There's clearly a niche in the market for reputation management. I know it exists, but perhaps something that can be used by the 90,000 people send requests to Google would generate a bit of income?
The photograph example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tom_Carstairs_In_Concert.j... is odd. The photographer took the picture, and has released it to the public domain. There is clearly confusion between photographers and venues / bands about what the laws actually are, and what reasonable behaviour is. I'd be interested to know why the musician wants this very low quality photo taken down?
You don't have an automatic right to take pictures in private venues. If the ticket or signage states /photography is not allowed' then your copyright claim is invalid, and the material is not yours to give away. Rather a stingy policy for a venue to have, of course, but then nobody is forced to attend a concert or similar event if they don't like the conditions of attendance.
You certainly don't lose copyright protection of a photo you took because you were told not to do so. You just risk being thrown out of the venue or other legal trouble.
A music performance in front of an audience is audiovisual. You would be right if we were talking about a photograph of a radio taken while the performance was broadcast, but we're not. Indeed, when people mention they attended a concert, they say things like 'I went to see my favorite band last week,' as opposed to saying they went to listen to them.
wikimedia itself observes that shoting without a permit may put you in breach of a contract you signed when you purchased the ticket, as I alluded to above:
For sure, but that by itself doesn't provide a full defense (per http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html). Bear in mind that if the ticket contractually forbids photography and the event is not in a publicly accessible venue, the issue might well be decided under contract rather than copyright law.
The photograph example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tom_Carstairs_In_Concert.j... is odd. The photographer took the picture, and has released it to the public domain. There is clearly confusion between photographers and venues / bands about what the laws actually are, and what reasonable behaviour is. I'd be interested to know why the musician wants this very low quality photo taken down?
Here's evidence of confusion over legal status of photographs: http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2014/04/24/cant-photographers...