[NEohioPAL] Copyrights (was: i want your VIDEOS)

[TONY BROWN]

well, sure, the actors should be paid more IF the video/audio is being used for commercial purposes; that is, if it is being sold, as in: "Ronco presents the Chagrin Valley Little Theatre production of 'Oh! Calcutta!' Special, long-awaiting two-disc director's cut with voice-over commentary by Fred Sternfeld! But wait, there's MORE! For just 21.95, you not only get 'Oh! Calcutta!' but also Actors' Summit's brilliant new musical adaptation of 'Ben-Hur,' starring Neil Thackaberry as Judah, and the entire extended Thackaberry clan in the chariot-racing scene!"

but (seriously) to promote a show on the web? i would think that certainly the actors' permission would have to obtained, but i would also think the actors would be overjoyed at the prospect of a little more publicity. (i have never met a performer averse to publicity.) this is nothing new, folks, to the theater. the play house does it all the time on their website, as do the broadway shows and playhouse square. now, perhaps they pay extra (to actors, to authors, to rights-holders, etc.), i don't know.

but MY point in posting the notice to the listserve was and remains: if you can figure this out, legally and technically, and you have video (or audio for that matter), i'd be happy to post it to cleveland.com/onstage.

cheers.

t.

>>> "Richard B. Ingraham" <rbingraham at sbcglobal.net> 6/18/2008 4:21 PM >>>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: neohiopal-bounces at listserve.com 
> [mailto:neohiopal-bounces at listserve.com] On Behalf Of Linda Ryan
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 11:30 AM
> To: cvlt at cvlt.org; neohiopal at listserve.com 
> Subject: Re: [NEohioPAL] i want your VIDEOS
> 
> 
> Andrew brings up a good point; one that's always bothered me:
> the fact that many theaters have had to go the way CVLT has 
> -- i.e., no video for fear of being shut down. I don't know 
> who made the rule about no videos of shows, but I would think 
> the actors in this country would be "up in arms" (whatever 
> that phrase means) :-) about it.
> 

Hmmmm....   Actually Actors Equity's rules are usually more complex than
those by the rights holding organizations of the shows.  But I realize
you're not specifically talking about professional actors.  However the
rules established for professional organizations are often what becomes
the "norm" and rights organizations are not going to worry about having
numerous "rules" based on what "level" the organization is operating at.
We are probably lucky that there are separate royalty rates based on
whether you're a professional, educational or amateur organization.



> I'm surprised, as rights-conscious as the American people are 
> - always standing up for what they believe in - that we've 
> allowed this policy to remain in place. Maybe there is a 
> fight going on about it somewhere and I just haven't heard 
> anything about it. But if not, there should be. I, for one, 
> would like to have saved the shows I've been in for watching 
> in my old age (okay, probably too late for that!) :-) but you 
> get my drift. 
> 

Rights conscious?   I would respectfully disagree.  :-)

I think most folks pay almost no attention to copy right issues.  Why do
things like file sharing software exist?  Mostly to share copyrighted
content illegally.  Why is all my professional software that I use for
my work have to have some arcane, complex "registration" method or have
a small "dongle" that I plug into my computer to operate?  Because if it
didn't the authors of the software would never be able to make a living.
Everyone would just copy it freely and pay it no mind.

I work with college students on a regular basis.  It's a real eye opener
to see how much stuff is "shared".  And when you ask them about it, many
simply don't even think about the fact that they are essentially
stealing something and robbing the original author of their fair income.
That attitude is changing slightly these days as we see the RIAA and
other rights organizations going after folks for the more serious
violations but there are also many who simply do not care.

If you think this doesn't pertain to theatre copyrights then I'm sorry
to tell you that it does.  I have watched as good friends (fellow
designers) of mine were "ripped off" by producers and even large
organization right here in town and beyond.  It happens even to folks
like myself, a freelance designer...   I've had my sound designs "ripped
off" on at least a couple of occasions.  (and that's the ones that I
know about!)  Yes... right here in town!  I suspect that at least in one
of these examples the organization simply didn't even pay it any mind.
But if you're going to remount a show, using my Sound Design, then you
should be paying me for the reuse of my design.  Of course the design
fees are not high enough to even bother with legal action on my part,
but that's a whole other subject.  :-)

Of course I guess all that those examples prove is that it goes both
ways.  The people that worry the most about protecting their "works",
are sometimes the worst offenders and pay no attention to all the folks
they might be ripping off.  And I include myself in that as well.
Although I at least try to do the right thing.

If you think that there is not a "fight" going on Ms. Ryan, then I would
suggest that you have simply not been paying close enough attention.
:-)

There is all the RIAA lawsuits going on, where they are even going after
minors and grandmothers.  Those are the "news" stories that you'll hear
about in the major networks.  If you want the more mundane stuff, then
you have to read trade magazines or hunt around on line.

But a perfect example would be the recent lawsuit involving Carousel
Diner Theatre.  The original director, choreographer (and I believe even
the set, lighting and costume designers as well) of Urinetown sued a
theatre in Chicago and Carousel for copying their staging.  (and I
assume also their designs as well)  This caused a huge stir in the
theatre community because it brings up the subject of how much staging,
choreography and set, costume and lighting designs are "original" for
each production and how much of it do you simply almost have to "copy"
because otherwise it would not be the same show without it.  It's a very
fine line and the line is kind of "blurry" if you think hard about it.
Unfortunately I have not heard anything more about this lawsuit and
don't know if there has been any outcome as of yet.  I'm mentioning this
case merely as an example not to cast judgment on any of the parties.
Since I've seen none of the productions involved I have no clue how
realistic the claims in the lawsuit were.

I think what you are proposing, that theatres should be free to make
videos of their shows and then distribute them really isn't all that
much different than some of the file sharing that is going on over the
internet.  It's just on a MUCH, MUCH smaller scale.  While I can
understand the argument for allowing that type of stuff (and I'm sure it
goes on all the time anyway), it's one of those slippery slope type
situations.  If I as a rights holder say, OK, this theatre can make
copies and distribute them because they are a bunch of amateurs anyway
and no one would pay any money for it, then it's not much of a stretch
until anyone can bring in a camera and start recording any show they
like whether they are part of the cast, crew or production in some way
or not, and then start making copies for sale or just give them away.

We as artists should want to protect our work and craft.  If I can just
download the bootleg off the internet some place then what's the point
of paying for a ticket to go see the real thing.  Yes, I understand you
are not promoting that, but it would only be one small step to go from
copies for the cast and crew to letting people post it around freely.

As with most things it's a moving target and there are a lot of grey
areas.  Lets be realistic, when it comes down to filing a lawsuit it
will likely largely be decided by who has the better lawyers.  :-)

What we as artist should really be doing is trying to get the copyright
laws (and patent laws are even worse!) updated in this country so they
actually make sense for the society and times in which we live.  Not the
society of 150 years ago when most of them were probably established.
But big organizations (ummm..  the Mouse!...  that would be Disney) keep
getting our congress to extend copyrights and favor the big
organizations.  Otherwise Mickey and friends would have been in the
public domain years ago!  :-)

Just some thoughts....  I could go on...  :-)


Richard B. Ingraham
RBI Computers and Audio
http://www.rbicompaudio.20m.com/ 



______________________________________
NEohioPAL is SELF-SERVE. If you need to unsubscribe, change from digest to one-at-a-time delivery or vice-versa, go on hiatus while out of town, switch from mime to plain text or vice-versa, etc. check out the FAQS at http://www.fredsternfeld.com.
______________________________________
please consider a voluntary contribution to support Neohiopal - http://www.fredsternfeld.com/faqs.htm#support 
______________________________________
Disclaimer: The facts and/or opinions expressed in this message are solely those of the person in the 'from' or 'reply-to' header. The fact that this message is posted should in no way be taken as an endorsement by the administrator of this list. Subscribers should perform due diligence for all goods, services and activities promoted on NEohioPAL.
_____________________________________
NEohioPAL mailing list
http://mailman.listserve.com/listmanager/listinfo/neohiopal

Sign up for FREE breaking news updates at cleveland.com/updates