Actually -- Bob didn't know I was bringing my camera - it was a tiny bar near my house... It was the theatre playwriting group that objected - He was redfaced about asking me not to display them - beyond what I already had... I was largely annoyed because I thought they would all be pleased to have a memento of the occasion - and because I went to the trouble of doing it when I could have saved myself the work. I really don't understand it myself but it does appear to be an Actor's Equity thing. It was a free performance, and they waived the drink minimum for me because there was nothing there I could drink at all.
ann John Sessoms wrote: >From: ann sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >>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? >> >> > >It's also quite wrong. They have no legal basis to object. > >As with Peter's sign stating that "by entering you give permission to >appearing in the movie", you have multiple "Fair Use" grounds on which >to defend yourself: > >1. You were there BY INVITATION of the writer, one of the participants. > >2. Actors are PUBLIC persons, and their PUBLIC activities are, in the >vernacular "fair game". It's a public performance. They only own the >rights to COMMERCIAL exploitation of their persona's. > >Fair use allows you to use the product of your own work for self >promotion. You could, legally, even sell prints of the photos you took, >and certainly you can use them to "advertise" yourself as a photographer. > >3. They could have asked you to stop while you were taking the photos, >and did not. If the reading took place in a theater, they could have >told you in advance "no photography allowed." > >But they didn't, did they? >They didn't stop you from bringing your camera in; they didn't stop you >from taking photographs. > >And I'd bet the original invitation from the writer included an implied, >if not explicit, "Would you bring your camera and take some pictures of >actors reading MY PLAY, so I can use them to promote myself?" > >I'd have told 'em to SOD OFF! > >And while they may hassle your friend, if he complained to me about it, >I'd ask him back, "Why did YOU put me in a situation for someone to >hassle me?" > >Consider having some special business cards made just for those >occasions. The word "litigious" should feature prominently on the front, >along with a statement of photographer's rights on the back. > > > -- 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.
