Saturday, October 13, 2007
Can You Plagiarize A Play You Licensed To Perform? The Urinetown Saga...
Techdirt: "A few years back I got to see the musical Urinetown when it came through San Francisco. It's really very funny, and if you happen to live somewhere that it's playing, I'd recommend you go check it out. However, apparently, in going to watch it in some places, you might be seeing an 'infringing' version -- even if it's been properly licensed."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
i feel like this is one of those things that you can never really fully get around just because of the mere fact that there is always something that will come up as questionable and be regarded as what, inspiration or borrowing of ideas? its a hard thing to come to terms with especially because i feel like in many instance people get so convinced of an idea that they find it almost impossible to conceive of it in any other way or that anyone else could have come up with it.... its a delicate balance and a delicate subject as plagiarism and copyright are two very relevant issues in america today in an age when no one is sure of the immediate or original concept...
I think we talked about it last year in class. When the scene designer for the Chorus Line supposedly copied the designed the original designs. But there is extent of being creative when all you need on the stage is the floor and the mirror. Copyrights for the designs especially in theater seems to be still ongoing issue, although many have already experienced it can create so many more issues.
to a certain extent, a lot of designs are going to look the same. Especially with images of past productions being so readily available. However, the question of plagiarism is hard to call. Did the Chicago team have a blatant use of copyright infringement? Is there proof of that? Does the new york team have proof of intellectual ownership?
This reminds me of how some directors are trying to get their process copyrighted, but to a certain degree there is nothing that can be done. You have to understand that with theatre there is a certain amount of stealing from each other that just happens.
The irony is blatant.
I haven't seen the broadway or chicago production of this, but i found a few pictures of the show. I did, however, see a high school production of it at the fringe. The feel of the design is the same. The set (and costumes and lighting) were almost the same, although obviously scaled down. This performance's set consisted of a few acting blocks, two stock platforms, and a few painted drops, which look exactly like the broadway set. I thought that the point of licensing was partially that you pay the original producers of the show/whoever owns the copyright to use their ideas.
This seems strange to me, since as a designer, i like to think that I could produce another version of an existing play and use scenery, lighting, and costumes to create a new look and a different feel to the production in agreement with the director's direction for the production. However if the goal was to create a duplicate of the New York show in Chicago then the producers should have been more explicit with their intentions. At that point we return to the age old argument about weather the designs for a play are covered under copyright, where we go down a long scary road defining this that and whatever.
This really is about the issue of designs being included in the rights to do a production and if not where and how designs for a specific production would be secured. If it was the desire of the chicago team to effectively copy the New York production then yes, the producers should have been more explicit with their intentions however, I believe that since the Chicago producers had secured the necessary rights they were in the right to put on the production they did.
Getting rights to a play doesn't give you rights to the design, staging, and choreography of a specific production, does it? When you purchase rights to produce a play, you are paying the playwright, lyricist and composer. You are not paying the set designer, costume designer, lighting designer, sound designer, director, choreographer or musical director of the original production (unless the agreement is exceptional). So yes, there are many degrees of intellectual property that have to be protected. When John Caraffa came to direct Urinetown here I remember there being some scuffle going on about another production happening concurrently that was using his original choreography from BWay. The question was asked why it was okay for CMU to use his original choreography and the answer was DUH because it's his to begin with. I guess what this all comes down to is you cant use someone's ideas without their permission, proper credit, and (typically) a sum of money.
yes. you can. the design for a show takes months to create, the designer should be given the right to copyright it and to penalize people who duplicate the ideas.
"from the you-have-got-to-be-kidding dept"
no, we're not kidding
Post a Comment