Inappropriate bahaviour

[classic33]

So I did. I do think it anti social to take any sort of film footage, photos etc etc As well as talking during the show, using your phone, bringing in smelly food, being smelly yourself and making a noise of any sort during the performance unless it's some sort of emergency, obviously.

How do those on stage manage?

 

[MissTillyFlop]

How do those on stage manage?

I can't do emoticons on this thing, but imagine, if you will, a pair of rolling eyes.....

 

[classic33]

Well by definition, if you confiscate anything belonging to someone else, you have to return it. And we always had to get a manager to confiscate a phone or camera. We gave the audience member the choice of us deleting the pictures or having it confiscated.

Most people were just unaware (even though they were told as they went in) and deleted the photographs themselves.

I used to be an usher and spent most of my time deleting photos.

At odds with yourself

 

[MissTillyFlop]

But I don't understand what makes you want to take photos? What is this sense of entitlement that dictates your wants come before the rules of the theatre, the needs of those onstage and the other patrons' enjoyment?

Yes, actors need an audience, (although if they walked out, we'd still have their money, I guess), but I think you're wrongly assuming the audience would side with the photographer/ noise maker. I have been in a show where a phone went off an Richard Griffiths not only refused to continue, he berated the audience member until he left and he got a standing ovation and cheers from the audience

 

[MissTillyFlop]

At odds with yourself

Calm down - deleting, supervising deleting, what does it matter?

 

[Linford]

Well by definition, if you confiscate anything belonging to someone else, you have to return it. And we always had to get a manager to confiscate a phone or camera. We gave the audience member the choice of us deleting the pictures or having it confiscated.

Most people were just unaware (even though they were told as they went in) and deleted the photographs themselves.

If anyone bodily tried to take a piece of equipment off me, they would have a fight on their hands as I would consider their hands on my person as an assault - which in my view is far more serious than any copyright infringement.

 

[MissTillyFlop]

If anyone bodily tried to take a piece of equipment off me, they would have a fight on their hands as I would consider their hands on my person as an assault - which in my view is far more serious than any copyright infringement.

Well if don't take pictures in a place where they have clear rules about not taking photos and you shouldn't have an issue!

 

[Norm]

Calm down - deleting, supervising deleting, what does it matter?

What I'm seeing is someone grasping by picking out points which don't actually matter as they cannot challenge the fundaments of your writings.

If anyone bodily tried to take a piece of equipment off me, they would have a fight on their hands as I would consider their hands on my person as an assault - which in my view is far more serious than any copyright infringement.

Then I suggest you either don't book tickets or don't attempt photography if you do so, as you are generally agreeing to allow someone to do just that in the Ts & Cs when you buy the ticket. And you might find it difficult to argue in court that someone doing something that you've allowed them to do is an assault.

 

[vernon]

I think that there's a degree of preciousness in the anti camera/photography sentiment and that this thread has developed (sic) into a fifty quid argument over a fifty pence problem.

 

[classic33]

What I'm seeing is someone grasping by picking out points which don't actually matter as they cannot challenge the fundaments of your writings.
quote]

I don't really need to as her own arguments are often against established law & herself. As for the piece of "calm down - deleting, supervising deleting, what does it matter". In law, the way in which any situation is handled matters. Suppose the person trying to remove the camera from the person was male & the person with the camera female, how would that be viewed by a court.

 

[Norm]

I think that there's a degree of preciousness in the anti camera/photography sentiment and that this thread has developed (sic) into a fifty quid argument over a fifty pence problem.

The only bit I don't agree with is that it didn't develop like that, it started out like that.

 

[nickprior]

Most big venues will check for contraband like cameras on entry to the building. If you're carrying a camera they will offer to keep it for you until the end of the performance in their "confiscation room". If you don't like it, you don't get in. O2 springs to mind.

Smaller venues won't have the resources for that. Leaving it up to an usher to confront a paying customer is risky from all sort of points of view. Its bound to cause more disturbance, and any action taken without the consent of the offender leaves the venue open to legal action (assault, criminal damage, as above), never mind the T&Cs.

(Breach of contract versus criminal assault? No contest! Wasn't there once a Thin Lizzy gig where someone was hassled (strangled by his camera strap!) by security for taking pictures so Phil Lynott stopped the concert, reprimanded the bouncer and told the lad with the camera to take as many pics as he liked.)

As far as the possible copyright infringement goes, the only recourse the copyright holder has is to pursue you through the courts for damages. The copyright holder is unlikely to be the venue. The reason why the venue gets excited is because the contract it has with the performer and/or the copyright holder may require the venue to prohibit photography. People subsequently taking pics means hassle for the venue from the artists' legal team so in that case the venue will do all it can to prevent photography from happening. Most of the time its only indirectly a copyright issue. (Its like sportive organisers and helmets.....!)

This is complicated enough, but now add in a children's performance and irational fears of paedos using cameras, and other people thinking they have personal rights not to be photographed, and now try explaining all that in words of one syllable! No wonder people get confused about it all.

None of this justifies anti-social behaviour but just stealing a few snaps needn't be anti-social.

 

[classic33]

The only bit I don't agree with is that it didn't develop like that, it started out like that.

And with the odd bit here & there its been the same throughout. Title perfect

 

[MissTillyFlop]

this thread has developed (sic) into a fifty quid argument over a fifty pence problem.

I agree. I don't think we're either of us going to change our minds, so let's shake hands like gentlemen and agree to disagree.

 

[MissTillyFlop]

I
Like that like