|
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Chicago woman arrested for video recording in a theatre
|
Chad Souder
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 962
From: Waterloo, IA, USA
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 07-21-2010 11:30 PM
You know, Edward, you make a good point. One that I completely missed. There is nothing I saw that indicates the party was a private rental. The report ran December 2 and since the movie was released November 20, it is very unlikely they would have rented out the entire auditorium. Had this woman not thought she could do as she pleased with other paying customers around because she organized a surprise party, it would never have been an issue. She even is quoted as saying, "You can hear me talking the whole time." Its likely some other customers came out and complained about the nuisance this woman and her party were being into the start of the movie and that's why they responded and noticed the camera in the first place. Had she had any respect for the other guests and kept her mouth shut, or at the very least shut up when the feature started, she would have been just fine. It was her own lack of respect for others that got her in trouble. I probably would have had a smile seeing this woman led out by police after she ruined the start of a movie I paid for. That part of the story is what needs to be emphasized to deliver the importance of good behavior.
Good call, Edward.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Souder
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 962
From: Waterloo, IA, USA
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 07-22-2010 11:54 AM
quote: Jonathan M. Crist
It is obvious to me that neither Chad or Edward bothered to read the court complaint which was filed and which was linked in Julio's July 7th post above.
Actually, Jonathan, I think it is you who needs to read the complaint. It says, "sitting in the special VIP section of the theatre" not "sitting in the feel free to act like a jackass section of the theatre." There were still other people in there. It states they were moving seats, which would be a huge distraction. It states they were taking pictures, another huge distraction. It says the usher told them to quit moving seats since other customers might come late and want to sit there, indicating it was all around other people. It also states she "excitedly began to video the opening scene of the movie hoping to capture the title and beginning" which was the ground for the whole arrest in the first place. It doesn't say a bit of the movie was caught in the background, it says she straight up filmed it! This woman's lawyer filed a civil suit that freely admits she and her group acted like a selfish assholes and she broke the law!
Jonathan - read it again and please quote the part that indicates she was out of view of other customers, either by a private rental or in a special section of auditorium that is out of sight/sound of other customers. I have never seen such an auditorium. So what if they advertise for parties? Every theatre does, or should. Having a party does not mean you get to have your way regardless of other paying guests.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God
Posts: 3067
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted 07-23-2010 11:39 AM
Ok, after reading the follow-ups here since my last post, I can concede that the party was NOT a fully private affair and if indeed the lady was being disruptive to other paying patrons then there was more than meets the eye happening.
As for the taping of the beginning of the movie, if it was indeed intentional then yeah I can see confiscating the tape or at least demanding that the portion showing the screen content be erased on the spot. The theatre staff overreacted in this case for sure though.
And as for the distinction of breaking the law (which in this case I feel was not true) and committing an infraction which is what she did, the punishment did not fit the crime.
In other words, to quote Edward's response to my post: (Bold commentary added by me:)
quote: Edward Havens
<snip> I've had several instances where I have come across people recording movies. Not just snippets,(I call that an infraction); but the entire actual movie. (that's a clear case of breaking the law.)
It's the difference in how speeding tickets are handled IMHO. If you're caught doing 5 miles over, it's an infraction with mild penalties. Do say 25-30 over and it is now felony reckless.
I do agree with Edward 100% on this:
quote: Edward Havens
<snip> Yes, there are better ways to handle the situation than the way this Muvico did, but if the lady had just followed common sense and had some personal responsibility in the matter, she never would have found herself in that situation in the first place.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John Hawkinson
Film God
Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-26-2010 05:13 AM
I can't believe this thread is still going!
(I can't believe I'm posting in it.)
Patrons are not theatre staff, and they don't think like theatre staff. If you advertise birthday party tickets, the public is going to treat it like any other birthday party, within reason. People shoot video at birthday parties. This is no surprise. Why should they do any differently in a movie theatre? Why would it even occur to them that they should do differently?
Yes, they should change their behavior to avoid being disrespectful to other patrons. In the absence of any evidence, we really should not assume they didn't. But certainly a theatre has some responsibility to tell patrons what can and cannot happen at a birthday party that the theatre encourages.
Tony said, "As for the taping of the beginning of the movie, if it was indeed intentional then yeah I can see confiscating the tape or at least demanding that the portion showing the screen content be erased on the spot."
Sorry, but you can't do that! That's not the way our laws work. You can't make people erase something they record, nor can you legally confiscate it. Now, the police can (and should) take the tape away in the process of arresting the person holding it. But then it becomes evidence and has to be handled with according to the nitpicky boring and detailed rules that implies. Ultimately the person has to get it back, unless the something special happens like the studio claims it is their property, and then there's probably a civil suit to determine that, etc.
Of course, this does require the person to know their rights. If they agree to surrender or erase a portion of the tape, well, they can do that. But anything else? Nope. You hear about police officers asking people to erase photos all the time, but guess what? -- they're not allowed to do that! in the United States. (Now, YMMV and there's probably some jurisdiction in some out of the way place there there actually is a law that lets them do that, but it's gotta be someplace so small that no first amendment lawyer has heard of it or they would be on top of it in a New York Minute.)
--jhawk
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic