Paying for autographs/photos

[david4wt]

Hey all 🙂 I was wondering, what is your opinion on celebrities charging for their autograph/picture at conventions?

I've never been to a convention, but I know that almost all celebrities (I heard Charisma Carpenter doesn't) ask for money for this stuff and I honestly think it's tasteless, cheap and rude towards fans. I was wondering if I am the only one seeing it in this way or what! 🙂

 

[JCoatsworth]

I agree. It is very odd. I think giving autographs should actually be more like an act of gratitude towards the fans. I have a number of musicians' autographs and they were all free of charge. I also think it's weird to buy signed stuff on the internet. If some people like to do it, I don't care, but I want the real thing. I want my stuff signed face to face. I think meeting the person (actor, musician or whatever they are) is part of it and the autograph should remind you of that event.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

I have no problem with it, whatsoever! It's very hard to find work in their industry, especially when 1) you've reached a certain age and 2) you're known so well for playing a specific role. (When that happens, you get type-cast at best, or cast very rarely because people can't think of you as anyone but the character you're known for.

So these actors have to make both of the above factors work to their advantage however they can and one good way to do that is to charge for appearances and autographs. Of course if they choose not to, that's great too. But certainly I would never fault them for using the opportunity to make money in an industry in which it's so difficult to get new roles unless you're in the top 1%, (probably even less,) aka " an A-list" actor. They've got to feed their families!

 

[Ianigsy]

It depends on the circumstances and how it's organised- there are a few ways of doing it and I've been to the following:

-Signings at a shop where you buy an official photo of the celebrity and they sign it and usually one other personal item

-Conventions where you pay for admission over the weekend- often celebrities won't charge for this because they're already getting paid a cut of the admission receipts

-Large scale signing events where you pay a nominal admission fee and then pay per autograph. Some people charge more than others. The one I remember being distasteful was about 9 years ago when James Doohan came to London- I actually left the line for his autograph, not because of the cost but because there was very much a sense of "let's get his autograph before he dies", and I have to say I don't regret it. At the same event Michelle Trachtenberg was signing during a weekend off from filming Euro Trip in Prague.

Certainly as far as the signings in London are concerned, I think as far as a lot of actors are concerned it's an opportunity to have an expenses-paid weekend in London and any money you make is in cash so you can "forget" to declare it as income.

 

[Skytteflickan88]

I disagree. Would you sit for hours and hours, or standing hours for hours, signing, smiling, posing without pay? If you do, great, you're a giver, but say that it's rude for one person to pay another person for a task perfomed, that's unnecassary. That's what people do all day after all. They earn a living, they act professionally on their free time as well(for actors that would for example be not yelling at too obssessive fans)they get paid. Then they have free time just like the rest of us.

If they're going to do things for free to make other people happy, I'd rather seem them in soup kitchens and in children's hospitals doing puppet teather in that case, since we would basically be talking about charity.

They might enjoy the work, but it's still work. It is nice when they on occasion talk to fans outside of the paid events, but that's not something that should be expected, just like we can't expect the retails workers from our favorite store to chit chat when we meet them on the street.

The argument that actors should be grateful that the fans are there doesn't fly with me either. They work months to give us great movies. They create a product, we buy it. Why show that extreme amount of gratitude? No one walks up to a IKEA designer demanding their attention, just because they bought their furniture. Why should it be different with actors?

 

[JCoatsworth]

I disagree. Would you sit for hours and hours, or standing hours for hours, signing, smiling, posing without pay?

The thing is that they don't have to do it.

If you do, great, you're a giver, but say that it's rude for one person to pay another person for a task perfomed, that's unnecassary. That's what people do all day after all. They earn a living, they act professionally on their free time as well(for actors that would for example be not yelling at too obssessive fans)they get paid. Then they have free time just like the rest of us.

I don't think it's rude. Of course it's totally understandable if an artist can't really make a living with their art, but if they make big amounts of money, I think it's strange.

The argument that actors should be grateful that the fans are there doesn't fly with me either. They work months to give us great movies. They create a product, we buy it. Why show that extreme amount of gratitude? No one walks up to a IKEA designer demanding their attention, just because they bought their furniture. Why should it be different with actors?

And again I have to disagree. They should be grateful, because we actually don't need them. We need food and furniture and all that, but we don't really need music or a certain movie. We spend our money on something we don't need. We only do it because we like what they do. So I think they should be grateful. And most of them are, fortunately, even if they charge fans for signing.

 

[Skytteflickan88]

The thing is that they don't have to do it.

I don't understand how this was disagreeing with my statement.

And again I have to disagree. They should be grateful, because we actually don't need them. We need food and furniture and all that, but we don't really need music or a certain movie. We spend our money on something we don't need. We only do it because we like what they do. So I think they should be grateful. And most of them are, fortunately, even if they charge fans for signing.

I don't think that makes sense. I realize entertainment is in many cases luxury, even though there's a strong argument against that, since many think that humans need entertainment to help their minds thrive, and to allow relaxation. I think we can't be happy with only the basics(and furniture isn't actually needed, we could all sit on the floor).

But that's for another thread, wherther enterainment is necassary or not. What is relevant here, is that if we choose to buy it, it's still like any other service or product. Why should they be more grateful we crave entertainment than farmers are grateful we need eggs and chickens? We live in a society where everyone buys from everyone.

However, I respect your opinion, and as long as you don't actually say it to a actors face(or even then) it's of course okay if you make a difference between basic needs and the need for entertainment.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

The thing is that they don't have to do it.

Sure nobody's forcing them to, but if they want to make money to survive, yes they do. As I said, it's very difficult to find consistent work for 99% of "working" actors out there, and they older they get, the harder it is. This is a source of income for them. So they don't "have" to do it any more than someone else "has" to go to work.

Of course it's totally understandable if an artist can't really make a living with their art, but if they make big amounts of money, I think it's strange.

But that's just it: they can't continue to make a consistent and comfortable living with their art unless they do things like this, or are Brad Pitt or Matt Damon. They made large amounts of money when the shows were airing, but considering that most of them are not working consistently these days, what are they going to do to get by for the rest of their lives? Obviously they're not destitute with their savings from the show, but they do need to continue to generate an income, and they can't always get new roles.

They should be grateful, because we actually don't need them. We need food and furniture and all that, but we don't really need music or a certain movie. We spend our money on something we don't need. We only do it because we like what they do. So I think they should be grateful. And most of them are, fortunately, even if they charge fans for signing.

As a professional musician, I have to disagree with you here. I am always grateful when people pay me to do what it is I do, but I can't live off gratefulness. I would hope that people consider the arts to be more than superfluous; that they consider them necessary and continue to support us, as a life without art is not much of a life at all. When people take our labor for granted and expect us to work for free, whether it's at a promotional event or a concert, we suffer. We work just like everyone else and deserve to be payed for it. Gratitude from fans isn't enough.

 

[JCoatsworth]

Okay, clearly I expressed my view the wrong way. I'm sorry for that. Most of the things you wrote don't contradict my opinion at all.

I don't understand how this was disagreeing with my statement.

You asked, "Would you sit for hours and hours, or standing hours for hours, signing, smiling, posing without pay?" I simply meant that they mostly don't have to sit or stand there for hours, they choose to. Sometimes they need to and then they charge the fans and then I think it's okay.

But that's just it: they can't continue to make a consistent and comfortable living with their art unless they do things like this, or are Brad Pitt or Matt Damon.

And that's exactly what I meant.

I am always grateful when people pay me to do what it is I do, but I can't live off gratefulness.

Yes, and then it's okay to charge money, in my opinion.

I would hope that people consider the arts to be more than superfluous; that they consider them necessary and continue to support us, as a life without art is not much of a life at all.

Of course. I didn't mean it that way. My life would be nothing without music, movies etc.

Gratitude from fans isn't enough.

No, it is not. I appreciate art very much, but I hope that an artist, on whose CDs I have spent hundreds of dollars (I have about 40 Iron Maiden CDs), appreciates my support. How often have I heard a band say "Thank you very much, we wouldn't be here without you" after a concert? It is a great feeling hearing that sentence.

All I'm trying to say is that artists shouldn't charge money for their autographs, if they don't have to.

 

[Skytteflickan88]

All I'm trying to say is that artists shouldn't charge money for their autographs, if they don't have to.

But how can we decide when they have so much money they shouldn't be charging?

Look, if a artist that is very well off charges a lot more than the standard amount, I feel it's wrong, but at the same time, I can't walk up to them and say that. But I will stand with you in your corner, complaining. Just not about them charging, but maybe taht they're charging too much. At the same time; supply and demand.

 

[ashleigh]

No one is forced to buy their autographs. If people want to waste money paying for them, then it's no wonder they charge for them. 😛

 

[Living Dead Boy]

We need food and furniture and all that, but we don't really need music or a certain movie.

This really isn't bringing anything to the table, but I know for a fact that I would be in a mental institution if it wasn't for music. I would go absolutely insane. 😛

 

[ItMustBeBunnies]

Like [MENTION=10438]JCoatsworth[/MENTION] I have a number of band's autograhps that I got for free when I met QOTSA and The Living End and stuff but I have paid for autograhps aswell.

I've only ever been to 2 conventions and both times I had to pay for autographs. I didn't really think anything of it, since Im new to the whole convention thing so I guess I just assumed that was how it was always done.

Most of the actors that I met were really nice and I was happy to pay for the autograph, but some of them really sucked.

I recently went to a True Blood convention, and Michael Raymond James (Rene) was totally drunk off his ass. He mispelt my name, I can't even read what it says, it's just drunken scribble. I was talking to this one girl when I was there who had paid for a professional photo with him and then also paid for the autograph and he scribbled his signature all over her face and ruined the picture for her and she was pretty damn mad.

It didn't particularly bother me, when I got my autograph back I laughed my ass off. But it was pretty damn rude of him, it was just like "Dude, way to be a professional".

 

[Gum Gnome33]

So, I understand the sentiment behind the idea that those who are already getting tons of money for their tv show/movie shouldn't be further charging fans for autographs, BUT I think people often underestimate how quickly the money that these guys make is used up.

From briefly googling scooby salaries, it seems that, for example, Nick Brendon made somewhere between 8-10 million for the entire run of Buffy. Let's say he made 10. Something close to half that goes to taxes in the US, at that income bracket. So right away, he's down to 5 mil. I would think that about 1 mil of that goes to his agent, so now he's down to 4, (keep in mind, this is in 2003). Presumably he lives in LA so that he can continue to take auditions and smaller gigs as they come along. It costs a lot to live there--I mean sure he can be smart about it but it's not like he can move to a place in the country where it would be much easier to save his money, instead.

So then, even while he's not generating any income, he has to pay his agent and (possible) manager, so that he can keep getting gigs and public appearances.
So by 2012, how much of that 4 million that he was left with in 2003 from the show does he realistically have? Not enough to live off for the rest of his life, especially if he has a family to support, (which I guess he doesn't, yet).

Someone like James Marsters whom I believe supports 2 kids and made around the same amount, (possibly more?), definitely has to do everything he can to milk his former persona. It's reeeaaally tough out there to land things, especially once you hit 50, no matter how incredibly talented you are.

My family member was on arguably the most famous TV show as a recurring character, and has struggled to work regularly since, in spite of the fact that he's fiercely talented and works his butt off. People know him as his former character, and he has to use that to his advantage as much as possible, on the other side of the camera.

 

[Vamp Jenny]

I'm okay witht he fact of actors asking for monmey when you want a picture or an autograph. What I'm not okay with is Creation Entertainment asking for $150 for a picture with Jensen Ackles or Jared Padalecki (picture I could get for free if I ever go to Vancouver while they're filming) or other actors as popular.

I went to a Twilight convention in Toronto 1 1/2 year ago. I had a picture with Alex Meraz, which cost me $35. I could've had a picture with Kellan Lutz for $40. I guess a picture with Kristen Stewart or Robert Pattinson would have been maybe $75. All those price are more or less okay for a picture. So why asking for $150 for Jensen/Jared?

I know that Creation Entertainment collects way more money than they give back to the actors present. I think some of the actors don't even know the price of the pictures or even the price of the tickets to attend those convention. That is what frustrates me. That they charge so much for just a few seconds. And even more so that you usually need a convention ticket to get said photo-op.

I don't mind paying for a photo-op. I just mind giving Creation Entertainment too much money.

 

[BuffyElevated]

I think that asking for money for an autograph is rude. They're being paid to be there anyway, so why not sign things for their fans?
Photo ops, I have no problem with them charging extra money for.

 

[david4wt]

The whole idea of paying just to talk for a minute with someone and to get a piece of paper with his signature is offensive IHMO. None of them is on the brisk of poverty and they get paid to be at conventions, paid by the same people that then pay again for their autograph. They already have money that would last for lifetime to anybody else and if they can't manage to get another successful job I'm sorry and I imagine how hard it is, but they shouldn't be living off the one they had before. You know what you signed on for when you started, reinvent yourself.

 

[Vamp Jenny]

But do we know for sure that the money for autograph/photo-ops at conventions goes to them? I mean sure a bit do, but is it at least a good amount? Because if you take like 100 fans paying $150 each, that makes $15,000. How much actually goes to the artist? I don't think it really matters on their paycheck at the end of the day...

 

[JCoatsworth]

But how can we decide when they have so much money they shouldn't be charging?

This really isn't the point and I don't care about that. The actors have to decide for themselves and I just hope that people like Brad Pitt or George Clooney don't charge money for autographs, because they really don't need it.

This really isn't bringing anything to the table, but I know for a fact that I would be in a mental institution if it wasn't for music. I would go absolutely insane. 😛

I thought about this again, and you know what? You're right. That was kind of a weird statement 😛

 

[Skytteflickan88]

I think that asking for money for an autograph is rude. They're being paid to be there anyway, so why not sign things for their fans?
Photo ops, I have no problem with them charging extra money for.

Are they paid that much?

---------- Post added at 03:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:12 PM ----------

The whole idea of paying just to talk for a minute with someone and to get a piece of paper with his signature is offensive IHMO. None of them is on the brisk of poverty and they get paid to be at conventions, paid by the same people that then pay again for their autograph. They already have money that would last for lifetime to anybody else and if they can't manage to get another successful job I'm sorry and I imagine how hard it is, but they shouldn't be living off the one they had before. You know what you signed on for when you started, reinvent yourself.

- I won't repeat what's been said, but two things:
- Why does it matter what fame they'reliving off? What does it matter which job it is? If they're popular, and people want autos, so What?
- And what do you mean by reinvent themselves? Plastic surgery, being on soaps so they get attention? If people want to be themselves and act at the same time, and can make a living off it through conventions, why not?