URINETOWN: Copyright Controversy

[Smartful Dodger]

Posted: 11/15/06 at 6:59pm

In an age when it's relatively easy and potentially very profitable to "Xerox" a show (thanks, Uncle Ben), whether on tour or in revival, I wonder how people feel about the current controversy around URINETOWN. There seems to be a fine line between consumer/audience expectation of wanting things to be as good as the "original" and the responsibility directors/producers have to create something new.

I've seen a few instances where shows at the North Shore Music Theatre in Beverly (MA) or the American Musical Theatre of San Jose (CA) were almost complete, uncredited duplications of previous Broadway stagings (e.g., North Shore's staging of MISS SAIGON several years ago looked very similar to Hytner and company's vision, despite being moved from proscenium to in-the-round; and, AMTSJ's staging of SWEENEY TODD with Jean Stapleton looked almost exactly like Prince's 1979 original). It's an interesting issue.

Thoughts?
URINETOWN Controversy in THE NEW YORK TIMES

[Marlothom]

Posted: 11/15/06 at 7:23pm

I have actually done quite a bit of research on this issue for a law school paper. Ideas cannot be copyrighted. The general problems with directors gaining copyright protection is that 1) most (not us theatre aficionados, but def. courts) see the work as originating with the playwright, and not the director, thus to most, the director does not create anything "original." But most importantly, in order to be copyrighted, something has to be fixed in a tangible form...while some have attempted to do so via prompt books and video, these raise a whole new set of copyright issues. At this point, I think the balance of copyright seems to favor allowing others to "borrow" some, as opposed to allowing copyrights for direction and perhaps creating an expensive licensing scheme, or just closing access to new director. The general (not well founded) argument against copyright protection is, "what, will someone own the right to enter stage right?". By the way, sorry for any grammatical errors, on my way to the gym. Hopefully, now that this issue is hot, my paper will be published, sans errors. :)

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 11/15/06 at 7:26pm

John Carrafa attended the Akron production, which was directed by Jennifer Cody, who was in Urinetown's original Broadway cast as Little Becky Two Shoes.

Ouch. Doesn't bode well for Jennifer Cody.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 11/15/06 at 7:33pm

How can creators claim ownership of staging that was mostly pastiche in the first place?

[Marlothom]

Posted: 11/15/06 at 7:36pm

I am surprised she didn't at least credit to the original director, esp. if she was "inspired" by it. Very bad form.

[Mother's Younger Brother]

Posted: 11/15/06 at 7:37pm

I've always wondered about this with community theatre. You go see Victor/Victoria, and there's the 2-story hotel set, in maroon and gold, along with the exact same choreography as you find on the dvd...but without giving credit to those who actually designed it.

Sadly, it happens all the time. Personally, I think that once regional and community theatre get ahold of these shows, they should have fun putting their OWN stamp on them.

[HOUFlip04]

Posted: 11/15/06 at 7:43pm

Ok, now Jennifer Cody directed the Akron production and they are going to complain? Of course, she's going to re-create the direction and choreography from the original production. I think it's a compliment to the original director and choreographer that people want to honor their work (so to speak).

I've seen some clips of productions of Urinetown that used new staging and choreography and they've all missed the point of the jokes completely. I think they should complain about those productions instead.

The original staging and choreography were made for the show - pretty much built in. I'm sad that they are discouraging future productions to not use it.

[Marlothom]

Posted: 11/15/06 at 7:43pm

Usually this is worked on by the originl director's paycheck, taking into account a lot of his ideas will be "borrowed" and he won't see a penny for it. It makes sense in that the original direction will help the production succeed and then be performed for years.

I just find it funny that choreographers and even many designes, may copyright their works, but the director, who sits on top of the food chain cannot.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 11/15/06 at 7:43pm

When you buy the rights to the show you're also given the original staging/blocking, costume and prop plots to be used, as part of the licensing agreement.

[snowie862]

Posted: 11/15/06 at 7:54pm

When my old HS did Beauty and the Beast, they got a letter that said that the school production was not allowed to use costumes that were similar to the Broadway productions.

[Craig]

Posted: 11/15/06 at 7:56pm

"John Carrafa attended the Akron production, which was directed by Jennifer Cody, who was in Urinetown's original Broadway cast as Little Becky Two Shoes. "

I read every word on page provided with the link above and didn't see this sentence at all. Did I miss something?

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 11/15/06 at 8:03pm

snowie862--yeah, I've heard about that. The rule probably gets followed like, eight percent of the time, lol.

But regarding the Chicago production of Urinetown, I had heard from other people in the city that it was basically a ripoff of the Broadway production, and although I did not see it on Broadway, the Chicago version (which I did see) looked very, VERY similar to production photos of the Broadway original. I think this is an important legal issue and I'm glad it's finally being addressed.

[sondhead]

Posted: 11/15/06 at 8:06pm

People, Choreography IS a tangible thing and something that CAN be copyrighted and almost always is. While it is nice that people want to honor the original production and in fact are showing how good the thought the original was by recreating it, it is NOT okay to use someone else's work claiming it's your own, and even accept an AWARD for it!!

They did not just use the blocking from the licensed script or this wouldn't be happening.

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 11/15/06 at 8:10pm

When The Company Theatre did The Will Rogers Follies this summer, they had a bootleg of the original Broadway production. And so they took ideas that they really liked from the original production and incorporated them into the show. I think that famous moments should be recreated and very original moments of choreography as well. But I don't think the show should be a carbon copy of the original production. But it shouldn't be crap either.

And if you're doing Joseph, don't have him wearing the coat in his first scene when he sings Any Dream Will Do. It ruins the moment when he actually gets the damn thing.

[Smartful Dodger]

Posted: 11/15/06 at 8:12pm

The real issue, JohnPopa, is that the rights to staging, costumes, sets, and lighting were NOT granted in the licensing agreement; that's the point of the article.

If choreography is protected under copyright, I assume under the aegis of the written shorthand that's evolved for documenting dance, why can't similar protections and shorthands apply to blocking, set and costume designs, and lighting plots?

So far, this is a great conversation. Thanks, gang!

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 11/15/06 at 8:21pm

I don't see anything wrong with it as long as the original production team gets credit in the prgram. I've seen that a lot in programs for regional shows they will have a section on the title page that lists orignal direction, original choreography and original costume and set designs giving credit to those who created such for the Broadway stage and what, obviously, their direction, choreogrpahy, costumes and sets were based on.

[Smartful Dodger]

Posted: 11/15/06 at 8:24pm

Again, the point is that they were uncredited. No acknowledgment. No remuneration. Nothing.

So, is it homage or theft?

[Marlothom]

Posted: 11/15/06 at 8:28pm

Well for choreography, in the 70's several choreographers, led by Agne Demille, came together to make sure that the Copyright Act which was amended in 1976 included Choreography as a copyrightable category.

Presently the most outspoken critics of copyright protection for stage directors are actually playwrights. John Wiedman made a very staunch argument against it in a previous NYT article. This is probably bec. right now playwrights' copyright includes the right to have that work "performed," wish would be reduced (or shared with directors) if directors were granted copyright.

Updated On: 11/15/06 at 08:28 PM

[Link Larkin Wanabe]

Posted: 11/15/06 at 8:31pm

Ooops...I posted this in the off-Topic thread adn didn't realize this thread was here:

Well this is interesting to me in it's ramifications for designers. Our copyright laws are vague and very hard to enforce. What exactly does it take to be considered copying a design? How much of the sets or costumes have to be exactly the same? These are things that are very hard to quantify. Does this mean that every regional or high school production of Cats that has a junkyard and a giant tire onstage will have John Napier on their ass?

I know this same debate is going on in the directing world, and that one is even more complicated because the line between Director and Playwright copyrights is at play in that debate as well.

I will be watching this closely.

Akiva

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 11/15/06 at 8:34pm

"John Carrafa attended the Akron production, which was directed by Jennifer Cody, who was in Urinetown's original Broadway cast as Little Becky Two Shoes. "

I read every word on page provided with the link above and didn't see this sentence at all. Did I miss something?

Sorry Craig...I forgot to post the link. That quote is actually from the Playbill.com story.
http://www.playbill.com/news/article/103580.html

[jonartdesigns]

Posted: 11/15/06 at 8:36pm

heres the question though, if elements of your show, are very similar but the bulk of it is uniquem would a simple credit of "some (fill in the blank) inspired by" quell the urge to sue?

[Link Larkin Wanabe]

Posted: 11/15/06 at 8:38pm

Jonart,

I think money is definitely at play here as well though, not just credit.

Akiva

[Smartful Dodger]

Posted: 11/15/06 at 8:38pm

Sorry, I only scanned the main board for this and when I didn't see it, started the thread. I should have searched and seen the Off-Topic thread, here:


That Urine Looks Familiar

[tourboi]

Posted: 11/15/06 at 8:39pm

It should also be stated that former cast members of many shows (the one that comes to mind the most is CHORUS LINE) constantly direct productions using the staging from their Broadway originals. Why should Ms. Cody be different?

That said, I hate going to ANY regional theatre and seeing a Broadway wanna be staging. Use creativity and make it your own.

[Marlothom]

Posted: 11/15/06 at 8:54pm

Well in the other cases cited by NYT Art. (Joe Mantello and Love!, Valour! Compassion! and I think the case before that with The Most Happy Fella), the reason why they sued was that the "second" director was trying to pass the "first" director's work as their own without giving credit. The Joe Mantello case resulted in a settlement which he donated to charity.