Peter -- About a year ago I went to a reading of a play written by a friend -- all the readers, except one, were members of Actors Equity and doing the gig for free.... I was snapping away making a little gallery for my friend the writer... I posted the photos adn sent the writer the link -- I think I may also have shown it to the list or at least to some mutual friends... writer write me that this was, apparently, taboo.... taking photos of pro actors during a performance was a major nono --- of course, everyone saw I was taking them and I certainly would have stopped if someone had asked.... I didn't want my friend to get into trouble so I've hidden the gallery - and I gave him a printout...
I think it is one thing to grab shots of actors hanging out around the set, etc, and another to shoot stuff that would be in the film - just a guess... It's annoying,aint it? ann P. J. Alling wrote: >Part of todays adventure. A low budget movie is shooting in my home >town blocking traffic on half of main street. I was walking along >minding my own business, but actually armed with my trust *ist-Ds and a >collection of appropriate lenses), when I decided I'd take a couple of >pictures to commemorate the event, (and maybe make a couple of bucks >selling the images to one of the local fish wraps), when I this scruffy >individual rushes at me from the "company" and confronts me to tell me >that I can't take any photos for, and I quote "legal reasons". When I >asked him what I was doing wrong, he was a a loss except to explain, >except to repeat his original statement. When I pointed out that the >"set" was on a public road and within full view of the public, with no >expectation of privacy, and that I was allowed to take photographs of >anything I wished under those circumstances, his new tack was to claim >that I couldn't use them for anything. I then pointed out that under >fair use I could use them for non-commercial purposes which included >selling them and my story to a newspaper, or printing them large and >selling them as art. Which left him gasping for breath, (sort of like a >large trout), at which point he went back to his original argument. I >also found it interesting that they had posted a sign that stated in >part the, "... passing beyond this point, indicates your assent to being >in the movie...", which is patently false... Where do they find these >people, and what idiot is giving them legal advice? He managed to make >me furious as well. I'm thinking of going back tomorrow just to piss >them off. > >Lousy photographs to follow. > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
