In response to a postscript I made yesterday on the entry from the day before, Michael Clark asks:
Copyrights are such an “interesting” problem. For community theatre, would still photos of the final set and performers be subject to the whims of the copyright holder of the playwright? Or of the designers for that show? Do you know of a good (or bad) web site that details some of the copyright issues for live theatre?
It is a good set of questions. While I did work for a play publisher and filled out tons of copyright forms, I don’t know of any website that specifically deals with the copyright issues of live theatre. There are a few good ones that deal with copyright in general. The one here deals with visual, audio and digital topics in an easy to understand manner.
In answer to Michael’s specific questions: The playwright really doesn’t have a lot of interests vested in the use of still photos provided you have paid for the performance rights. It might actually be more accurate to say while there are some instances a playwright might have cause for complaint, you are more than likely going to come up against costume and set design issues first. Audio and visual recordings on the other hand, because the action is driven by the playwright’s work will usually require additional permission from the playwright or agent.
In the example Michael gave, the set design is protected by copyright. Costume design is a little tougher according to the United Scenic Artist’s website on copyright. (The link talks about the famous case that established that set design is copyrightable, along with some other design related cases, if you are interested.)
In the case of a photograph, you may need permission of all the people in it to use the photo. Actors’ Equity has guidelines about the use of their member’s images for publicity and at what point additional permission (and payment) needs to be sought. With the advent of viral video like YouTube as a common way to promote shows, I have no idea if the restrictions have or will become looser or stricter. Don’t make the mistake of thinking just because people aren’t members of a union they don’t enjoy protections.
Be aware that with a photo, you need the permission of the photographer to reproduce it. Many photo labs including your local Walmart and Costco will often ask for a signed form if photos look like they are professionally done or if the group in the picture appears to be professionals.
The same is true with video recordings. You not only need clearance from the performers, the designers, the show director and whomever wrote the material being performed, you also need permission from whomever filmed it in order to have it broadcast and reproduced. This is less a factor if you are filming with the intent of broadcasting and everyone involved knows and has signed off on it. But if you decide you want to do something with the footage shot by the kid who has been fooling around with his video camera for the last week, you’re going to need his permission.
With photos and video the choices for lighting, composition, angles, etc all contitute unique artistic decisions which are copyrightable. And every work, once completed is considered copyrighted even if one hasn’t formally filed for it. However, it is easier to defend your copyright if you have filed and created a notice.
Now if you decide to edit raw footage into a commercial, you need the editor’s permission too, because his/her decisions about cuts, transitions, ordering, etc all belong to him/her. You go to have your tape transferred to a format your local television station can use and the lab will definitely ask for clearance forms.
Now if you are organized, you will have let your actors and designers know that at some point during the rehearsal and performance process their work will be used in X formats to promote the show through Y channels and get their permission to do so. You will also get agreements with the folks who are recording, filming and editing that makes it clear what they produce is going to be transmitted by Y channels as well.
You should note, though, that unless the person is an employee of your company, you must have a contract with the creator of a work that specifically says it is a work for hire, else you do not have copyright on the material.
So if you hired someone to shoot footage for a commerical and then later decided to make a retrospective video with snippets from shows over the last 25 years, the person who shot the footage could deny you permission to use it even though you paid him to do the job.
If it is starting to seem like it is not worth trying to promote a show with any work you don’t produce yourself, you begin to see why lawyers get paid a lot to navigate these topics and sue you if you run afoul them. This is EXTREMELY general and not meant to spare the cost of hiring a lawyer. There are a lot of exceptions and nuances. I have seen visual artists specify how their works will be displayed and cared for in a work for hire contract. Such contracts shouldn’t be seen as a way to secure carte blanche to do was you wish with someone’s work.
That said, what really allows the world to keep turning freely is that despite the high profile cases about copyright and intellectual property offenses, most people readily give tacit permission for reasonable use of their image and performance. Of course, this is more true in community theaters where a person’s image, performance or designs aren’t necessarily their livelihood.