Broadway Theatre Owners Alter Photography Rules

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always heard that photography was illegal in the theatre because the sets were copyrighted material. Would that not still be the case, regardless of what the theatre-owners want?

I confess I have wanted, on multiple occasions, to take pictures of some sets, but in the grand scheme of things I think this will only worsen the disruptive cell-phone behavior problem. It seems like a step in absolutely the wrong direction.

It will make it worse. People break the rules now. Tell them they can take pictures before but not during a show will make no sense to them. Not many people care a whit about the architecture of a theater. They want a record of a performer or show or both.Once you tell them they can take pictures but... will not translate to them. All they will hear is it is ok to take pictures and they will filter out the but.

GreasedLightning said: "So the woman usher who near screamed at me last night at Bright Star was, indeed, wrong.



"

One of the ushers at the same show a couple of weeks ago nearly yelled at the teenagers in front of us and rolled his eyes.

I'm not sure why people think theatre goers will have such a hard time with this concept. I've seen many people take photos of the stage before the show and then put their phone away for the show. They're will still be the announcement that during the show recording of any kind and photos aren't permitted. The people who take pictures during the show will be the same jerks who did before with strictly no photographs allowed. Most theatre goers aren't as horrible as you all seem to think.

tbh i've taken so many pictures of the stage or curtain and have never been stopped that I assumed this was already a thing.

Allowing the taking of photos before hand is an incredibly smart move for theatres to take... it's like free social media publicity.

What I have heard is that this is really up to the production. If they say no pics then the house must honor that request. Otherwise pics are allowed.

JBroadway said: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always heard that photography was illegal in the theatre because the sets were copyrighted material. Would that not still be the case, regardless of what the theatre-owners want?

I confess I have wanted, on multiple occasions, to take pictures of some sets, but in the grand scheme of things I think this will only worsen the disruptive cell-phone behavior problem. It seems like a step in absolutely the wrong direction. "

I explained this not too long ago. It was never the case; it was just a myth. Now I think the same owners should solve the cell phone nuisance issue which they have had the power to do all along.

PThespian said: "Some do. Some don't. Grainy photos aren't the best reflection of their work.

Taking pics of the Phantom pre-set, the School of Rock show curtain, etc. is fine.

Try taking a picture of the Waitress show curtain, the Beautiful pre-set, etc and you're going to have problems. "

I know for a fact that it's not coming from Scott Pask. Apparently ushers at the Brooks Atkinson take themselves very seriously?

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

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.

@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.