Hi Cotty and William first thanks for your lengthy and interesting answer Cotty. I understand well that an artist has to be protected from paparazzi behavior and alike. I thought the point was more whether I would disturb an event or not. For example in a opera or theatre, even the noise of the most silent shutter could sometimes be heard or in a circus, flash could be dangerous for the artists or the animals.
So it seems to be much easier to go into a rock concert (if not the Rolling Stones, they forbid cameras at concerts) and take photographs than into a theatre. Remember it all started at a m a r i o n e t t e theater but some puppets are famous too and have personalities to be protected ;-) greetings Markus >>-----Original Message----- >>From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 8:52 PM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: Re: No entry for photographers for the first time >> >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Cotty" >>Subject: Re: No entry for photographers for the first time >> >> >>> >>> In the end, that's what it's all about - motives. Why are you shooting >>> what you shoot? is it to make some money, or is it because you enjoy the >>> activity? You and I know the answer to that - now you have to convince >>> the people who are able to decide if you will or you won't be >>able to do >>> it. >> >>It's also about future motives. >>A person may have very good intentions, get an absolutely >>wonderful image, >>and find himself tempted to sell it for a poster or some such, >>without the >>subject's permission. >>Artists tend to be careful of such things, and I am sure venue >>managers have >>to be equally paranoid. >>I am sure there is also an element of small minded authority >>happenning as >>well. >> >>William Robb >> >>
