43 replies to this topic

[BN7]

I used to think it was really miserable of guests to say "No Photographs Allowed" until I saw Anthony Daniels at an event a year or so ago that made me think differently.

If I was a forger, what better way to add authenticity to all my forgeries if I could supply a photo of the signing taking place.  Then I'd be able to sell them saying, look, its genuine, and here's the photo to prove it.

It may be overkill for all fans to be treated this way for the sake of the unscrupulous minority, but it does kinda make sense and makes sure that a certain amount of protection is given to those that have to use alternative means such as eBay to get their autographs.

It's just a thought I thought I'd throw open for debate.  I'm not saying I agree with it, just that I understand the sentiment from which it comes.

What do you guys think?

[nicky]

Some people just see it as an invation of privacy - they might feel odd about someone they dont know taking pics of them, who knows where it'll end up?

Some guests allow pics and others dont, its just personal prefernce.

Edited by nicky, 06 September 2007 - 07:40 AM.

[Mr Bennet]

All i wish is that if it says no photos, then enforce it.

I was in the que for Hayden. A crew member told the person in front of me that he could take 1 picture of her signing from a distance once he got his auto. Me and a few more behind overheard this and asked if it was OK for us too. He said sure, yet when i get ot the front, he clears off and i am told to not take any pictures.

I say that someone else aid it was OK and i was pretty much called a liar.

[BN7]

Just in case I didn't make it obvious, that was the reason Anthony Daniels gave for not allowing photos while he was signing.  In his defence though, he did have a small area to the side with a C-3PO model where he'd happily pose for and with people wanting a picture.

Obviously this wouldn't work for the really popular guests.

[Kittygoldfang]

I think its a time constraint thing too.  

Also could you imagine the poor guests knee joints after getting up and leaning across the table 600+ times.

The forger thing is a good idea as I have seen a Ronaldhino top being auctioned on a well known auction site - it came with a photo of the man signing the top itself.  Unfortunately there were about a dozen signed tops and all had the same photo of him signing - so it has been done.

[vix555]

BN7, on Sep 5 2007, 01:52 PM, said:

If I was a forger, what better way to add authenticity to all my forgeries if I could supply a photo of the signing taking place.  Then I'd be able to sell them saying, look, its genuine, and here's the photo to prove it.

I went to an "Angel" convention a couple of years back and that was the reason they gave for no photos whilst they were signing.  A lot of people use that photo to then "prove" the authenticity of autos that are forged.

[gilgalad70]

There a seller on Ebay that uses the same shot of Jessica Alba signing 1 autograph to authenticate shedloads. He has picks with loads of celebs to sell his stuff.

Yes it might be a reason. Daniels himself is quite hot on forgeries of his autograph. He has a section on his site dedicated to various forgeries he's aware of.

Also it gets a bit tiring having flash guns go off at random angles. Plus some folks have been known to get the star to pose, but left the lens cap on, or not switched the thing on etc.

[Shabs]

It can be very tricky to tell if something is real theses days:

These sites help alot..

http://www.isitreal.com

http://www.uacc.org/ - which has a hall of shame section.

Personally I would only buy Autos from the Shows and http://www.mspgs.com

Best Regards,

Shabs

[chris_mk]

I think the biggest argument in the case for sometimes not allowing it... came from an autograph I got a couple of years ago. The person in question was blatantly not very well (having suffered a stroke in his life), but didn;t want to disappoint fans, so sat and signed several hundred autos. Despite fans being asked not to take flash photography (the venue was too dark for non-flash photo's to work), some ignorna t***** STILL insisted on taking them, even though their 'hero' was clearing in discomfort.

(Please note that this was not at a Showmasters event).

[BN7]

I know what you mean.  While queueing for Billy West, a young girl that clearly thought she was it with her Nikon D-SLR snapped non stop shots of Nana Visitor and Robert Englund who was either side of him.  She must have fired of 20 shots minimum, all with flash.

Nana was clearly smiling through her annoyance, but that didn't seem to matter to little miss flash.  Even I saw green spots when she was done!

Multiply that by all the guests, and it isn't tough to see why they say no photos allowed.

Something I have seen, and Michael Dorn springs to mind, is no flash photography.  To me that seems like a fairer compromise.

[grawlix]

Lets get a little real here, say they’re taking only 10 pounds an autograph. They’re still making tens of thousands of pounds for a few hours work.

Now we’re feeling sorry for them because they have a couple of people wanting their photograph taken?.

How about concerts, sporting events, paparazzi photographers – everybody is getting photographed everywhere. I don’t see you supporting these people so vigorously?.

If their ill, I completely agree – if this is just to force people to buy official photographs, I’m unimpressed.

[Floorplay]

If the venue wasn't so dark in the first place, there wouldn't be any need for flash photography.

And, the people charging £10 for autographs were fine with photos. It was the more popular ones that charged £15-20 you couldn't take pictures of (or at least weren't supposed to).

[Psychosis]

I highly, highly, highly doubt that the guests recieve the entire £10-20 per autograph.

[frankslittlemachine]

A couple of people wanting photographs?...be serious!! You think Patrick Stewart would have got to 700 if photos would have been allowed?

Edited by frankslittlemachine, 06 September 2007 - 11:11 AM.

[Raylenth]

grawlix, on Sep 6 2007, 10:27 AM, said:

Lets get a little real here, say they’re taking only 10 pounds an autograph. They’re still making tens of thousands of pounds for a few hours work.

Now we’re feeling sorry for them because they have a couple of people wanting their photograph taken?.

How about concerts, sporting events, paparazzi photographers – everybody is getting photographed everywhere. I don’t see you supporting these people so vigorously?.

If their ill, I completely agree – if this is just to force people to buy official photographs, I’m unimpressed.

There are several people who believe no photos' doesn't apply to them!  Concerts and sporting events rarely last all day and even if they do it's not the same person there all day.  Here is a test to all those who don't care, sit in a chair and get a friend to take flash photo's of you every few seconds for 6/7 hours for 2 days and see how you feel after that  

Some people get migraines you know.

It never is just a couple of people saying "oh just let me take one"  there are always those who do their own thing, as others have said, they take multiple pics because the first wasn't quite right, or they can't turn the flash off because they don't know how or they just don't care.

[Neurie]

At many large music gigs phototgraphy is now allowed, neither are mobile phones.

At  an eveanesence gig securtiy were comfiscating phones and ejecting people from the premises if warned more than once.

Its just another money grabbing venture for the stars and the organisers.

[sydney_bristow]

Quote

At many large music gigs phototgraphy is now allowed, neither are mobile phones

I saw prince recently - there were fanatical about cameras and phones

[grawlix]

Raylenth, on Sep 6 2007, 01:40 PM, said:

Here is a test to all those who don't care, sit in a chair and get a friend to take flash photo's of you every few seconds for 6/7 hours for 2 days and see how you feel after that  

If they gave me tens of thousands of pounds for doing it - I’d do it with a smile, and probably dance to the bank on Monday.  

*sigh* The things these people have to do for all this money!. Having their picture taken is now too much to ask.

Some people work for the minimum wage, in worse conditions for longer hours – but I’d imagine you wouldn’t care about those.

[Neurie]

sydney_bristow, on Sep 6 2007, 01:53 PM, said:

Quote

At many large music gigs phototgraphy is now allowed, neither are mobile phones

I saw prince recently - there were fanatical about cameras and phones

Same when I saw Day Watch a few months back

[Clements]

BN7, on Sep 5 2007, 11:52 AM, said:

I used to think it was really miserable of guests to say "No Photographs Allowed" until I saw Anthony Daniels at an event a year or so ago that made me think differently.

If I was a forger, what better way to add authenticity to all my forgeries if I could supply a photo of the signing taking place.  Then I'd be able to sell them saying, look, its genuine, and here's the photo to prove it.

It may be overkill for all fans to be treated this way for the sake of the unscrupulous minority, but it does kinda make sense and makes sure that a certain amount of protection is given to those that have to use alternative means such as eBay to get their autographs.

It's just a thought I thought I'd throw open for debate.  I'm not saying I agree with it, just that I understand the sentiment from which it comes.

What do you guys think?

thats kind of stupid for people to do that, and it is a shame for people who would not do anything like that