Broadway Theatre Owners Alter Photography Rules- Page 2

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 6/9/16 at 11:58pm

Yes, we know what you think and how you feel. We also know that you believe what you think and feel carries more weight than others with years of experience in the industry. Your credibility has slowly worn down over the months of pompous arrogance and projected self-importance. Move on. 

 

ETA: This post was for HogieHemroid. 

Updated On: 6/9/16 at 11:58 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 6/10/16 at 12:16am

@Liza, feel free to believe whoever you want. I don't give where my statements fit in the cosmos a thought so it's amusing that you do. As I suggested in my earlier post, if you have a claim, feel free to look for a competent lawyer to make your case. If you can find one. And by all means have that lawyer contact the theatre owners whose lawyers just might have a different take. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 6/10/16 at 12:51am

PT, this is not about you any more than it is about me, especially because I don't know you. I don't know that I know anyone here. (Maybe I do; I probably do.) But if you are what you say you are, and I have no reason to question that, you should be familiar with the fact that people do not always agree, and that, sometimes, one of them is wrong about something. On this subject, I am as sure as is humanly possible that I am right, but I have invited you to believe otherwise and pursue that belief in a meaningful way. It baffles me that that is arrogant. I do sometimes come off as arrogant, and I accept that. When I do come off that way, it is because I think the person doesn't know whereof they speak. With all due respect, and I really do mean that, I don't think you know what you are talking about on this subject. Still, I have suggested that you pursue the matter and, if you are so inclined, to provide a basis for your view. So far, unless I am wrong, the only authority you have cited is a house manager (whose marching orders, it seems, have just changed), and no that does not impress me any more than a set designer's opinion on the subject would.

 

[@z5]

Posted: 6/10/16 at 12:51am

Interesting, I saw Fully Committed tonight, and the ushers told people not to take pics of the curtain before the show, which is just a simple purple curtain.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 6/10/16 at 2:29am

@PT,

I regularly admit when I make a mistake and, more to the point, I avoid stating things I don't have a basis for knowing. When I goof, I am happy to say so. I am not better than anyone else but I do know quite a lot. I admit that. 

We went through the set copyright thing in another thread, and you rejected my analysis. I am not going back to dredge up that thread, but I would say the essence of it was that you didn't think fair use had application to this. You were wrong then and if you still think that you are wrong now. Go read up on it if you want, or seek out a copyright lawyer to ask. There are many gray areas in the law; this is not one of them.

As I think we left this before, it seems we have reached a point of diminishing returns. I don't want you to believe me; I hope you will figure this out on your own. In the meantime I'll go on being a mythbuster as best I can. There are literally hundreds of myths in show business; and I am only one person.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 6/10/16 at 10:31am

@PT, not to drag this on but regarding set designers who may not want their sets photographed:

1. Putative copyright holders are not the arbiters of their own rights. I'm sure you agree with that.

2. In my experience, very few people who have their work used under fair use doctrine want their work used. 

3. It is producers who pushed the theatre owners to end the ban of photography outside of the performance itself. Why? Because social media is one of the best and cheapest ways of marketing a show. 

[trpguyy]

Posted: 6/10/16 at 10:38am

PThespian said: "Hogan:

Below is the link to an article that the Chief Usher of my house just sent to us all in light of yesterday's statement regarding photos in the theater. 

It seems that there is at least one famous designer who doesn't want pictures of his work taken. I have to imagine there are others. 

Someday if I get really bored and have the time, which is unlikely given the fact that I work two jobs, I may actually lookup some cases on the matter. I invite you to do the same. 

For now, though, we will leave things as they are. You know a lot, and I know nothing. 

ASK PLAYBILL.COM: Why Can't I Take Photos in a Broadway ..."

I find those quotes from Boritt amusing, as he regularly posts iphone photos of his sets on Facebook.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 6/10/16 at 10:46am

HogansHero said: "@PT,

I regularly admit when I make a mistake and, more to the point, I avoid stating things I don't have a basis for knowing. When I goof, I am happy to say so. I am not better than anyone else but I do know quite a lot. I admit that. 

We went through the set copyright thing in another thread, and you rejected my analysis. I am not going back to dredge up that thread, but I would say the essence of it was that you didn't think fair use had application to this. You were wrong then and if you still think that you are wrong now. Go read up on it if you want, or seek out a copyright lawyer to ask. There are many gray areas in the law; this is not one of them.

As I think we left this before, it seems we have reached a point of diminishing returns. I don't want you to believe me; I hope you will figure this out on your own. In the meantime I'll go on being a mythbuster as best I can. There are literally hundreds of myths in show business; and I am only one person.

 

"

 

Of course, that's assuming what you "know" is based in factual accuracy. However, much of what you post is your own personal opinion with some conjecture based on whatever limited experience you might have in the industry. The bolded section of your post, which I quoted above, is verification of such pompous arrogance I previously eluded to. Zzzzz..... 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 6/10/16 at 11:31am

Liza's Headband said: "Of course, that's assuming what you "know" is based in factual accuracy. However, much of what you post is your own personal opinion with some conjecture based on whatever limited experience you might have in the industry. The bolded section of your post, which I quoted above, is verification of such pompous arrogance I previously eluded to. Zzzzz..... "

Yes, what I said assumes the factual accuracy of the predicate, of which I am quite confident. As I said before, i invite you to find your own facts but you don't really seem interested in that in that all you seem to do is function as a gadfly. You may view confidence in one's knowledge as arrogance; others don't. I also feel confident I understand climate change better than its deniers, and they too may mistake that confidence for arrogance. My goal here is to share information. what's yours?

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 6/10/16 at 11:53am

Your intention may well be to share information but if you share it in an undesirable way, the information will not be absorbed. That's interpersonal communications 101. 

[Islander_fan]

Posted: 6/10/16 at 1:54pm

As an usher on Broadway, I have to say that there are a couple of things that have been posted that have not been accurate. 

 

First off, it is in fact the job of an usher to stop people from taking photos/ general cell phone usage during the show. We do more than just sit people. Furthermore, every show is different regarding photos of the set because every production has its own rules on that. For example, although Waitress does have a show curtain, it doesn't come down at the bottom of the show after the curtain call. Since the production is very, very anal about no photos of the sets being taken, we have to stop people who are snapping pictures on their way out. However, at Wicked, the production is ok with people taking photos of the set. 

I know that the Jujamcyn and Shubert companies are on board with this. However, even if the Nederlander's get onboard wit this too, I wonder how this will stick. Specially since photography of the sets has always been up to each individual production. With so much money coming into play with regards to producers renting space, I wonder how long this will be a thing. 

[Islander_fan]

Posted: 6/10/16 at 2:46pm

I honestly don't know why preventing people from using phones/stopping people who are using them isn't an official part of our job. To me, it makes sense. Whenever there's any sort of issue including people using their phones and bothering others around them with that, who do the audience members go to first? The ushers. The fact that it's not an official part of our job is beyond me. 

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 6/10/16 at 4:32pm

As someone said before this new rule can be apart of the contract the show has with the theatre. So if a show ends up in a j(I can't spell it for the life of me) or a shubert house they'll have no option, but to allow the photography of their pre-show/intermission/post-show curtains. 

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 6/10/16 at 4:35pm

^ I highly doubt the landlords will impose such an onerous condition on the productions. There will probably be an "opt-out" clause. Also, it's Jujamcyn. Google is your friend, Jorge but I guess I shouldn't expect more from you. 

[Dollypop]

Posted: 6/10/16 at 4:41pm

Big mistake. The Metropolitan Opera eased their photography rules and now the intermissions have so many flashes going off you feel like you're in a war zone.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 6/10/16 at 5:14pm

Islander_fan said: "I honestly don't know why preventing people from using phones/stopping people who are using them isn't an official part of our job. To me, it makes sense. Whenever there's any sort of issue including people using their phones and bothering others around them with that, who do the audience members go to first? The ushers. The fact that it's not an official part of our job is beyond me."

 

I keep telling the ushers I know that if the contract doesn't specifically define the job function, then it is NOT your job. If there is no language that states ushers are to stop people from taking pictures, then it is NOT your job. That's how union contracts work. There is no language in the Local 306 Agreement that requires the ushers to stop photography or cell phone use; and if in fact you call your business rep, she will tell you not to do it. If in doubt, the business rep will either tell you to do it or not to do it (and best advice: do it until she advises you one way or the other).

As to why it's not an usher's official responsibility, that is because it can create a conflict that might be even more disruptive, and it is better to let theater security (not the private security at the doors) handle it. Many ushers don't mind doing it, but more and more shows are requesting that the ushers do not confront anyone taking pictures.

As to the pre-show picture taking, I'm not sure what drugs HogansHero is on, but the design for a show, which includes the pre-show set-up, is absolutely protected by copyright (whether the designer him/herself retains the rights or they are held by someone else such as the producer of the show). However, the no pictures rule doesn't really have a basis in copyright law. Fair use only applies to publishing photos of copyrighted material, not taking pictures for personal use. However, when you purchase a ticket to a show, you are contractually obligated to follow the rules established by the landlord and producer. If they say "No pictures or video recording" then you absolutely have no right to take photos or record video, and can be legally removed. With that said, they cannot force you to delete the pictures or show them the camera/phone . 

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 6/10/16 at 5:29pm

At the last 1 man show by Hugh Jackman, a uber aggressive usher almost stepped over people to get to someone who took pictures of the cast taking bows after it was over. He refused to let them leave until they deleted them threatening to call the police if they did not comply. Other people there commented this guy's reaction was over the top.

[Islander_fan]

Posted: 6/10/16 at 5:43pm

Fosse76 said: "Islander_fan said: "I honestly don't know why preventing people from using phones/stopping people who are using them isn't an official part of our job. To me, it makes sense. Whenever there's any sort of issue including people using their phones and bothering others around them with that, who do the audience members go to first? The ushers. The fact that it's not an official part of our job is beyond me."

 

I keep telling the ushers I know that if the contract doesn't specifically define the job function, then it is NOT your job. If there is no language that states ushers are to stop people from taking pictures, then it is NOT your job. That's how union contracts work. There is no language in the Local 306 Agreement that requires the ushers to stop photography or cell phone use; and if in fact you call your business rep, she will tell you not to do it. If in doubt, the business rep will either tell you to do it or not to do it (and best advice: do it until she advises you one way or the other).

As to why it's not an usher's official responsibility, that is because it can create a conflict that might be even more disruptive, and it is better to let theater security (not the private security at the doors) handle it. Many ushers don't mind doing it, but more and more shows are requesting that the ushers do not confront anyone taking pictures.

As to the pre-show picture taking, I'm not sure what drugs HogansHero is on, but the design for a show, which includes the pre-show set-up, is absolutely protected by copyright (whether the designer him/herself retains the rights or they are held by someone else such as the producer of the show). However, the no pictures rule doesn't really have a basis in copyright law. Fair use only applies to publishing photos of copyrighted material, not taking pictures for personal use. However, when you purchase a ticket to a show, you are contractually obligated to follow the rules established by the landlord and producer. If they say "No pictures or video recording" then you absolutely have no right to take photos or record video, and can be legally removed. With that said, they cannot force you to delete the pictures or show them the camera/phone . 

Fosse, 

I do get what you're saying about how if stopping photos isn't in the contract/job description then the ushers shouldn't do it. One hand I understand that, on the other I am not sure. Understand that I grew up around teachers. They learned early on that in order to do the job well, it involves going the extra mile, really getting to know the students to help them succeed etc. Sure, it wasn't written anywhere in their contract or job description. But, the point is that to do a good job or to do a job well, it sometimes means going above what is said in your contract. I have encountered ushers who are passive about phones being used, someone complains to the house manager at the door on their way out, then the usher gets yelled at and is pissed about being yelled at about stopping cell phones. If that happens to you and you don't like it? Well, then stop the damn cell phone from being out regardless of it being part of your job or not. Going the extra mile won't kill you. 

[SamIAm]

Posted: 6/10/16 at 7:20pm

No, she wasn't (although her tone might have been too strong). These rules are in process. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 6/10/16 at 7:46pm

Fosse76 said: "As to the pre-show picture taking, I'm not sure what drugs HogansHero is on, but the design for a show, which includes the pre-show set-up, is absolutely protected by copyright (whether the designer him/herself retains the rights or they are held by someone else such as the producer of the show). However, the no pictures rule doesn't really have a basis in copyright law. Fair use only applies to publishing photos of copyrighted material, not taking pictures for personal use. However, when you purchase a ticket to a show, you are contractually obligated to follow the rules established by the landlord and producer. If they say "No pictures or video recording" then you absolutely have no right to take photos or record video, and can be legally removed. With that said, they cannot force you to delete the pictures or show them the camera/phone . "

I never said, nor would I, that a design cannot be copyrighted. So I guess we are on the same drug. What I said (and I think this is pretty clear, but perhaps it has been sliced and diced so much that it isn't) is that a set designer's copyright cannot impede a non-commercial photo of a set. It is of course possible that the license that the ticket represents prohibits photography, but as we both agree that has nothing to do with copyright. I don't think there is a molecule of air separating what the two of us are saying. 

[Fosse76]

Posted: 6/10/16 at 11:10pm

Mr Roxy said: "At the last 1 man show by Hugh Jackman, a uber aggressive usher almost stepped over people to get to someone who took pictures of the cast taking bows after it was over. He refused to let them leave until they deleted them threatening to call the police if they did not comply. Other people there commented this guy's reaction was over the top."

 

It's beyond "over the top", it's borderline illegal. The usher has absolutely no legal authority to detain anyone. Even if it is mostly verbal or through aggressively blocking the exit. And second, copyright violations are generally a civil law violation; the police can't do anything. They would technically need a warrant to look at your phone and they can't force you to delete photos either.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 6/10/16 at 11:25pm

Bottom line was people were probably tourists. They were scared to death and guaranteed they will never ever see a show again. They have probably recounted the story to their friends and this is not a success story for NY tourism.

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 6/10/16 at 11:28pm

There is nothing wrong with taking a picture of pre-show/intermission/post-show. As long as it's not disrupting the show itself, I'm fine with it. Though I don't think is flash is necessary either. 

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 6/11/16 at 9:54am

Call_me_jorge said: "There is nothing wrong with taking a picture of pre-show/intermission/post-show. As long as it's not disrupting the show itself, I'm fine with it. Though I don't think is flash is necessary either. 

 

"

 

Yes, Jorge. We know how you feel. Thanks. Your opinion in the world of intellectual property and copyright law means very little, though. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 6/11/16 at 5:05pm

Liza's Headband said: "Yes, Jorge. We know how you feel. Thanks. Your opinion in the world of intellectual property and copyright law means very little, though. "

I can't understand why Jorge should not be able to express that he is fine with non-flash photography. The issue is not intellectual property or copyright law -- they are givens and not something susceptible to meaningful opinions -- but rather what we as a society feel should be allowed (or not) in a theatre and the mores relating to that are actually (and obviously) evolving and thus more than apt as a subject of the expression of opinion. 

But thank you, Headband, for your faux assertion of import. I could say pompous arrogance but I won't...