Touchy licensing question -- need help

[jasonf]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 1:46pm

The school I work at is getting ready for their yearly musical. I'm not involved in the production at all (for various reasons), but I found out something from one of my kids today that really bothered me. She told me that they are inserting an entire five minute dance/scene based on Thriller into the the middle of the show.
I'm pretty sure this isn't legal, right?
I don't want to be that person blowing the whistle, but on the other hand, couldn't the school get into a LOT of trouble from this if someone found out?
I guess my main question here is - is there any way what they are doing could be legal? I would be SHOCKED if they went and got permission from both MTI (I assume that's what's licensing the show) AND Michael Jackson's estate.
Any ideas? Advice? Suggestions?

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 2:25pm

What show?

[newintown]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 2:27pm

As a school, the only trouble they would probably experience is a cease and desist. And if the song/dance is only "based on" Thriller, then that part of the equation is probably negligible, I would imagine.

[jasonf]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 2:30pm

The Wizard of Oz.


I haven't seen the dance, but from what the kids were saying it sounded like the dance from the video.

Is there an issue from the company that leases the show? I thought I'd read somewhere that you can't change the show itself around like that, let alone the issue from Jackson's estate.

The other end, from an educational point of view, is I don't like the message we're sending - that it's perfectly OK to take the material and do whatever you want with it...

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 2:42pm

The Wizard of Oz with a Thriller dance break? Wtf.

[temms]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 2:47pm

I'm guessing it would be a part of the "Jitterbug" sequence. Sounds like it would make sense, as it's a number about being forced to dance. It seems less like a rip-off than an homage and possibly some creative, original staging. Could be fun. If it were me, I'd mind my own business. But that's just me.

[jasonf]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 2:48pm

Yeah - I have NO idea.

A couple of my girls are playing the wicked witch (we have this "everyone must participate" policy so we have two casts. I saw their scripts - but they only have THEIR sections. Now I'm completely confused by what they're doing because half of it seems to be the normal script including the songs -- and half of it is a bunch of added really lame, corny jokes.

I would imagine to use ANY of the script (especially the songs), they'd have to license them, right?

[romgitsean]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 2:54pm

I hate to be that guy, but who really gives a flying f*ck? So they want to do The Wizard of Oz with a stupid dance break. The Michael Jackson estate has plenty of money as it stands, I doubt they'll be gaining anything from licensing fees for a high school production.

And as far as messing with the artistic integrity of the work... there would have to be artistic work for them to mess with. It's The Wizard of Oz, not f*cking Arcadia. God forbid they'd want to change it up a little bit, oh no! What will we do?

Gimme a f*cking break.

Updated On: 2/3/11 at 02:54 PM

[SondheimFan5]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 2:58pm

Tams Witmark does Wizard of Oz

[temms]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 3:01pm

Tams-Witmark licenses the show, and they generally send "sides" which are small scripts that only contain one individual characters' lines and stage directions and the cues into them.

Perhaps I'm projecting, but the way that you state that you are "not involved in the show (for various reasons)" makes me think that you care less about the "integrity of art" and more about taking out your frustrations on a project you're upset to be shut out from. As I said before, I'd mind my own business. And I say that as a writer with a show of mine being regularly licensed to school groups. If one group decides to do something ridiculous to it, I'm not going to waste the time and the energy on it. "The Wizard Of Oz" will survive your school's production.

Leave it be. That would be my heartfelt advice.

[jasonf]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 3:02pm

There are two problems.

1)I've heard from various places, and I think one is from this board, that there are people who actually go around CHECKING on productions to make sure they're not being changed around. From that point, I'm more concerned about penalties the school could face. If it's just a cease and desist, then fine, but I'd hate to see harm come to the program because of something that's illegal.

2)As a teacher, I have a problem with the idea of taking a work and altering it. There's a certain integrity issue, just as I wouldn't want the kids thinking plagiarism is acceptable.

[jasonf]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 3:04pm

That's fine -- and believe me, I'm more than fine with not being involved in this. I have enough going on.

And as long as the school won't get into any trouble, it's fine. Though it does trouble me that we're sending that message to the kids.

Whatever - I just didn't want to be in a position where I could have prevented something negative from impacting the kids.

The issues with morality are my own to deal with.

Posted: 2/3/11 at 3:21pm

The high school in my town did Carousel and replaced "It Was a Real Nice Clambake" with Lady Gaga's Pokerface. It was stunning.

As long as you don't try to do "little Shop" without the puppets, I'm cool with it.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 3:35pm

"I hate to be that guy, but who really gives a flying f*ck? So they want to do The Wizard of Oz with a stupid dance break. The Michael Jackson estate has plenty of money as it stands, I doubt they'll be gaining anything from licensing fees for a high school production.

And as far as messing with the artistic integrity of the work... there would have to be artistic work for them to mess with. It's The Wizard of Oz, not f*cking Arcadia. God forbid they'd want to change it up a little bit, oh no! What will we do?

Gimme a f*cking break."

Just because someone has plenty of money doesn't mean that another party has the right to change something without proper permission. Although I am unsure if this situation is actually changing the show or more of an artistic interpretation.

Updated On: 2/3/11 at 03:35 PM

[jasonf]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 3:41pm

millie -- I don't know, I haven't seen it yet so I can't actually say. From what the kids said, it's like a five minute routine at the witch's castle.

I really don't know the details beyond what I've put here which is why I wouldn't actually say anything unless it really could be disastrous. I just didn't know.
It just seems odd to even risk there being a problem, especially given that I know for a fact we have a couple of parents in the district who actually work on Broadway.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 3:45pm

I think this is one of those cases where it's artistic interpretation.

Assuming that they aren't dressed like zombies, and that they aren't using the Thriller music, and the choreography isn't a 100% recreation, and that it's being inserted into the "Jitterbug," I see no real problem with it.

Now, that said, romgitsean, do you think that Wizard of Oz has no artistic merit? Because if it didn't, there is no way that 71 years later, we'd all still be creaming over the movie. There's no way it would be rated one of the top 10 films of all time. There's no way that a song from it would be considered one of the finest in the American Songbook.

If that is your real feeling, then you are a bigger idiot than I supposed. Granted, you're also the person who thought it was brilliant that your director wanted to change the end of Rent so that Mimi died, and then got upset when people flipped out at you for it, so I'm not really surprised.

ETA: Comma splices are my best friend :/

Updated On: 2/3/11 at 03:45 PM

Posted: 2/3/11 at 4:18pm

FYI- the American Film Institute rated "The Wizard of Oz" the 6th best film of all time- not film musical, FILM. Over the Rainbow was also named the greatest song from a movie, ever. So someone thinks it has artistic merit.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 4:23pm

"The Wizard of Oz" is far superior to "Arcadia."

Sorry--f*cking "Arcadia."

[dexter3]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 4:56pm

If you want to do a show like "the wizard of oz" or any other show that needs to be licensed through a publishing company, then DO THAT SHOW.

If you feel like inserting some stupid dance or pop song, then WRITE YOUR OWN SHOW and put it in there.

Writers work hard to craft their shows. Regardless of what you think of the artistic merit of "The Wizard of Oz", it is what it is. Not only is it terribly illegal to add something like "thriller" in the middle of it, it seems tasteless and stupid.

I hate it when directors do that kind of stuff. They do it because they honestly believe they are improving the show.

Good directors trust the writers of a play or musical. And if you don't trust the writers, then do another show that you believe in. But don't ruin or rewrite a show without the specific written consent of the writers or publishing house.

[Cabarob]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 6:06pm

Tams-Witmark licenses two different versions of the show - the RSC version which is virtually identical to the movie, and the St. Louis MUNY version from the 60s which is the same score and basic story but has different scenes (a rotating bridge bit) and a LOT of, IMHO, corny jokes. It sounds like the latter version is the one your school licensed - which makes sense given that it has additional speaking/singing roles(an assistant for the EC guard, a servant for WWoW, and 2 other wicked witches) and you stated your school likes to cast as many students as possible.
Included in this version is a longer version of the Winkies (WWoW's guards)"Yo He Ho" number that starts as scene change music and seques into the song. Given that the servant character is a zombie, that song is set in the castle, and oddly the Thriller choreography does fit that music (just at a slower tempo) I would imagine they've just added a repeat to extend the scene change portion and this is the dance your students have mentioned. If that's the case - its just an homage (intended to make a relatively boring song funny or possibly to just get the students more into the show) and not really violating the copyright (assuming the added repeat is just the scene change vamp and not a full repeat of the song.) The show already contains many anachronisms (references to shop vacs and rocket ships) so Thriller moves wouldn't stick out too much.

[jasonf]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 6:10pm

I'm glad I'm not the only one questioning this.

I also agree on a purely artistic level it's ridiculous. I've seen MANY of the shows this director has done and I've questioned many of the choices made. A few years ago in the middle of Bye Bye Birdie she brought the entire school color guard on stage and they did a performance in the middle of the show. It was justified as welcoming Birdie into town, but it was so unnecessary.

Here, I can't even IMAGINE there being an actual justification for it. Like I said, I don't know where the script came from since what I saw of it was half what I know, half lame jokes. I do know they're using the cover of one of the DVD releases as the art work for the show. My kids had pictures of Margaret Hamilton on the binders for the witch's roles, so they're certainly not separating themselves from the movie in any real way.

I'll post if I hear any more from the kids about HOW it's being done (the show itself is still three weeks away).

[dramamama611]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 6:25pm

If they are just doing thriller to the jitterbug music, I think that could actually be fun. I also don't think it's wrong, but perhaps questionable.

However, if they also using the MUSIC to thriller, there is a different issue. When the director signed the contract with TW, he agreed to do the show AS WRITTEN. And while the Wizard of Oz will survive, the bigger issue is ethics. As a teacher, he SHOULD have that as his utmost concern.

We wonder why kids have the morals of fruit flies? It comes from things LIKE this (in the extreme) that teaches them that rules don't apply as long as they really want something. At my own rehearsal today, one of my students questioned a change we were working on. We all talked about it and honestly determined that what we were considering was indeed "artistic interpretation". I was pretty darn proud not only of the question but of the discussion that ensued.

[jasonf]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 6:52pm

From what the kids said, it definitely sounded like they were doing the music from Thriller.

I agree 100% with what you said, dramamama, about the ethics issue. It worries me already that the kids think nothing of saying "I turned in my homework to you," will make me look through an entire folder, sometimes MORE than one folder, have THEM look through the folder, and then ultimately find it in their notebook somewhere two days later. It's not that they didn't turn it in that bothers me so much as the BLATANT lie.

If they are doing the show the way I THINK they are, I just can't see how it's ethical.

Of course, then I'm in the position of whether or not I should intercede in any capacity.

Going back to the question of why I'm not involved, the same woman has been directing these shows since LONG before I was there, and after seeing the first show and how they're done, I've never had any real interest in associating my name with the productions.

I do other theater stuff in school which keeps my busy, but I'm not getting involved in the musical while she's running it.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 7:13pm

If the licensing company is allowing Andrew Lloyd Webber to add his own songs to the score I can't really imagine them objecting to "Thriller". They obviously have no regard for the original authors or the material itself.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 7:27pm

^Actually, what it sounds like is ALW went to Warner Brothers, who holds all the intellectual property rights to the film and asked to do a NEW stage version based on it. There's a new book writer and everything. So it's totally different.