Do you need to get the rights of a play to perform a staged reading?- Page 2

[stagescreen]

Posted: 4/15/08 at 12:15pm

Stupid or not, regardless of whether you charge admission or it's a free event, you must obtain the rights to perform the piece.

If you're doing an event that doesn't charge admission (totally free, not a benefit...nobody makes money, no money collected whatsoever), and it's a one-night event, there's usually a discounted rate. All of this depends on the situation, the size of the venue, and lots of other technicalities that the producer of the event and the licensing agent (Dramatists, Samuel French, MTI, Tams-Witmark, R&H, etc.) work out prior to the start of rehearsals of any licensed piece.

The last thing anybody wants is a lawsuit, and that happens much more frequently than you might suppose -- pay the licensing expenses -- or look forward to some crazy expensive court costs (you could be sued by the playwright, the licensing agency, the original producers of the show, the playwrights agents/guilds, etc ad infinitum!) Don't expose yourself to that legal quagmire.

I'm sorry, but TooDarnHot is wrong on this one. Keep legit!

[BkCollector]

Posted: 4/15/08 at 12:42pm

TooDarnHot, im with you on this one.

and ridiculing my ideas just because they aren't in legal fashion isn't a very smart way to make an argument. there are thousands of scholarly papers backing up my argument. So if you want to debate it, do some research first.

The idea of making art and then charging people every time they do something with it is very new in human society, it hasn't always been that way, and it won't be that way forever.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 4/15/08 at 12:54pm

"The idea of making art and then charging people every time they do something with it is very new in human society, it hasn't always been that way, and it won't be that way forever."

You're kidding, right? Art has ALWAYS been paid for by someone or another. Mass consumption is relatively new with regards to the scale it exists today. Those artworks you see in museums? They were commissioned by a patron from the artist. And you can bet he charged them. The Sistine ceiling art by Michaelangelo? He may have been forced to do it, but he was still paid. Those Egyptian drawings? They weren't considered "art" by the artisans and are archaeological art. Those grand Operas the Met performs, you can bet the composer was paid every time it was performed.

[BkCollector]

Posted: 4/15/08 at 12:56pm

Fosse, I don't mean initial compensation, I mean continued compensation. Those painters didn't get a chunk of cash every time someone wanted to exhibit a painting.

Handel didn't get a chunk of cash every time one of his operas were performed, only for the commission. That's the point.
I'm not against artists getting paid once for each work they put out, but more than once is usury.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/15/08 at 1:09pm

wow. usury. what religion has a problem with that?

[keen on kean]

Posted: 4/15/08 at 1:27pm

Painters do not get compensated because they sell all their rights in the art they create. If I wanted to buy a Degas and cut it up into little pieces, I could do that. With copyright protection, the artist creates an ongoing protected right to control what he/she has created, and no one else's right to that work has any validity. Whether or not you charge an audience, whether it is a full reading or full production, the author has the absolute right to consent or withhold consent. Interesting case currently being heard about J. K. Rowling's rights to terms used in Harry Potter - same issue.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 4/15/08 at 1:28pm

"Those painters didn't get a chunk of cash every time someone wanted to exhibit a painting."

The artists who painted those works were long dead before those works were publicy exhibited in the manner we know of today. Most remained in private collections until very rececently (there are literally thousands of treasures by the Masters of Renaissance and impressionist art that may not be seen for decades or even centuries because they remain in private residence). Second, works-for-hire are not owned by the artist. So while Michaelangelo may have painted the Sistine Ceiling, he didn't own it. He was hired to do it. On the other hand, if I write a play, and I meet with someone who wants to produce it in public, I OWN the work. I wasn't hired to create the play for someone else. So I can tell someone that they have to pay me a certain amount of they want to perform it.

Also we are more protective of our creative rights today than they were in the past. Today, artists don't generally sell their rights away...they license them...a completely different concept. Mozart may have composed works on his own, but then he would have SOLD that composition to someone, losing any claim to compensation. We will never go back to that. And we shouldn't. Just because some people are to lazy to create their own work and profit of of someone else's creativity is no reason to change the copyright law.

[markymatt]

Posted: 4/15/08 at 1:30pm

Why not just go to the source?

"A royalty fee is due whenever a play is presented in front of an audience- whether an admission is charged or not. This includes classroom presentations, benefits, or private shows. The fact that a performance is a free or benefit performances is taken into account when fees are quoted."



MTI Website

[BkCollector]

Posted: 4/15/08 at 1:39pm

Fosse, and I see it a totally different way. I see it as lazy artists of today who decide to write one work and continue to make money off it for the rest of their lives. THAT'S lazy.

We should not let people OWN ideas, because then no one will be able to share them, ever. and if you think it's not a slippery slope, then do some research into why people opposed to intellectual property are against it, there are some fascinating arguments made by far more articulate than I

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/15/08 at 1:50pm

like a houseplant?

[Fosse76]

Posted: 4/15/08 at 1:58pm

"We should not let people OWN ideas, because then no one will be able to share them, ever"

People don't ideas. You cannot copyright nor patent an idea. However, once the idea is implemented in a fixed medium it is no longer an idea.

You claim the artist benefitting from one idea for the rest of his life is lazy? Who lazier? That artist, or the person who took his work and profited without doing any actual work. If I can write one song and be set for life, good for me. Why should someone be allowed to take that song that I wrote and make money from it without having anything to do with the song's creation or my permission?

[Not Barker, Todd.]

Posted: 4/15/08 at 2:00pm

All the websites say if it's public, yes. If it's private, no.

[BkCollector]

Posted: 4/15/08 at 2:03pm

How about performer's as artists. And Fosse, you know that people are copyrighting ideas without putting them into a fixed form, and that's wrong.

Getting back to the performer, many propose that any specific artist's interpretation of a song is as much their property as the person who wrote the song. Nina Simone's Pirate Jenny is not Bea Arthur's Pirate Jenny is not Julia Migenes's Pirate Jenny is not Lotte Lenya's Pirate Jenny, they are all different, and those differences are the fruits of their labor as artists, shouldn't they then have the same consideration?

If you disagree then it should go both ways. What you've put down on paper is just one thing, and one thing only, you get paid for that, you're done. You want more money? WRITE SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/15/08 at 2:18pm

somebody's jealous of folks who've actually accomplished somthing in their lives.

[sondhead]

Posted: 4/15/08 at 2:45pm

How is a show and/or songs "ideas"? Last I checked, they were musical notes and words written on a piece of paper which is hardly an idea. It's a physical thing that is protected by copyright.

And the reason continual royalties exist is because it would be unfair for other people to continue to make money by presenting other's works after the initial showing. The author deserves part of that money, because it's their work making the money.

The author also deserves control over other performances of his/her work, because his/her name is on it and every performance of a work is a reflection on his/her name. Who hasn't seen a terrible production of a musical that completely shaped your opinion of the show, regardless of whether the actual writing itself is good or not? We all want to say we don't do this, but I know we all have. It's inevitable.

And yes, it is likely you'd get away with it. But you'd have to know you were stealing from artists whose work you like enough to perform. Maybe they WOULD let you do it for free, but you haven't even asked their permission or contacted them at all. Would you like to tell them to their face you went about it this way?


Updated On: 4/15/08 at 02:45 PM

[sondhead]

Posted: 4/15/08 at 3:51pm

Slash if once a writer puts their work out there it's just out there, I guess I can just take it to a country that hasn't seen a production of said work and pass it off as my own.

Another reason why copyright protection is anything but stupid or lazy.

[Not Barker, Todd.]

Posted: 4/15/08 at 3:55pm

[Fosse76]

Posted: 4/15/08 at 4:21pm

"Getting back to the performer, many propose that any specific artist's interpretation of a song is as much their property as the person who wrote the song."

No. Interpretation is not copyrightable. To be protected it must be fixed. A performance cannot be "fixed."

[BkCollector]

Posted: 4/15/08 at 4:39pm

Once it's recorded it's fixed.

Nice try Fosse

[TooDarnHot]

Posted: 4/15/08 at 7:41pm

Okay.

markymatt - I am NOT talking about a "play" or a full musical or even a concert reading.

Fosse - I know, for a fact, that when those benefit concerts at Joe's Pub (with various themes such as Broadway Loves The 80's and Broadway Rockers) use various material from either musicals or just songwriters they do NOT have to pay "royalties" or get permission.

I have worked on a number of them.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 4/15/08 at 7:54pm

Thank you for that, sondhead.

[sondhead]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 1:56am

"Fosse - I know, for a fact, that when those benefit concerts at Joe's Pub (with various themes such as Broadway Loves The 80's and Broadway Rockers) use various material from either musicals or just songwriters they do NOT have to pay "royalties" or get permission."

Joe's Pub pays blanket fees to ASCAP, called a cabaret license I believe. It covers all music by artists they represent. It's what most piano bars and universities purchase (for master classes, music assemblies, recitals, etc.) They may not seek to pay royalties for the specific performances they are presenting, but they are paying money.

[KrissySim]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 2:14am

Fosse76 :
"Why should someone be allowed to take that song that I wrote and make money from it without having anything to do with the song's creation or my permission?"

I know you are correct from a legal standpoint. But there must be a certain level of voluntary non-enforcement or inability to enforce. "Unknown" bands and singers often perform the copyrighted songs of pop stars (and songs from Broadway shows) in bars, restaurants and other venues and get paid (usually a very small amount from management) without obtaining rights. I've heard it many times. There must be a certain level of "not caring" or not considering enforcement to be worth the effort.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 9:25am

Did we ever find out if this was a public thing, or friends sitting around in a living room?

I want to say there is a small loophole, that these can be used for class assignments without needing to pay royalties. For instance, high school theatre II class performs scenes from "Glass Menagerie" for their parents. Admission isn't charged, and it's essentially a one act cutting. Most theatrical rights companies are not going to care.

Granted, I'm not entirely sure we ever paid for any of our rights to anything but three of our musicals (I know we didn't for "Working") in high school, but that's another story.