this might be like hoying a lit smoke in the bush!

Which came up on a pohmy comeatre forum recently;-

  http://amdram.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=6081&pid=128672&st=0& #entry128672
Which to me may up chuck the possibility of any yoyo trade marking other fictional characters that may be outside the protection of copyright.

I wonder if this how J K Rowling was successfully able to gain an injunction to  stop a 'Harry Potter Fancy Dress Party' taking place a few years ago in the UK? 

Edited by JoeMc - 1/28/11 at 7:30pm

Speak of the devil..... yesterday I just got an e-mail musical "side". I would prefer not to say from who but it is from a "smaller" professional theater that has academic affiliations and I think if this group did not have clear permission to do this and some problems arose then somebody job might be on the line. I say again.... I don't know the law and I don't know what permissions this theater may have recieved.

My intent with this response is not to pick fights. In my experience, copyright law is an area subject to rumor and misunderstanding. My goal is to correct some important misconceptions so that people can make an informed decision about the risk they are willing to take on. Ultimately, whether your company decides to post sides is up to you, and the risk you are willing to accept. I'm just trying to make sure that there is a clear understanding of those risks when i can. (obviously as I said before consulting an attorney in your area is always the best choice)

In regards to the damages comment, it is not always necessary for the holder of a copyright to prove damages such as lost profit). Under certain circumstances, the law allows for damages to be awarded without necessarily proving the amount of damages suffered. These are known as "statutory damages." The amount of these damages to be awarded is set out in the law. As an alternative Copyright law also allows the copyright holder to prove actual damages suffered and recover "actual damages."


NDTenor - I'm sorry but I have to contradict you here. While common practice in the industry does merit consideration, basing your decisions on what a specific institution does can be extremely dangerous. (Especially if it is affiliated with an educational institution.) Educational institutions do not have a great track record when it comes to copyright law.

NDTenor:

I fear that I may have offended you in some manner. That was not my intent. Maybe I misunderstood your previous post. If so, I apologize.

When I read your previous comment, it was the following section that caused me to think I should perhaps respond:

Originally posted by NDTENOR I think if this group did not have clear permission to do this and some problems arose then somebody job might be on the line.

I would estimate that 75% of the time I speak with people about copyright law, I find that they have either based their past copyright practices on, or don’t understand why they can’t base copyright decisions on a version of the following:

“Well X does this and they are a pretty well known university/organization/corporation. Surely they would not do so if it violated copyright law. Therefore, this is probably okay to do.”

When I explain to the person some of the issues that this university/organization/corporation has faced or could face because of their action, the person is usually quite shocked. I then explain that there may be a means to do what the person originally wanted to do based on the requirements of the copyright law, instead of what another is doing with the law.

When I read your previous post, I was under the impression that you were putting forth an idea similar to the one I usually dissuade others of. If that was not the case, then clearly I was mistaken.

My response was not intended to cast a judgment on you or others. I did not intend to imply or suggest that you, the theatre you received the side from, or the academic institution it is affiliated with or any of its employees, contractors or volunteers are in any way involved in acts that violate the copyright laws.

I would also submit that whether violating the United States or International laws of copyright is an “evil” act is a discussion for a different time, and probably a different message board.

I am not here to judge anyone. Generally, after I explain to people why I wouldn’t suggest that they base their decision on the concept that if X does it they can too, I tell them that my goal is to provide them with additional information so they can make an informed decision. Ultimately, they are free to ignore what I tell them and utilize whatever means they see fit in making their decisions.

G'donya SEAN on your posts have cleary chucked light on the topic here, through this rather sticky wicket & it's potential mine field.

You make good simple points in order to clarify some of the home grown myths that are cultivated in this game, which invariably end up becoming more like the old 'Chineese Whispers' outcome of, "send three 'n four pence, we are going to a dance!".

Since the original simple Pohmy '1735 'Engravers Copyright Act' [a.k.a the Hogarth Copyright Act']. 

We subsequently bunged up the dunny with that much bog roll it makes it difficult to flush & clear easily.

Edited by JoeMc - 2/03/11 at 4:59am