URINETOWN: Copyright Controversy- Page 4

[HOUFlip04]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 12:55pm

I agree that saying this controversy would hurt Jennifer and Hunter's theatrical careers is pretty extreme. It doesn't seem as if Rando and Caffara told the cast of Urinetown at the time "Please don't go around the country and recreate the direction/choreography from this show." It's been done for years and this is the first time someone has publicly complained about it - I think.

Doesn't anyone suspect a publicity stunt? Aren't they doing a reading of a new show with Hunter Foster in the lead?

[Jon]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 1:10pm

BSoBW2 - we are not talking about basic blocking here - we are talking about detailed choreography, down to "raise your left shoulder and nod your head to the right on the first and third beats".

[Broadway Bob*]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 1:14pm

"You KNOW there are about 5,000 theatres out there going "oh SH*T" right now hoping no one "important" saw their last season... "

This brings up an amazing point. SO many theaters around the country suffer from the "Not Me" syndrome. They all think that getting caught at things will never happen to them. "Oh, we're just a small little theater in Florida." Well, theaters get caught! Several years ago a theater in Florida went belly up because of a cancelled production of SIDE BY SIDE BY SONDHEIM that they rewrote without permission. Now this. As mean as it may seem, I wish MORE theaters would get "caught" so that theaters everywhere would start following the rules.

[Jon]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 1:20pm

That's right, Bob. With the internet, you really can't get away with anything anymore. On this very board, I am constantly reading posts like "I went and saw a production of (whatver show) and they cut this and that song and changed this and that line" or "I'm in a produciton of (whatever) and our director wants to add a whole new scene where...".

The folks at Samuel French, MTI, Tams-Witmark, etc. definitely read these boards, and will without question shut down productions that violate copyright.

[birdboy782]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 1:32pm

just to throw in my thoughts here...(a topic compelling enough to post on!)

I was fortunate enough to be involved with a production that Carrafa directed and choreographed...and even HE didn't just "restage" the original with us...we had different sets, different "types' of casting (and cast size), lighting, etc....He really built upon -- and reimagined the Broadway production....trying new things, throwing out what didn't work for us, what he wished he would have done before.....it was genuinely a creative process, between the cast and him. So, it's hard for me to accept the argument -- "but of COURSE you have to do the original staging and choreography!!!" Ours rethought and added a lot that wasn't in previous productions -- and that was with the original choreographer!! I can only imagine what a completely different personality in a director and choreographer (with a great imagination of course!) could bring to the peice. There is a LOT that could be open to interperation...It is so often called "Brechtian"...and look how often that man's work has been rethought, imagined and completely overhauled!

Can't believe the nerve of Brian Loeffler to accept a Jeff award for his work if he did indeed just copy Carrafa and Rando's work! That's really just too much...!!

[Becky]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 1:44pm

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.

I was thinking the exact same thing. A strange thing for me to zero in on with this discussion - but commenting that Hunter's career didn't seem to be going anywhere? Don't even know what to say to that.

[Enjolras77]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 1:59pm

I think it is heinous for a professional choreographer to copy the Broadway version, pass it off as his own, and then accept an award on top of it.

I do think that there should be some new provisions set in place when rights can be negotiated with licensing agencies to protect these works if the creators so choose. Like was mentioned on a previous page, maybe directors, choreographers, etc. should get a percentage of the royalties. Rather than include them in regardless of whether or not a theatre uses their work or not (which might reduce the cut the authors would get), have their work as an additional option. Just like MTI does with licensing the logo pack or Audrey II plants, if theatre groups want to be able to use the original designs of a show they can choose to pay extra for that right. Credit would also be required to be given in the program to the designers whose work was borrowed from. Then if a show copies the original design without obtaining the rights they can be reprimanded. These fees would obviously be scaled like all other productions rights with professional groups paying more and amateur and school groups paying discounted rates. This would also reward groups for being original because they would pay less for rights.

To make this a worthwhile investment the licensing agencies need to provide materials that can be used to successfully recreate the original designs. If want your set design to match the original -- you will receive a "how to guide" with blueprints. If you want to recreate some of the memorable dance sequences, you get a video or step by step guide. The same will apply to costumes, etc. I think it would be a great step forward to include the rest of the creative team in the royalties -- but only if they can provide these worthwhile aides. The author and the composer provide you with everything they have done -- the libretto and full score -- so the other creators should as well if they expect to be compensated.

My only concern is that the cost for rights is already steep enough and adding additional costs may be too much for many school and community theatres to handle. It is a sticky subject all the way around, because in some instances there aren't many alternatives other than variations of the original staging -- and at what point does it become infringement? Piracy should always be punished, but would strictly enforcing these laws where staging is concerned hurt the amateur level of the artform in the long run?

[elphaba.scares.me]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 4:41pm

I'm right there with everyone about Hunter Foster...hello, isn't he still starring in The Producers? He works constantly on Broadway, which pretty much means he can work the rest of his life in regional theatre as a worst-case scenario. And didn't he write "Summer of '42?" He's fine. Jen Cody may end up with a little egg on her face, but she never stops working either. It may make for a couple of awkward holiday-party run-ins, but I imagine they'll be fine.

Re: licensing the staging, yes, there must be some feasible way to do this. For example, the Mendes Cabaret revival had very distinctive staging (which was intertwined with the actors playing the instruments, etc). If you want to do the staging, you hire their former resident director, and he comes and puts it up for you. He makes a good living at it, the theatres are happy, done and done.

But also, if the option is provided of licensing the staging, two things can logically happen. One, I have never worked at a theatre which didn't want to save money. Faced with the option of ponying up to recreate the original, it's entirely possible that they'll hire directors who want to take more risks and be innovative in staging the show, if only to save a few bucks. Second, if information is openly available (e.g. on a web page at MTI, Samuel French, etc) about who has paid to recreate the Broadway staging and who will be creating original staging, it may encourage these theatres to police each other. No one wants to see someone rip off a staging for free if their theatre has followed the rule and paid to use it.
Updated On: 11/16/06 at 04:41 PM

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 5:14pm

This is no different than the ridiculous article I read in the Times a few years ago that stated that NY Phil violinists wanted to get paid more because they played more notes.

When you pay the license fee, you're paying for the whole kid and kaboodle, and if you can get your hands on more than the company gives you (script/score) and you get a chance to recreate it, more power to you.

My reply to the choreographers" STOP BEING MONEY HUNGRY and EGO DRIVEN
deal the accolades (or jeers) you got for the original, and get over yourselves.

This is from a professional dancer/choreographer

[spintoboy]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 9:43pm

When you pay the license fee, you're paying for the whole kid [sic] and kaboodle, and if you can get your hands on more than the company gives you (script/score) and you get a chance to recreate it, more power to you.

No, when you pay the license fee, you're paying for what the license agreement says you are licensing -- no more, no less.

[theaterdude87]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 10:56pm

I feel very bad for Jen Cody. I honestly think nothing will be made out of this in the end. I am rubbed the wrong way by the creators. It just seems like they want money. I have never heard of this type of thing in the past. It may just be me. I have no problem with what Hunter said. Just becuase he is a bway actor means he cannot speak his mind?

[SS2]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 10:42am

From the NY Times article:

"The letters charge that in design and directorial aspects, the shows were replications of the Broadway production. The shows — which have both closed — had a license to use the script and music from “Urinetown,” but, the letters assert, such permission did not extend to reproducing creative decisions made by the Broadway production’s director, choreographer and designers."

I saw the orginal orginal Urinetown at the fringe and if I'm not mistaken, that was made with an entirely different creative team from the off Broadway and Broadway run. I wonder when the first director gets to sue for his damages? I loved the play in each venue from Fringe, to off-Broadway, to Broadway, but many, most I dare say, of the design and directorial decisions were similar enough to make the same allegations that are being made now.

[luvwicked]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 11:04am

I find it interesting how Carrafa is so mathematical about how much of his choreography was used..."only 10 percent was original," "90 percent of the moves were mine"...gimme a break! LOL! Maybe he should be an accountant or a math teacher!

I know it's been addressed before, but most regional productions and community productions are going to borrow from the original production(s). It happens all the time. In fact, I don't think I've been in and/or seen a non-Broadway/off-Broadway production that DIDN'T borrow from the original. In this case, the director and choreographer of the original production just happened to attend a performance and notice the similarities. Could you imagine if every director/choreographer team of every single original production of every licensed show decided to attend a performance of a regional or amateur show?

I do agree that the directors and choreographers should have acknowledged the originals in the advertising and programs...it probably would have brought about less controversy!

And now I'll shut up!

[sondhead]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 11:04am

It doesn't work that way. Original productions with journeys like that have all that stuff worked out or he DEFINITELY would have sued, believe me. It's not completely uncommon for a director to leave a production and then sue when they use some of his work, but that's only when the director/production company is too stupid to take care of that beforehand. To make a long story short, I'm sure that original director got some perentage of Urinetowns future profits assuming any of the used concept was his and not the writers/Producers.

As for licensing choreography, it's very possible. MTI has choreography books (there are methods for writing choreography down) for things like The Fantasticks, West Side Story, Fiddler on the Roof, ect. I think you do actually have to specifically request them, but if things keep going the way we do, before we know it there'll be books for every show and it'll just be part of your licensing fee. If too many theatres use original choreography withOUT paying for it, they'll just make everybody do it, whether they use it or not. Either that or include in your licensing fee money for the original choreographer, knowing 98% of productions will copy a bootleg or video on YouTube! That's why theatres need to STOP NOW and actually BE CREATIVE.

And I'm sorry, but no--NOT more power to a theatre for finding some other version of a show. Someone had to WORK to make that version of a show and furthermore, that "version" could be considered a failure and blasphemous to the work by the original writers. That's why you need to ask permission--so that people get money when it's due and creative control still lies with the original writers. If you wrote something, would you expect any less?

I just don't freaking understand why people have any defense for people STEALING other people's work... it's terrible and actually, taking credit for it is just pathetic.

[Smartful Dodger]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 11:25am

To suggest just how interesting an issue this has become, PLAYBILL has published Hunter Foster's recation to the controversy.

I think it's unfortunate that in Jennifer Cody's defense, Foster offers only one example of the differences in the choreography. He might have suggested a variety of places where the productions differ. On first blush, this seems a rather weak defense.


Hunter Foster Reaction in PLAYBILL Updated On: 11/17/06 at 11:25 AM

[SS2]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 12:21pm

"believe me."

"It's not completely uncommon for a director to leave a production and then sue when they use some of his work. "

I don't believe you.

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 12:48pm

I find very interesting how many people have joined BWW to respond to this thread.


"This is no different than the ridiculous article I read in the Times a few years ago that stated that NY Phil violinists wanted to get paid more because they played more notes."

Yes, it's actually quite different--the violinists weren't passing off the music as their own.

"When you pay the license fee, you're paying for the whole kid and kaboodle, and if you can get your hands on more than the company gives you (script/score) and you get a chance to recreate it, more power to you."

IF you get your hands? You mean IF you search out pictures and video clips to copy? It's not as if they were using the first folio.

"My reply to the choreographers" STOP BEING MONEY HUNGRY and EGO DRIVEN
deal the accolades (or jeers) you got for the original, and get over yourselves. "

They are not money hungry--they are angry that someone has stolen from them and taken the credit--in this case, an award. That's like Phillip Seymour Hoffman accepting a Pulitzer for IN COLD BLOOD. And by that rationale, Robbins and Bennett have no right to ask for any royalties.

"This is from a professional dancer/choreographer"

Do you choreograph your own shows or do you copy what the original choreographer did?

[robbiej]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 1:12pm

'I saw the orginal orginal Urinetown at the fringe and if I'm not mistaken, that was made with an entirely different creative team from the off Broadway and Broadway run. I wonder when the first director gets to sue for his damages? I loved the play in each venue from Fringe, to off-Broadway, to Broadway, but many, most I dare say, of the design and directorial decisions were similar enough to make the same allegations that are being made now.'

HEY...I was IN that production. And can say without fear of contradiction that the 'references' to other musicals is not in any way intrinsic to the materials. Referencing musical theatre stereotypes was there...but not direct references to specific musicals. And it's funny...there were some moments in the off-Broadway/Broadway version that did, in fact, strike me as similar to our production. But that's the way things go. Fact is, there are many, many ways to stage Urinetown...even ways that I consider 'better' than the Broadway production. The work itself is so terrifically constructed that there is no need to copy anything. And if you do, whether as an 'original' cast memeber or someone who just happened to see the Broadway production, you should have to give credit to the original staging...and royalties should be paid to the creative staff.

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 1:27pm

Don't make robbiej go black! (Inside joke, sorry)

[Ourtime992]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 5:45pm

I completely agree with robbie. As I said earlier in this thread, I have seen productions that not only came up with original choreography and staging concepts, but that veered a good deal away from the specific musical theatre homages in Rando and Caraffa's production. In addition to my earlier example of Cop Song having some funny boy-band-like backup dancers, Snuff that Girl and run Freedom Run featured some roaring twenties stuff. What made it work is that, like Caraffa's homages, the movements are part of our public theatrical conscience. We recognize them immediately and laugh at the incongruity of the subject material and the baggage those movements bring with them. If Urinetown were staged in a truly Weill/Brechtian manner, it would fall flat. What makes it work is the postmodern flair of taking subject matter that is ridiculous, pairing it with a performance genre and look that are so intensely earnest, and then throwing in these winks at the audience while simultaneously berating their way of life. You can do that in a variety of ways, and while I found the Broadway staging terrifically effective, I'm not convinced that there's no better staging out there.

[sondhead]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 4:26pm

""believe me."

"It's not completely uncommon for a director to leave a production and then sue when they use some of his work. "

I don't believe you."

Kay, well--do your research. It has definitely happened.

[bjivie2]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 9:49pm

I'd like to point out that it's not the IDEA that can be copyrighted, but the execution of that idea. For example, the original choreography employs some moments making fun of West Side Story, Fosse, etc. Anyone can do their own spoof of those shows, but if they do it the exact same way step for step, THAT'S illegal. At least that's the only way they would have a good case for suing or something.

[HOUFlip04]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 2:41am

Isn't there an old saying "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" - or something to that effect? Why be so negative about someone "recreating" choreography/staging and call it stealing and copying. It's all in the perception.

Also, if you watch the interview of Ann Reinking on the Fosse DVD, she talks about the unwritten rule of dancers passing on choreography from dancer to dancer. That's how older choreography stays alive for later generations to enjoy.

I'm on the side that think Rando and Caraffa are going to the extreme about this issue. Why can't they just be flattered that someone thought there work was so good that they wanted to recreate it and pass it on to others and future generations.

[Marlothom]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 3:00am

I think that they would be flatter, but for the fact that they could have been hired to do the job...OR and i suspect what they really wanted, that they be flattered and also recognized for the fact that their work was copied. I mean come on, people won awards using their work...

[HOUFlip04]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 3:36am

I agree that they should be credited if a director/choreographer recreates their staging and that someone recreating their work should not win an award.