Copyright (c)

You guys might find this interesting,

nypost.com/2017/03/19/meet-the-fierce-heiresses-wielding-unchecked-power-on-broadway/

The Potter universe is very complicated in terms of copyright.  Rowling has the rights to her creation - but Warner Bros also have a lot of rights based on their interpretation of that world in the films.  So the logo that we all know belongs to Warner Bros - and thus the styling for the stage logo does not reflect the fonts used in the films.

There are other things that were created by Rowling and then re-created by WB that now have some form of dual ownership.  It is a mass of intricate contracts and other legal documents.

Safe to say, people are making money from it all!

It is interesting.

Amateur companies are very hard to nail down, especially when it is only on for several nights, how do you prove that the performing company changed your work? How do you police amateur companies? How would you gather evidence that your work has been changed, for a possible court case? Would you want to sue a amateur company/school. So in short amateur companies have carte blanche to do what they want, but the saving grace here, is it will only be seen by a few people and not critiqued.

But conversely amateur companies can make changes for the good, as what happened with Joseph and the........ that the director introduced a narrator and it just happened that Tim Rice was in the audience, there was no lawsuit here, it became the blueprint for future productions.

I didn't realise that with Harry Potter that character is copyrighted as are all the other characters and place names (like Hogwart) in the book, so you could write a similar book but with different character names and place names, could you write a book Larry Hotter and the magician stone, set at Bogwart and get away with it?

It is wrong that descendants can have such artistic control once the author/composer is deceased, got no problem with them getting royalties - but should lose artistic control once the creator has died. Balance this with pharmaceuticals that can only protect their product for 20 years I read some where. They have to pour millions into development, I understand that the famous Viagra tablet isn't protected anymore, so anyone can replicate it.

I know of a professional company that put on a production of Side By Side By Sondheim and decided to update it by adding a couple of numbers that he'd written since the show was originally created. The rights-holders got wind of it and revoked the rights, and the show closed that night.

Actually I would argue that rights are remarkably straightforward.

You select a play or musical, apply for the rights, negotiate the fee, receive the contract, sign the contract and pay the fee.

That contract will almost certainly say that you must perform the piece as written. Any changes, if permitted, must be approved by the rights company.

Failure to do this can lead to the rights being revoked and for the production company being liable for their own costs.

Is is worth the risk?

Tweaking the odd word here and there won't really get you into too much difficulty. Adding new material or cutting large chunks - well that could lead to trouble.

There are a few exceptions - I believe that the amateur rights to Chess pretty much give you a pile of material and allow you to form the show from it. It is a piece that has never really found a satisfactory form and so there is leeway as to what you include/leave out.

Similarly the most recent release of Grease to the amateur market gave you the option to pay more if you wanted to include certain songs from the film score - numbers like Sandy, You're The One That I Want and Grease is the Word cost you extra. All three are numbers that audiences expect to be in the show - but probably don't know that they were added for the film!

Basically if you want to avoid trouble, choose a piece that you are willing to work on within the terms of the rights contract. Most people won't get caught - but it can be very, very costly if you do.

With the Harry Potter example above, I think that would fall under a slightly different strand of copywright/intellectual property- as in that you've stolen the ideas in all but name- I'm no Lawyer but there's probably a way JK and WB could sue if so inclined. This also relates to issues of fanfiction and other fanworks. Now today the majority of show producers etc are fairly chilled about it as long as people aren't making a major profit, but I remember the days of Anne Rice suing everyone who wrote a vampire story on the internet and having to put a disclaimer on EVERYTHING you wrote about a show even just mini-essays on episodes saying 'these characters aren't mine'...ah the good old day....

The trademark to Harry Potter and the various characters are with Warner Bros so when the books do go into the public domain, if WB still hold the trademarks then no one will legallly be able to use the character's image or insignia or profit from each apart from WB

^Sorry don't know what you mean here?

So 'passing off' is a offence, which you can be fined by a court? Even passing off Harry Potter characters, but with slight alterations to their names, which I mentioned earlier. Good example of "Star Box", but did the owner was forced to change their name because of a court going in Starbucks favour or that the court case would find they didn't do anything wrong, but the threat of ensuing legal costs and precious time it wasn't worth their hassle starting a battle. So essentially a big corporation has used their muscle, to bully a small player?

I see both sides here, but neverless it is very interesting.

I remembered you posted this over a year ago, so good memory there.

Anyway I have been listening to Forbidden Broadway recently and Gerald Alessandri is a genius in what he does, but I am not sure if he cannot be sued though? From my listening it sounds blatant copyright violation, but could it be instead an unwritten rule that you don't sue Forbidden Broadway, as it is seen as a badge of honour to have your your show included?

Do M&S still do those chocolates and sweets that were very clear copies (and probably the same manufacturer) of famous brand names? So it was 'Pelican' choccy biscuits instead of Penguin. 'Breakout' instead of Breakaway, and 'Swiss Mountain' instead of Toblerone.

if that's not 'passing off' I don't know what is! 

More 'passing off'.... back in the days of my youth, Superdrug used to do knock-off men's fragrances with names and packaging very close but not quite the same as the expensive original. Like 'Artemis' (Aramis), 'Solo' (Polo) 'Razz' (Jazz). Oh I used to love nipping into Superdrug at lunchtime and having a squirt of cheap, fake scent, come out smelling like a tarts handbag and have people recoiling and wagging their hands under their noses at the coffee machine in the afternoon. Then when some old bird asked "what on Earth have you put on" I'd squeak "Jazz", lying through my teeth and blushing ha ha   

If you was just getting a sample squirt why didn't you go for the real ones? 

Most of my early trips to Canal St were via a quick trip to Kendals to douse myself in the latest designer scent.