Threaded Order Chronological Order
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
Time to render: 0.027689 seconds.