Original A Chorus Line Dancers to Receive No Royalties for the Revival — Page 2

There have been plenty of cases where people have overcome such paralysis. It's the right thing to do. If this was a case of Bennett's heir being destitute and needing money to survive, I wonder who would be the first to show up and lend a hand, maybe make a personal appearance to raise some money for someone Michael cared so much about? I wonder who they would be.....

---

As brilliant as Michael Bennet was, he seems as if he was a cruel, controlling, manipulative man. (Also from other things I've read about him) It's a shame his estate is behaving in a similar manner.

I'm not moved by the issue of whether they signed a piece of paper or not (of course, they courts probably are). If I felt that the dancers had been unjustly cut out of their share of the profits, I would argue for the principle and let the piece of paper be damned. I just don't agree that the raw material here is so precious or so uniquely critical to the final "product" that it deserves more financial recognition.

To say that "Their blood and sweat is in the core of that show" is a sentence that seems to represent a nice sentiment; I'm just not sure what it really means.

The notion that the dancers "deserve" a share in the profits which are resulting from other people's creative efforts just doesn't sit well with me.

I feel compelled to say that if I were the executor of the Bennett estate--hell yes, I'd give each of these guys a fat check. I do understand the emotional logic of it. I just don't think there is a rational logic to the argument.

Do shows with non-fiction story-lines pay royalties to their real-life subjects?

---

"The show would have become a tad sterotypical had Bennet written the show himself with Nicholas Dante."

I understand your point, jv, but you are presenting a purely hypothetical scenario as though it is a universally understood fact. We don't know what would have been.

In any case, my point is less about the beauty of the dancers' stories, and more about where the creative responsibility and Authorship--which in our capitalist society = Ownership--lies. And I put it almost entirely in the hands of the Creative Team.

---

(Man--how did I end up arguing for the Grinch's side in all this....? I'm really a very generous guy...)

Allofmylife--this is exactly the song I was thinking of when I was reading the NYT article.

My childhood best friend started dance class after watching/imitating his sister (who hated dance) practice at home. One day, she told their mother she wasn't going anymore, and Christopher grabbed her gym bag and went to class, thinking he would just take her place.

My telling of this (true) story is just an anecdote until someone turns it into "I Can Do That". When I see it transformed, turned into poetry, set to music and choreographed, do I still feel like I should be getting royalties for having told what is almost certainly not a unique story?

---

It's well known that it's hard to "get a break" in the entertainment industry. I think if the same situation was presented today, most of the participants would "sign their rights away." The finalists on American Idol have iron-clad contracts and the record company basically own their lives.

I'm not in the industry, but I can definitely see why people would do so. I guess it's like gambling. If you hit the big one, it doesn't matter too much about your earlier losses. And if you never tried in the first place, you wouldn't have won.

As for 'A Chorus Line': I'm not too familiar with it. So a bunch of dancers got together and told their stories. Mr. Bennett took them and wrote it into a musical. Some of those original and other dancers got to 'tell the story.' Wow!! That's pretty cool. I can now see why people are so emotionally attached to it.

Yes, it's morally right to give the surviving original company compensation, because it's their story told on stage every night, but think about it this way. When has what's RIGHT been done for Broadway in past years, either morally or artistically, especially when money is at stake?

They're not going to do it, and I really think it's a shame

---

Here's the thing I'm talking about. There is legal and there is just plain right. Even if these people signed away their rights, if I were the producer of the new show, I'd WANT to give these people compensation. Firstly, to get rid of stories like the one that we are all flipping off of. Secondly, there is great benefit from having these people back together again. Thirdly, it's just the right thing to do. Morally, ethically. Screw legally.

I have always had a bad taste in my mouth over this show because of the stories I heard abnout the original group not getting a fair share. Now is the opportunity to wash those storeis away.

But, as was said above, when have people ever done the right thing.

Not often enough.

And as for the comment and nice little story about dance class, here's the thing. That person told that story. It became part of the show. Sure, other people had the same experience, but they weren't asked to sit in. Bennett and his collaborators worked from the stories given by this group of people (and I'd love to hear the original tapes because if they are close to verbatum, the estate would have a very, very weak case). It is entirely possible (not necessarily inevitable but possible) that no other dancer interviewed would have told that story.
In which case we would have had no "I Can Do That."

Compensating the person that thought to tell that story at that meeting to those guys is the right thing to do.

---

It's weird, I don't know that I have a solid position on this.

I see both sides of the argument.

Are the orginal members making a stink over this, or are they perfectly content with the way things are?

If they all did, in fact, sign away their rights 32 years ago, then that's their funeral. Neither Bennett nor the dancer knew it would become such sensation, and I'm sure it never crossed their minds to ask for more money, or a more generous contract. At that point, they were all just thrilled to be a part of a show that would potentially provide new work for dancers that it blinded them to some of the realities of it. It IS possible that Bennett knew what he was doing, but I have never heard anything about Bennett being an unfair, sneaky brat. Of course, that doesn't mean he wasn't one, but it just doesn't strike me as him trying to screw them over.

If he were alive, maybe he would see to it that they ARE paid royalties, but Breglio even said, he's simply carrying out Bennett's wishes.

If you ask me, I think most of them were more than compensated for their work. But is it right to not give them a dime? I really don't know. I can't make up my mind.

---

According to the Times article, there are sections of dialogue in the show that are taken verbatim from the original interview tapes.

Verbatim. As in, it's those dancers' exact words being repeated onstage. That qualifies them as co-authors or material contributors, as far as I am concerned.

What Bennett did (buying the rights for $1) wasn't right; the way the dancers are being treated is not right. They should be properly credited and compensated fairly for their contributions.

They have no case, as even they have admitted. They signed away their rights 32 years ago and there's nothing a court can do about that. Beyond that, Bennett offered them a royalty share from the original production and tours that distributed millions to them over the course of years -- something he didn't have to do -- which is a fact that any court would take into account if a suit was brought.

If they had received nothing, there might be a chance that a court might grant them some sort of retroactive compensation, applying the rules of equity rather than contract law. But the fact that they did later sign a royalty agreement and receive millions collectively in compensation, all but forecloses any chance of further compensation. In contract law, a court cannot save you from a so-called "bad bargain." Courts don't rewrite bad contracts and if the document the dancers signed didn't include a clause providing royalties "in perpetuity," it's not within a court's power to go back and add the phrase now 32 years later.

Had they received nothing, it might be possible for them to argue, say, that they signed the releases under duress and that if the courts don't step in, a gross injustice would take place and it might be POSSIBLE (though not probable) that the courts might order some sort of a judgment in their favor. However, they've received considerable compensation over the years and the fact that perhaps they haven't received as much compensation as they would have liked is simply not a matter for the courts.

If the contract clearly says on its face that it only covers the original production (which is what the Times article says and the dancers interviewed admit), then it is outside the power for the court to assign them royalties for this revival. They signed a bad deal. But, under contract law, one must live with the terms agreed to, bad deal or no. That's the way commerce operates and corporations and individuals sign deals every single day that they later regret. Once a deal is executed, there's no going back. Otherwise contracts wouldn't be worth the paper they're printed on and the entire business world would grind to a halt.

On top of all that, Breglio may be the sharpest entertainment lawyer in the business. If he thought there was even the remotest chance that that deal wasn't iron-clad, he'd have contacted them long ago and negotiated terms. Obviously, he knows the deal will hold up in court (and apparently the dancers know this too).

While morality may dictate a different result, the law is clear on this issue and unless Breglio and the other beneficiaries decide to VOLUNTARILY offer royalties to the dancers, they are unfortunately out of luck.

---

Updated On: 10/4/06 at 11:44 PM

Thank you, Margo. You articulated many points that I just didn't feel like putting into writing.

What I find more upsetting than royalties is that the members of the original cast were not included on the list of those from A CHORUS LINE who received the Pulitzer Prize. It's just so shocking to me that they aren't credited for writing the book, along with Dante, etc. It is THEIR words. In many cases, their exact words. I know that Sheila's whole bit before and after "I'm going to be thirty real soon. And I'm real glad." is VERBATIM what Carole (Kelly) Bishop said on the original tapes. They weren't reading a script...they were playing themselves in many cases saying words that they themself created. Sure, Dante and Kirkwood structured them into a coherent book - and they should be all means be recognized for it - but I just find it a shame that Lopez, Bishop, Cilento, Williams, Walsh, Stuart, Blair, etc. are not officially credited for writing the book.

---

I realize that there's really nothing new (as far as opinions go) to add to this thread, but I re-read the section in "On The Line" where the cast members discuss signing away their rights for $1.

For people who haven't read the book, you will gain some more insight on the issue after reading their reactions:

"Terms of the contract called for each of the participants to receive $1 - a single dollar in cash in most cases - for the right to use their stories in a show and their likenesses on merchandising, plus a single percentage point of royalties to be divided among all those who had been present at the pertinent taping sessions. It worked out to a few cents apiece for every $1000 in royalties.

Priscilla Lopez: "I was doing PIPPIN at the time, and Nicholas Dante caught me on my way out from a matinee. He was waiting at the stage door with this paper for me to sign. I looked at it and something told me I shouldn't sign it." Lopez considered refusing the contract, "But at the same time, I felt - and it was probably true - that Michael Bennett didn't need me in oder to do this show. But I wanted to be a part of it, so I felt that if that was the price I had to pay, it was okay."

Thommie Walsh: "The contract was thrown to us on a break. It was just a lackadaisical kind of wat. 'Here, sign this before you go back' was the attitude. 'This is your dollar and this is the ways it's done' was the tone of it. 'This is all legal, this is all ethical.' All along at the same time I was saying to myself, 'If I object to this, do I have this job?" ... "Basically we were cheated out of a lot of money. We created it, we helped write that damn show. We signed away our faces, our life stories. We could be very wealthy people today. If there's any anger I have about A CHORUS LINE and anything I experienced, it's having given up the right to that money. I think michael, the producers of A CHORUS LINE and the Shuberts, the New York Shakespeare Festival - all those people might as well have stolen it. People are living in houses in the Hamptons because of A CHORUS LINE. None of us are."

Patricia Garland: "I remember that were were given a sheet of paper to sign, but I don't remember it saying I was giving my life away for one dollar, or I wouldn't have signed it. We were in a break and it was passed out like they passed out the script or new music. I remember some questions being raised. But Michael or someone said, 'If you don't want to sign it, then we just won't put you on the logo.' Well, we all wanted to be on that logo."

Robert LuPone: "I was being manipulated to do what management wanted me to do, but I liked working for the Shakespeare Festival. Ifelt it was a step in the right direction. Ultimately I felt my interest was in working with those writers."

Donna McKechnie: "It was absurd that we signed our lives away for one dollar. I feel really stupid about that. But you have to recall the atmosphere at the time. Here we had a group of people who were working together on this show, and are made to feel it's designed for them. Plus it's the Shakespeare Festival and all this money is going to go back into other shows, so why shouldn't we sign it for a dollar? It's just one of those things. Someone said this was just standard procedure, I remember hearing that."

Wayne Cilento: "That dollar means not really getting a thank-you or reall being recognized. It says that without Michael Bennett or Nick Dante or Ed Kleban, the should wouldn't be. Well, that's not true, because without us, without the tapes, there wouldn't have been any show. How would Ed Kleban have written those songs without our monologues? Whas it fear of exposing Ed Kleban and Nick Dante? That this was really us and thirty-five hours of tapes that made the show what it is today? Would that have put us into too much power? Was he afraid we would have had too much control and it was just Michael Bennett's project? I just think we were smacked in the face. I don't think it was ever expressed in public the amount of time and the amount of pain and manipulation that he did to our lives to get a show that's brilliant, but it was all a very personal thing to all of us. I think it was a brilliant way to come up with a successful project. Broadway needs more like it. But I don't think anyone recognized the face that we had a major part in putting that show together."

---