No pictures allowed though - only "of them, not with them." — Page 3

This may have already been stated, but it also comes down to this: If you take a picture with one person, you would then have to take a picture with everyone who asks, just to be fair.

I don't get the whole buying of autographs as it's just a piece of paper with a signature on it. I am more interested in pcitures. An autograph for me is just a reminder that I met the person. So I would never buy one.

Damn straight Becky, I do sell on ebay. Last year I raised about $30,000 selling autographs for charity because as a fan, there are some people out there who will never get the opportunity to see a Tom Cruise or a Hugh Jackman so I get one done for me and the rest for charity.

Some people keep them for themselves and some have a collection, it's not for anyone to judge whether or not selling is disrespectful or you don't like it, etc...
For years people would write letters to someone like Jackie Gleason and get a response by mail, you got back a signed photo, unfortunately what you weren't told was that his secretary was the one signing them.
Say what you want about it, but permission is still needed in order to get an autograph, it's not like blasting someone with a camera to get a photo of them with food hanging out of their mouth or something.
And Ms Turner is actually respected for the "I only do 2 policy" b/c she doesn't waver from it. She's also asked a few of us for copies of the photos at times, which we've given her too. There are definitely some collectors out there who are a bit much, but then again there's that kind of person in just about every profession.

jrb...Do you think the Constitution is fake? Key to buying is to know who you're buying from and what a signature is supposed to look like, just because Christie's is selling it doesn't mean it's legit either.

---

Also could someone please explain to me why some stars will only sign Playbills? (b/c they don't want people going online to sell their autographs) A signed Playbill can still be sold and wouldn't it fetch more money than a scrap of paper with a name scribbled on it?



Edit: And I'm not complaining about it in case someone is in the mood for lecturing. (Which always seems to be the case around here.) I'm genuinely wondering.

Updated On: 7/3/05 at 12:35 AM

No blue pens? Never heard of that one. Nathan Lane a few years back jokingly refused to sign anything WITHOUT a blue sharpie and when someone handed him one he joked that his "ship had finally come in!"

I should add that Sherie did break this rule a bit at the stage door - she would glance up for half a second and smile on request while she was signing for someone, so if you were in the right place at the right time you could get a picture with her. Since I was alone though that wasn't an option for me (my self portrait taking requires at least a second of posing time). I'm sure it's a time thing with most of them as others have said.

---

buncha, while you and all of your altruistic glory may be fine and dandy, you know darn well there are plenty of jerks out there making $30,000 a year and it all goes in their wallet. But, good for you--I'm very happy you do it for charity.

But, your comparing an autograph to the Constitution was very stretching. Maybe if 3 dozen or so other men were present when Jackie Gleason signed a photo, we'd know it was real and not his secretary.
How are people going to KNOW who IS honest and who is not? Especially when you just tried to prove that Christies isn't 100% legit?

Honey, find statements that SUPPORT your stance!

And, I hope this doesn't come off as lecturing, UglyBug. I just want to sincerely say (in a nonlecturing way) that there are reasons why stars do what they do--and there may not even be logical reasons why they do what they do. But, THEY own the right to sign and pose and do the monkey dancing to the organ grinder.

And, some of you guys are probably very sincere in your frustration on this thread. But, some of you sound "entitled" and that is no way to be.

You can take that advice or you can tell me to **** off--it's all the same.

---

Updated On: 7/3/05 at 02:56 AM

But were these men on record (and did they sign, too)?

---

Rathnait... I hear exactly what you're saying about a souvenier of a meeting. I don't think an autograph by itself is really as valuable if you bought it off someone as if you got it yourself. It's their name in their script, sure... but I like looking at said signature and remembering, "Hey! And then Michael McGrath clapped the coconuts for the little boy..."

And to back up in this thread a touch, BELIEVE ME, I'm completely aware of Joe Schmo in Bumbum, Iowa who will never get to see a Broadway show. The autograph means something completely different then... this is just how *I* feel about autographs. Plus, how many of those people in the middle of nowheresville actually have the scratch to afford your poster filled with signatures? Many of these things wind up in collector's shops in OTHER big cities. Even on EBay, there's no way of guaranteeing that when the item is sold, it isn't just trading hands in to another collector who will re-sell it.

---

Updated On: 7/3/05 at 10:53 AM

Back to the photo rules. I get the "of them but not with them rule," what I don't get is why so many of the ones who let you take a photo "with them" get so p.-oed when you slip your hand down the back of their pants? I mean, they're actors. These are their "instruments," at least that's what they say all the time about their bodies. And their instruments have had success because of US, their fans. How dare they not let us feel their cracks?

---