Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2014 16:18:29 GMT -5
I'll just say, if I were a performer, I'd give express verbal consent for the audience to record as much as they damn please.
|
|
"Magic" Mark Hurr
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Here, have some chili dogs
Not related to Phantasmo
Posts: 15,679
|
Post by "Magic" Mark Hurr on Oct 22, 2014 16:38:53 GMT -5
I'll just say, if I were a performer, I'd give express verbal consent for the audience to record as much as they damn please. And that's fine. But if you were out testing new material for smaller audiences like countless comics have done and asked people to just take the show in and not record, should it not be respected just because?
|
|
|
Post by abjordans on Oct 22, 2014 17:32:39 GMT -5
If I was at a comedy show with a bunch of local, NYC comics on the bill and Chris Freaking Rock shows up to do a set and leaves after 90 seconds because some jackoff won't quit filming him... I would probably have a few words with said jackoff.
|
|
|
Post by Angus Mcloud on Oct 22, 2014 18:00:16 GMT -5
No, super wrong. If someone asks you nicely not to film them, and they keep filming, it's totally understandable to walk away if you're under no other obligation to stay. Read the rest of the piece. And the person who is filming, on the other hand, had no obligation to stop filming on their phone. Unless it was posted on the door or ticket that "No Cell Phone Use Allowed", then that person could have filmed as much as they wanted. So, Rock could have just dealt with it, like a performer of his statue is SUPPOSE TO DO, or he could wimp out, which is what he ended up doing. I went through so many headache inducing pages to make this stupid joke.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2014 18:09:55 GMT -5
I'll just say, if I were a performer, I'd give express verbal consent for the audience to record as much as they damn please. A lot of people try that on low ends, the usual result is: a) If they have a big enough following to have an agent - Agent/promoter being pissed at them for monetary risk reasons (some valid, some not depending on context) b) Venues/promoters no longer booking the act, and possibly those who work under the agent due to shitting on venue rules over filming/flash photography. Promoters own tons of venues for the record so it can cut a lot out from upstarts careers immediately. c) After sweating under hot lights and then dealing with visual issues due to constant camera flashes, you may get very annoyed (stage lights and looking into an audience can do terrible things if you're dehydrated slightly) It's cool to allow people to record things, but until you become a performer/know of many performers, the basic belief that they have free reign is immediately stripped away when they consider their livelihood, and rules set up by venues/their own agents/their own security and such (similarly, a lot of people I've had the unfortunate crap to work with HATE rules in certain places for stage diving/crowd surfing, when it's there to keep performers safe AND not to injure the crowd or f*** up countless other things or go against a venues insurance should the above happen, costing a ton). This is explicitly true for low end performers (not used as an insult: everyone does toilet venues before moving on up), you'll make relatively little money so brand extension by promoting videos of yourself for doing tiny gigs, or pay to play (bleh), or by pissing off venues doesn't seem like a big deal initally, you feel like you're playing by your own rules and that it won't bite you in the arse. "I'm not big enough so I can burn these tiny bridges as I'll be heading on up!" But when most people don't head up it crushes them, they'll likely have ruined opportunities to get anywhere, people will have less incentive to see them perform similar sets in person without notoriety of being a good enough performer etc. Plus you don't quite get over how irritating it is to be filmed or photographed non-stop in performance mode when it's not done by professionals, who ask the artists to photograph gigs weeks/days before and get explicit permission. Half because they make shots count and know what they're doing, half because they manage to do it whilst not being an irritant to performers and audience.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Oct 22, 2014 18:16:47 GMT -5
Everyone is filming everything constantly, but we still don't have a convincing UFO, ghost or Bigfoot image It's a pity, as the next surprise act on was Bigfoot UFO. Those jerks in the audience RUINED the proof. It's a long way from Mars too.
|
|
TheDieselTrain
Fry's dog Seymour
Chicks Dig Hootie.
Is Stone Cold gonna have to smack a bitch?? WHAT!!!?????
Posts: 23,724
|
Post by TheDieselTrain on Oct 23, 2014 6:27:00 GMT -5
I would have turned it on the moron and said he's the reason Why I am leaving so thank him.
Seriously.
I deal with this more often than not for one of my jobs. I'm in the sports photography business. We have screens so they can view photos and we print them. I don't go one event without some jackass trying to take pictures of the pictures on the screen with thier phone despite there being signs on the monitors saying photos are copyrighted and our property and cell phone use is prohibited.
I don't care if you leave pissed off that I touched your phone or was "rude" to you you aren't stealing from me jackass.
Sad to say parents do it as much as the kids do. Way to teach your kids that stealing is okay.
Glasshole...lmao that's one of the highlights reading through this entire thread. I'm gonna be using that one alot
|
|
|
Post by ThereIsNoAbsurdistOnlyZuul on Oct 23, 2014 7:56:08 GMT -5
I went through so many headache inducing pages to make this stupid joke. All must be in pursuit of the punchline. ALL.No, super wrong. If someone asks you nicely not to film them, and they keep filming, it's totally understandable to walk away if you're under no other obligation to stay. Read the rest of the piece. And the person who is filming, on the other hand, had no obligation to stop filming on their phone. Unless it was posted on the door or ticket that "No Cell Phone Use Allowed", then that person could have filmed as much as they wanted. So, Rock could have just dealt with it, like a performer of his statue is SUPPOSE TO DO, or he could wimp out, which is what he ended up doing. Yes/no. 1) Check your relevant laws for recording others. Often times if it is done without consent that is illegal. And even then, it is weird. Sometimes One persons knowledge of the recording is sufficient, other times both parties have consent to the recording. However, my recollection is that New York is a bit off, lemme look it up... Here we go: So depending on how the local prosecutor views this, the wording is vague enough that this could even be criminal. However, it would be the height illogic for Rock to pursue criminally. But he did not given them permission, and some interpretations of these things if there isn't consent to recording by the business beforehand, then the business may seek something, due to potential damaged earnings when no surprise comedians come to these shows due to the perceived inability of the business to control their crowds. So take that what you will. 2. Courtesy. If this show was free, or carried no direct cost to the audience, then there is no services/money exchanged. And in this instance if Rock was doing a surprise set, then he was likely not being paid, in that instance he owes nothing to the audience. And on the grounds of professionalism, never do anything for free. Professional standards says bail, as it is more important to him, in fulfilling his chosen profession, to get those new jokes worked and developed. Further, the audience is entitled to nothing. There are no 'audience bill of rights.' Particularly if the performer cannot contend with the behavior of the crowd, which is not their responsibility to begin with. Certainly the audience can request for a refund if things go wrong, but in this instance that is not an avenue that can be pursued. The problem here is entitlement. Who is entitled to what in this scenario? One could argue that neither owes either side anything. Especially since Rock was not a billed part of the event, so no money was ever exchanged for his presence. And in regards to entitled, I am reminded of Mark Twain's comment on it: "The world doesn't owe you anything, it was here first."
|
|
J is Justice
Wade Wilson
Will now be grateful.
Hi.
Posts: 27,931
|
Post by J is Justice on Oct 23, 2014 8:34:32 GMT -5
Well, then I hope no one takes his picture or films when he's ready, or else he'll bail on his next TV special. Or cough, he might call security! I can't believe people defending him. This is some old Axl Rose type ego shit, man! No, pulling some Axl Rose ego shit would be if Rock bailed the moment he saw a camera filming him. Or jumped into the crowd and beat the shit out of them.
|
|
mcstoklasa
Hank Scorpio
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 6,918
|
Post by mcstoklasa on Oct 23, 2014 8:50:08 GMT -5
The poster Michael Coello is 100% wrong in every sense.
Chazraps has made some good points and I've agreed with him, but calling Coello a KKK member for no reason that I can detect from the posts in this thread? What are you doing? Stop.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Oct 23, 2014 8:50:10 GMT -5
No, super wrong. If someone asks you nicely not to film them, and they keep filming, it's totally understandable to walk away if you're under no other obligation to stay. Read the rest of the piece. And the person who is filming, on the other hand, had no obligation to stop filming on their phone. Unless it was posted on the door or ticket that "No Cell Phone Use Allowed", then that person could have filmed as much as they wanted. Isn't filming someone without their consent straight up illegal? Even if it isn't, I completely disagree with you. edit: If I was ever in a band that was remotely rocky and as such had mosh pits, I would ask people politely not to record. If they didn't do that, I guess it's the kinda night that I feel like stage diving right on top of the dick with the phone.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Oct 23, 2014 9:25:41 GMT -5
And the person who is filming, on the other hand, had no obligation to stop filming on their phone. Unless it was posted on the door or ticket that "No Cell Phone Use Allowed", then that person could have filmed as much as they wanted. Isn't filming someone without their consent straight up illegal? Even if it isn't, I completely disagree with you. Depends on the state. As stated above it is not illegal to tape someone in New York unless they have an expectation of privacy. I wouldn't think a performance would fall under expectation of privacy so it is probably not illegal in this case. Still Chris Rock asked them to stop filming, the person continued filming... I fail to see how Chris is the asshole in this situation. Especially since he wasn't advertised in advance as preforming so you can't say someone paid tickets specifically to see him.
|
|
mcstoklasa
Hank Scorpio
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 6,918
|
Post by mcstoklasa on Oct 23, 2014 9:44:17 GMT -5
I'll just say, if I were a performer, I'd give express verbal consent for the audience to record as much as they damn please. IF you were, but you aren't. It's easy to say that, but trying being one first.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,016
|
Post by Mozenrath on Oct 23, 2014 10:04:45 GMT -5
The poster Michael Coello is 100% wrong in every sense. Chazraps has made some good points and I've agreed with him, but calling Coello a KKK member for no reason that I can detect from the posts in this thread? What are you doing? Stop. That's already resolved, but yeah, name-calling can do a lot to undermine an argument, both in muddling the message or making it to where someone is on the defensive and addresses the insult, not the point you're trying to make. "Listen, f***faces, I think people should be judged not by the color of their skin, but for the content of their character. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!" loses something in the delivery, for instance.
|
|
|
Post by bluemeii on Oct 23, 2014 10:47:50 GMT -5
The poster Michael Coello is 100% wrong in every sense. Chazraps has made some good points and I've agreed with him, but calling Coello a KKK member for no reason that I can detect from the posts in this thread? What are you doing? Stop. That's already resolved, but yeah, name-calling can do a lot to undermine an argument, both in muddling the message or making it to where someone is on the defensive and addresses the insult, not the point you're trying to make. "Listen, f***faces, I think people should be judged not by the color of their skin, but for the content of their character. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!" loses something in the delivery, for instance. But f***faces could be considered an endearing term to some
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Oct 23, 2014 11:03:19 GMT -5
Yeah, just to all the people who were replying to me on earlier stuff, that you kind of 2 days late on this.
|
|
Hawk Hart
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sold his organs.
The Best There Is, the Best There Was, and the Best That There Ever Will Be
Posts: 15,296
|
Post by Hawk Hart on Oct 23, 2014 11:40:57 GMT -5
I just want to note, when a comedian or a performer that you kinda paid to see tells you do some shit like put the phone away, do it. There's nothing more irritating than looking out at your audience and seeing everyone rolling along except for like 2 people. Like I said, I've performed before and actually lost time on it because two members of the audience were having a loud conversation and didn't respond well when I politely reminded them there was a show going on on stage.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Oct 23, 2014 11:59:18 GMT -5
As far as filming laws go, the key phrase here is the expectation of privacy, which in the courts is interpreted as "on private property," "in a restroom/changing room," or "of someone's intimate parts."
Now, what you do with a recording can have all sorts of other rules associated with it, but laws against filming are generally restricted by that.
|
|
Crimson
Hank Scorpio
Thank you DWade
Posts: 6,511
|
Post by Crimson on Oct 23, 2014 12:41:15 GMT -5
I don't really see the argument here; legal or not, Chris Rock was making an unadvertised appearance so it's not like the people paying were paying to see him and got cheated out of their money.
If he decided to bail because he didn't want to be recorded, it's his right. I think in the future, they should probably establish ahead of time.
|
|
Hawk Hart
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sold his organs.
The Best There Is, the Best There Was, and the Best That There Ever Will Be
Posts: 15,296
|
Post by Hawk Hart on Oct 23, 2014 19:53:15 GMT -5
I don't really see the argument here; legal or not, Chris Rock was making an unadvertised appearance so it's not like the people paying were paying to see him and got cheated out of their money. If he decided to bail because he didn't want to be recorded, it's his right. I think in the future, they should probably establish ahead of time. It's like an unspoken rule, especially at open mics, to not record performers. Unless they asked you to record them so they can watch the video back later.
|
|