This latest opinion comes in a long-running case brought by Donna Corbello. In fact, the plaintiff originally filed her lawsuit all the way back in 2007, fresh off the Tony-winning success of Jersey Boys, which is about the iconic pop group The Four Seasons.
8 comments:
This case was really quite interesting, and I would highly suggest looking further into for anyone who is interested in copyright laws. Unfortunately, while I understand the plaintiff was trying to protect the work of her late husband, I don’t think she had much legal ground to stand on. Her case was interesting because she claims that the writers of Jersey Boys were stuck in the writing process before she gave them a copy of the book, and then they found their light bulb moment and had something to work with. However, the words in question that she claims are lifted from the book only make up 0.2% of the production- 145 words from a 68,500 word script. The judge also ruled that the biography is made to inform, and the musical is made to entertain, therefore it is not a rip off from the book. This is important- if the popular phrases used by the Jersey Boys found in the biography were considered copywright infringement, it would be much more difficult to write plays and musicals about real people and events. In that type of situation, Hamilton would be screwed.
This article is really interesting- I’ve never spent much time looking into copyright laws & cases in the theater world. I think that protecting an artist’s creative property/ideas is so important, and not doing so is not supporting any artist; however, this case seems a little strange by nature. The article talks about the argument that biographies and journals can sometimes have copyright protections if the author is considered to have been “creative and selective” with the way the facts are presented, which is what the plaintiff argues in regards to Jersey Boys, but it seems a little far fetched for this instance. The court decided that if an author says something is fact in writing, they can’t backtrack later on and say they were being creative with those facts for copyright reasons. A lot of this information on copyright is new to me- I will be looking into it more in the future to better understand, but this is an interesting article for anyone who wants to know more about the copyright laws in regards to theater!
This verdict makes a lot of sense. I think if they honored that Jersey Boys was an example of copyright infringement, it would have created a lot of copyright loopholes and ways for people to claim parts of history as their own, which could lead to a lot of corruption if used improperly. This law also, however, could create a fine line of what would be "enough embellishment" to allow for copyright. For example, if one person writes an auto-biography with a rather factual, matter-of-fact writing style, can that not be copyrighted while an auto-biography with a more dramatic, unique writing style could be? This article also made me think about the current trend of biography musicals, and process that the creators must need to go through in order to get the rights to the person's life story and music (if they are a musician). This is especially true of subjects that have already passed away.
I’m glad to see the 9th Circuit put their foot down in this case. Maybe Corbello will now let it all go and move on and stop wasting the courts time with a frivolous claim. Every single person who works in theatre, be they actors or technicians, should familiarize themselves with copyright and intellectual property law. These cases are important to the foundation of the arts when it come to what sources people can use when creating new works or adapting previously created works. This ruling, if allowed to stand, would also mitigate further claims such as the one presented by Corbello. I’m also glad to see that the court took a hard line against individuals who wish to “change the story” in order to assert a copyright claim. On the flip side, hopefully this will also serve as a wake-up call to authors of plays and musicals that deal with real life people and events.
This article and case does bring up a lot of questions behind copyright and bring up and important conversation of how/when copyright can be misused or taken advantage of. I agree that the judge made the right decision as the plaintiff really didn't have a lot of evidence to back her case and everything she did have was already historically relevant. It is understandable that she believes she is responsible for protecting her husband's work especially since this auto-biography was used for entertainment purposes and not educational. On top of that the work provided financial success for the creators and producers, all of which the estates of the members of the Four Seasons did not financially gain from. However, regardless of how Corbello felt there was not enough evidence to claim that the writers stole from her husband's auto-biography. Regardless this section of history was not Corbello's but rather the people's and an auto-biography is just retelling a part of history, if the court had ruled in her favor they would be supporting the idea that people can claim certain parts of history rather than their work.
Once again, I realize that I didn't know too much about this topic before reading the article. Copyright law is a whole mess of tangled webs that requires cases like these to really seal off any loopholes. I was very glad to read this article and find out that the 9th Circuit Court really did not put up with the claim that was made by Corbello, intended to take advantage of the situation and make money off a story that was produced by artists who were only inspired by the true story - but put so much more work into creating the story that Jersey Boys tell. The addition to the definition of non fiction was interesting as well, because now I wonder if this will allow for dramatic tellings of thee truth with just one or two changes to the plot to apply for a separate copyright. The case really helped the industry of artists in maintaining some highground in the realm of creating, but also might have created a few more issues.
I think this case will solve many copyright issues in the future, but I also think that it may create many copyright issues in the future as well. While I don't think every author of non-fiction would purposefully include a disclaimer about not everything being true (that kinda defeats the whole "non-fiction" thing), I could definitely see authors just never outwardly claiming that any part of the book is true. Now, the label of "non-fiction" definitely holds an inherent implication of truth to it, but it doesn't guarantee it per se. At the very least, I could see at least one circumstance of this happening at some point in time though, which would inevitably lead to another court case for the loophole to be closed. For this case in particular though, I don't necessarily think either party is in the wrong. Now, I need to preface this by saying I don't know a whole lot about this case beyond what was in the article, but I don't think Corbello is necessarily doing this for selfish reasons or monetary gain. I don't know enough about the circumstances or about her to make the determination. On the surface, it's understandable that she would try to protect the work of her late husband, but it's also clear that the producers did not rip off his work.
I think this is an important ruling on copyright law, particularly as it seems to expand upon the idea of how we use copyrighting to promote the arts. This case certainly makes clear that similarity does not mean the same, and this makes a great case for what the limitations and strengths of copyright law are. With the point of copyright laws being to ensure the scientific and artistic discovery and creation are fostered, it seems that this was the correct ruling in this case. While this certainly was the correct ruling it also brings to attention the difficulties that can arise within copyright cases, and how an individual’s art and creative works will not always be protected. There seems to be quite a bit of ambiguity within copyright cases, particularly those within the arts, and it would be a significant improvement to see how progress could be made towards developing more specific laws regarding copyright infringement.
Post a Comment