URINETOWN: Copyright Controversy- Page 3

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 1:52am

If I go see Damn Yankees or Cabaret, I expect to see Bob Fosse's choreography or a version of it.

Yikes. Really? I mean Pippin and Chicago for sure, but Damn Yankees??? and Fosse only directed and choreographed the movie version of Cabaret. I would not even want to hear about someone attempting to recreate Fosse's direction and choreography for the stage version of Cabaret let alone actually see it. I would expect a version of Ronald Field or Rob Marshal's choreography for a stage production... not Fosse's.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 1:57am

I think it's sad they are going after Jen. Good God, couldn't they have a sit down with her. She WAS in the cast.

[angelrock25222]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 2:26am

I know this isnt the point of the thread, however, with the great love I have for Urinetown, I cannot understand how they expect people to not use any of the original ideas, the ideas that make the show what it is.

i know everyone says just give them credit but I dont think that this is even what its about. in the article they talk about how the show is open to interpretation and people should use that platform to create new ideas. however, with this particular show, a lot of what makes it funny are the specific references (the west side story dance for snuff, the les mis march, etc). i mean you can change some things, but it really wouldnt be the same. do the artists really want people to destroy their intentions? do they really not understand the brilliance of their own work?

and forgive me if im wrong but doesnt mti require you to list, in very specific places i might add, the names of the writers, the original performance space and dates, etc maybe thats not the credit they are looking for but it does at least tell people where the original ideas came from.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 2:39am

So, along those lines, are the creators of Urinetown just ripping off West Side Story and Le Miz?

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 3:02am

Ugh, this is so simply solved, and it's ridiculous that this is even a question.

Actually, it has been solved, but here's the problem with "Urinetown."

Rando isn't an SSDC member.

SSDC (the Society for Stage Directors and Choreographers) worked this out years ago, mainly thanks to Michael Bennett.

Let's say someone came to me, with a musical version of Nancy Drew, and I gave the show huge input, I totally Hal Princed it, and staged it within an inch of its life.

The show has an amazing life on Broadway, and I make a fortune due to my royalty agreement.

Then, the authors publish it with Sam French.

See I have a union, SSDC, that negotiates my contract with Sam French. My union, SSDC, makes sure I'm taken care of.

Rando wasn't a member when Urinetown happened.

So he's pissed.

But it's his stupid fault.

Unions are crucial.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 3:19am

Can you be more specific? In what ways would the SSDC help solve this issue?

[StephanietheStar]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 3:24am

I'm confused....doesn't just about every production of EVERYTHING end up looking similar?? there are only so many ways to interprety things....

and how can it be monatary loss? the show is no longer playing on broadway....you sold the rights, so therefore you are getting the money from that which is partially based on how much money THEY'lL make from the performances....


I don't get how this is a problem. Maybe I'm naive.


I do understand the choreography thing, but...at the same time, I feel as that sorta goes with the rights too...I mean...you can't do a show like "Pajama Game" without having the Steam Heat dance be the classic dance....etc...etc.

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 3:28am

I can be very specific. Here's how it works.

It was started by Jerome Robbins with "Fiddler on the Roof." Jerry realized that while "Fiddler" was written by Harnick and Boch, he had a huge input into the success of that show. So he wrote a contract that said, when amateur producers of that show do productions, they have to buy my staging. It doesn't mean that you have to do the Robbins staging, it simply means that he gets paid for it regardless.

This is what SSDC does. You negotiate, as a director, percentages of royalties.

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 3:47am

To be clearer:

Let's say that I was the director and choreographer of "Mamma Mia." (I am not, by the way.) However, if I WAS, I would have it in my contract (thanks to my Union) that when the show reached amateur levels, I would get a percentage of every production done in Podunk, USA. Now, I didn't have to do that, my union (SSDC) did that for me.

If Rando has a problem with Urinetown, I can only assume it's because he's not a member of the union.

[Smartful Dodger]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 8:08am

Although unions and guilds are critical these days, I find it hard to believe that Rando's legal team did not anticpate the wide variety of rights issues and stipulations when the contract for licensing was negotiated. That's simply a stupid oversight, with or without the union. Since, as many people have noted here, the production is a patchwork, a pastische of other staged musicals, then Rando and his team should have realized that the staging and all associated rights were critical to the essence of the piece.

There is a brilliant bit in LITTLE DOG LAUGHED where Julie White negotiates the rights to a playwright's work -- it goes on and on and on and ends "anywhere in the UNIVERSE!"

[sondhead]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 8:54am

Am I the only one that has seen productions that did NOT copy the original and were great? I don't "expect" anything when I go to a show and I hardly believe it's anyone's duty to copy the original. I have definitely seen things, Urinetown included, that were not even close to copies of the original and were great--even better for not doing a copy of what a lot of people already know.

People are more creative then you are giving them license for.

The whole thing with this licensing business--it's true. We're getting into a world where with bootlegs widely available to everyone that EVERY choreographer should probably get part of the royalties for amateur productions, but that of course means licensing fees will have to go up. However, until that becomes a blanket practice, it will depend on the show. Urinetown would never seem to me to be a show locked in by it's original decisions. There's no reason that someone couldn't come up with their own choreography for that material. That is probably why there isn't a Urinetown choreography book sent out with licensing materials.

[sondhead]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 9:03am

And you know where this is going to be a huge problem too:

When Hairspray is fully released, I can pretty much guarantee you 97% of the productions will use original choreo at least on You Can't Stop the Beat.. which will truly ridiculous cuz I can't really think of music that would be more fun to choreograph to. North Shore is using kind of a variation on the original (not enough to be infringment worthy) and it is AWFUL (NO energy... look at the clip on YouTube) but I'm sure a better choreographer could do a great job with it! Look at that video on YouTube of the Finnish Hairspray! They did completely different choreography and it looks GREAT!

Unless of course, this court case makes every theatre across the nation really watch their ass as they should...

[Ourtime992]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 10:45am

I saw a production of Urinetown over the summer in Park City, Utah (where they have the Sundance film festival) which followed the feeling of the original direction and choreography while creating entirely new dance sequences. And it was wonderful. There were visual references to more modern forms of dance (Cop Song backup dancers did some very funny Backstreet Boys sort of stuff which fit perfectly), so there's no reason for productions to rip-off Rando and Carrafa's staging.

[avab802]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 11:05am

Isn't there a percentage of a work that can be copied without it being infringement? Fair use law, or something like that. I know it applies to written works, for example if I'm writing a novel I can quote one line from a play in my novel without it being copyright infringement or having to pay royalties to the author of the play. Something similar could work for choreography as well, allowing regional/amateur productions to copy key bits of the original choreography without it being copyright infringement. Design elements are a little more difficult since in the case of costumes and sets they are pretty much either copied or they're not.
But the real difficulty is where do you draw the line? I was in a dinner theater production of Hello Dolly, and our Dolly wore a red dress similar to the one worn by Ethel Merman. I'm sure the dress wasn't an exact copy made from original design sketches or anything, but it was similar enough to be recognizable as THE red Dolly dress. Is that copyright infringement, or is it fair use?

[Fosse76]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 11:18am

"Are there legal ramifications if I see my ideas on stage? I've already mailed myself my sketches as a sort of quick copy write, just in case."

Yes. Any artwork on paper is automatically copyright-protected by you. The registration of copyright is the process in which you can collect damages if those plans are used. If they are not registered, it becomes harder to prove.

As for the Urinetown case, it would be extremely difficult to protect blocking, because of the limitations of movement (unlike choreography). As for set and lighting designs, it really depends on who actually owns them. When you produce something for someone else, you don't generally own it. If I hire someone to design a set for me, then I own the rights to that design. It's the work-for-hire designation in copyright law. Same with lighting. Same with costumes. There can be exceptions, since this is just a generalisation. But generally that's the rule. While I'm sure that these productions did violate copyright laws as far as set design and choreograpohy are concerned, I'm not sure if the actual creators have a cause of action against them.

[onlylisab]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 11:46am

I attended the production at the Carousel Dinner Theatre in Akron. It was amazing. I loved it!

I agree with Hunter Foster's statement and commend him for expressing his views. He's right: the Carousel was taking a risk by performing this show in the first place. They exposed contemporary musical theater to an audience base who would happily see an annual production of The Sound of Music or Mame. This controversy is discouraging theaters from producing shows that local audiences may be unfamiliar with or shows that push the bar. I am not ignorant to the copyright issue at hand, but I do hope that they drop this whole thing. The creative team behind the original production should be proud that individuals in other parts of the country are able to experience their wonderful show.

[Jon]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 11:59am

So if I was was Stephen Sondheim and someone did a production of INTO THE WOODS in a small town and didn't pay any royalties, I should be "proud that individuals in other parts of the country are able to experience my wonderful show"?

[markymatt]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 12:15pm

"This controversy is discouraging theaters from producing shows that local audiences may be unfamiliar with or shows that push the bar."

I just have to ask a quick question. Why should we blame this on the people whose copyright was infringed. Shouldn't this be the fault of the people (not person--Jenn Cody should not be a patsy here, the people who run the theater are equally or more to blame) who did not follow protocal?

It seems to me that the easy solution for most of the issues discussed on this board concerning copyright is communication. There are arguments back and forth about A Chorus Lines choreography or Dolly's dress and the like. The difference is that these things were discussed prior to production. Then, you have credits that read "Choreographed in the style of Bob Fosse by Ann Reinking; Original choreography for "Hot Honey Rag" by Bob Fosse"--from ibdb.com. The credit doesn't make any difference, what makes a difference is that this is what the producers of Chicago and the Bob Fosse estate agreed on.

Many people argue that allowances should be made for smaller theaters. I'm here to tell you, they are. You just have to ask for it; get it in writing. If you are doing a show that you feel needs to use aspects of another production, get in touch with those producers. It's really easy. Especially, as in this case, when you know them personally. If they say "no", then you know you have to do something else and all this mess is avoided.

My $.02. I'll go back to lurking now:)

[HOUFlip04]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 12:27pm

"So if I was was Stephen Sondheim and someone did a production of INTO THE WOODS in a small town and didn't pay any royalties, I should be 'proud that individuals in other parts of the country are able to experience my wonderful show'?"

That's not the issue. The theatre paid the royalties. They just did not credit the original direction and choreography.

[Marlothom]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 12:30pm

I think the one good thing about any restrictions on directions, is that it encourages young directors, whether in Brooklyn, Akron, or East Bumble F**k to come up with new interpretations of plays. The danger of the current lack of copyright protection for directors is that it will create distrust among cast/crew which relies on an open collaborative relationship to thrive.

[Jon]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 12:31pm

The theatre paid royalties and had permission to use the words, the music and the lyrics. The original director,choreographer, set, costume and lighting designers do not get royalites from regional productions.

How do people NOT get this? I suppose you think it would be OK to have performers lip-synch to the original cast recording?

[fengshuihellnyc]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 12:33pm

If this is true and there isn't somekind of turn around statement from the accusor. I forsee a bleak day for Jennifer Cody. Broadway is a small tight knit community. If she has done what she is accused she will most likely NEVER WORK ON BROADWAY AGAIN. People and directors on broadway are very unforgiving. It doesn't bode well for her husband either.... whose career didn't look like it was going anywhere anyway.

[Neverandy]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 12:34pm

Very good point Jon.
I think though,that this all would have been a non-issue if there was a note in the playbill. I am sure this would have been dealt personnally between 2 creative teams, instead of the lawyers that are involved now.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 12:37pm

Don't know if this was discussed but --

A lot of times published scripts contian Stage Manager notes on blocking to give the reader a better idea of what was visually happening. If a new director follows these stagings it could possibly force the production to appear very similar. If one simple stage direction is giving mid-scene, then the whole scene may have to lead up to that...making the general staging follow the same pattern as the original.

Also, if a director sees a production, subconciously many bits of the same staging may end up in the second production.

I don't think there's anything wrong with it - if it acts like a filter system ("keep the best of [it]/Do the rest of [it]") and the director doesn't mind not taking control of the show from the ground up.

[Neverandy]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 12:38pm

Feng that is a little extreme to suggest that she is finished. Casting takes into account a million different things. I think personal allegiance is far down on the list.
And Hunter works pretty steadily too. I could swing a dead cat on 45th street and hit 10 actors who would kill for his present career status.