Amy Schumer bans fans from taking selfies: "I Don't Owe You Anything"

[ilovepaydays]

Amy Schumer Bans Fans From Taking Selfies: 'I Don't Owe You Anything'

There are conflicts in what happened and I am not a fan of Schumer's comedy, but I think if she is overall right here. The comments in this article are pretty amazing.

It's one thing if a actor/musician/performer/athlete is at professional event or especially a "meet and greet" and fans are there to interact with their favorites and want an autograph/picture. That's reasonable - and probably should be expected.

But if they are walking down the street, trying to shop or dine out, or anything that is clearly "their time", I think some expectation of privacy should be respected.

I live in the DC area and I have seen numerous famous politicians, Cabinet members, journalists, and Redskins/Capitals/Nationals/Wizards players at restaurants/bars, shopping centers, farmers markets, and grocery stores. They were either alone or with what appeared to be family members, friends, or (maybe) a significant other. It never occurred to me to treat them other than an another typical person.

For me, calling their name out or especially asking them for a selfie would have been inappropriate. And if I did come up to them to say something it would only be in the context of "Hi. I'm a big fan of your X, your X is so inspiring, good luck in the future", and then leave it at that - unless they want to talk more about it. I don't think in a situation like that they owe me anything because I am fan and their livelihood is based on my support for their books, movies, music, etc.

Is my standard of boundaries with famous celebrities, performers, athletes, etc. too high? Or should fans be able to interact however they want?

 

[skatesindreams]

In a professional situation (show, public appearance, etc.) these contacts are to be expected; although I believe a polite request not to take them, should be respected.
In private, "celebrities" have the same right not to be approached, bothered, or harassed as anyone else.

No one gives up their "personhood" simply because they are well-known.

 

[Cachoo]

I think it is fine to say no. I would want it to be a blanket policy...no to all not no to some. If the fans don't like it then she will have less fans. I don't watch her because she is adorable to everyone. She has something to say in a funny format. That she refuses to take selfies or write autographs won't make me stop watching her show.

 

[Aussie Willy]

I agree that celebrities shouldn't be bothered when they are on down time. Cate Blanchett came to our rink to bring her kids to a public session and I think people were asking her for autographs and photos. But when she refused because she was just there with her kids, they were posting comments on facebook about how unaccommodating and rude she was. I think either way celebrities can't win.

 

[Reuven]

I grew up in western CT and we used to have quite a few famous people living in our area. It was considered rude to treat them in any other way than a neighbour.

 

[Karina1974]

Reminds me of the birthday party I attended for my ex-bf's music teacher from the NY Institute, back in 1998 or 1999. We were down in SW Connecticut, at some camp or something, anyway, it was very rustic. My ex and his friends were in a band that was playing for the party (they had all been this teacher's students).

At one point, one of the guys comes up to me and says, "did you know Meryl Streep is here?" Turns out she is a friend of this teacher and his wife, and she had been invited and had showed up. Somewhere I actually have photos of her with a group of women doing some song dedicated to the guest of honor. I never did get to meet her.

 

[TheGirlCanSkate]

I think it is okay to ask for an autograph or photo politely. If they so no, just say thank you and walk away. When I was a kid John Denver flew into town at the local airport and was eating at the same restaurant. My step parent went over and asked for an autograph and he was very nice and did it and chatted with us. A few months later he died. It was just very kind of him to take a few minutes out for fans. Some would say no and that is fine too. I think people need to be gracious and understand no is okay. I grew up in a smallish town where we had a lot of celebrities visiting 4 months out of the year and I don't remember any saying no or being upset with asking.

 

[viennese]

After reading Amy Schumer's account of the encounter with that volatile and abusive "fan," who turned on her when she declined to talk a photo with him, I understand why it would be frightening for a famous person to be stopped on the street by a random person.

Not at a public event, like before or after a show, where they are ready to meet the public ... but when a famous person is just out and about living their life.

As soon as Schumer said "No," the photo-seeker's attitude changed from "I'm your biggest fan" to outright abuse and "You're famous, I own you."

Reminds of guys who catcall women saying, "Hey gorgeous," and if you ignore them, they yell, "UGLY BITCH!"

(Wow - I'm magic woman! If I say no, I transform from gorgeous to ugly bitch!)

 

[Coco]

Agreed ▲▲

And I still think she's on edge from that shooting at the showing of her movie.

 

[skatesindreams]

I still think she's on edge from that shooting at the showing of her movie.

Very likely true.

 

[mag]

I agree that private time should be respected. IMHO, private time does not include time when the celebrity uses their celebrity to get something. For example, if you have been invited or got tickets to a premiere based on the fact that you are a celebrity, then attending said premier is not private time so think about whether or not taking your kids is appropriate. If you want it to be private time, line up for a regular showing of the movie like everyone else. Same goes for jumping the line at Disneyland or other similar places. If you take the VIP treatment and get escorted to the front of the two hour line up, don't then insist that you are just a regular person out for a private day with your family.

 

[judiz]

If they are out doing personal errands or spending time with family, celebrities should not be bothered. You don't expect anyone to stop you on the street and conduct business on your free time, so why should the famous be treated differently?

 

[TheGirlCanSkate]

But I am stopped on the street - people ask directions, chat at the store, ask things about what I'm buying. When my daughter was little and we were at places like Disney tourists would ask for photos with her. Strangers interact. People tend to think they "know" celebrities. They are in their homes on their tv, someone they talk and read about. There is being polite (like Amy S was being) and there are people who are not nice, like the guy. If he said, something like, okay sure and walked away, she wouldn't have felt harassed. For a man off the street to tell a woman she owes him, that is disgusting. This would have been so different if he asked, Ms Schmer, can I have a photo? No? Okay, thanks.

He should have said, yes I'll delete it right now. Instead he gives a thumbs up and says sorry. And then posts it.

 

[agalisgv]

I agree that private time should be respected. IMHO, private time does not include time when the celebrity uses their celebrity to get something. For example, if you have been invited or got tickets to a premiere based on the fact that you are a celebrity, then attending said premier is not private time so think about whether or not taking your kids is appropriate.

Maybe they were invited to a premier because they are friends with someone in the movie, and it was just extended to them? Just from social networks I would expect that to happen a lot.

If you want it to be private time, line up for a regular showing of the movie like everyone else. Same goes for jumping the line at Disneyland or other similar places. If you take the VIP treatment and get escorted to the front of the two hour line up, don't then insist that you are just a regular person out for a private day with your family.

Lots of people pay extra for VIP tours at amusement parks which allow them to go to the front of the line. If celebrities pay for that perk like anyone else, why does that mean they forfeit their privacy ?

It seems like what you are advocating is the public being able to determine whether, at any given moment, celebrities are enjoying privileges because of their celebrity-status, and if there is such a perception--however erroneous it may be--then celebrities forfeit expectations of privacy. I guess that thinking seems very flawed both in theory and in practice to me.

He should have said, yes I'll delete it right now. Instead he gives a thumbs up and says sorry. And then posts it.

Supposedly he only posted it after Shumer posted a pick of him to explain why she won't pose for selfies, and he received backlash over it. Don't know if that's true, but that's what the article stated.

 

[MacMadame]

It seems like what you are advocating is the public being able to determine whether, at any given moment, celebrities are enjoying privileges because of their celebrity-status, and if there is such a perception--however erroneous it may be--then celebrities forfeit expectations of privacy.

I read it as there are times when it is and isn't appropriate and here's my suggestion for what they could be.

IMO, if you go to a premiere, that's a public event. Whether you were invited as a friend or as a celebrity, I don't see how there could be an expectation of privacy. There are tv cameras and paparazzi and people interviewing you on the red carpet. This is not a private party you were invited to. If you don't want to interact with people, then you shouldn't be there.

As for the amusement park, the only time I think it's okay to bug a public figure is if they are there making an appearance. If they are getting VIP treatment, that's between them and the business and presumably the business thinks it's worth their while to offer that. But it doesn't change the fact that the celebrity is not making a public appearance.

 

[mag]

@MacMadame is correct in her interpretation of my example of a movie premiere. As to the amusement part example, imagine this. You are standing in line for 1 1/2 hours to get on a ride at Disneyland. You are almost at the front of the line and an entourage of 10 people is escorted ahead of you on to the ride. The ride usually hold 20 people, but the line is stopped and the ride goes with just the 10 person entourage on it. This is done because one of the people is a famous person (movie star, sports star etc.) The famous person has not paid extra nor is the general public allowed to pay extra for similar service. When the ride ends, a child from the waiting line walks over to the star and asked for an autograph or photo. The star snarls at the child and tells them to buzz off this is their "private family time."

So my questions is, Is it really private family time? It seems to me this person wants their cake and eat it too. They don't want the responsibility of their fame, but they want the perks. I have no problem with the star who waits in line doing so undisturbed. My problem is with someone using their fame to get what they want but then objecting when others recognize that fame and ask for a photo or autograph. I do think there is a distinct difference. For the record, I collect neither photos nor autographs of famous people and would not go two steps out of my way to get either.

 

[agalisgv]

My problem is with someone using their fame to get what they want but then objecting when others recognize that fame and ask for a photo or autograph.

First, how do you know the reason the celebrity went to the front of the line was because they were using their fame somehow? Could it not also be the park offered that freely? Or maybe they paid for it in a deal not typically available to regular park goers. It seems like there's a lot of assuming going on here, and there's no real basis for it. Second, it seems on the basis of that previous assumption, you're saying the public is entitled then to something from the celebrity. I just don't see how that squares. My feeling is that no one, no matter how famous, owes anyone an autograph or picture. They may do so if they wish, but they aren't under any obligation.

That's my .02, but I think it's a bit dangerous for people to think celebrities owe them something, and that fans have a right to demand this or that from them. Celebrities are just people making a living like everyone else. Those who make a lot will get perks that others do not. But the same is true for CEO's, political leaders, and other well-connected persons.

 

[mag]

Well if they paid for something "not typically available to regular park goers ..." Then why was it available to them and not others?

I am not suggesting that celebrities need to wear a sign saying "I got this for free, come and bug me." I am not proposing a law, I am just saying I find behaviour during life's little inconviences much more telling than behaviour during major crisis. If you have just jumped a 1 1/2 hour line, spending 5 minutes chatting to kids doesn't seem like a big price to pay. And yes, I know 5 minutes can turn into 5 hours, but if you can get away with talking to no one, you can get away after 5 minutes.

 

[overedge]

I honestly don't understand the "selfie with a celebrity" thing at all. When I've seen it happen, it seems to be much more about the selfie-taker wanting to show the world "look at me with the famous person". Not about "thank you for your work that I really enjoy, would you mind if I took a picture".

And I agree that after the shooting in the theatre showing Trainwreck, Schumer is probably more than a little on edge about the possibility of being attacked. Especially as she has spoken out quite strongly in support of anti-gun laws.

 

[ballettmaus]

@MacMadame is correct in her interpretation of my example of a movie premiere. As to the amusement part example, imagine this. You are standing in line for 1 1/2 hours to get on a ride at Disneyland. You are almost at the front of the line and an entourage of 10 people is escorted ahead of you on to the ride. The ride usually hold 20 people, but the line is stopped and the ride goes with just the 10 person entourage on it. This is done because one of the people is a famous person (movie star, sports star etc.) The famous person has not paid extra nor is the general public allowed to pay extra for similar service. When the ride ends, a child from the waiting line walks over to the star and asked for an autograph or photo. The star snarls at the child and tells them to buzz off this is their "private family time."

I think this is a tricky situation. A) Handicapped/people in wheelchairs and their whole family/entourage are treated in the exact same way and they don't pay extra either. B) A celebrity might not have asked for special treatment but receives it anyway. Of course, one could argue that they should have declined if they want to claim it's private family time but that is why I said it's tricky.

I do believe that if they actually ask for preferred treatment that they then can also sign an autograph since they're taking conscious advantage of their celebrity status and want to be treated as a celebrity. And if they want to be treated as such, that includes accepting the downsides of it as well. No cherry-picking. You want to be a celebrity, you got it. All of it.

However, if they're just walking down the street, I think they have the same right to privacy as anyone.

My parents have a doctor as a friend and they always made a point of not bothering her with any medical related questions after hours/at gatherings. They felt and feel that there are office hours and that everyone has a right to be "off work" even if it's handy to know someone like a doctor who you could just ask a quick question the next time you see her.
I think it's the same for celebrities. They, too, have a right to be "off work". They are a person like everyone else and while they get a lot more money, they do have a schedule and times when they are "at work" and times when they are "off work".

I just don't see how that squares. My feeling is that no one, no matter how famous, owes anyone an autograph or picture. They may do so if they wish, but they aren't under any obligation.

I think to an extend they do. After all, they wouldn't have a job without fans (whether it's fans of that celebrity, of a sport, movies in general etc. They need someone to watch what they do in order to have a job). I feel that giving autographs/taking pictures is the way a celebrity can say thank you and acknowledge that. It's a give and take. Still, that doesn't mean that they owe fans their private life and I don't think that anyone has the right to an autograph from a celebrity when the celebtrity is not a celebrity but an every-day-person.

 

[overedge]

I think this is a tricky situation. A) Handicapped/people in wheelchairs and their whole family/entourage are treated in the exact same way and they don't pay extra either. B) A celebrity might not have asked for special treatment but receives it anyway.

I'm not sure it's that tricky. There may be a legal obligation to give certain treatment to a handicapped customer - as in, ensuring the same accessibility that a non-handicapped person would have, or accommodating their particular needs (e.g. children with autism may become upset if they have to wait in line for a long time). So there's an element in that situation that isn't there with the celebrity.

And if a celebrity is offered special treatment, as in going to the head of the line, I would be very surprised if s/he said no. Can you imagine how harassed for photos/autographs they would be if they had to stand in line for hours?

 

[ballettmaus]

I'm not sure it's that tricky. There may be a legal obligation to give certain treatment to a handicapped customer - as in, ensuring the same accessibility that a non-handicapped person would have, or accommodating their particular needs (e.g. children with autism may become upset if they have to wait in line for a long time). So there's an element in that situation that isn't there with the celebrity.

You make a valid point about mental disabilities. But why does someone in a wheelchair, whether it's because they acutally can't walk, have an injury or are too overweight, need preferred treatment? If the lines aren't wide enough to accomodate the wheelchair then those who are with them could get in line and meet them up front, couldn't they?

And if a celebrity is offered special treatment, as in going to the head of the line, I would be very surprised if s/he said no. Can you imagine how harassed for photos/autographs they would be if they had to stand in line for hours?

Last year, I read on a Celine Dion message board that she was at Disneyland with her family and stood in line and she wasn't bothered at all. At least not that time that that fan saw her. So, I guess, how much they'd be harrassed really depends. (Said fan also mentioned that, once someone in Dion's entourage (can't remember if it was bodyguard or representitive) noticed she had recognized Dion, she was told that it was okay to approach Dion and talk to her)
And there are a ton of celebrities I wouldn't even recognize even though I like them as athletes, in movies, on TV etc.

 

[PDilemma]

If they are out doing personal errands or spending time with family, celebrities should not be bothered. You don't expect anyone to stop you on the street and conduct business on your free time, so why should the famous be treated differently?

A woman once shoved an elderly woman out of her way to butt into a grocery line and ask me about her kid's exam grade while I was paying for groceries. In July. I told her that I, obviously, did not have access to that information at that moment and could not remember it since school had been out for a month and a half. The next day, my principal called me to scold me for not discussing the exam grade with the mother as she wished.

Even better, a parent once tried to stop me in the communion line at church to ask about his kid's paper. And, again, I received an administrative scolding for not cooperating.

Of course, neither parent had specified when complaining exactly where they were when they attempted to have the discussions.

 

[overedge]

You make a valid point about mental disabilities. But why does someone in a wheelchair, whether it's because they acutally can't walk, have an injury or are too overweight, need preferred treatment? If the lines aren't wide enough to accomodate the wheelchair then those who are with them could get in line and meet them up front, couldn't they?

Someone in a wheelchair can't always move by themselves, so they might not be able to get in and out of line as well as someone with more mobility. That could be a safety concern. And someone in a wheelchair might also need extra assistance getting on and off the ride, which affects how quickly the rest of the line moves. So there are a lot of good reasons to give different treatment to customers with disabilities.

Last year, I read on a Celine Dion message board that she was at Disneyland with her family and stood in line and she wasn't bothered at all. At least not that time that that fan saw her. So, I guess, how much they'd be harrassed really depends. (Said fan also mentioned that, once someone in Dion's entourage (can't remember if it was bodyguard or representitive) noticed she had recognized Dion, she was told that it was okay to approach Dion and talk to her)
And there are a ton of celebrities I wouldn't even recognize even though I like them as athletes, in movies, on TV etc.

You might not recognize them, but many other people might. And if Dion had bodyguards just to stand in line for a ride, doesn't that say something about the sort of attention she might get in that situation?

FWIW a lot of celebrities (at least the ones who can afford it), if they want to go to an amusement park, rent the whole place for a couple of hours. Then they and their friends/families/entourages can enjoy themselves without being hassled for autographs and photos.

 

[mag]

...

You might not recognize them, but many other people might. And if Dion had bodyguards just to stand in line for a ride, doesn't that say something about the sort of attention she might get in that situation?....

Actually I would say it is the opposite. I live in Vancouver, so my experience may be different, but I have read many, many times about how celebrities are pretty much left alone when they are out and about just doing their own thing. Even the ones with bodyguards. Bodyguards, I suspect, are there for the very small percentage of the population who are crazy, and may actually attack or mob the celebrity.

It is just my opinion, but I think the vast majority of us respect people's right to privacy when doing their day to day stuff. Now I am not talking about the specific incident that started this thread, but I do think problems happen when celebrities (and it seems to me to often be less popular celebrities) try to pull the celebrity card to get something extra, then at the same time pull the private time card to avoid being inconvenienced.

Some food for thought, suppose you were at Walmart, and were looking for the shoe department but couldn't find it. You see a Walmart employee heading towards the door and you stop him and ask for directions. The employee snarls at you and tells you they are off duty and leave them alone. Remember this person is not even gaining anything. They are a private citizen heading home from work, but you just happen to recognize them as an employee. Would this be considered acceptable behaviour on the part of the employee? Was it unreasonable for you to ask the question?

 

[ballettmaus]

Someone in a wheelchair can't always move by themselves, so they might not be able to get in and out of line as well as someone with more mobility. That could be a safety concern. And someone in a wheelchair might also need extra assistance getting on and off the ride, which affects how quickly the rest of the line moves. So there are a lot of good reasons to give different treatment to customers with disabilities.

But they need the assistance one way or the other, so where's the difference? In Disney World specifically (and I only know about Disney World because that's bascially the only amusement park I've been to) they get into the same rides as everyone else, they just get in there quicker. But they get in as quickly or slowly as they get in one way or the other so the line is held up one way or the other.

I have a close friend whose father is handicapped - he had Polio has a child. We grew up together and to me, her father was always her father like my father was my father. He was just like everyone else to me and he never ever demanded any special treatment. Rather to the contrary.

There are certain disabilities which I agree need preferred treatment. There are others which I feel don't because they get the assistent they need whether they stand in line or not.

You might not recognize them, but many other people might. And if Dion had bodyguards just to stand in line for a ride, doesn't that say something about the sort of attention she might get in that situation?

As far as I know, she always has bodyguards, and I think not only because of possible harrassment but also so that her children are protected.

 

[overedge]

@ballettmaus the difference is that celebrities are getting special treatment because they are celebrities - not because the park has a legal obligation to treat them in a certain way, and not because of a physical condition.

I'm not going to get into arguing about whether some physical conditions should be accommodated and others shouldn't, or whether people with disabilities should or shouldn't request special treatment, or what kind of accommodation they should get.

My point is that celebrity and disability are not comparable when the subject is"special" treatment in lineups.

 

[MacMadame]

I do believe that if they actually ask for preferred treatment that they then can also sign an autograph since they're taking conscious advantage of their celebrity status and want to be treated as a celebrity. And if they want to be treated as such, that includes accepting the downsides of it as well. No cherry-picking. You want to be a celebrity, you got it. All of it.

However, if they're just walking down the street, I think they have the same right to privacy as anyone.

But since they don't wear a sign that says "Disneyland let me in for freeeee because I'm famous!" you can't really tell which one it is by looking. So I say give them the benefit of the doubt if it's not clearly a public function that they've been invited to in order to interact with fans/put on a show.

You make a valid point about mental disabilities. But why does someone in a wheelchair, whether it's because they acutally can't walk, have an injury or are too overweight, need preferred treatment? If the lines aren't wide enough to accomodate the wheelchair then those who are with them could get in line and meet them up front, couldn't they?

Getting around these parks in a wheelchair or on crutches or with certain health conditions can be pretty exhausting. And can sometimes take longer than if you are on foot. Going to the front of the line evens things out and lets these guests ride as many rides as everyone else in the time they have before they are too tired to go on.

 

[puglover]

Last year we stayed at a lovely resort in Palm Springs with our daughter and her family. The set up of the resort is secluded - very lovely with huge hedges everywhere and none of it is visible to anyone not staying or visiting there. Jesse Tyler Ferguson and his husband (I assume) and an older woman and a dog sat at a table right beside us for breakfast. My daughter has five young children, including twins, who were about 10 months at the time so they attract a lot of attention on their own. Several of her children did interact with the dog and received smiles from those accompanying Jesse but he looked up not even once. I felt Jesse gave a clear message - "I am on private time". I will admit, it was a bit of an adjustment from what I have seen of his public persona on DWTS and the character he plays on television and so it took a minute for the message to really sink in. His body language was loud and clear and everyone around him seemed to respect that and did not approach their table.

 

[once_upon]

Celebs don't owe me anything, I pay to see the movie or a performance. They don't owe me a selfie or an autograph or anything.

Last SKAM, Ryan Bradley was doing a meet and greet. I did ask for a selfie photo which he said sure. But if he said no, I would have been OK with that.

It might be the one time for the fan but if it is the 50th time today and the 300th time this week for the celeb? Plus that one fan needs 7 or so takes to get THAT perfect picture, uh yeah, I would say no too.