1,330 posts
|
Post by CG on the loose on Mar 20, 2017 18:38:04 GMT
And the lawyers more than most!
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Mar 20, 2017 21:10:09 GMT
It is interesting.
Amateur companies are very hard to nail down, especially when it is only on for several nights, how do you prove that the performing company changed your work? How do you police amateur companies? How would you gather evidence that your work has been changed, for a possible court case? Would you want to sue a amateur company/school. So in short amateur companies have carte blanche to do what they want, but the saving grace here, is it will only be seen by a few people and not critiqued.
But conversely amateur companies can make changes for the good, as what happened with Joseph and the........ that the director introduced a narrator and it just happened that Tim Rice was in the audience, there was no lawsuit here, it became the blueprint for future productions.
I didn't realise that with Harry Potter that character is copyrighted as are all the other characters and place names (like Hogwart) in the book, so you could write a similar book but with different character names and place names, could you write a book Larry Hotter and the magician stone, set at Bogwart and get away with it?
It is wrong that descendants can have such artistic control once the author/composer is deceased, got no problem with them getting royalties - but should lose artistic control once the creator has died. Balance this with pharmaceuticals that can only protect their product for 20 years I read some where. They have to pour millions into development, I understand that the famous Viagra tablet isn't protected anymore, so anyone can replicate it.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 20, 2017 21:27:15 GMT
Part of your contract when agreeing to perform a show is to make tickets available on demand to the rights holders - so there is a mechanism for them to monitor amateur shows. It would be a major undertaking - but it could be done.
I don't think it would end up with groups being taken to court - but the rights holders could withdraw the rights immediately, insist on the show being performed as written or simply ban that group from performing their shows again. Given there are only a small number of companies controlling the amateur musical market (Weinbergers/MTI, R&H, Musicscope, Samuel French, Really Useful and one other whose name I have forgotten) - it wouldn't take much to blacklist a group for breaking a contract.
I know of one youth group that nearly had the rights removed because they inadvertently broke a no-marketing clause (a small local paper published a brief article about the production without telling the group they were going to do so) - so some monitoring does go on.
All it would take would be for there to be one high profile case of a group getting into trouble for the vast majority of these unauthorized changes to vanish for a good number of years.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Mar 20, 2017 22:39:18 GMT
I know of a professional company that put on a production of Side By Side By Sondheim and decided to update it by adding a couple of numbers that he'd written since the show was originally created. The rights-holders got wind of it and revoked the rights, and the show closed that night.
|
|
2,051 posts
|
Post by infofreako on Mar 20, 2017 22:42:40 GMT
I know of a professional company that put on a production of Side By Side By Sondheim and decided to update it by adding a couple of numbers that he'd written since the show was originally created. The rights-holders got wind of it and revoked the rights, and the show closed that night. That's really interesting to know. Rights are a real minefield clearly.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 21, 2017 0:26:26 GMT
Actually I would argue that rights are remarkably straightforward.
You select a play or musical, apply for the rights, negotiate the fee, receive the contract, sign the contract and pay the fee.
That contract will almost certainly say that you must perform the piece as written. Any changes, if permitted, must be approved by the rights company.
Failure to do this can lead to the rights being revoked and for the production company being liable for their own costs.
Is is worth the risk?
Tweaking the odd word here and there won't really get you into too much difficulty. Adding new material or cutting large chunks - well that could lead to trouble.
There are a few exceptions - I believe that the amateur rights to Chess pretty much give you a pile of material and allow you to form the show from it. It is a piece that has never really found a satisfactory form and so there is leeway as to what you include/leave out.
Similarly the most recent release of Grease to the amateur market gave you the option to pay more if you wanted to include certain songs from the film score - numbers like Sandy, You're The One That I Want and Grease is the Word cost you extra. All three are numbers that audiences expect to be in the show - but probably don't know that they were added for the film!
Basically if you want to avoid trouble, choose a piece that you are willing to work on within the terms of the rights contract. Most people won't get caught - but it can be very, very costly if you do.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 21, 2017 0:31:31 GMT
One odd thing is that theatres seem to prefer to commission a new translation of Chekhov (for example) than to use one of the excellent existing translations by major playwrights - I wonder if copyright is the reason, maybe it is cheaper. They would still have to pay for the new translation - which won't be that different to paying rights for an existing one. It is more likely that a director wants to work with a specific writer or simply doesn't like any of the existing versions. I know when I was staging Pride and Prejudice a few years ago, I looked at 25 adaptations before tracking down an unpublished one which gave me more of what I wanted and was better suited to what resources I could bring to the piece. Actually a new translation is probably as much a marketing aide as anything else - it can be used to encourage audiences to return to a piece that they will have seen in other forms many, many times. A new translation can bring out something different - just using the Frayn or the Stoppard version would not have that same appeal.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 8:32:29 GMT
With the Harry Potter example above, I think that would fall under a slightly different strand of copywright/intellectual property- as in that you've stolen the ideas in all but name- I'm no Lawyer but there's probably a way JK and WB could sue if so inclined. This also relates to issues of fanfiction and other fanworks. Now today the majority of show producers etc are fairly chilled about it as long as people aren't making a major profit, but I remember the days of Anne Rice suing everyone who wrote a vampire story on the internet and having to put a disclaimer on EVERYTHING you wrote about a show even just mini-essays on episodes saying 'these characters aren't mine'...ah the good old day....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 9:59:41 GMT
With the Harry Potter example above, I think that would fall under a slightly different strand of copywright/intellectual property "Passing off" I think. There is a coffee stand outside Swiss Cottage tube station that has had to change its name from "Star Box." "Star Box" sounds like a service in Soho....
|
|
6,316 posts
|
Post by Jon on Mar 21, 2017 12:03:49 GMT
The trademark to Harry Potter and the various characters are with Warner Bros so when the books do go into the public domain, if WB still hold the trademarks then no one will legallly be able to use the character's image or insignia or profit from each apart from WB
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Mar 21, 2017 12:49:52 GMT
Something like The Lion King and Aladdin has had multiple song writers, one being Tim Rice and wonder how his share his worked out? It is well known that Trevor Nunn made many of his millions entirely by writing the lyrics to "Memory" because there was no-one else around to do it. Several pop stars of recent years have also been given a co-writing credit on their hits simply to boost their income a bit. Not just recently. Try Henry V111 and Greensleeves. Or Trad. Arr by ....
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Mar 21, 2017 13:06:51 GMT
^Sorry don't know what you mean here?
So 'passing off' is a offence, which you can be fined by a court? Even passing off Harry Potter characters, but with slight alterations to their names, which I mentioned earlier. Good example of "Star Box", but did the owner was forced to change their name because of a court going in Starbucks favour or that the court case would find they didn't do anything wrong, but the threat of ensuing legal costs and precious time it wasn't worth their hassle starting a battle. So essentially a big corporation has used their muscle, to bully a small player?
I see both sides here, but neverless it is very interesting.
|
|
2,051 posts
|
Post by infofreako on Mar 21, 2017 13:28:19 GMT
I remember a case that i assume would be passing off years ago in Brighton. A hotel rebranded themselves under the name Heards with a very dishtinctive green and gold logo which Harrods took exception to. The hotels branding didnt last long at all.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 14, 2017 14:33:36 GMT
Not if the things were spoofs, e.g, the mask is "whole face," and the Elphaba outfit neon green with the actor not made up / wearing a crushed hat. Basically, if "Forbidden Broadway" can get away with it, you can, is the rule. I remembered you posted this over a year ago, so good memory there. Anyway I have been listening to Forbidden Broadway recently and Gerald Alessandri is a genius in what he does, but I am not sure if he cannot be sued though? From my listening it sounds blatant copyright violation, but could it be instead an unwritten rule that you don't sue Forbidden Broadway, as it is seen as a badge of honour to have your your show included?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2017 14:43:06 GMT
Completely covered as parody, I believe.
|
|
18,805 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 14, 2017 15:14:09 GMT
Do M&S still do those chocolates and sweets that were very clear copies (and probably the same manufacturer) of famous brand names? So it was 'Pelican' choccy biscuits instead of Penguin. 'Breakout' instead of Breakaway, and 'Swiss Mountain' instead of Toblerone. if that's not 'passing off' I don't know what is! More 'passing off'.... back in the days of my youth, Superdrug used to do knock-off men's fragrances with names and packaging very close but not quite the same as the expensive original. Like 'Artemis' (Aramis), 'Solo' (Polo) 'Razz' (Jazz). Oh I used to love nipping into Superdrug at lunchtime and having a squirt of cheap, fake scent, come out smelling like a tarts handbag and have people recoiling and wagging their hands under their noses at the coffee machine in the afternoon. Then when some old bird asked "what on Earth have you put on" I'd squeak "Jazz", lying through my teeth and blushing ha ha
|
|
18,805 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 14, 2017 18:33:21 GMT
I'll have to pop in!
|
|
185 posts
|
Post by boybooshka on Jul 15, 2017 9:38:00 GMT
More 'passing off'.... back in the days of my youth, Superdrug used to do knock-off men's fragrances with names and packaging very close but not quite the same as the expensive original. Like 'Artemis' (Aramis), 'Solo' (Polo) 'Razz' (Jazz). Oh I used to love nipping into Superdrug at lunchtime and having a squirt of cheap, fake scent, come out smelling like a tarts handbag and have people recoiling and wagging their hands under their noses at the coffee machine in the afternoon. Then when some old bird asked "what on Earth have you put on" I'd squeak "Jazz", lying through my teeth and blushing ha ha If you was just getting a sample squirt why didn't you go for the real ones? Most of my early trips to Canal St were via a quick trip to Kendals to douse myself in the latest designer scent.
|
|
18,805 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 15, 2017 9:43:37 GMT
They didn't sell the real ones in Superdrug back then. It was very 'budget' when it first started.
|
|
2,302 posts
|
Post by Tibidabo on Jul 15, 2017 11:17:47 GMT
Then when some old bird asked "what on Earth have you put on" I'd squeak "Jazz", lying through my teeth and blushing ha ha Well, you all know how much birds like to pick up worms.... Had you down more as a growler BB.
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jul 15, 2017 11:47:10 GMT
"Passing off" I think. There is a coffee stand outside Swiss Cottage tube station that has had to change its name from "Star Box." "Star Box" sounds like a service in Soho....
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 15, 2017 12:10:52 GMT
Not if the things were spoofs, e.g, the mask is "whole face," and the Elphaba outfit neon green with the actor not made up / wearing a crushed hat. Basically, if "Forbidden Broadway" can get away with it, you can, is the rule. I remembered you posted this over a year ago, so good memory there. Anyway I have been listening to Forbidden Broadway recently and Gerald Alessandri is a genius in what he does, but I am not sure if he cannot be sued though? From my listening it sounds blatant copyright violation, but could it be instead an unwritten rule that you don't sue Forbidden Broadway, as it is seen as a badge of honour to have your your show included? Some like to be parodied and give permission for FB to use their work. Other times, like the Phantom, FB do a musical pastiche which sounds close but isn't. I would say you are correct and your answer I would say comes for one of knowledge and experience, however it is something that does interest me as ai started the thread and I know there are legal types on this forum, so it would be cool to go definitive with the answer and someone to confirm it?
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Jul 15, 2017 18:09:30 GMT
Anyway I have been listening to Forbidden Broadway recently and Gerald Alessandri is a genius in what he does, but I am not sure if he cannot be sued though? From my listening it sounds blatant copyright violation, but could it be instead an unwritten rule that you don't sue Forbidden Broadway, as it is seen as a badge of honour to have your your show included? In United States law parody is protected, so it's not exactly an unwritten rule. See here for some information.
|
|
34 posts
|
Post by charmedjean on Jul 15, 2017 18:50:49 GMT
|
|
18,805 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 15, 2017 19:45:01 GMT
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 15, 2017 20:46:57 GMT
Anyway I have been listening to Forbidden Broadway recently and Gerald Alessandri is a genius in what he does, but I am not sure if he cannot be sued though? From my listening it sounds blatant copyright violation, but could it be instead an unwritten rule that you don't sue Forbidden Broadway, as it is seen as a badge of honour to have your your show included? In United States law parody is protected, so it's not exactly an unwritten rule. See here for some information. Thank you Thank you However in the cited case Morning Star V Daily Star, where the saying derives, the judicial are thought to be right wing, so would side with the Daily Star. I remember a radio talk show host (Clive Bull), explaining to a caller and other potential callers benefit, that is why speech based radio has a seven second dump facility, gave this pertinent example, if you said Polo Mints makes you sick, that is libellous, equally if you said a mint with a hole in the middle makes you sick, that is just the same and equally libellous.
|
|
34 posts
|
Post by charmedjean on Jul 15, 2017 21:08:29 GMT
Thank you However in the cited case Morning Star V Daily Star, where the saying derives, the judicial are thought to be right wing, so would side with the Daily Star. I remember a radio talk show host (Clive Bull), explaining to a caller and other potential callers benefit, that is why speech based radio has a seven second dump facility, gave this pertinent example, if you said Polo Mints makes you sick, that is libellous, equally if you said a mint with a hole in the middle makes you sick, that is just the same and equally libellous. That is interesting indeed! I just did a google search on "mints with a hole" and only images of Polo came up. Looks like there was a (very old) legal battle between Polo vs Life Saver mints (I didn't know they existed!...) www.independent.co.uk/news/polo-not-the-only-mint-with-a-hole-1310978.html
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 15, 2017 22:05:09 GMT
Life Savers sounds very familiar with America. Seen them on newstands.
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Jul 15, 2017 22:09:12 GMT
Life Savers sounds very familiar with America. Seen them on newstands. I'm sure I used to have them in Australia when I lived there.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 20, 2017 10:35:37 GMT
We are agreed on this thread that Shakespeare is out of Copyright protection, if he was his ancestors would be multi-billionaires, so any derivatives if applicable would attract a royalty such as West Side Story, We concur that royalties are more than likely being paid out on the George Bernard Shaw estate, so would his estate get a royalty for My Fair Lady?
|
|