Ann, you were indoors in a controlled environment. Outdoors it's a different matter. As a former, (very former), member of the working press, I know just what that difference is and I really don't care what a Jr. Assistant Adjunct Producer thinks. (I used to much more tactful when I actually worked for an actual Newspaper though, then I would have tried honey, in this case I used acid). By the way, being inside wouldn't have stopped me from trying to take the pictures, I would just have been more contrite if told not to.
ann sanfedele wrote: > 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. >> >> >> >> > > > > -- You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone. --Al Capone. -- 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.