Director Plagiarism

[Craig T Gustafson]

Take a look at this:
Plagiarism Story and the follow-up links on that page.

This is something that could actually have repercussions for us. The Broadway director and Choreographer of Urinetown are getting ready to sue two regional productions (including the one in Chicago) for copying their work.

As if Urinetown wasn't a hard enough sell to local theatres -- now any theatre considering the show will drop it because of the possible legal hassles.

Anyway, what do you think? Should directors be able to come into your production and sue you if they think it looks too much like theirs?

There is one choreographer I know who repeatedly does A Chorus Line, being hired with the promise of "I know all the original choreography and can give you the Broadway production". Of course, giving the exact Broadway choregraphy on a stage half the size of the one used on Broadway creates its own problems.

Or there's Fiddler on the Roof, where contractually you have to use Jerome Robbins' choreography.

When I directed The Odd Couple, I came up with a clever, funny bit for Felix and the Pigeon Sisters, involving a cigarette. It wasn't in the script. I thought it up all by myself. Oh, clever, button-bright me! Two years later I was watching the movie and there was Jack Lemmon doing my bit. Obviously the gag had crept into my brain and sat there when I had seen the movie years before. Should I be sued?

For me, one of the joys of directing is coming up with my own vision of the play. But if what was done before is the best way of doing it and I know that, why would I twist my brain to come up with something Not as Good? My goal is to direct the best possible show and do whatever it takes to get there.

What do you think?

[DanMuir]

If the cigarette bit is a good piece of comic schtick that will be anticipated and appreciated by the audience, include it. Is it stealing? OR..... is this imitation being the finest form of flattery? Depends on if the original director or writer or whoever is offended or flattered.

I once saw rehearsals for Hello Dolly where Dolly was directed to point to Horace using a turkey leg, which was taken right out of the movie, and maybe the Broadway show itself. Stealing? If it wasn't used, the line mightn't have recieved the laugh it got. If it was replaced with something else, some might have said, "Why didn't they use the turkey leg bit?" I guess it could always be replaced with something funnier, if the director is resourceful enough.

Here's another question: if the "imitating" director gets sued by the originating director, et al., is this "stolen" bit so much a piece of selfish comic genius that it can't be shared by one and all?

Make the show as funny or entertaining as possible, I say. Use what's good and expected, if it can't be replaced by someting better.

[actorkent]

Hey! I posted this same message just last month on yahoo groups. DAMMIT!
anyhow.
I have always wondered what consituted a ballet. Is it just the music. obviously no. Are there written down dance moves that must be danced in order for swan lake to be swan lake?
I would think that this issue would already have come to the 'fore' before with regards to ballet.
Love to see craig in a tutu.. threethree?

[crhickman]

This really is a pickle. I agree with some of the replies already given: "So much for imitation being..." yadda yadda.

I'm left with this question: Did the 'offending' theaters know they were doing anything wrong/illegal?
If so, this becomes much more clear.
If not, this becomes a very scary situation for any theater, anywhere (and could lead to the end of civilization as we know it!).

You can look at this another way: How litigous of a nation are we and how sad is that? Essentially, i think it is pretty sad that someone would rather sue out of selfishness rather than give to the world. It seem remarkably petty to me and only harmful, so i'm against it.

Anything that harms theater and/or live performance is a bad thing. It puts fuzzy limitations on productions that create fear of creativity or initiative in directors, producers and theater boards, etc. Soon they may second guess every decision for fear of unknowingly breaking the law and risking potentially crippling legal action. In the end, they may simply feel it's easier to be involved in something less dangerous than theater.
...like sword swallowing
...or crocodile wrestling
...or stunt work for independent films...
You get the idea.

<font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ December 02, 2006 10:02 PM: Message edited by: Maelifisis ]</font></font>

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 02, 2006 10:07 PM: Message edited by: Maelifisis ]</font>

[pungster1]

Well-so much for imitation being the sincerest form of flattery...
I can see where set design could be licenced, but had no idea that direction and choreography could as well. According to this quote from one of the articles, though:
"Ronald H. Shechtman, a lawyer for the Broadway team, said that he has received approved copyrights for the choreography and set design as well. Applications for copyrights for the direction and costume design, filed in late summer, he says, are still pending.

In the past, only the work of playwrights, choreographers and set designers has been deemed protected by law, but for direction, and costume and lighting design, the situation is much more fuzzy, Shechtman says. But, he added, 'if they want to test us on the issue of stage direction, we believe this is an appropriate test case.'"

I think the words "test case" pretty much say it all-and I suppose a lot depends on when the copyrights were applies for and issued as opposed to when the "offending" productions were produced.
The issue certainly presents a challenge for all theaters though-what elements of the play's original production are engrained into the interpretation and which elements are likely to get you sued? And where does it end?

Here's something to chew on-years ago I cast Actor A in a part and was very specific about certain things I wanted to see in his interpretation.
During the production, Actor B(someone I've known for years)came to see the show.
Several years later, I went to see a production of the same play-and Actor B was playing the role that Actor A had played-and playing exactly as Actor A had played it.
Can I sue Actor B for stealing my direction?
Can Actor A sue him for stealing his interpretation?
Yikes-it is a puzzlement...
I'll be following this story with a great deal of interest.

[ballerianchick]

To answer the ballet question posted by Kent - Yes, specific steps must be danced in Swan Lake for it to be Swan Lake - but you Must and I repete MUST have written permission, and pay to use those steps and state it in the program who it was originally choreographed by. Otherwise you can be sued. It's stealing - to call something like that your own.

In this case - I'm not so sure. If it makes sense for Actor A to cross to Actor B to deliver a certain line, then why wouldn't you do it that way? And if it really is just common sense, then can you really be sued for doing it - just because someone else used their own common sense before you did? Same goes with the lighting design and costuming....if the script calls for a blackout here - because it wouldn't work otherwise - I would put that blackout in....am I really stealing? You tell me.....

[gwpatt]

Seems to me there's a confusion between plagiarism and copyright infringement. The script and score of a show are copyrighted, and thus legally protected. A document exists which cannot be used without permission, royalties, proper attribution, etc.

However, does a similar protection exist for direction or choreography? Costume design? Set design? Lighting concepts? Is this stuff documented? Has a copyright been granted?

Plagiarizing these things may well be unethical or not, but I have trouble imagining any legal consequences.