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.
