Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts | |
| Posted by: Ann 09:36 am EDT 08/11/17 | |
|
|
|
| ... and the playwright's (Stephen Adly Guirgis) reaction as well. | |
| Link | Story at Playbill: Stephen Adly Guirgis Speaks Out After Shutting Down Theatre for Unauthorized Cuts to Judas Iscariot |
| reply to this message | |
| re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - Federal Copyright? | |
| Posted by: Cainebj 06:39 pm EDT 08/11/17 | |
| In reply to: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - Ann 09:36 am EDT 08/11/17 | |
|
|
|
| Aren't you violating copyright if you don't license the play or pay royalties? Is making changes to a play really a violation of federal copyright? Genuine question - I have never heard that before... |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - Federal Copyright? | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 07:20 pm EDT 08/11/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - Federal Copyright? - Cainebj 06:39 pm EDT 08/11/17 | |
|
|
|
| If you make unauthorized changes to a script that is covered by copyright, you are indeed violating the author's rights under copyright. Under copyright, the play belongs to the author. Changes cannot be made without the author's permission. Most contracts granting the right to perform a play state this explicitly, but even if they did not, statute would protect the author against this kind of infringement. Did you really think that if you pay royalties, you had the right to rewrite, cut, or do whatever you want with the script? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - Federal Copyright? | |
| Posted by: Cainebj 10:54 am EDT 08/12/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - Federal Copyright? - whereismikeyfl 07:20 pm EDT 08/11/17 | |
|
|
|
| Not necessarily to the extent that they did - I just found it odd that he kept saying (paraphrasing) you are breaking federal copyright in every first line of anything he wrote. It just sounds like an empty threat much like someone illegally downloading a TV episode, movie or CD from a torrent site. I can see the side of the theater company and director. There have been lots of deconstructed re-imagined interpretations of existing works in experimental theater. Personally, I believe there is room for that too artistically. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - Federal Copyright? | |
| Last Edit: whereismikeyfl 01:39 pm EDT 08/12/17 | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 01:37 pm EDT 08/12/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - Federal Copyright? - Cainebj 10:54 am EDT 08/12/17 | |
|
|
|
| You seem to be confused about what makes something a copyright violation. Getting away with it, does not make it legal. Downloading pirated works (like cutting plays without permission) are illegal even if many people get away with it. Shelton was not doing an experimental deconstructed interpretation. He admitted he just wanted a shorter play with a smaller cast. If you look at the videos of his productions, his is rather pedestrian, plodding mainstream direction. And honestly, most great post-modern deconstructions do not actually cut the text. Ivo von Hove, Anne Bogart, and Liz Lecompte usually work with a full text--and do get permission when they do cut. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - Federal Copyright? | |
| Last Edit: ryhog 11:32 am EDT 08/12/17 | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:31 am EDT 08/12/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - Federal Copyright? - Cainebj 10:54 am EDT 08/12/17 | |
|
|
|
| you are completely wrong. First of all, it is not an empty threat at all, as proven here. Secondly, you are conflating what is a good idea artistically (as to which I agree) and what is permissible without the consent of the property owner. The law is clear on the latter, and the theatre and director have no defensible position on this. Of course you have seen deconstructions, but what makes you think they were not undertaken with consent? There are a lot of things you can do most of the time with impunity in this world even though they are illegal. That does not make them right, and only a fool tests this when they have invested thousands of dollars in a production. When I read your post I thought you were joking. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - Federal Copyright? | |
| Posted by: Cainebj 08:36 am EDT 08/13/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - Federal Copyright? - ryhog 11:31 am EDT 08/12/17 | |
|
|
|
| Nope. Not joking. I would not use Bogart and LeCompte as examples if you are trying to make a case for "they got permission" to change original written works. I would happily experience one of their deconstructions/reimaginings before some of the originals. Which again - is why I say there is room for both artistically. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - Federal Copyright? | |
| Posted by: ryhog 09:58 am EDT 08/13/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - Federal Copyright? - Cainebj 08:36 am EDT 08/13/17 | |
|
|
|
| I am not the one who referenced Bogart and LeCompte, and I also would prefer a good re-imagining by either (or anyone else), but your point remains as misguided as before, now seeming to be contumacious as well, and also wrong. Whether or not the other poster gave the best examples imaginable does not alter that. I recall 2 situations the Wooster Group has found itself in. In one, many years ago, their "sampling" of The Crucible was considered too extensive to be fair use by Miller and Liz shut down the entire show (LSD) when they couldn't work it out. And last year they had a dispute with the Pinter estate over the way they were saying the words in their production of The Room and the estate let the production would go forward but only as a one and done. Neither of these provides sustenance for your proposition. Indeed, both take the wind out of your sails. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - Federal Copyright? | |
| Posted by: Cainebj 10:06 am EDT 08/13/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - Federal Copyright? - ryhog 09:58 am EDT 08/13/17 | |
|
|
|
| No, it does not take the wind out of my sails. You are 100% right. Legally, no one can do it. I think that is a shame. Sorry, that is my belief. |
|
| Link | Wooster Group and Miller |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - Federal Copyright? | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:10 am EDT 08/13/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - Federal Copyright? - Cainebj 10:06 am EDT 08/13/17 | |
|
|
|
| Had you said that from the get-go, there would have been no dispute here. I agree it is a shame, and were I emperor I would put plays produced post-mortem on the same footing as songs. I would also abrogate the Sonny Bono/Mickey Mouse law. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - Federal Copyright? | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 10:22 am EDT 08/13/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - Federal Copyright? - Cainebj 10:06 am EDT 08/13/17 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, the Wooster Group did things differently 30 years ago. But their recent productions of Williams and Pinter (and O'Neill directed by Richard Maxwell) used the texts uncut and unaltered. Pinter's estate did not allow them to do additional runs of The Room, but they could not shut it down because it was faithful to the text. Bogart has been using whole texts since the 80s. South Pacific, The Women, Miss Julie, Private Lives, all used full texts. Shelton though is not even fishing in this pond. His work is not investigating the original. The cuts are not for meaning (like the Wooster Group shows of the 70s) but rather convenience. And he tried to trade off the name recognition of the playwright and play. When the Wooster Group did sample existing works, they never represented to the public that they were doing the play. i.e. audiences were buying tickets to LSD Part 1 not to The Crucible. (Though it is still by far the best production of The Crucible that I have ever seen.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 11:54 am EDT 08/11/17 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 11:53 am EDT 08/11/17 | |
| In reply to: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - Ann 09:36 am EDT 08/11/17 | |
|
|
|
| Audiences attending the Shelton Theater summer production of were greeted with a program note from director Richard Ciccarone explaining the artistic reasoning behind his decision to “transform” Guirgis’ play. "For me, a play is a living document that should transform from production to production." What Ciccarone seems to be conveniently forgetting is that such a "transformation" potentially happens in any new production, with new actors, new designs, new direction, etc. The text does not need to be rewritten/altered for that to happen. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts | |
| Posted by: ryhog 12:19 pm EDT 08/11/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - Chromolume 11:53 am EDT 08/11/17 | |
|
|
|
| "The text does not need to be rewritten/altered for that to happen." Nothing in the theatre is needed. A production is not needed to begin with. I don't think need is the issue; it is benefit, and who is to say that a show will not benefit from an alteration that has not been seen. I think this over-capitalistic mentality is bad for the theatre. It is well to remember that Shakespeare flourished a century before the Statute of Anne, and perhaps ironically, may have been the greatest pirate of the literary works of others in the history of the theatre. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts | |
| Posted by: SJHYM 11:37 am EDT 08/11/17 | |
| In reply to: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - Ann 09:36 am EDT 08/11/17 | |
|
|
|
| In this day and age with the internet and social media you have to be pretty stupid to make cuts or do anything that could get you flagged by the author or the company that represents the piece. Every contract I have signed to produce a show has very clear language about making changes or cuts to a play or musical and if you feel the need to do so there is a system to reach out to get permission from whoever owns the piece. I will also say that the internet has really helped the rights representatives stay on top of productions that have not paid for their rights or like the company in the article, make changes. Recently I saw a couple of shows announced in the area that were quickly taken down when it turned out they hadn't secured the rights. Foolish. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Guirgis has been incredibly gracious about it on social media , IMO | |
| Posted by: Esther 10:11 am EDT 08/11/17 | |
| In reply to: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - Ann 09:36 am EDT 08/11/17 | |
|
|
|
| After everything, he posted links to the Shelton Theater's fundraising page, urging people to $upport them. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts | |
| Posted by: ryhog 10:00 am EDT 08/11/17 | |
| In reply to: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - Ann 09:36 am EDT 08/11/17 | |
|
|
|
| Stephen's reaction expresses a mentality I have championed here (and elsewhere) often, and I commend it to everyone's attention (this means you Portantiere :-) ) because, of course, he expresses it better than I ever could. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts | |
| Last Edit: bmc 10:47 am EDT 08/11/17 | |
| Posted by: bmc 10:39 am EDT 08/11/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - ryhog 10:00 am EDT 08/11/17 | |
|
|
|
| Is there a general consensus, by theater professionals, on these kinds of drastic changes on a copyrighted play?.....How is chopping a play in half , then presenting it for the public, how is this different from theft?; I could understand if you and your friends held a reading in your living room, not charging admission, etc-a just for fun. .....I think both Albee and Sondheim have commented on folks who say something like "I'm thrilled to be presenting MY vision of Tiny Alice to a New York audience". Albee (I vaguely remember) said something like-- If You have a vision ,write your own damn play' Tiny Alice is My play' ....As with a recent Broadway opera, but in that case changes were made, even advocated, by the estate; For me it's like a high school production of West Side Story, where they eliminated all the dancing because they didn't have a choreographer and none of the cast knew how to dance. Not quite WSS..........It also reminds me of a production I posted about on this site , maybe 10 years ago, when the U of Mich undergrads were putting on a production of How To Succeed, with a girl playing the lead as Jaye Pierpont etc; The Loesser estate said the students had to do the play as written. My only contribution to the theater, other than the occasional small contribution to the U of Mich graduate music/ theater program, 'is buying tickets...........Is there a general consensus, among theater professionals, theater vets, about these kind of changes to someone else's work?.i | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts | |
| Posted by: ryhog 10:57 am EDT 08/11/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - bmc 10:39 am EDT 08/11/17 | |
|
|
|
| There is a general consensus, because it is the law, that alterations of any kind are illegal WITHOUT PERMISSION. What I have long advocated is that playwrights adopt Guirgis's attitude to their work rather than the cramped view you describe. But make no mistake, it's up to the owner of the property. I think sometimes examples involving tangible property are easier to understand than intellectual property. So let's assume you own a parcel of land. And let's assume that the shortest point between your neighbor's land and the bus stop involves cutting across your land. You are totally within your rights to insist that your neighbor walk around your property. Your neighbor can take the shortcut without asking and risk getting caught and forced to retreat, or the neighbor can ask and, assuming you are not an ass, you will consent so long as your underlying property is not damaged by the transit. Of course there are no property rights once a play enters the public domain (something we have made ridiculously difficult thanks to Disney having legally corrupted Congress to get an enormous gift). Yet some of us believe in the "sanctity" of the original play nonetheless, whereas I ascribe to Guirgis's mentality (as I said). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Why did Guirgis change his mind? | |
| Posted by: FasterTheater 10:39 pm EDT 08/11/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - ryhog 10:57 am EDT 08/11/17 | |
|
|
|
| Excuse me for being dense, but I don't understand why the playwright first was willing to let the production go ahead as long as they printed that statement, but then, once they printed it, ordered the lawyers to shut it down. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Why did Guirgis change his mind? | |
| Posted by: ryhog 10:54 pm EDT 08/11/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Why did Guirgis change his mind? - FasterTheater 10:39 pm EDT 08/11/17 | |
|
|
|
| From what I read, they used the statement in marketing in a way that exploited it to suggest they were doing something exciting, daring, etc., and I guess that lack of contrition was the straw that broke the camel's back. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Why did Guirgis change his mind? | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 09:22 am EDT 08/12/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Why did Guirgis change his mind? - ryhog 10:54 pm EDT 08/11/17 | |
|
|
|
| They did not use it in marketing (though Guirgus said it looked like a marketing item). Shelton put a big red warning stamp on the statement which made it look like it was supposed to be a joke. Also, the statement was added to the program stating why Giurigis' insert was wrong. The statement reads: “For me, a play is a living document that should transform from production to production. It is something the author bestows upon the public as a gift to be shared and theatre remains the greatest interpretive art the human race has developed. I say this because it is my fervent belief that as a director, an actor, a designer, a producer, a stage manager, a board operator, and an audience member, we are all taking the work of one artist and reinterpreting it into our own separate experiences. The play may not be what the author intended in his original vision, but as a work of art. I believe it is our duty to interpret and not simply repeat, to participate, not just transmit, and by doing so become a collaborators [sic] in the work.” |
|
| Link | The Insert |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Why did Guirgis change his mind? | |
| Posted by: ryhog 09:51 am EDT 08/12/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Why did Guirgis change his mind? - whereismikeyfl 09:22 am EDT 08/12/17 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for that. I don't think that statement says Guirgis (not that it matters but spelled wrong by you twice, in two different ways) was wrong, but rather that the laws protecting him are. I also don't think Guirgis disagrees any more than I do. That said, I think we both disagree with breaking the law. All of that said, I think the huge flaw in the statement is at the very end: there was no collaboration here and that is all Guirgis is after. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Why did Guirgis change his mind? a Jesuit Off-Broadway by Rev James Martin SJ | |
| Posted by: bmc (`bmccabe67@comcast.net) 08:54 pm EDT 08/12/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Why did Guirgis change his mind? - ryhog 09:51 am EDT 08/12/17 | |
|
|
|
| It took a day, but my memory bank finally unloaded the title of a book some friends gave me. Title is A Jesuit Off Broadway. James Martin S.J. got a phone call from Actor Sam Rockwell and playwright Adly Guirgis. He spent six months working with them, the cast, and director Phillip Seymour Hoffman. It's a very enjoyable book; It was published in 2007. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Why did Guirgis change his mind? a Jesuit Off-Broadway by Rev James Martin SJ | |
| Posted by: ryhog 12:04 am EDT 08/13/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Why did Guirgis change his mind? a Jesuit Off-Broadway by Rev James Martin SJ - bmc 08:54 pm EDT 08/12/17 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for that. I'll track it down; I'd love to read it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.079266 seconds.