The myths of copyright
Some of the biggest myths about copyright and plays have to do with what can be done with a script once a producer has secured the rights to perform the script. What�s most troubling about these misconceptions is that they appear to have credible authority, both in the standard operating procedure of many educational and community theatres (and even some professional ones), as well as many references in print which are either ambiguous or outright wrong about what the law is and what it allows. An example of just how long these notions have endured can be found in The Complete Acted Play (Appleton-Century Crofts, New York), by Allen Crafton and Jessica Royer, a how-to text on producing amateur theatre published in 1943 (and republished in 1946 in the UK by George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd., London, thus guaranteeing the book�s making its way into libraries on both sides of the Atlantic). On the question of how the director should approach the script Crafton and Royer begin by prudently suggesting that he �should decide to revise only when he is sure that he can improve, in his stage presentation, on what the author has written.� After a list of common revisions, they conclude by asserting that �the director should be permitted any change which, while respecting the aim and purpose of the play, will make for a better stage presentation in his theater, by his actors and for his audience.�
More recently, in The Art of Directing (Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California, 1985), authors John W. Kirk and Ralph Bellas explained, �The script, of course, is the heart of the theatrical event, and . . . it must be respected by the director. . . . Yet the theatre is a collaborative effort. No playwright, not even Edward Albee (who demands a nocut agreement in his release statement), ought to insist that every word of his play be in the production script. . . . The realities of stage practice require that the director have some freedom with the script.�
While the passages from these two books do accurately reflect certain production realities, they fail to address the issue of contracts and copyright. At least they do not go as far as Junior Broadway: How to Produce Musicals with Children 9 to 13 (McFarland and Company, Jefferson, North Carolina, second edition, 1998), by Beverly B. Ross and Jean P. Durgin. This text suggests, �Under the terms of your license to perform the show, you usually have the right to omit portions of the book, music, and lyrics if necessary to simplify production.� I know of no licensing agreement that makes such a statement. In fact, most licenses specifically exclude the right to make any such changes.
�If you don�t like the script the way it is, then do another script, or write your own,� said Christopher Gould, president of Broadway Play Publishing, Inc. �It really is the grossest violation to �improve� a script without the collaboration and approval of the author. Yes, there is a lot of gray area here, but I think it is usually pretty clear when a director oversteps his or her role and becomes what is in reality an adaptor.�
In truth, adaptation is a right that belongs to someone else (that you may get permission to use if you ask for it), and collaboration is a two-way street. Some authors will delight in all the different ways their work can be presented, and some will sue your pants off for changing a comma. Whatever the author�s opinion, the law is on his side. In the next section on copyright do�s and don�ts, I�ll explain specific contractual language in regard to cuts and adaptations.
The original material on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
To request permission for commercial reproduction, please contact me at:
E-mail address: [email protected]
(edit out the "_NOSPAM" before sending)
Permission to reproduce work by other authors included in this site must be obtained from the owners of the copyrights on those works.
This page last updated on Saturday, May 10, 2008