Performers in "Broadway's Lost Treasures" DVD Series Threatening to Sue- Page 2

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 7:20pm

We should point everyone to this thread whenever there is a question about why more shows aren't released on DVD.

I don't fault the actors. No, they weren't paid for their performances on the Tonys, but why should someone else profit from it without their permission or inclusion?

Their hearts might have been in the right place, but... The discs were produced to make money, not to raise money for a worthy "cause."

If someone took your likeness and 'talent' and made money off of it, even if it was a few bucks, would you be happy they didn't clear it with you first or share the (small) profit with you?

First of all, in this day and age, I can't imagine that ANYONE would release a DVD like this without making sure they were not liable to the performers and creative teams associated with each show first. I hope this can be settled quickly and doesn't become a nightmare.

[elphaba.scares.me]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 7:36pm

PEOPLE. come ON.

this is a business. actors are in it to make money just like everyone else, and in order to work on broadway, we have to join unions which will protect our rights and performances. unless there was a release form allowing their performances to be marketed in perpetuity without compensation, something smells a little rotten here.

the bottom line is this: if they really worked it out with the unions in advance, then the actors have no case. however, there are very strict and specific rules about how performances can be recorded, re-used and/or marketed. situations like this not only apply to "broadway's lost treasures", they also set precedent for how far producers can bend the rules in the future.

you're right, angela lansbury probably isn't freaking out about this. why? because she's rich. and the chorus kids who haven't worked in a while could use the fifty bucks they'll get from the sale of this series, if and when the court finds in their favor. but that should not diminish the fact that they contributed every bit as much to the success of their shows as some of the stars did to theirs. just because they're not famous doesn't mean it's okay to cheat them.

acting/dancing/singing on broadway is as much a profession as producing, directing, designing, or anything else in the theatre. and for people to say here that "they should be happy to get exposure" is an insult to people who act professionally and follow the rules, and expect the rules to be followed in return. if a bunch of actors took their costumes from their dressing rooms and went and performed "all that jazz" at some nightclub for a few hundred bucks, should the producers just be happy for the exposure? NO. because it's against the rules.

the starry-eyed way people look at what we do for a living is cute, until you're about eighteen. then, it becomes a way for actors to be taken advantage of, because producers expolit the "you're lucky to be working" thing until they're blue in the face. and that, my friends, is bad for our business.



Updated On: 3/2/07 at 07:36 PM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 7:51pm

Stupid Playbill article doesn't name names. I want to know who the 50 are!

[CapnHook]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 8:02pm

elphaba.scares.me - I totally see that viewpoint. I just don't agree with it.

As I said, if the lawsuit is for the principle of consent, then that's one thing. If it's purpose is just to make a dollar, then shame on them.

Despite theatre being a business bottom line, to me, theatre is art. Art is to tell a story. I chose the profession of theatre because I think it is a great platform to tell stories. As an artist, I am willing to wait tables and scramble to pay rent in order to do what I love: tell stories. I would be SO proud that my art was preserved onto DVD or broadcast on television.

That may seem cheesy to some and impractical, but that is me and that is today.

What is lawsuit is concerning is yesterday. Who would have thought in the 1960's you would have to sign a "release form?"

As an artist, I would hope my fellow artists would be just as enthusiastic in getting our stories preserved. Theatre is a business that has a great opportunity to expand. It's been discussed and discussed and discussed to death - this issue. But I'll say it again, when a production has closed and isn't planning to tour, it should be followed by a DVD release.

(If I were a producer, I would release the DVD when the show closes on Broadway, even if it plans to tour. It would be the ultimate souvenior to sell at merchandise booths next to those nifty t-shirts and color programs.)

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 8:08pm

"if the lawsuit is for the principle of consent, then that's one thing. If it's purpose is just to make a dollar, then shame on them."

Capn---I completely disagree with that sentiment, sorry.

This is a business, and we should never forget it. People ARE profiting from the release of these DVDs... just not the creative talent featured on them.

"What I Did For Love" has to end somewhere... usually when one has to buy groceries and pay the rent.

However... if they have no legal claim or rights to the sale or replication of the material... then that's that. And I don't feel sorry for them in that case.

It's about business and legal rights.

Updated On: 3/2/07 at 08:08 PM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 8:15pm

Once again, I will point out that in the article, Cohen states that he worked this out with the unions.

And all that about actors being compensated, etc., is lovely in theory, but this isn't a big-budget Hollywood project. No one is making millions off of this - it's a labor of love, meant to share the history of Broadway with its devotees. Lawsuits like this do nothing but assure that won't happen. If it is brought to trial and the actors win, any money they get will be neglible.

If they are awarded punitive damages besides a percentage of the "profits", that money will come out of Mr. Cohen's pockets and that's money that will not be available for other similar historical projects.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 8:16pm

best12bars - what you said is very true and that's real world. I just think it's a shame.

Also, how easy you dismiss their complaint if they have no legal claim. Law is not black and white, hence why we have a court system. You're either for the actors or against them - and you are simply on the law's side. I don't agree with some laws, so I will never be on the law's side on those issues. (For example, I am not with the law on their current rulings for gay marriage.)

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 8:25pm

If the actors win, they obviously have the right to be compensated, and whatever negotiations that were agreed upon with the unions were illegal or non-binding.

I seriously doubt that will happen.

But this is why compilation discs, pulled from a variety of different sources, writers, performers, etc., are so hard to push through. There is so much legal clearance involved.

For example... I when I work on DVD menus, we are not allowed to use "source songs" as the background music under the menus... unless it is specially cleared or re-licensed for use as menu music. Even if the songs are played in the film, the clearance usually never includes any additional usage in "making-of" video pieces, "behind the scenes" pieces, or for menus.

Once in a while, a writer/performer will agree to it for free, or for a very cheap licensing fee, but that's not usually the case. We have to be very careful with what we use, and with what is cleared for use outside of the initial "work."

And a union's approval or disapproval means SQUAT in those cases. It has to do with contracts that are signed by the talent. Nothing else.

So, I'm sure everyone's digging through their contracts right now, looking at the clauses, and seeing what is legally cleared or not cleared. Just because Papa Union said, "okay," may or may not hold up in court. Again... I can't believe anyone would release a disc without knowing they were cleared first.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 8:32pm

best12bars - but what do you personally think, regardless of what the law states? If the actors win, of course they have the "legal right" to be compensated, but should they bring up the lawsuit at all if it's just to make a buck? That's what I am interested in - whatever happens will happen.

As I've said, I think the lawsuit is disgraceful to why we do theatre IF it's just for money. But if it is for the principle of giving consent for their face to be preserved on DVD, then that is fine with me.

[AnothaPartofMe]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 8:58pm

A friend of mine is a lawyer who represents an actor who was in the revival of FIDDLER a few years ago.

His take on the situation -

".. haven't been on Playbill for awhile. Performing on the TONY's is a non-paid performance word is that because MOST of the performers go un-credited on the telecast, they are not entitled to any compensation for their performance. This was an agreement set sometime back with AEA. I'm not sure if Broadway Lost Treasure is a profit-making enterprise though. I know it was on PBS, which makes me think it's a not-for-profit production. The latter situation would make this go away quickly, while the former will definitley be a matter of wording and legality."

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 9:01pm

It really is about the law.

Think of the many Mowtown performers that signed away complete rights to their performances and written material. None of them have a legal leg to stand on. None of them are being compensated now, and none of them could win a lawsuit.

Peggy Lee sued Disney when Lady and the Tramp came out on home video and she won millions of dollars. Because the wording was such, in her original contract, that it allowed for new media to enter into the picture.

"Is it fair" is an entirely different question.

I personally think, purely for selfish reasons, that I'm glad the discs were released. But not at the expense of the people who are performing on them. If the performers are owed money, they should be paid. The producers of the DVDs should be ashamed of themselves for attempting to exploit and profit from the talent they featured. If the performers aren't owed money, then they should stop creating waves, they should be ashamed of themselves for creating waves and denying the inevitable, and they should move on.

I guess the courts will decide if they have a legal case or not.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 9:53pm

Don't the Tony Award segments belong to The American Theatre Wing? I wonder if they have any say in the matter?

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 9:58pm

Christopher Cohen is Alex Cohen's son. I'm sure he knows what the rules are concerning the Theatre Wing.

[mattonstage]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 11:07pm

Maybe give a partial sum of the profits to Broadway Cares/Equity Fights Aids, and call it a charitable project.

[Mamie]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 11:26pm

I find it hard to believe that the people responsible for manufacturing and marketing these DVD's didn't have a group of lawyers go over all the details with a fine tooth comb BEFORE shelling out a single dollar.

I remember when Broadway Theatre Archives was first being set up. Most of the delay in getting set up had to do with legal rights to copy and sell the plays. In this case each play had been telecast on PBS a number of years ago. There was no VHS or DVD technology at that time. They still got the legal go ahead to create and market the tapes. I wonder if copying the Tony award performances might have a similar legal basis? (I'm no lawyer so this is just speculation).

One thing I am sure of - the harder they make the creation of these tapes, the less chance there is of any more being made in the future.

[JMVR]

Posted: 3/3/07 at 12:50am

ElphabaScaresMe: I respect your opinion and understand where you are coming from, but i hardly think "they should be lucky to get exposure" is an insult to the actors in the lawsuit.

Yes, it is a profession that deserves respect, but it is one that relies heavily on exposure and popularity becuase this translates into more work to the extent that people are familiar with your talent. "People" includes casting agents who might not have been around to see Wanda Richert in 42nd St. or regional theater cratives who might have missed How Now Dow Jones? and upon watching these videos might develop an interest in auditioning or casting a "forgotten" perfomer or revive a show.

Exposure like this allow new (younger) theater fans to know that Bea Arthur had a stage career before Golden Girls, that Angela Lansbury can sing and that there once was an actor called Jerry Orbach who was much more talented than what you see in L&O.

I fail to see how it is disrespectful to say that even the chorus kids in those shows should be happy for the exposure because if anything, the $50 bucks max they would get after years of litigation will go away in two days while the fact that their work is captured on video and released to the general public years after the fact will be an enduring source of pride in what they did. I know most of these folks might be struggling but please . . .

If it is a matter of principle alone, maybe they should have whatever money they recover be donated to a struggling theater group or something like that?

[allofmylife]

Posted: 3/3/07 at 12:57am

We live in a world where the daughters of Florence Ballard, the woman kicked out of the Supremes are ALL living on welfare. It's a cruel world with little pity or compassion for the smaller names and the forgotten ones. If her kids can't get compensation, if the studios didn't see how wise it would have been to have slipped these kids $250,000.00 each, what do the actors from musicals of the 50's and 60's expect to realize.

But on a broader view, this seems to be another case of technology overwhelming the old way of doing business. Sure, they should release the shows on DVD. But let's be realistic, there is no mass audience for these DVDs. They would have to sell for about $250.00 each, with copy protection up the ying-yang.

But I'd PAY that for a clear, professional copy of the original cast of "Hairspray" or "Drowsy" and I'll bet you would, too.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 3/3/07 at 7:53am

Frankly, this feels like a scam. These DVDs have been out for years now, and *just now* some of the performers decide they didnt get what they feel is their just due?

Cohen would certainly have to have worked out all these legal details before letting PBS distribute this stuff; he'd have to be a supreme business idiot not to. And the folks in the performances would certainly have to have signed waivers or contracts of some kind. If they didnt read the things, why should we allow them to re-write them the second time around just to make it more favourable for them?

Sorry -- as much as I understand the plight of being out of work and short on funds, this is a helluva way to think you're gonna get yourself out of it.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 3/3/07 at 8:36am

This is why we can't have nice things.

And with that attitude this is why you will never be an Equity actress.

I am shocked this was not settled before these DVDs were released.
That said, I am shocked that most people here are putting these artist down for trying to get their fair compensation for something that is being sold commercially using their image and talent.
It does not matter if this series makes ONE FREAKING DOLLAR these people are entitled to a part of it.
If this series was making hundreds of millions of dollars would you then say that they should get some of the profits? Why should the amount make it any more relevant.
I would go out on a limb here and say that the people who are putting the actor's down on this thread are still working on productions of Charlie Brown at the Paduka Community Theater or doing crappy talent shows in Church basements.
Yes, the idea of doing it for the love of your art is fine when you are still living at home with Mommy and Daddy, but this attitude that these people should just be grateful that some one wants to use this footage at all is not only naive, but also very insulting to anyone who is trying to make a living in this business.

I really am shocked.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/3/07 at 9:01am

"I am shocked this was not settled before these DVDs were released.
That said, I am shocked that most people here are putting these artist down for trying to get their fair compensation for something that is being sold commercially using their image and talent.
It does not matter if this series makes ONE FREAKING DOLLAR these people are entitled to a part of it.
If this series was making hundreds of millions of dollars would you then say that they should get some of the profits? Why should the amount make it any more relevant."

"this attitude that these people should just be grateful that some one wants to use this footage at all is not only naive, but also very insulting to anyone who is trying to make a living in this business."

Sueleen---I agree with you.

Updated On: 3/3/07 at 09:01 AM

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 3/3/07 at 9:04am

Thanks Best.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 3/3/07 at 10:10am

Hey, Overreacto, if the series makes enough to give all the performers one dollar each, and they're happy with that, then more power to them.

My point is, if you read my posts carefully and not with your usual level of hysteria, that these discs aren't making enough of a profit (if any at all) to be worth a lawsuit. I don't think these actors are going to this trouble for a dollar.

"And with that attitude this is why you will never be an Equity actress."
Good Lord, you are one obsessed, sad man. You're more pathetic than the people you try to paint as such on a constant basis around here.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 3/3/07 at 10:13am

Well be sure to let us all know when you get your card, little miss know it all.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 3/3/07 at 10:16am

If and when that happens, I certainly will.

[Switz78]

Posted: 3/3/07 at 11:54am

SueleenGay- I agree with you.

I think this all comes down to whatever the release form said that these actors signed when they agreed to perform on the Tonys broadcast.

To anyone who thinks that we should all struggle for our art and just be happy with the exposure, grow up and face reality. Let's see if you are so willing to take a day off of work to go to that audition for an Equity theatre that has a minimum of $200 a week when you are living in NYC and paying rent and college loans and being an adult. Sometimes paying the bills and not having credit collecters calling you is more important than doing a great show for a dollar.

Why whether or not someone has their union card (or not) was brought into this conversation I have no idea. Equity Actor does not equal talented. Often times it does but just because someone has yet to get their card does not mean that they are any less talented than that person who does. That attitude is what seperates us and AEA does not really enjoy that attitude as I've witnessed first hand when an Equity member was asked to leave the building for being rude and representing the union poorly.