5,060 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jan 23, 2016 15:18:40 GMT
I am just wondering how copyright works and how much you earn?
I am sure that one of the reasons why to do Shakapeare is I guess you don't have to pay royalties to anyone, you don't need permission from the estate to do as after 450 years I guess there is none. But I would guess with a Alan Ayckbourn play you would still have to pay royalties and need permission to perform the piece of work and obviously this maybe not fourth coming or may stipulate conditions on performances.
How about recordings as well? How long does this last?
|
|
5,060 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jan 23, 2016 17:42:57 GMT
Thanks.
Which is right the creators should be recognised financially and need o be incentivised to create, but conversly imagine if you received a royalty everytime Shakespeare is done you probably be a billionaire, so also understand that hanger-ones shouldn't get anything.
I tell you why I started this thread, for some reason I got 75 years in my head, I don't know where I got this number and sure it isn't correct, but had me thinking if I was correct Oklohoma would be available in the next coupl of years, which would mean anyone can put this on and put on what version thy want, I understand that the Roger and Hammrerstein Organisation are very strict on content, before giving out authority.
Also I was flicking through my mums Christmas CD's stuff like Susan Boyle, who recorded stuff like Silent Night and Andrea Brocelli who done on his last album Old Man River and Alexandee Armstrong who done Porgy and Bess' Summertime and thought the reason why these got done as they wouldn't attract an royalty as well as being popular and insanely brilliant.
So if Oscar Hammerstein died in 1960, we couldn't produce anything of his estate until 1930 for free and in our own way without authority?
|
|
5,060 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jan 25, 2016 20:09:39 GMT
Thank you all very interesting.
So as I say you can perform stuff like Shakespeare, Ibsen, Chechov, Oscar Wilde.
Even Bernard Shaw and Samuel Beckett you have to pay a royalty on.
I guess all musicals you have to pay royalties on, even the very early ones such as Anything Goes and Showboat and possible to pay royalties for a fair few years, Oscar Hammerstein died in 1960 and Cole Porter in 1964 and this doesn't include others in the creative process.
Reading in the history of the National Theatre, when they covered the great musical in the ninties, It was a real fight to get the rights for Carousel and they couldn't get the rights for Fiddler on the Roof and West Side Story, so this thread isn't just about the interesting financial aspect, but the artistic process is vetoed too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2016 22:02:41 GMT
Presumably, copyright also applies to translations and adaptations? If so, usable modern versions of Ibsen and Chekhov will always be within their copyright periods.
Within copyright, the writer or Estate must approve your production, which may be subject to rigorous constraints, as with Beckett for example, so there's much more control than just claiming a royalty.
|
|
639 posts
|
Post by ncbears on Jan 25, 2016 22:40:29 GMT
Yes, Honoured Guest is correct that copyrights can attach to translations and adaptations. And, there are recent enough "translations" and "edited" versions of Shakespeare - that you theoretically would have to pay a royalty to perform. And there are different copyright dates in the UK and the US. Whenever Mickey Mouse is about to go into the public domain, the Disney Company gets the copyright period in the US extended. It has led to issue with regards to Winnie The Pooh and Peter Pan being publicly available in the UK but not the US.
|
|
7,183 posts
|
Post by Jon on Jan 26, 2016 1:51:40 GMT
Yes, Honoured Guest is correct that copyrights can attach to translations and adaptations. And, there are recent enough "translations" and "edited" versions of Shakespeare - that you theoretically would have to pay a royalty to perform. And there are different copyright dates in the UK and the US. Whenever Mickey Mouse is about to go into the public domain, the Disney Company gets the copyright period in the US extended. It has led to issue with regards to Winnie The Pooh and Peter Pan being publicly available in the UK but not the US. in the case of Mickey Mouse, Disney owns the trademark so you cannot legally use images or material of Mickey without paying Disney a royalty. Harry Potter while created by JK Rowling and she has ownership of the characters, Warner Bros has the trademarks to pretty much every aspect of the books and its spin-offs. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jan 31, 2016 15:10:34 GMT
So if Oscar Hammerstein died in 1960, we couldn't produce anything of his estate until 1930 for free and in our own way without authority? Surprised you didn't insert one of your droll comments after this one HG. Interestingly "Happy Birthday To You" was under copyright until very recently ( www.theguardian.com/music/2015/dec/10/happy-birthday-to-you-song-public-domain-warner-chappell-relinquish-copyright ) - so all those Michelin starred restaurants in London where the waiters are induced to sing it by unsophisticated punters having a special night out should really have been paying a fee - that would have stopped the tedious practice. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2016 15:17:42 GMT
Interestingly "Happy Birthday To You" was under copyright until very recently [...] so all those Michelin starred restaurants in London where the waiters are induced to sing it by unsophisticated punters having a special night out should really have been paying a fee - that would have stopped the tedious practice. I thought that's what the second fork was for. Always worked a treat for me. |
|
5,060 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jan 31, 2016 15:28:07 GMT
So bringing this up again as it is very interesting.
In Spamalot they play the smallest piece of music from Phantom of the opera that last 2 seconds around same as Shrek the Musical and The Lion King play a small part from The Lion King, I guess this would attract a royalty payment, I wonder how this is worked out, if you pay by the second or have to pay for the whole song?
Something like The Lion King and Aladdin has had multiple song writers, one being Tim Rice and wonder how his share his worked out? Also one of Tim's songs was dropped from The Lion King live performances from around the world 'The Morning Report', I wonder if this affects royalty payments, if Tim would have to take a paycut?
Also Is costume copyrightable?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jan 31, 2016 15:37:40 GMT
Something like The Lion King and Aladdin has had multiple song writers, one being Tim Rice and wonder how his share his worked out? It is well known that Trevor Nunn made many of his millions entirely by writing the lyrics to "Memory" because there was no-one else around to do it. Several pop stars of recent years have also been given a co-writing credit on their hits simply to boost their income a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jan 31, 2016 15:40:45 GMT
Interestingly "Happy Birthday To You" was under copyright until very recently [...] so all those Michelin starred restaurants in London where the waiters are induced to sing it by unsophisticated punters having a special night out should really have been paying a fee - that would have stopped the tedious practice. I thought that's what the second fork was for. Always worked a treat for me. Right. Good idea. I mean when I'm paying the thick end of £150 to be served smears of rancid brown goo on square plates the last thing I want is the waiting staff prancing past carrying an indoor firework and singing "Happy Birthday To You" to a car salesman from Harrow on his 50th. |
|
5,060 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Feb 1, 2016 19:55:49 GMT
Interesting, thanks about the clips and fair usage. It's a minefield that's what make this so interesting.
If I done a send up show with some done out like Elphaba or the Phantom with mask and gown, would I be infringing anyone's copyright?
|
|
1,498 posts
|
Post by Steve on Feb 2, 2016 23:40:55 GMT
So if Oscar Hammerstein died in 1960, we couldn't produce anything of his estate until 1930 for free and in our own way without authority? Don't forget Richard Rodgers passed away in 1979, so the current rules would have Oklahoma coming into the public domain in 2049. However, the current rather simple rules (death of the author plus 70 years) did not apply at the time. There were more complicated rules about registering your copyright, and losing it if you didn't, then renewing it, and losing it if you didn't. If you renewed, as was done in the case of Oklahoma (obviously), you have a copyright of 95 years from the publication date (1943), so Oklahoma will currently enter the public domain in the US in 2038, which is actually less than today's rules would get you. And I say "currently," because the law can be changed to extend the 2038 date, should the US government wish to do that. |
|
|
|
Post by tlt on Aug 3, 2016 9:05:09 GMT
Costume is copyrightable in the design, yes. Minefield, though. There's a minimum you can use of anything that would constitute "fair usage," so a couple of bars of music wouldn't be chargeable. That's why some TV programmes only give you a very brief bit of music - saves £££. Are you sure about your last paragraph, Theatre Monkey? Broadcasters may surely pay a bucket PRS fee so they can broadcast clips (I believe this is why Desert Island Discs only plays clips) but I don't think it's free. Fair usage extends to use in criticism and reviewing or if it is proveably parody but not much more. www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p09_fair_use Design is definitely copyright. That's why ushers are not just being bloody minded when they try to stop photos of scenery and you have to feel for individual creators now who once would have expected to live off their rights and now find it's all too easy for others to pirate their material with those who use mobiles and computers with the intention of nicking and/distributing. It is a minefield sometimes but there are also specific rules for licensing of rights and copyright of arrangement of ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2016 9:34:05 GMT
Are you sure about your last paragraph, Theatre Monkey? Broadcasters may surely pay a bucket PRS fee so they can broadcast clips (I believe this is why Desert Island Discs only plays clips) but I don't think it's free. Desert Island Discs plays more than a couple of bars of each recording! |
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Aug 3, 2016 9:38:54 GMT
Ther are different rules for playing recordings of music vs live music - organisations that play recorded music like radio, TV, nightclubs etc etc pay a fee to PRS, the Performing Rights Society (I think) which distributes fees to artists. It's a totally different set of rules to performing works live.
|
|
|
|
Post by profquatermass on Aug 3, 2016 10:12:30 GMT
Ther are different rules for playing recordings of music vs live music - organisations that play recorded music like radio, TV, nightclubs etc etc pay a fee to PRS, the Performing Rights Society (I think) which distributes fees to artists. It's a totally different set of rules to performing works live. Which is why the first couple of NT Live seasons were limited to new plays and out of copyright ones - presumably the filming rights to Priestley or Rattigan are a lot more expensive than the stage rights. I assume it's now built into the negotiations and decisions about new priductions |
|
|
|
Post by profquatermass on Aug 3, 2016 17:26:09 GMT
So if Oscar Hammerstein died in 1960, we couldn't produce anything of his estate until 1930 for free and in our own way without authority? Don't forget Richard Rodgers passed away in 1979, so the current rules would have Oklahoma coming into the public domain in 2049. However, the current rather simple rules (death of the author plus 70 years) did not apply at the time. There were more complicated rules about registering your copyright, and losing it if you didn't, then renewing it, and losing it if you didn't. If you renewed, as was done in the case of Oklahoma (obviously), you have a copyright of 95 years from the publication date (1943), so Oklahoma will currently enter the public domain in the US in 2038, which is actually less than today's rules would get you. And I say "currently," because the law can be changed to extend the 2038 date, should the US government wish to do that. Those are the American laws. The copyright in Britain is 70 years after the author's death and can't be extended or renewed. There have often been situations where works have been in copyright on one side of the Atlantic and not on the other (thus there were Black Mikados a-plenty in the USA decades before anything non-Doyley-Carte was allowed in America. And Peter Pan is out of copyright over there but not over here |
|
736 posts
|
Post by dippy on Aug 3, 2016 19:41:22 GMT
And Peter Pan is out of copyright over there but not over here I'm even more confused now, I feel like I'm not understanding it properly. Peter Pan seems to have first appeared in 1902, J M Barrie died in 1937. So are we saying the copyright in the US ended in 1997 (after 95 years) and over here it should have ended in 2007 (70 years after he died?). If that's the case then why is it still in copyright over here? |
|
4,029 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Aug 3, 2016 20:02:48 GMT
|
|
736 posts
|
Post by dippy on Aug 3, 2016 20:24:12 GMT
That makes sense then, but otherwise is that how it works? 95 years and 70 years?
|
|
|
|
Post by tlt on Aug 4, 2016 11:27:24 GMT
Are you sure about your last paragraph, Theatre Monkey? Broadcasters may surely pay a bucket PRS fee so they can broadcast clips (I believe this is why Desert Island Discs only plays clips) but I don't think it's free. Desert Island Discs plays more than a couple of bars of each recording! Hi Honoured Guest, Yes, they do play more than a couple of bars but not the whole song. I think the BBC and other broadcasters pay an annual fee which allows them to play a longer clips on Desert Island Discs. I assume for radio stations that play full versions there is another annual fee? There are compsers and those who produce sound effects who give away items for free on the Internet as long as they get a credit eg for short film filmmakers on a limited budget. |
|
|
|
Post by profquatermass on Aug 4, 2016 13:15:28 GMT
That makes sense then, but otherwise is that how it works? 95 years and 70 years? Peter Pan is a special case but otherwise it's 70 years after the authors death for written works in the EU. Of course that means it might change in Britain at some point. American law is different - you needed to have registered copyright so a lot of films went into the public doman. THe case of It's a Wonderful Life makes interesting reading - www.plagiarismtoday.com/2013/12/05/wonderful-copyright-life/ |
|
5,060 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Aug 4, 2016 14:32:18 GMT
That link was interesting.
So it's probable that the paltry £19m (2012 figure) Cameroon Mackintosh has paid in royalties to the RSC (which they're not happy about) which were and still is generated by Les Miserable, would have been money paid to Victot Hugo's Estate, if the book was still in copyright?
|
|
|
|
Post by tlt on Aug 4, 2016 17:36:51 GMT
That link was interesting. So it's probable that the paltry £19m (2012 figure) Cameroon Mackintosh has paid in royalties to the RSC (which they're not happy about) which were and still is generated by Les Miserable, would have been money paid to Victot Hugo's Estate, if the book was still in copyright? The RSC would have had to pay the Victor Hugo estate to get the right to make a play out of the book. Cameron Mackintosh would still have to pay the RSC for use of the RSC production. It all depends on the original contracts As it's out of copyright, it's actually still open to anyone to turn the book into a play or musical if there is no proveably same arrangement of ideas as The RSC's Les Miz. Presumably the creators of the show also have a contract licensing the RSC. As a side note to all this: There is a lot of disquiet now about some contracts (not talking about RSC or Cameron Mackintosh but about media and creative trades in general) as corporate lawyers and accountants have caught on that with fast moving technology different platforms may appear in future which nobody has yet thought of. So even if they don't ask for the conpyright, they try to frame contracts which effectively try to grab rights for known and future unknown platforms! Obviously self employed creators and creative unions state that these contracts are unfair. Many refuse to sign or try to amend the wording and negotiate a more specific deal licensing only certain use. But the state copyright tribunal in the UK unfortunately does not deal with individual cases, so unless the creator can cut a deal amicably, s/he often has to have legal insurance or a union taking up cases of unfair contacts and it's hard to battle this as an individual. So if M Hugo was alive he would have negotiated a stage rights' contract. Then a film rights' contract and have another contract for downloadable videos and contracts for any other possible spin offs and products. It's the way creators have traditionally earned their living but for many years now it has been an uphill struggle to prevent copyright and rights' grabs, especially with many folks entering the creative/media professions, eager to get a foothold and not realising what they are signing. |
|
