How Broadway Contributed to Its Own Cell Phone Problem- Page 2

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 5/22/16 at 12:28pm

I pointed out to a friend recently (while we were both on the wifi before a show) how easy it would've been from our seats to Periscope the entire show considering where we were in relation to the walls, proximity to ushers (barely any) and that the wifi was probably going to stay on during the performance. I wonder if this has already been done.

 

@z5 said: "This article is a load of crap....similar to everything else put out by Huffington. There's a tremendous difference between using the phone before the show starts and during."

 

HuffPo is generally a mess, but I've been following Cara Joy David's stuff for years and she's great.

Using a phone to photo/video before the show is such a slippery slope...

Updated On: 5/22/16 at 12:28 PM

[NJ_BroadwayGirl]

Posted: 5/22/16 at 1:00pm

HogansHero said: "yes, the people whose phones ring during shows either do not know how to silence it, or else are too forgetful to. No one wants their phone to ring during a show. Vibrate? yes. Noisy vibrate? yes. But not ring. And if you ever watch the people whose phones ring, most don't know how to stop it from ringing either. "

So maybe the preshow announcement needs to include "if you do not know how to power off or at least silence your electronic device, please ask your neighbor for assistance" 

[ChiTheaterFan]

Posted: 5/22/16 at 1:14pm

Sets, costumes, etc. are all protected under copyright. Anything that can be fixed in a tangible medium is. Buildings are different. First, there was no copyright protection over buildings until 1990. (So any building built before that isn't protected.) Second, there is a photographers' exception where structures may be photographed so long as visible from any public place. If artwork adjacent to or integrated with the structure is in the photograph, that is generally protected under fair use if it's tangential to the photo, but if becomes the primary focus of the work, you technically need to get the copyright owner's permission. (For works in public view, as a practical matter that isn't often enforced because of logistical difficulties, but it is sometimes enforced if people try to sell those photographs.  Public view does not mean public domain in terms of copyright protection.)

 

So yes, the owners of the copyrights of sets and costumes (and the determination of ownership is not necessarily straightforward depending on the employment relationship, although I'd imagine it's probably spelled out by contract as it is for most artistic businesses) can absolutely prohibit photographing them. I have been at shows where that's not enforced, and I don't know whose decision that is, but the copyright owner can legally stop you from taking pictures inside the theater. In fact, some theaters themselves may have protected aspects of their interiors and they therefore may prohibit any photography inside the theater at all. (The theaters are private property so nothing in the interior is viewable from a public space.). This means copyright owners could also request that these photos/videos be removed from YouTube/twitter/etc. but realistically, enforcement is expensive and labor intensive with the number of photos and videos out there. 

 

Of course, this is all based on US copyright law. I'm sure laws may be different elsewhere. 

 

(Nerdy but requisite Disclaimer:  this is not legal advice and does not create an attorney client relationship)

Updated On: 5/22/16 at 01:14 PM

[uncageg]

Posted: 5/22/16 at 1:45pm

When I saw EVITA with Ricky Martin, we were not allowed to take pictures before or during the performance. Ushers were running all over the theater stopping them before the show started. However, we were told we could take pictures at curtain call.

[MayAudraBlessYou2]

Posted: 5/22/16 at 2:03pm

Having worked as an usher, house manager, and box office manager I will agree that Hogan is wrong about the curtain call photography. Those design elements onstage are protected by copyright. Sometimes its incredibly difficult to properly track down and stop people during a standing ovation at curtain call, so depending on the theatre and/or house manager, it is enforced at varying levels. But it is most certainly not legal.

[sarahb22]

Posted: 5/22/16 at 3:14pm

See, the Playbills all say that, but then something happens like the cast of Hamilton dancing during a curtain-call tribute to Prince and I think LMM retweeted several cell phone videos of the cast dancing.  So it gets confusing. Is it legal and OK or not? Technically it's illegal, but when you have cast members and the guy who wrote and stars in the show retweeting 'illegal' video, that tells everybody it's OK despite what the Playbill says.  Like I said, confusing.

[aaaaaa15]

Posted: 5/22/16 at 3:32pm

It's all about common sense. Obviously it's never okay to get your phone out during the performance. Before the show/during intermission is fine and that's why there is wifi. Curtain calls are usually not okay. Special performances after the show are usually fine. If you'd rather be safe than sorry then don't bother. If not, the ushers will soon let you know it's not okay.

I live in the UK and eating in the theatre has been a custom for as long as I've been alive. I have never found it distracting. Again, it's about common sense and realizing you should try and be as quiet as possible. 

If people are too dumb that they don't realize that just because they're allowed to take their phone into a theatre doesn't mean that they can use it during the performance that's their fault not the producers. There are always announcements to turn your phone off. It's not difficult to figure out.

Updated On: 5/22/16 at 03:32 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 5/22/16 at 5:31pm

@PT, I don't question your credentials and I assume you are a Connecticut lawyer based on your question.  You have no reason to question mine either, although I will point out some really dumb people went to my highly regarded law school and are admitted to the same bar I am. You are free to view me as you please. A few quick responses to this silliness:

1. The cell phone law, if you care to look at it, applies to performances, not real estate. 

2. Copyright violations are not (except in circumstances not relevant here) "illegal." The copyright laws, like contract law, create a private cause of action. 

3. Photos of sets and costumes in the context we are discussing are fair use. 

All of these putative pot shots you are taking obscure the import of my original post, which is that we need to focus on what needs fixing (which to my way of thinking is people whose noise interrupts shows) and stifle ridiculous statements like the one about feeling special that the article mentioned. Incidentally, I'd be happy to support legislation that broadens the prohibition of cell phone use and, as I have posted before, I would very much encourage theatre owners to utilize available but expensive signal detection equipment to make the house staff's job easier. 

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 5/22/16 at 6:27pm

sarahb22 said: "See, the Playbills all say that, but then something happens like the cast of Hamilton dancing during a curtain-call tribute to Prince and I think LMM retweeted several cell phone videos of the cast dancing.  So it gets confusing. Is it legal and OK or not? Technically it's illegal, but when you have cast members and the guy who wrote and stars in the show retweeting 'illegal' video, that tells everybody it's OK despite what the Playbill says.  Like I said, confusing."

 

This is pretty much what that article is about.

Also, it's kind of annoying with this special curtain calls when the show's social media team doesn't provide video or photo in any better quality than what could be done by an audience member.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 5/22/16 at 8:27pm

@PT-

The law has been interpreted as I indicated. Your "real estate" interpretation would lead to the absurd conclusion that people working in a theatre cannot use their phone even when there is no show being presented.

Referring to a copyright violation as "illegal" is a meaningless statement. Under that interpretation, every breach of contract is illegal. The distinction is not superficial: the copyright laws inure to the benefit of the rights holders, and in order for a violation to be actionable, you must find yourself a plaintiff who has a cause of action against a defendant. Many, perhaps most, copyright violations are not acted on, and indeed acquiescence is a factor considered in subsequent enforcement efforts. Who are the parties to the action you are proposing?

The fair use comment was in reference to a designer's putative copyright. I stand by the statement that a non-commercial photo taken by an audience member to share on social media is fair use. 

Productions want/need publicity. That's why on opening night there are a bunch of photographers rushing down to the stage for the curtain call. That is why social media is facilitated. Everyone you are lining up as an aggrieved party has a stake in the product of that publicity. Good luck finding one that will retain you.

[Islander_fan]

Posted: 5/22/16 at 8:34pm

I work as an usher, as I have stated in another thread. But, I am not tied down to one particular house and bounce around from theatre to theatre as needed. I've learned that what can and cannot be photographed in terms of sets depends on the productions rules. 

 

For example, at Wicked, audience members are allowed photograph the curtain prior to the show. Though, the vines etc that are around the curtain are part of the set. However, At Waitress, the show curtain doesn't come down after the cast takes their bows and stays up.  The production though, is very strict on people not taking photos of the set after the show because of it being copyright infringement. So, we have to be on top of people doing that after the show. And, we are and for the most part people stop doing so, and apologize for not knowing that it was wrong for them to do that. I feel that each show has it's own rules about what can be photographed or not.

[Islander_fan]

Posted: 5/22/16 at 9:02pm

There are two things that come to mind, granted on both counts I could be totally off the mark and misremembering. 

I have been under the impression that if you're doing an amateur production of A Chorus Line, you're given the Bennett choreography to use and are strongly encouraged to do so. 

I had always thought that the Theatre on Film and Tape archive at the Lincoln Center library became stricter about their viewing policies because of direction. I thought that the issue was that there was  a director who saw a show, and then did an amateur production of it, block by block from the video he saw of the Broadway production. 

I guess with regards to A Chorus Line, if the can copyright choreography, could they, in theory do the same with direction? Not saying that I fully agree with what Mantello said by the way. 

[jo]

Posted: 5/22/16 at 9:04pm

I never violate the strict rule on photography inside the theatre ( except on one occasion - I will get back to that later). I understand the prohibition on not taking photos of the set  for copyright reasons.  But maybe that should be reviewed?  Most or almost all those who take photos do it for memorabilia reasons  -- they want to have a souvenir of a memorable event that they attended. How many would really be using it to copy the set for a production elsewhere, say for community theatre or for a school production?  Can they even afford to copy the expensive sets that Broadway houses use?  Maybe allow photos to be taken before curtain goes up and after it goes down and strictly not during a performance?

 

The one time when I joined the photographing frenzy ( it was one!) was during the closing show of THE BOY FROM OZ.  People kept taking photos while the performance was ongoing.  Management had to make an announcement during intermission to ask that flash not be used!  In a way, they gave in  (it was a signal that they were silently going along with the wishes of the audience to be allowed to take photos)....and was simply requesting not to use flash because that could distract the actors on stage.  That was my cue!  Which photo did I take?  I was lucky to be seated at second row center-most seat -- so I did have an excellent view. I sneaked in my camera and took the moments when Hugh was about to give Matt Damon a lap dance ( to the delight of the audience)...and I also took another photo when Hugh, arms outstretched wide,  sang the last note of the finale I GO TO RIO.  So, mea culpa for violating one of the cardinal rules on theatergoing!  But  it was such an exhilarating finale show...and John Heilpern ( if I recall right) even wrote a feature article on that experience. 

 

Re cellphone use -- if you had seen THE RIVER -- right before the show, one of the understudies would come out and engage the audience on making sure that cellphones were properly turned off.  Because of the configuration of the theatre for that show ( we were all seated around the stage), it sounded like someone asking friends for a favor.  I think that worked out pretty well, as there were hardly any complaints during the run about cellphones ringing.  Maybe the second line of attack would be Wolverine going berserk if he hears a cellphone ring as it was a fairly intimate play

 
 

Updated On: 5/22/16 at 09:04 PM

[Islander_fan]

Posted: 5/22/16 at 9:16pm

If they want a photo of the set or anything production related, well, all I can say is that's what the souvenir programs are for. And, I do highly doubt that the reason people are taking photos is for their own amateur productions of the shows that they later want to do themselves. 

For example, people at Waitress tend to take group photos after the show, using the set as a background. I stop them, sometimes mid photo and, for the most part, I've never had any issue at all. They've apologized for not knowing, and head out of the theatre. However, there was a group of girls, most likely in their twenties, taking photos of the set. When I told them to stop, they replied, "but everyone else is doing it." Granted, I wanted to reply back the old adage of, if everyone jumps off the Brooklyn Bridge... but of course didn't say that. 

I guess the point that I'm trying to make is, just because you could take photos in that situation, doesn't mean you should. And, even if a ton of people are doing it, that still doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. It's possible for a ton of people to do the wrong thing at the same time. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 5/22/16 at 9:20pm

@Islander_fan,

so in this thread alone we have an Islander fan and a Yankees fan. I wonder how long we will have to wait for a Knicks fan

A production can do anything they want, and for any reason they want unless it is illegal. But using the set designer's copyright as a reason is silly. There are at least 50 distinct set images of the Waitress set on the internet that are traced either to production photos or press photos taken at the invitation of the production. So what is being "protected"? I can understand if there is some reveal in the show that they want to try to keep under wraps (and that wouldn't normally be evident in a curtain call photo) but this notion that a copyrighted image is being protected is just absurd.

And Jo, there is no need for a review of the copyright law because, in this regard, the fair use doctrine already fully and (no pun intended) fairly addresses it. It is no different than the many museums that allow photos to be taken. The images are all out there anyway, so the only concern is commercial exploitation. If someone wants to write a book about Scott Pask's set design for Waitress, yes they will need his permission to do so under the copyright laws. But posting a pic of the curtain call on Facebook? Nah. 

We are obviously getting far afield of the (far more important) original issue here, but it's hard to let misinformation flourish when there are many readers who just want to know what's up and ought not be given the sort of incorrect information that people get from each other, from house managers or even from productions. There is and should be a strict rule on photos during a show, for a variety of reasons. But when we "enforce" irrational rules, it has a negative effect of the rational ones. 

[jo]

Posted: 5/22/16 at 9:38pm

HogansHero said: "@Islander_fan,



And Jo, there is no need for a review of the copyright law because, in this regard, the fair use doctrine already fully and (no pun intended) fairly addresses it. It is no different than the many museums that allow photos to be taken. The images are all out there anyway, so the only concern is commercial exploitation.

"

I can appreciate the prohibition in some museums about taking photos of artworks for the reason that chemicals used in photographing paintings or even sculptures, especially the most revered ones  ( e.g. the Mona Lisa and Venus de Milo at the Louvre) can be harmful.  If the reason is for preservation, I am all for that.  But some museums do allow sketching of the subjects, especially by children who are there to report on their art field trip.

 

Updated On: 5/22/16 at 09:38 PM

[jo]

Posted: 5/22/16 at 9:52pm

I found the article by John Heilpern of the New York Observer about the closing night of THE BOY FROM OZ.  I am giving the link in the hope that it will be easier to understand why the theatre management did reluctantly allow the taking of photos during the show, sans flash.

 

http://observer.com/2004/09/farewell-hugh-and-caroline-closingnight-hysteria-and-tears/

 

To quote a part of it --

 

"The sour critics—sophisticates, all—missed the essential point. They should have listened to the audience. The best seat for a musical isn’t always a seat. If you stand at the back of the house, as I did for the farewell Boy from Oz, you experience a show differently, and it tells you something. You can actually feel an entire audience responding to what’s happening onstage, as if a tidal wave of emotion, or love, is rolling back and forth through the auditorium. If you want to know how a show is really doing, don’t listen to critics. Listen to the audience instead."

 

Updated On: 5/22/16 at 09:52 PM

[jo]

Posted: 5/22/16 at 10:21pm

PThespian said: "HogansHero said: "@Islander_fan,

"

Go ahead, Jo. HH has advised you that taking a picture that violates copyright law and posting it on Facebook is fine because of how he interprets the fair use doctrine.

"

 

I did it only that one time ...and after theatre management gave its reluctant permission

I also never posted them online - they were meant only as my personal memorabilia of that closing show.

And my cellphone is always shut off  (whether for getting messages or taking photos ) once I get inside the theatre!

 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 5/22/16 at 10:37pm

@PT-I think you and I have taken this about as far as we can and we are already well outside anything germane to this thread or any thread on here. Various of your comments (e.g., the distinction you draw re common law vs codified law) are shall we say revelatory as is your failure to respond to the questions I asked you, that I hoped would marshal your thinking into a useful process. But alas, no. Good luck to you.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 5/23/16 at 12:25am

fair enough

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 5/23/16 at 9:00am

I love when people who claim to know everything are revealed as nothing more than hucksters on BWW. 

[tazber]

Posted: 5/23/16 at 9:09am

I'm not entirely sure I appreciate your condescending tone, or the implication that I don't know what I'm talking about

 

That's just his default setting. He condescends to everyone.

 

That's why I can't be bothered to ever engage with him.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 5/23/16 at 9:12am

Amen, Taz. Preach the truth. 

[ArtMan]

Posted: 5/23/16 at 9:15am

tazber said: "I'm not entirely sure I appreciate your condescending tone, or the implication that I don't know what I'm talking about

 

That's just his default setting. He condescends to everyone.

 

That's why I can't be bothered to ever engage with him.

 

LOL.  And so true.

Updated On: 5/23/16 at 09:15 AM

[ArtMan]

Posted: 5/23/16 at 9:15am

Double post

 

 

Updated On: 5/23/16 at 09:15 AM