Derivative works - how?
Printed From: Community Theater Green Room
Category: Producing Theater
Forum Name: Other Topics
Forum Discription: For everything else
URL: http://www.communitytheater.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4331
Printed Date: 11/23/24 at 2:29pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 8.05 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Derivative works - how?
Posted By: trutter
Subject: Derivative works - how?
Date Posted: 11/18/09 at 2:28pm
|
I have a general question, and then a specific one. How do community theaters get away with doing derivative works? I have been researching whether or not there is an official "Breakfast Club" theater version and cannot find one. Yet there are scores of theaters putting on adaptations of the movie. Aren't they afraid of William Morris or Universal suing them? Doesn't it occur to them that "gee, we're not paying any rights, I wonder if we should be? This goes to other works too such as Newsies: the musical, which some people have done. How do you justify to your board of directors that you are taking a chance and doing an illegal adaptation of a movie, or even another play? The second question is, quite frankly - IS there an official Breakfast Club for theaters around? ------------- ------ Troy A. Rutter Author, "Kids in the Biz: A Hollywood Handbook for Parents" http://www.kidsinthebiz.com/ - http://www.kidsinthebiz.com/ A Heinemann Drama Publication |
Replies:
Posted By: David McCall
Date Posted: 11/18/09 at 11:06pm
|
If you want anything you usually have to pay someone something for it. That is the generally the case for any show that the general public would recognize. I cringe when I see people breaking the rules. They record shows on video, use unauthorized logos, change the gender of characters (some publishers don't allow that), add, delete or change dialog, photocopy scripts, change musical numbers. produce unauthorized "musical reviews", etc.,etc.. ------------- David M |
Posted By: TonyDi
Date Posted: 11/19/09 at 6:29am
I must agree with you. Trouble is that too many people do this kind of thing and companies that hold rights just have too few resources to cover all those who are violating the laws. It's far too one sided if you ask me. However, when they DO catch someone blatantly violating the rules, they usually slap them with huge fines and such, as a deterrant. But it's all about "catching" someone doing it and frankly I just don't think they have the resources to keep up with the infractions. It's sad that people do that - AND they do it more often blatantly - rather than from a stance of ignorance of the laws (though as we all know ignorance of the law is no excuse).
I understand what copyright laws and such are supposed to do - but it's just like the music download and torrent sites that offer all kinds of free stuff that breaks laws and rules all over the place. I mean 100's of millions of people against companies that have NO way to enforce the laws because they don't have the time, the personnel, the money or even at times the inclination to take it to the courts....which similarly don't have the time, the personnel, the resources to deal with the rampant violations that go on every hour of every day. Something is askew with people's self-induced "right" to have whatever is out there just for the taking when it's protected so that those whose living is dependent upon whatever they create, remains in place. But I fear it's a losing battle at times. Again too many people doing it with not enough resources to enforce it. And that's the tough part.
TonyDi
------------- "Almost famous" |
Posted By: David McCall
Date Posted: 11/19/09 at 9:59am
|
There is a side of me that says there are far too many laws anyway. That is the major reason it is so hard to reinforce them. I understand why there are intellectual rights, but I'm not sure it is a productive model. For instance; would it be more interesting to see a new version of Harvey instead of the same one as you saw a couple years ago but with different actors? If you have lots of girls auditioning, but only 2 boys, it would be nice to feel free to do a little re-wright. Wouldn't we all like to have a DVD of the better shows we've worked on?
When an architect designs a house he gets paid, but he doesn't get paid again every time the house sells. If you add a bedroom, or remodel the foyer you don't get the police at your door. Most people get paid for their work and move on. They don't get paid again every time what they did gets used. If you don't want someone to steal something, then don't expose it to the public. I know that is a very poor example, sorry. Laws are laws and you have to live with them.
Of course I'm just playing the devil's advocate to stimulate discussion. This group hasn't been very lively lately. ------------- David M |
Posted By: POB14
Date Posted: 11/19/09 at 12:36pm
Taking this in the spirit in which it was offered, to generate discussion . . .
The architect gets paid to DESIGN a house. He gets paid, and generally paid well, whether or not the house is ever built. The playwright, if he's Neil Simon, might get paid for the publication of his works, but for 99% of the playwrights out there, they ONLY get paid when there is a production.
So let's say I'm the next Tony Kushner, and I have this great idea for a play. We're under your system; anybody can take my words once they're out there. I go to the local theatre, and offer them my play. I'm unknown; I'm not going to get produced on Broadway, so I go to a small non-Equity house.
Maybe they can offer me a couple grand in royalties, but why would they? They can do Wicked forever for free. The only thing I can offer them, as an unknown playwright, is a lower price than a known smash hit. And even if (for some reason) they pay me, it won't be much.
But let's say I do it, anyway. Here, take my show; I want to get famous. And it's great; it's a hit. Now, anybody can take it, and they do; it's the hottest play in the world, every town has a production, fistfights in the street for tickets, and everybody's getting rich.
Except me.
Under the system NOW, I can afford to take the low royalties for a new play, because if it's a hit, and everybody wants to do it, I'll get rich (or at least paid  ). And that's the motivation for creating new art; if I get a hundred bucks and a hearty handshake, and then every theatre in the world gets rich off of my work, I'm going to say screw it, and go dig ditches for a living, where at least I get paid for my labor.------------- POB Old Bugger, Curmudgeon, and Antisocial B**tard |
Posted By: jonplaywright
Date Posted: 11/19/09 at 12:57pm
|
As a playwright, I had to speak up. The big difference between being a builder or an architect or even a screenwriter vs. being a playwright is that the former group works for hire. Playwrights are not employees, which is why the Dramatists Guild of America is an association and not a union, and we own our work. In essence, producing a play is like renting a car, so you don't get to keep it without an ongoing fee, and you surely don't get to repaint it without asking me first. If you're tired of Harvey, there are many, many other plays available (I have quite a few myself). You don't get to soup it up to please yourself. I've had 7 or 8 infringements of my work that I know of. I use Google and Copernic to search for my name and my play titles regularly, and I work with my publishers to make sure that royalties are paid. Mostly, I've found it's ignorance (e.g. schools thinking if they don't charge admission there is no royalty), though in the case of several friends of mine, I'm not so sure. In my February 2009 newsletter, I put together a Rights and Royalties for Dummies that offers a simple guide to copyright issues. http://jondorf.com/news0209.html - http://jondorf.com/news0209.html Might be worth a read. Cheers, Jon Dorf |
Posted By: tristanrobin
Date Posted: 11/19/09 at 9:03pm
|
FYI for the original post: I haven't seen "The Breakfast Club" being done (isn't it incredibly static and boring? LOL) - but there is a stage version of "Newsies" available legally. ------------- http://tristanrobin.blogspot.com |
Posted By: Gaafa
Date Posted: 11/19/09 at 10:02pm
|
This is probably why Hogath put up the first 'Copyright Act Bill back in 1736, that was later passed that year in the Pohmy [British] Parliment. ------------- Joe Western Gondawandaland turn right @ Perth. Hear the light & see the sound. Toi Toi Toi Chookas {{"chook [chicken] it is"} May you always play to a full house} |
Posted By: Gaafa
Date Posted: 12/03/09 at 8:31pm
|
This might be off topic?
But I'm bewildered by this stage 'Spoof' production of Harry Potter & what amases me more, apparently the production is still going ahead? ;-
http://www.jallyproductions.com/harrypotter.html - http://www.jallyproductions.com/harrypotter.html Could it be it has fallen thru the cracks & been missed by JKR &/or WBros? ------------- Joe Western Gondawandaland turn right @ Perth. Hear the light & see the sound. Toi Toi Toi Chookas {{"chook [chicken] it is"} May you always play to a full house} |
Posted By: jonplaywright
Date Posted: 12/03/09 at 8:36pm
|
In the States, parody is protected speech and isn't considered infringement. It's probably similar in most Commonwealth countries. Jon |
Posted By: Gaafa
Date Posted: 12/04/09 at 7:16pm
|
Yes your right Jon!
But with paradoy/spoof there is a piont when it can become a copyright breach.
JKR agressivly retains absolute copyright;-
http://scifiwire.com/2009/10/english-cook-gets-sued-fo.php - http://scifiwire.com/2009/10/english-cook-gets-sued-fo.php
If this be a spoof, why did they not change it at least to say 'Hairy trotter', along with the characters names & other recoginisable icons/logos? ------------- Joe Western Gondawandaland turn right @ Perth. Hear the light & see the sound. Toi Toi Toi Chookas {{"chook [chicken] it is"} May you always play to a full house} |
Posted By: SpenceKenzer
Date Posted: 1/25/10 at 11:23am
|
For an excellent example of a "derivative" work, see this discussion board under the topic branch: default.asp - Community Theater Green Room Discussion Board : default.asp?C=5 - Producing Theater : forum_topics.asp?FID=2 - Play Suggestions Sometimes the copyright holder for a work does not normally or usually provide a licensed and/or authorized stage adaptation of a work -- for example, the movie Clue. Despite this, in the case of Clue, MANY groups have both adapted it for the stage and performed their adaptation for the public, but without any permission from the legal holder(s) of the copyright for the work. ------------- --------------------<*> Saludos, my dahlinks, and you know who you are ... ! |