Copyright question/dilemma

[AFR]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 1:33pm

A small, local for-profit theater/improv group is producing a well-known Broadway show, but they are doing so in a way that seems to go against copyright law.

I saw the show recently, and cringed more and more as it progressed. They have made cuts to the script, added a song that appears in the movie adaptation but not the show, excised several songs and changed the ending (!) so that it matched up with a recent Broadway revival (but not the licensed version of the show). I don't want to be the curmudgeonly theater-goer who gets this show shut down, but this wasn't one or two line tweaks -- there were a lot of changes that I cannot imagine were licensed.

To borrow a line from the show that's being performed, what would you do? The show is set to run another month, and they are advertising heavily. If I were to report this to the licensing company, what would I even say?

[seaweedjstubbs]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 1:54pm

Let me guess.......

Is the show Little Shop of Horrors or Grease?

[Mother's Younger Brother]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 1:59pm

Based on the "what would you do" line, I'm guessing it's Cabaret.

If you were to report this, you'd say exactly what you just said here. They would then either take your word for it or not (or they even already have a "file" on that particular theatre company for past similar issues). A good friend of mine works for MTI, and this problem of "tweaking" is rampant. They tend to deal with the offending theatre companies fairly, giving them chances to repair the damage.

On a personal note, theatres who do this have no sympathy from me. They are presenting material in their own way, but still claiming it's the creative product of the artists credited...which is blatantly untrue.

[bwaygal1]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 1:59pm

No, it's Cabaret. (The song, "What Would You Do?" is sung by Fraulein Schneider.)
Personally, I don't know about your level of involvement with this show or company but I'd be more than a little concerned about the rights. Does the person running this have any clue about copyrights and paying to perform the show?
(IF not, inform them. If they do, they should know better.)

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 2:05pm

Cabaret gets done all the time, I can't see how one unique production is going to kill the careers of the authors or the reputation of the show.

Especially with a show like Cabaret, where the revival adaptation started out as not authorized, and Im sure someone who saw that too thought about blowing a whistle, and perhaps is Masteroff and Kander/Ebb had been more hardasses, it would never have had such a successful revival.

Personally, I say mind your own business, who made you the show police. If you dont like the changes, dont recommend it to friends and don't see it, but don't try to put actors and musicians out of work because a creative person had what perhaps was a bad idea.

[Kringas]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 2:13pm

You have to wonder why they'd care if this production was changed to match the revival. The revival was a huge success and it's going to be the standard by which future productions are set for a long time.

And the licensing materials generally include "I Don't Care Much" and "Money" (the movie version), if either of those songs are the ones that have been added.

On paper, ninety percent of revivals look like they violate the licensing agreement. Permission is sometimes granted for changes.

You really ought to contact the producers of this production and ask them if that had permission before you report them.

PS - There's no cash reward or anything for the licensing companies.

[AFR]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 2:24pm

Thanks for the input, everyone.

Kringas, the added songs were "Mein Herr" and "Maybe This Time," which I don't think are available from the licensing company.

I think what mostly bothered me about the production was that it did everything it could to look and sound like the most recent Broadway revival (the emcee in the concentration camp uniform at the end, taking out all of Cliff's solo songs, staging, etc.). If there had been changes to fit with this director's unique artistic vision, that would be one set of issues -- but this just seems like ignoring the licensed source material in favor of re-creating a successful Broadway staging.

Fenchurch's point about putting actors and musicians out of work is really the thing that gives me pause about reporting this.

[Kringas]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 2:29pm

Yeah, I don't know. I wonder if there's some sort of licensing agreement task force people from this board could join. I believe back when Godspell was licensed by Theatre Maximus they would send people out to see productions of the show to make sure violations weren't made. Perhaps MTI could get see about getting some people on as volunteers.

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 2:32pm

Honestly, stop being so righteous, give it a rest.

It would be one thing if they were doing the production without having paid for the rights through Tams-Witmark, and again, if that was the case, I'd be all for reporting them.

But if you don't like what they did with their production, which they legally obtained rights for, don't recommend it to people.

[Jon]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 2:35pm

Did they print up a program? Does it list the songs? Was the show reviewed in the paper?

Just send the evidence to MTI.

[Kringas]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 2:36pm

If an actor drops a line, can the production be shut down?

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 2:42pm

MYOB

[Kringas]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 2:59pm

Of all shows, I don't know why they don't just license a revised version of Cabaret. No production, professional or otherwise, ever follows that 1966 script exactly.

[Perfectly Marvelous]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 3:48pm

^ That's definitely true.

Like the production I saw a few years back didn't use The Money Song. Afterwards, my mother and I sat there saying to each other, "Do you remember hearing any song about money? Wasn't that supposed to be in the show?" However, I think they used "I Don't Care Much".

Now, while we're talking about revival licenses and such;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQcXZgUFfv4
Do you think that the 'revised' version is too much for a high school? I mean, it'd make more sense to get upset based on that instead of a local theatre's production.

[jbdc]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 3:56pm

When a theatre buys the rights to a show, the director, producer, and/or artistic director often negotiate line changes and song cuts or additions. It's easier to get permission for those things than you might think, especially if this is a professional licensing and not an amateur license.
Updated On: 4/3/07 at 03:56 PM

[jbdc]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 4:00pm

PS--The revised 1998 version is available for licensing from Tams-Witmark

[RadiGal2]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 4:13pm

PM -- Seriously as a parent -- I would MUCH prefer to see my son explore prejudice, oppression, and yes gender-bending sexuality in Cabaret than say Grease which is prosaic, but that's just me and frankly, most other parents fear my influence on their children so I am probably not the right person to ask.

[Kringas]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 4:42pm

Well, if the revised version is available for license, that should make this thread moot.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 4:47pm

...that high school cabaret is hysterically unoriginal.

[Perfectly Marvelous]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 4:56pm

^ Don't you just LOVE the kid playing the Emcee?



PM -- Seriously as a parent -- I would MUCH prefer to see my son explore prejudice, oppression, and yes gender-bending sexuality in Cabaret than say Grease which is prosaic, but that's just me and frankly, most other parents fear my influence on their children so I am probably not the right person to ask.


Actually, I like to see Cabaret be done at high schools - and I only asked that question in reference to the original post.

[AFR]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 5:00pm

Tams-Witmark offers the original 1966 and the revised 1987 versions -- they don't license the 1998 revival.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 5:01pm

Not especially. He’s got a nice voice, but his movements are too stale. It looks like they got their hands on a bootleg and just copied the revival to the letter. Even the choreography looks the same. THAT should be illegal. Unless they had a dance captain or someone from the revival with authorization to recrate the staging.
Updated On: 4/3/07 at 05:01 PM

[Perfectly Marvelous]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 5:07pm

I was just being a bit sarcastic.

As for the boy playing the Emcee - it's like someone made him watch the '93 Donmar DVD and said, "Go and copy what Alan Cumming does and you'll be sure to do a fantastic job!"

And that's the thing, I'm not certain if they got permission to basically cut and paste the movements and such into their production.

[Kringas]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 5:09pm

Not to mention they illegally recorded the production. Someone should have that high school shut down!

[LuPonatic]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 8:06pm

"I don't want to be the curmudgeonly theater-goer who gets this show shut down"

THEN DON'T!

I swear! Some people forget why they loved Broadway in the first place! Are you seriously a Broadway fan because you want to be a drama queen and get people into trouble? Go be self rightous somewhere else! I'm here because I love Broadway, and I am happy to hear of another theatre doing Cabaret, REGARDLESS of how they do it!