|re: "Whose Production is it anyway?": violating Copyright in Theatre|
|Posted by: whereismikeyfl 09:56 pm EDT 06/16/19|
|In reply to: re: "Whose Production is it anyway?": violating Copyright in Theatre - vegas 09:39 pm EDT 06/16/19|
|"Directorial choices such as blocking or production concept continue to occupy nebulous ground legally. "
What the article does not make completely clear is that in the Urinetown case it was not the director's copyright that was asserted, but rather the producer's ownership of the imitated staging. And that staging included the scenic and lighting design as well as choreography. So the direction was only part of a big package that never got broken down because it never went to court.
The Gary Griffin case based its argument on texual changes rather than what we think of as direction.
I think you are over generous in thinking that people settle because they think the claim against them stands a chance. Especially at this point when the SDC and other orgs are looking to back a test case that they can win.
A settlement is not a precedent. It has no legal force. Every case where a director has gone to court asserting his/her rights has been thrown out. Not a single court in any case has ruled in favor of the director.
You point out a very important issue--what is the directors work? Is it a concept? Is it staging? Is it something else? When we talk about director's copyright, the profession has still not determined what would be covered.
|Previous:||re: "Whose Production is it anyway?": violating Copyright in Theatre - vegas 09:39 pm EDT 06/16/19|
|Next:||re: "Whose Production is it anyway?": violating Copyright in Theatre - vegas 11:49 pm EDT 06/16/19|
Time to render: 0.026067 seconds.