It seems that the only way to protect an artist's work is to copyright it. But the Copyright law only applies to "tangible" items--work that can be measured and documented. What does a stage director do then, when his unique contributions to a production are setting the tone, creating a mood, providing the motivation for its characters? How do you measure these things?
Obviously, you can't. A director's movement and blocking are certainly quantifiable, but tone, atmosphere, concept go unprotected.
So what does a director do to protect him or herself?
This has been a prime concern of directors and of the union which represents them--the Society of Stage Directors and Choreographers. In 1983--a mere 13 years ago--SSDC established the concept of "property rights"--relating it to a director's and/or choreographer's contributions to a production--and successfully negotiated it into the Off-Broadway contract. It has since been negotiated into at least five other collective-bargaining agreements. Still, the issue of protecting directors' rights has not been resolved.
First, there are still many directors who work without a contract during the development process of a play or musical and really have no protection of their directorial input if the production moves on.
But even when a director has worked under a contract, there have been a few cases where rights have been abused:
1.) A case that was settled out of court in February, 1995, centered on the unauthorized use of Peter Gennaro's choreography of "Annie" by tour producers Robert L. Young Associates of Indianapolis, Ind., and Christopher B. Manos of Theatre of the Stars in Atlanta, Ga.
2.) Gerald Gutierrez's direction of Frank Loesser's "The Most Happy Fella" was used without authorization by the Drury Lane Oakbrook Theatre, Ill., when its production ran August through October, 1994. According to the suit, the Drury Lane stage director not only copied Gutierrez's stage directions but also duplicated his reworked elements of the book. This was also settled out of court. (Back Stage, 3/31/95).
3.) Most recently, the director at the Caldwell Theatre Company at Boca Raton, Fla., duplicated Joe Mantello's original staging of Terrence McNally's "Love! Valour! Compassion!" without crediting Mantello. Elements that were Mantello's own creation--not indicated in the playwright's original script--were reportedly copied almost scene by scene (Back Stage, 4/5/96, 4/19/96, and in this week's issue, p. 3). The case is now in court after Caldwell rejected an out-of-court settlement in April.
Our first report on the Caldwell Playhouse situation drew a response from the executive director of the Dramatists Guild, Richard Garmise. If you've been keeping up with Back Stage over the past few weeks, you have been reading "Letters to the Editor" from the lawyers representing "Love! Valour! Compassion!" and "The Most Happy Fella" responding to each other. It's almost as if Back Stage has been conducting its own roundtable discussion on the issue of directors' property rights.
Just to bring you up to date:
On 4/19/96 the Dramatists Guild's Richard Garmise, responding to Back Stage reporter Diane Snyder's article on the Caldwell Theatre situation (4/5/96), writes that "a director has no 'intellectual property' interests in his or her stage directions"; that "there is no 'right' given to directors to control reproduction of their directions under Copyright law"; and concludes with the fact that there is no "no evidence of legal protection and copyright for stage directions."
On 5/3/96, Ronald H. Shechtman, a partner in the firm of Pryor, Cashman, Sherman & Flynn, lawyers to SSDC, responds to Garmise's letter on the issue of property rights. He writes about how the original work of both Gutierrez and Mantello was duplicated, "none of which was obtainable from the script," and asserts that there is a legal remedy despite the fact the Garmise denies there is. He cites the Lanham Act, which "protects artists and others whose work is expropriated and passed off as someone else's," and states that "the Copyright law provides that any "original work of authorship that can be expressed in a recordable form can be registered" and asks Garmise if he's suggesting that stage movement cannot be copyrighted. "As long as it is expressed in a recordable form, it can," Shechtman points out and reminds the reader that the issue must be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Then the lawyer for the director of "The Most Happy Fella" at the Drury Lane, Alan N. Salzenstein, responds to Shechtman in our 6/7/96 issue. Some of his statements include: 1. "The Copyright law is intended to protect the unique expression of an idea and not the idea itself"; 2. "Intangibles are not copyrightable"; 3. "Directors (and others) protect their work contractually, attaching their interests to the future of the play"; 4. He acknowledges Shechtman's idea that issues must be addressed on a case-by-case basis, but notes that "there are clearly differences as to how this issue must be handled"; 5. He acknowledges the importance this issue has for the industry but notes its "potential harmful impacts": producers are afraid to do revivals, "fearful that even the simplest stage movement or action closely associated with a piece could jeopardize them or their theatre."
In this week's issue (p. 4) is a letter responding to Salzenstein from Shechtman, who reiterates his belief that the issue must be addressed on a case-by-case basis; that SSDC has protected only the rights of those directors where more than "atmosphere" was copied; and notes that producers need not fear as long as they're not duplicating original work.
Also in this issue is Diane Snyder's report (p. 3) on the roundtable discussion sponsored by the Stage Directors and Choreographers Foundation and the Drama League, held recently (6/11) at the SDC Foundation office and attended by SSDC Executive Director Barbara Hauptman and Ron Shechtman.
I fully empathize with the directors. They should feel secure that their unique contributions to a show are protected. And if you've been reading our reports, it's hard to believe that the directors doing the copying feel that it is a "common and accepted practice." As Joe Mantello states, "It may be common--it is not acceptable."
Do you have your own ideas on this issue? I'd love to hear them. Write/fax me and let me know your thoughts and I'll share them with our readers. (With your permission, of c