Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Friday, October 04, 2024
Fleetwood Mac producer sues makers of Broadway show Stereophonic
Broadway | The Guardian: Ken Caillat, a producer known for sound engineering Fleetwood Mac, and Steven Stiefel, co-author of a memoir about the band, are suing the makers of the award-winning musical Stereophonic.
In a world full of remakes and the music industry's ever growing confusion about copyright, people are forced to limit art in order to preserve their creations. In any case dealing with copyright there is both a give and take. On one side people are getting their creations taken away from them due to close similarities while others are getting just compensation and protecting their original work. The particularly interesting anecdote in this article is the reason for suing. It wasn't that the author of the original book wanted to preserve his creation; he didn't want to limit the possibility that the book could be adapted into a stage play or film. This shows the author is interested in allowing for his creation to grow and wants to limit anything similar that might interfere with that process. This decision, although just, limits the possibilities of art with similar messages and themes due to one person's interest in preserving possibilities not even already existing creations.
I found this article very captivating. The whole idea of copyright, especially with art is something that I am trying to educate myself with. Another reason I clicked on this article is because I love Fleetwood Mac, and I don’t know anything about Stereophonic minus that it’s a really good play. My opinions on the matter are not more one sided than the next. I did find it interesting, however, when they mentioned how Adjmi was accused of copyright infringement already for 3C. It makes me think that he does heavily rely on outside works for his work and does fail to acknowledge his sources. This entire situation is a testament to the problem with producing art. So many people have so many great ideas, but people tend to be inspired by other people’s art. In that case, where is the line for what is considered copyright or not? The entire system is really foggy and needs a reset, especially with the rise in AI art.
I find this situation to be very interesting and messy. I think that the idea of copyright is very important. If someone creates something, it is important that nobody is able to copy it and say that it was their idea. However, the lines can sometimes get a little foggy and what was or wasn't stolen can be challenging to discern. In this particular case, I would have to see the play and actually read the book to decide if I thought it was copyright infringement or not. However, this is not the first time that this writer has been accused of stealing someone's work. Because of this, I am leaning more towards the fact that this writer may have committed copyright infringement. If that is indeed the case, then I believe that the author of the book deserves proper compensation and partial credit for the play. Unfortunately it can be hard to tell, and the real answer may never come to light.
I'm not surprised to see such reports. Copyright disputes are not rare in every art industry. But in fact, there is a lot of discussion in society about whether copyright should exist. Even when it comes to judging plagiarism, the lines are blurred. It's hard to say yes or no to determine whether a work is plagiarized. Because human beings may think alike sometimes. So how creators can and should reference real-life stories or other works to create something new is an interesting question. From one perspective, protect original ideas and experiences, especially those as unique as Fleetwood Mac's Rumor. On the other hand, argue that the show is a fictional creation inspired by a wide range of inspirations, not just one particular story. On the other hand, over-consideration of copyright may indeed limit the development of art to a certain extent. I also look forward to the outcome of this lawsuit, which may have implications for artists who use history, music, or other real-life sources to inspire their fictional worlds.
I feel like suing Stereophonic is fruitless and in poor taste. While there are certainly inspirations of Fleetwood Mac on the play they very clearly did not mention anything to do with the band in the entirety of the script. This case will hopefully be thrown out for what it is, a money grab. The claim that the play inhibits the book in question from being adapted into a movie is simply laughable. There is no hard law that states no one can make 2 pieces of media about a '70s band full of problematic personalities in the same year. If so then why not go after Daisy Jones and the Six? This case likely holds no water and will be thrown out but it's distressing knowing that sometimes people will sue for no reason with no intention other than the idea that you may steal future opportunities from them.
The unfortunate truth about copyright is that we can never be totally sure whether a person copied someone or they genuinely came up with a similar product through their own process. With this case, I’m more inclined to side with Caillat and Stiefel, but it could just be the article’s bias and honestly I could see it going either way. I’d be interested in following this trial further to see what other evidence comes up and what the court’s verdict is. I don’t think the mentioned 2015 trial Adjmi was involved in will help his case here. From what I gathered, the judge acknowledged that Adjimi’s 3C was an obvious parody of Three’s Company, but it was parody enough to fall under fair use. I don’t think that something like this will happen in this case because Stereophonic just doesn’t appear to be a parody as much as it does a rip-off.
I think caillat and steifell are reaching by suing adjmi for copyright. When one writes a book, especially a non fiction one, it is fair that it will be later used as a source by others for their own work. Wether that be papers, articles, or even pieces of art such as stereophonic. I love stereophonic as a concept, but its kinda bs for adjmi to claim its not a fleetwood mac story when it definitely is. This reminds me of how while the movie velvet goldmine was being made, people got angry that it was about david bowie. And while the creators tried to change and emphasize that it wasn't, it so obviously was about david bowie. As writers of an autobiography, there is no point to copywriting concepts within it when those aren't the writers personal experiences but someone else's. It just feels like such a frustrating reach for money.
Well this is an interesting case. There is a long history of 'inspiration' bridging into plagiarism when it comes to popular works. Typically, with things like Shakespeare adaptations and stories with biblical themes, or even stories where copyright has elapsed, it has been long enough that the original author has profited as much as they can from the piece, and the public now has free rain over it. Even with modern pieces, things like fanfiction and fancams are a common and perfectly ethical thing, as those creators aren't making a direct profit off of other people's intellectual property. They are simply fans appreciating the universes and characters created, and many creators love to see it. This situation is neither of those things. The piece is modern, so the current author still has the freedom to, say, make a fil adaptation, or choose to do with their intellectual property what they will. This also isn't a fan work, as the creator is making millions of dollars in profits off of someone else's creative work. The fact that the musical even copied a direct moment from the book is very telling. This creator has a history of stealing intellectual property, and he needs to start admitting to his 'inspirations' and compensating the original creators accordingly.
8 comments:
In a world full of remakes and the music industry's ever growing confusion about copyright, people are forced to limit art in order to preserve their creations. In any case dealing with copyright there is both a give and take. On one side people are getting their creations taken away from them due to close similarities while others are getting just compensation and protecting their original work. The particularly interesting anecdote in this article is the reason for suing. It wasn't that the author of the original book wanted to preserve his creation; he didn't want to limit the possibility that the book could be adapted into a stage play or film. This shows the author is interested in allowing for his creation to grow and wants to limit anything similar that might interfere with that process. This decision, although just, limits the possibilities of art with similar messages and themes due to one person's interest in preserving possibilities not even already existing creations.
I found this article very captivating. The whole idea of copyright, especially with art is something that I am trying to educate myself with. Another reason I clicked on this article is because I love Fleetwood Mac, and I don’t know anything about Stereophonic minus that it’s a really good play. My opinions on the matter are not more one sided than the next. I did find it interesting, however, when they mentioned how Adjmi was accused of copyright infringement already for 3C. It makes me think that he does heavily rely on outside works for his work and does fail to acknowledge his sources. This entire situation is a testament to the problem with producing art. So many people have so many great ideas, but people tend to be inspired by other people’s art. In that case, where is the line for what is considered copyright or not? The entire system is really foggy and needs a reset, especially with the rise in AI art.
I find this situation to be very interesting and messy. I think that the idea of copyright is very important. If someone creates something, it is important that nobody is able to copy it and say that it was their idea. However, the lines can sometimes get a little foggy and what was or wasn't stolen can be challenging to discern. In this particular case, I would have to see the play and actually read the book to decide if I thought it was copyright infringement or not. However, this is not the first time that this writer has been accused of stealing someone's work. Because of this, I am leaning more towards the fact that this writer may have committed copyright infringement. If that is indeed the case, then I believe that the author of the book deserves proper compensation and partial credit for the play. Unfortunately it can be hard to tell, and the real answer may never come to light.
I'm not surprised to see such reports. Copyright disputes are not rare in every art industry. But in fact, there is a lot of discussion in society about whether copyright should exist. Even when it comes to judging plagiarism, the lines are blurred. It's hard to say yes or no to determine whether a work is plagiarized. Because human beings may think alike sometimes. So how creators can and should reference real-life stories or other works to create something new is an interesting question. From one perspective, protect original ideas and experiences, especially those as unique as Fleetwood Mac's Rumor. On the other hand, argue that the show is a fictional creation inspired by a wide range of inspirations, not just one particular story. On the other hand, over-consideration of copyright may indeed limit the development of art to a certain extent. I also look forward to the outcome of this lawsuit, which may have implications for artists who use history, music, or other real-life sources to inspire their fictional worlds.
I feel like suing Stereophonic is fruitless and in poor taste. While there are certainly inspirations of Fleetwood Mac on the play they very clearly did not mention anything to do with the band in the entirety of the script. This case will hopefully be thrown out for what it is, a money grab. The claim that the play inhibits the book in question from being adapted into a movie is simply laughable. There is no hard law that states no one can make 2 pieces of media about a '70s band full of problematic personalities in the same year. If so then why not go after Daisy Jones and the Six? This case likely holds no water and will be thrown out but it's distressing knowing that sometimes people will sue for no reason with no intention other than the idea that you may steal future opportunities from them.
The unfortunate truth about copyright is that we can never be totally sure whether a person copied someone or they genuinely came up with a similar product through their own process. With this case, I’m more inclined to side with Caillat and Stiefel, but it could just be the article’s bias and honestly I could see it going either way. I’d be interested in following this trial further to see what other evidence comes up and what the court’s verdict is. I don’t think the mentioned 2015 trial Adjmi was involved in will help his case here. From what I gathered, the judge acknowledged that Adjimi’s 3C was an obvious parody of Three’s Company, but it was parody enough to fall under fair use. I don’t think that something like this will happen in this case because Stereophonic just doesn’t appear to be a parody as much as it does a rip-off.
I think caillat and steifell are reaching by suing adjmi for copyright. When one writes a book, especially a non fiction one, it is fair that it will be later used as a source by others for their own work. Wether that be papers, articles, or even pieces of art such as stereophonic. I love stereophonic as a concept, but its kinda bs for adjmi to claim its not a fleetwood mac story when it definitely is. This reminds me of how while the movie velvet goldmine was being made, people got angry that it was about david bowie. And while the creators tried to change and emphasize that it wasn't, it so obviously was about david bowie. As writers of an autobiography, there is no point to copywriting concepts within it when those aren't the writers personal experiences but someone else's. It just feels like such a frustrating reach for money.
Well this is an interesting case. There is a long history of 'inspiration' bridging into plagiarism when it comes to popular works. Typically, with things like Shakespeare adaptations and stories with biblical themes, or even stories where copyright has elapsed, it has been long enough that the original author has profited as much as they can from the piece, and the public now has free rain over it. Even with modern pieces, things like fanfiction and fancams are a common and perfectly ethical thing, as those creators aren't making a direct profit off of other people's intellectual property. They are simply fans appreciating the universes and characters created, and many creators love to see it. This situation is neither of those things. The piece is modern, so the current author still has the freedom to, say, make a fil adaptation, or choose to do with their intellectual property what they will. This also isn't a fan work, as the creator is making millions of dollars in profits off of someone else's creative work. The fact that the musical even copied a direct moment from the book is very telling. This creator has a history of stealing intellectual property, and he needs to start admitting to his 'inspirations' and compensating the original creators accordingly.
Post a Comment