| 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 | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - bmc 10:39 am EDT 08/11/17 |
| Next: | re: Why did Guirgis change his mind? - FasterTheater 10:39 pm EDT 08/11/17 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.015059 seconds.