If an actor improvises lines in a play, and the “author”/director of the play later wishes to write a screenplay which incorporates the actor’s improvised dialogue, does he have to obtain rights to that dialogue? What is the written (or unwritten) rule regarding the incorporation of improvised dialogue … in this case, a large part of the character’s dialogue in the work?This is an interesting and common issue in the theatre business. It’s actually pretty well established law in favor of the playwright."
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Who owns a play that’s partly improvised?
The Law Offices of Gordon P. Firemark: "Last week, a colleague asked me the following question:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Isn't the actor generally considered to be performing at the direction of the playwright and the director? If improvisation is a part of the play then the playwright has generally written in a framework to contain it, between that and the fact that the actors are performing a work for hire it doesn't seem to be surprising to me that the existing interpretations favor the playwright. I've worked for several companies doing somewhat creative tasks and it was clear from the start that since I was being paid for my work then whatever I did I had no rights to the final product aside from what the company gave in agreements signed when I was hired, presumably the actors' contracts would similarly specify the actors' rights with regard to the final work and if the contract doesn't grant them then they're probably not there.
Post a Comment