A tangled web, really.

If our older articles tended to have “legs” I would have gone back and updated it with an official photo, but 99% of the time once something rolls off the front page it may as well have disappeared from the planet. I was borderline shocked to see Colleen’s comment; it’s exceptionally rare for us to see comments on a post over a week after its publication.

Rest assured that I would never in a million years shoot during a performance; the removed picture was taken during seating. That poor actor seated in the bathroom set was in place during the audience’s entry. You can add that to my list of things I found to dislike about this production – using performers as nothing but mute set-dressing to be a novelty while an audience finds their seats and unwraps their lozenges strikes me as poor stagecraft.

With regards to copyright law, you could be correct that the set designer controls the image in question. However it’s far more likely that it constitutes work for hire and the copyright is held by either the production company or Shakespeare Theater, depending on whether this set is a reproduction of the one from the original production in Chicago.

That still does not make its use “illegal.” Copyright is a civil matter and the rights owner has avenues to petition for redress. The DMCA allows for some criminal provisions in particular cases like mass manufacture of bootleg DVDs, but this is not such a case.

Taking pictures in a venue where it is prohibited is not illegal, it’s a violation of the location’s rules. As such they’re free to ask you to stop and/or leave, at which time you would be trespassing if you refuse to go.

Whether any subsequent actions by the venue would hold up over the long term is less clear. In a case like this there’s a clear fair use case, which allows for use for purposes of commentary and analysis regardless of the desires of the copyright holder.

Of course there is a difference between victory in law and victory in the pocketbook. Many conflicts like this result in victory first and foremost for the lawyers on both side who are gathering up billable hours.

Even aside from my lack of interest in getting involved in a legal brawl with an organization better funded than ours, we’ve never used people’s images against their desires regardless of our right to do so. There could come a time where it’s worth doing so to write a quality story but we’ve yet to encounter that situation.

In keeping with that, I have verified that the above poster is indeed Ms Shaw and replaced the image in question at her request.

If you would like an approved photo we can arrange that. Please email our publicist at ascottdouglass[at]shakespearetheatre.org.

Thank you for attending our production. We are happy it made such a strong impression on you and we always appreciate good and bad feedback.

Best,
Stacy Shaw

Impolite, REALLY?! Rich.

Quite frankly I’d just as soon have not have used that photo; it’s a crappy camphone pic that I took simply to use in a note to a friend who’d seen the show several days before. However at the time I wrote this review I had not received any photos from STC and the only Lear associated ones on their website were of individual castmembers.

Since I knew I was writing a negative review about the production that had nothing to do with the quality of the actors I preferred not to use a shot that spotlighted any particular one. Thus, this cruddy camphone shot.

Don wrote an impassioned review that was a direct response to his feelings upon seeing this production. It engendered a powerful, visceral response in him – which is in fact what the theater is all about.

For good or bad, positive and negative reactions to a performance are reactions first and foremost. The reaction is what we want, not rubber-stamped acceptance.

Not everyone is going to like what you put your heart and soul into – but at least they are reacting. The worst thing is for the audience to shrug their shoulders, say “eh” or even just give a rubber-stamped acceptance without thinking about what they’ve seen – that’s true negation of your efforts.

Negative responses are just as potent, perhaps even more so than positive ones. If you don’t agree, read playwright Howard Barker’s works on that very subject. He goes even further – he’d rather the audience felt uncomfortable than blithely give a standing ovation every time (something that happens far too frequently in DC, I might add).

Barker would’ve loved Don’s repulsion, and it sounds like this production is influenced by that Theatre of Catastrophe concept anyway.

So, a little deep breathing here. No one’s been attacked any worse than say, Kenneth Tynan’s systematic destruction of Vivien Leigh. It’s Don’s honest response to what he experienced. I wish I had the guts to do that more often.

I’ve seen so many Lears it makes my head reel, but all the passion about this production is just too much!

(and I’ve got cred, btw, having suffered through Ken Branagh’s ‘worst Edgar in living memory’ – by his own admission – and Brian Cox’s wheelchair Lear in a clown nose – oh lord, the list goes on, there is no such thing as a perfect Lear…)

It’s useful information that a your/you’re error is understandable and minor but an Edgar/Edmund/Edward error is a sign of idiocy.

I’m presuming that “ridiculous bile” means you have seen and liked it and are not just being a rude internet troll. You’re in good company; Peter Marks’ review in the WaPo is quite positive and Missy’s over at DCist is certainly more positive than mine.

As per your summation “Stay home”: STOP REVIEWING.

Edited to fix my misspellings and for your idiotic assumption that you have a handle on theatre.

As per your summation “Stay home”: STOP REVIEWING.