BackStage Utah

I'm largely against it. �I was particularly irked with a local theatre whose proprietor couldn't secure the rights to Grease Jr. because there were too many actors over 18 involved in it, so they took the regular script and started fundamentally hacking it up. �Might not have been so bad if this person hadn't gone around bragging that they'd "cleaned it up."

I do appreciate the irony, though: take out the sexual innuendo and the "profanity" from the script and songs, but leave in the basic plot point of a young girl slutting herself up to catch "her man." �That's what I call "family-friendly" theatre.

Oh, and for the record, I'm also opposed to movie, music, and software piracy.

A lot of times permission will be given for certain edits if the theatre will only ask.  I was recently in a show where the theatre requested certain changes to a script and both the publisher and the playwright agreed.

Has anyone ever worked with a theatre company that said they had permission to make changes but later you found out they didn't? This has happened to me, and I think it happens more often than many are willing to admit.

Quote:


No - I hate that just as much, if not more, sometimes.

Quote:


I soooooooooooooooooooooo agree with this.

QueenMorgaus wrote on Sep 19^th, 2008 at 5:35pm:


I would kind of expect it to be. A college theater should be preparing people for professional theatre.

QueenMorgaus wrote on Sep 19^th, 2008 at 5:49pm:


I'm not meaning to start the debate of what defines "professional" again, but in that specific context, I was defining it as an Equity theater where people are making a living at performing.

QueenMorgaus wrote on Sep 19^th, 2008 at 6:02pm:


So I shouldn't tell you that the leats professional show I ever did was an Equity production of "The Two Getlemen of Verona" where the actors were flown in from out of state. I've been in ward roadshows that held themselves to higher artristic standards . . .  But I really think that theater was an abberation.

Ooooooookay, here's a hoary old topic that was due to pop up again. Bottom line, red-state-kiddies, alterations to any copy-written playscript are verboten unless permission has been obtained from the rights holder.

Redbeard wrote on Sep 20^th, 2008 at 2:39pm:


I was fully involved in that situation and unfortunately Mr. Simon and his lawyer conviently forgot about that statement. The manager of the theater mentioned that to both of them and they still were insistent. They both were quite rude and went on about "those damned Mormons" and on and on. To this day I have zero respect for Mr. Simon. I agreed with the whole situation and mentioned to the manager that she should have gotten permission first, but Mr. Simon and his attorney's reactions beyond the issue of his rights as the author was totally unprofessional and childish.

But yes, you are correct, most playwrights are readily agreeable when asked permission first.

The kerfuffle at the Grove is actually one I use as an example in my intro to theater class...

Sparkle is correct, the tone of the response to a copyright violation isn't germane. Sorry that those rude New Yorkers got your panties in a twist Toddles, but a contract is a contract.

Redbeard is also right on.... approaching a playwright with a change is entirely kosher and often successful.

Toddy wrote on Sep 20^th, 2008 at 2:54pm:

The smart ones are, anyway.  You would think, as a writer, that you would want your work performed and seen by as many people as possible, right?  As long as the theatre has asked for permission first and those proposed cuts don't change your message or vision or whatever, then what's the big deal?  More people are enjoying your work and you are making more royalties.

sparkledust wrote on Sep 20^th, 2008 at 3:12pm:


Neil Simon never allows changes to his work. There are very few theaters now that will do his work. And sorry but I can take my respect away from Simon because of his attitude. I'm not disrespecting his attitude about the cutting of his play by the Grove, he had every right to be angry. But then turning around and after the theater ceased to do the play and did something else he and is lawyer badgered the owner for the next 4 months ranting about stupid mormons, stupid Utah, etc. THAT IS IMMATURE AND UNPROFESSIONAL! PERIOD! When the owner wanted to do Tony n' Tina's wedding, Samuel French (which also owns the rights to Simon's plays) harrased the owner and refused to give her the rights. A co-owner who knew the author of "T&T" called him and angrily he called Samuel French and demanded they allow the Grove to do the show and to make any cuts she needed. The author's lawyers contacted the owner of the Grove and settled on a royalty fee for the run and she paid it. Samuel French harrased her again advertisement went out and told her to cease doing the play. The author then filed a lawsuit against Samuel French and the court gave him total control of his play. After opening, Neil Simon and his lawyer called the theater, I took the call, and said we were MF assholes and that we all should be strewn up by our balls.

So don't judge a situtation until you know ALL THE FACTS!

Yes, I agree, get permission first, don't do it illegally!

As for Simon, AGAIN LISTEN TO WHAT I'M SAYING, he had every right to be angry, but that ended when she complied and stopped doing the show. But to continue for 4 months to badger her just for the hell of it and to act like two year olds? There is NO justification for that! NONE! In fact the owner's attorneys urged her to file a criminal complaint against Simon and his lawyer for harrassment. But she was done and wanted it to go away. Sorry, but Simon's actions WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN ANY WAY after he got his way with her compliance to stop doing the show. NOTHING JUSTIFIES STUPIDITY AND HARASSMENT!

Quote:


Amen! Huzzah for public domain!

I also like that Tony and Tina's is brought up, because it's one of few shows I know where the author has written IN the script an express permission to make changes. Plus, well, it's an improv show, so you CAN'T plan everything out.

I would ask, however, at what point a change in a word is so much different than some truly bizarre artistic changes I've seen. The two top examples, for me, are Mikado at the SCERA Shell from a few years ago, that had Austin Powers, Joseph's Amazing Dreamcoat, and so many other added oddities. As far as I know the "script" stayed the same... but the show, well, I am positive was FAR different from any vision the author had.

The second is when I saw a high school's production of "Guys and Dolls 2040." �It kept the script and songs, but made them techno, very mechanical sounding, set it in the year 2040, and made Sarah an android. Should changes like that gain permission?

Again, let's just all do Shakespeare.

Toddy, with the added unpleasant detail you've given, we certainly have more persepective on the situation  and I'm sorry you went through that.

It's always best to get permission first.

But it's not a huge deal to me.

In a similar situation (shhh..don't tell)... I often go 5 miles over the speed limit. 

But the law is the law, right? Shouldn't I be pulled over every time I go 5 over?

Angelus wrote on Sep 21^st, 2008 at 11:30am:

That's the point.  I'll wager Neil Simon didn't drop the "f-bomb" just to be cute, make it more "edgy," or to annoy "those Mormons."  Specific words are chosen to convey a specific tone or to define a character.  A playwright might want to be the judge of whether a script will have the same impact with or without certain choices in diction. �

Quote:

If it were merely a matter of money, I'd say you're right.  Maybe it is to the struggling playwright just trying to get the name out and the bucks in, but perhaps to a playwright who can afford to haggle over whether or not the formerly virginal leading lady actually said she'd "@#$%ed" the leading man, well, maybe it's no more or less important, but now they have the legs to stand on to protect their property.

Hedgehog wrote on Sep 21^st, 2008 at 3:09pm:


In the case of "The Mikado", that's also public domain, isn't it? And what we're really talking about has become legality, not the moral and aristic implications of "respecting author's intent." For one thing, and author has to realize there are limits to "respecting intent." Even simply having your work read or viewed by another person means it's filtered through their conciousness, so a certain level it stops being yours and becomes theirs. I'm not advocating making changes, I'm saying there is no such thing as COMPLETE creative control, and I think that's a good thing.

Wc365 wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2008 at 12:28pm:

Kate--I'm going OT, feel free to delete or move or split or whatever you feel is appropriate.

I need some clarification on what is funny about this notion.  Is it that people won't come to see it?  They will.  They do.  Is it that the actors aren't talented enough to do Shakespeare outside of Cedar City?  They are.  Is it that producers won't support it?  They do.

Help me understand you.

Quote:


Incorrect. There is no implied consent allowing changes when a royalty/rental payment is accepted. Written consent and approval of the specific changes must be received exclusive of any other element of contract satisfaction.... presuming otherwise is weasel-logic.

And; the submission of changes that are "to be made" speaks to the error of the theater's approach to begin with. Changes are "to be requested". You may or may not be allowed to specify your own changes. Often, the licensing company will tell you what changes are allowable (substitution of goddamn for gosh-darn or crappity smacking for freaking, fer example).

Quote:


It is possible that any university would claim 'educational use' as a possible out... however even this does not fully exempt.

What is interesting is that religious organizations often seem to screw with copyright... could it be that these groups consider that their higher power supercedes contractual law.

it's kind of distressing to see stage people argue for latitude in changing words. All plays are subject to the director's vision for staging, and much can be done to affect the impact of a playwright's words. But the script is supposed to be sacred.

They worked very hard for their art and in most cases have made very little money. To even argue that its okay to change, especially without getting approval is just mind boggling to me, and disrespectful to art in general.

And yes, it happens in Utah way too much. (Perhaps it happens elsewhere as well) But I would expect that here, the law would be followed, as well as the artist's wishes.


And I can't imagine anyone, least of all a theatre, would presume that cashing a royalty check would impact in any way a legal contract, any more than if I wrote "Last Payment - paid in full" on my mortgage payment check would shed my obligation to continue paying for my house.

spiker wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2008 at 12:32pm:

Sorry.  I'm speaking as one who live out in one of the more provin�ial regions of this provin�ial state.

I am well aware you and others on this board just completed what I am sure must have been a successful run of A Midsummer Night's Dream, and I'm sure attendance was simply booming, and I'm sure the production team that put together your fine ensemble and staged this worthy show are top-notch and are probably planning, as we speak, to venture into some more of the Bard's gems.

However.  From my vantage point, here in Weber/North Davis County, such opportunities are very rare, very far between, and with gas at $4 a gallon and the Frontrunner running at rather irregular intervals (and still not covering quite the range we'd like), rather expensive to attend, let alone participate.  Put on a Shakespeare show in these parts, you're likely to get, "Never heard of it.  Why doncha put on that one show with the cowboys and the farmers and that really creepy guy?"

No further comment.

Wc365 wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2008 at 1:59pm:


How did you KNOW that's the show I gave up Midsummers to do?! Weird...

Quote:


Ah yes... good correction; thank you.

Even God gets annoyed with it.

Quote:


Of course, HE wasn't represented by Samuel French.

Redbeard wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2008 at 8:41pm:


And this is a perfect example of why we have to realize one person's values may be entirely different from anothers. Either change is equally upsetting, and equally wrong. And if one can be done, so can the other.

Tshep wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2008 at 6:45am:


Oh, I didn't mean to suggest quid pr quo. I'm savoring the irony, and trying to encourage those who find cutting offensive words to be no big deal to see things from a different point of view. I'm saying that if we open up a can of worms that says "it's okay to change a play into what fits community standards", it can just as easily work AGAINST the squeaky-clean as for them. I've used examples like this for years, arguing that those who thought "Clean Flicks" was perfectly okay would be outraged if someone were cutting religious works to omit all references to religion. The person whose show is santized can be having their beliefs defiled just as much as the person having their show debauched. Of course it all comes back to the legality of copyrights, but you yourself stated quite correctly that those who censor works are often following a personal moral law rather than a universal civil law. �I just think it's food for thought that this could done in reverse, and that's yet another reason to respect the copyright in the first place. "DO unto others" is another reason the "hgiher law" mentality is, at best, specious reasoning even from it's own point of view.

And you hit on the important point that copyright is a legal process that must be followed, you cannot simply rely on ethics to save you. I can't begin to speculate whether the BYU playwright copyrighted her work, but I know that perfor I give a play to a producer, I copyright it with the Library of Congress, and so should anyone who cares about having their work protected.