavilion bleachers – probably 200 feet from the stage.

At Quicken Loans Arena, it's on the floor, butted up against the first row of bowl seats in the back – about 300 or more feet away.

For any but the best-equipped shooters, the results often are only slightly better than those old Instamatic 110s from the 1970s.

Most professional photographers have good equipment. The option is not making a living. But a lens capable of shooting from the soundboard – figure a 500mm – is just under $10K. And an "extender,'' which effectively turns it into a 700mm lens, is about $350. How would you feel about risking that kind of investment in a setting where being jostled – or worse, accidentally knocked to the ground – is highly likely?

Now I have a good camera – a Canon EOS Mark II, with a 200mm zoom lens – all of which belongs to The Plain Dealer. I started as a photographer/darkroom technician back in 1978, so I had a ground zero that gave me a little background, and I've gotten OK with it. But quite frankly, if it weren't for The PD, I could never afford it.

And yet, it's horrible for taking pictures from the soundboard, especially when you're usually trying to shoot through a sea of hands from fans who are on their feet and shaking their fists.

We do much better when we have a staff photographer, but that doesn't happen nearly as often as we'd like, because the staffers have other obligations. And, as one publicist who declined to speak on the record noted, the use of us "amateur professionals'' is happening more and more. Publicists know the industry is changing, and there just aren't as many full-fledged photographers as there used to be. That's sad on a bunch of levels, but for right now, I'm just talking about what YOU get to see.

Now the easiest thing to do is let us shoot from the pit – right there next to the stage. The quality of shot you get is far superior to stuff from far away.

To her credit, the publicist who wouldn't speak on the record – by the way, the ONLY industry professional to respond out of almost two dozen I queried, including promoters, managers and artists themselves -- almost always allows photography from the pit. But even she limits the amount of time we have to shoot. Her thinking: Most newspaper reviews use only one or two pictures, and you can get all you need in the first few minutes.

But the world has changed. Newspapers are not JUST newspapers anymore. Every concert review I write comes with a gallery of photographs – usually eight to 15 pictures if I have to shoot it (doing double duty is not easy and is time-consuming), and as many as 50 if a "real'' photographer is behind the camera. And honesty, if not modesty, compels me to admit, those 50 are far superior.

Moreover, they're HISTORICALLY superior. When we think rock 'n' roll, we think of the pictures of the Doors' Jim Morrison falling all over the stage, of the Beatles walking through the crowd at Shea Stadium, of Roger Daltrey and his Who bandmates waving to the crowd at the END of a 1975 concert.

Now as someone who's getting AARP signup letters on an almost daily basis, I get the worry of, um, VETERAN artists, in this age of high-definition photography. But Bruno Mars? He's 29. Taylor Swift? She's 25. Lady Gaga? Just 28. Hunter Hayes? A baby at 23. Katy Perry? A ripe old 30.

Tony Bennett is 88 years old and had absolutely no problem with me shooting him from the pit. Dylan, 15 years younger, wouldn't even allow a camera into Playhouse Square.

But here's where it's not just a "media problem'': Chrissie Hynde's Akron Civic Theatre show was fantastic from a musical standpoint. But she absolutely forbade cellphone pictures. The ushers – who were, after all, just doing their job – came down on anyone whose phone came out. Same at the Dylan show at Playhouse Square. I was using mine only to illuminate my notepad, and was threatened with expulsion from the theater.

I've seen the same thing in just about every venue in town, save for Blossom. Even Jack White cracked down on phone photos at Jacobs Pavilion.

What are you so afraid of? Bootlegs? News flash: You're NEVER going to do away with those. They're as much a part of the industry as tour buses and sound checks. Think of the Grateful Dead without them, for crying out loud. So to my mind, it's either ego or control issues.

And both make for a pretty ugly picture.