Amateur production of CABARET (Is this allowed?)- Page 3

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 12:47am

well then how do you not argue the same for productions of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST? Where they use the same choreography, or at least elements of it. And the costumes are all replicas of Broadway?

I thought the amateur rights to Beauty and the Beast specifically stated that they can't copy Belle's costume. If they're still doing it, it's out of willful disregard, not ignorance as others have excused the actions here.

There is a trend happening, where an Amateur group watches a bootleg and just copies all of the elements, and this group went as far as copying the staging, choreography, sets, and costumes.

You forgot Alan's ad-libs.

Loy Arcenas successfully sued a regional theater in Florida for illegally copying his set design for the Night of the Iguana revival. Joe Mantello later sued the same theater for illegally copying his direction in Love! Valor! Compassion! That was a professional for-profit theater, however, I don't think legal action would be taken in situations like this. This is MTI's problem, not Sam Mendes's.

Updated On: 12/26/08 at 12:47 AM

[IAMmyownMUSICAL]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 1:10am

No
what I'm saying is....this production is no different than that of a production of beauty and the beast, a chorus line, or....rent.

They have a very specific look, cadence, and style to each production. and as I understand not completely copying them...to a certain extent you have to.

so in that case, why not complain about every non tour or broadway production of a show?



I understand the stealing aspect
I just don't necessarily agree 100 percent with the argument about creativity.

and as for BEAST
done 15 productions of it
it does not state that in the contract
it only states about the black t-shirts

and MTI recommends theatre company for california costume rentals for beauty, which are exact replicas of the broadway show


so there is a very very fine line
which is difficult for many cases to draw

Updated On: 12/26/08 at 01:10 AM

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 1:14am

There a bunch of ways you can do CABARET. This isn't even the only staging of the show. Directors should come up with their own ideas. They basically copied the revival move by move.

[IAMmyownMUSICAL]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 1:16am

ljay
I agree with you completely on that. But if that's the production they were going for, then suit themselves. they had to buy the rights to it...so didn't they techinically py their dues?

Wouldn't a fair comparison be like changing certain aspects of choreography in cats...those moves become expected

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 1:19am

But the revival designs, choreography, and staging are not licensed to perform.

[sondheimgeek]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 1:24am

"They have a very specific look, cadence, and style to each production. and as I understand not completely copying them...to a certain extent you have to."

NO!

No, no, no, no, no!

This kind of mentality is what is being conveyed to new generations of theatre fans. You DO NOT have to copy ANYTHING to a certain extent, no matter how iconic something is.

Yes, I will even go so far as to say that 'A Chorus Line' can be done without the same scenic design. Whether it is as effective or not is subjective, but it can be done differently, and just as effectively.

You NEVER have to copy something. The original creators weren't able to copy their designs, so why should we?

[Byron Abens]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 1:25am

Nor is the 1998 revival script. Currently only the original and the revisions made for the 1987 revival are available for performance. So by using the 98 revival script they are also violating the terms of their contract with Tams Witmark.

[binau]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 3:45am

"You may have the opinion that copyright breach is not equal to stealing, but unfortunately the law does not agree with you. The only difference is that stealing is criminal and the state prosecutes you for a fine or jail, and infringement is primarily civil, and the injured party sues you for damages. (There may be criminal penalties for continued willful breach of copyright, too, but I am not going to look that up on Christmas!)"

Doesn't that tell you something?

(Ripped from a JPEG, but)

Copyright infringement is not stealing, It's Copyright infringement "A handy guide"

* Theft removes the original

* Copyright infringement makes a copy

[blaxx]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 4:11am

(There may be criminal penalties for continued willful breach of copyright, too...)"

No way! You think?

This argument is almost as bad as discussing bootlegs.
People with double moral standards will never admit what they do is wrong.

[binau]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 5:22am

The recognition that breach of copyright =/= stealing does not mean it is 'not wrong'.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 9:08am

lololol ok most of you bitching probably watch bootlegs of musical DVDs (going of many peoples ages and the productions they claim to have seen they could only have watched a bootleg), so the people bitching that its because of bootlegs are been a tad hypocritical, oh and maybe they shouldn't film Gypsy, you know in case someone steals the design lol

Also, i know with many shows it really does not matter
Fame the musical knows that many companies try and recreate the original UK choreography, the sets they use are normally the hired original UK set (which is enormous) or 1 of the touring sets (you get the Taxis too)

I know that Runar Borge the director of the original London production of Fame and Lars Bethke found it very flattering

The same with Footloose and Karen Bruce etc

I agree that originality would be better, but dont think for a second the original creators would loose any sleep over it

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 10:22am

^ There have been several lawsuits in the US for amateur productions stealing designs, etc.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 11:36am

“That's scary, are people really this ignorant?”

Yes, and I’m afraid ignorance and stupidity have become the new ‘common sense’.

People seem to feel that it’s okay to steal something as long as they aren’t breaking into their house to do it.

“lololol ok most of you bitching probably watch bootlegs of musical DVDs (going of many peoples ages and the productions they claim to have seen they could only have watched a bootleg), so the people bitching that its because of bootlegs are been a tad hypocritical, oh and maybe they shouldn't film Gypsy, you know in case someone steals the design lol”

Nice way to generalize.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 11:37am

double post

Updated On: 12/26/08 at 11:37 AM

[stagescreen]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 11:48am

Stealing staging and scenic/costume designs is regional/amateur theatre's dirty little secret. Audiences and actors alike should demand more. Unfortunately, this is the status quo for many theatres around the country. What's even worse...when some theatres do indeed pilfer the original stagings off of shows - even when they do them well, they sometimes (often) miss the point and make a show particularly soul-less. I've sat through many shows like this, and although I'm reassured by the staging/sets that I may know so well - it still leaves me really cold.

[beltingbaritone]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 2:14pm

"Nice way to generalize."

Theatrediva, just like you did?

"It's the ones who piss and moan "Who's it hurting" that bothers me.


They probably steal downloaded music as well."

I'm just sayin'.

Edited to add quotation marks.

Updated On: 12/26/08 at 02:14 PM

[wonkit]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 3:00pm

The distinction is theft is removal of the original where there is only one original (as with a painting or a manuscript) and copyright infringement protects the same ownership rights of an artist who creates something that may be reproduced (as in photocopying books or using production rights that may be duplicated in another time or place). And even if you are doing a free production to raise money for starving children, the act is still illegal.

[binau]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 4:36pm

"The distinction is theft is removal of the original where there is only one original (as with a painting or a manuscript) and copyright infringement protects the same ownership rights of an artist who creates something that may be reproduced (as in photocopying books or using production rights that may be duplicated in another time or place). And even if you are doing a free production to raise money for starving children, the act is still illegal."

Thankyou.

"^ There have been several lawsuits in the US for amateur productions stealing designs, etc."

And do you think in legal terms the word 'stealing' or 'theft' would have ever been used?

I know both theft and the infringement of copyright it is illegal/wrong etc.. I'm just saying that although related they are not the same crime..

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 5:38pm

I am going to go with it is both illegal and wrong. I don't appreciate seeing hijacked productions. A real director should surely have his own vision, that's his job.

It is true that there will always be certain aspects that always seem to get recreated. "You're a Goodman Charlie Brown" will always look like Shultz's cartoons, Annie will always wear the exact same red dress at the end of Annie, and in the US costumes for the Wizard of Oz will always resemble those from the MGM film, this is because these things are so ingrained in theatre pop-culture that they will never go away, but using these elements is not the same as exactly copying someone else's production, move by move.

You also have to remember, you can only design Mushnick's Flower Shop so many ways before they start to closely resemble someone else's design.

It is also true that many designers and directors are completely aware that once shows become licensed that the original production will be copied. It's wrong, but for smaller companies it seems to go intentionally overlooked. With Rent being available now there will be many carbon copies of the original and very few reimaginings of it, and everyone knows this. It doesn't make it right, it doesn't make it legal, but it is still unavoidable none the less. I wish it were not true, but it is.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 6:22pm

Belting Bar,

I was being sarcastic.


But I guess some people don't get that.

[beltingbaritone]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 7:17pm

Sarcastic or not, it was still a generalization.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 7:50pm

Then I guess you just don't understand the meaning of sarcasm.

It's okay, you can still learn.


And again, I don't need to be told anything by someone who joined within the last 2 months.

Put in some time on the boards first.

[beltingbaritone]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 7:56pm

I understand the meaning sarcasm just fine thank you. Do you understand the meaning of hypocrisy?

And what does when I joined a message board have anything to do ANYTHING?

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 8:05pm

I received this message from the person who posted the video(s).


It was by the producers request and we gave credit where credits due. We didn't try and pass it off as our own staging. Thanks for watching and taking time to comment.

Whatever that means....
Updated On: 12/26/08 at 08:05 PM

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 9:26pm

"It was by the producers request and we gave credit where credits due."

What?! Did they pay them, or just 'mention them in the program'?



Why so nit picky, Baritone?

Do you steal music?


And my comment about only being here for two months should stand on it's own. Don't really know who you are yet. A lot of bitchy people have joined over the last few months. When you've been here a while, then we might listen to what you have to say, newbie.

Pull the stick out, and you might have some fun here.