Well, on my latest copyright bent, the Associated Press is gunning for Shepard Fairey for using a press photo without citation for his own profit. Oh wait, what? Shepard Fairey donated the image to the Obama campaign? Which means he hasn't made any money by it?
So the real infringer is... the Obama campaign! Why isn't the AP suing the Obama campaign! Maybe that might actually get politicians to think about the limits on intellectual property.
I would like to point out that, unlike Gone With The Wind or Streetcar Named Desire, the photo Shepard Fairey used would be under copyright even if it was under a Founder's Copyright (7+7). Of course, it would be nice if the AP gave CC-BY rights on their photos, or CC-BY-SA. You know, if they were interested in getting newsworthy photos out there, rather than just being interested in profit.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
How Copyright Hurts Playwrights III: Blanche Survives Hurricane Katrina
Good lord. I could rewrite last night's post WORD FOR WORD and it would almost exactly apply to the one man show Blanche DuBois Survives Hurricane Katrina In A FEMA Trailer Named Desire. Because his show is also illegal theater: the University of the South is threatening to sue.
Now, there's a tiny glimmer of hope for this show, which is that (unlike Architecting) there's an argument that Blanche DuBois... falls under the fair use rights accorded to parody. I have a feeling that's an uphill battle.
And this is a classic example of what I talked about in my first post on How Copyright Hurts Playwrights. Tennessee Williams is one of the big, canonical writers of the 20th Century. And his estate (which, apparently, is the University of the South) is holding back one of the most acclaimed new plays of the 21st. This is a play that swept awards at the Fringe Fest, and got moved to off-Broadway (a rare fate for an off-off-Broadway play).
And it is illegal.
A new generation of criminals.
Now, there's a tiny glimmer of hope for this show, which is that (unlike Architecting) there's an argument that Blanche DuBois... falls under the fair use rights accorded to parody. I have a feeling that's an uphill battle.
And this is a classic example of what I talked about in my first post on How Copyright Hurts Playwrights. Tennessee Williams is one of the big, canonical writers of the 20th Century. And his estate (which, apparently, is the University of the South) is holding back one of the most acclaimed new plays of the 21st. This is a play that swept awards at the Fringe Fest, and got moved to off-Broadway (a rare fate for an off-off-Broadway play).
And it is illegal.
A new generation of criminals.
How Copyright Hurts Playwrights II: Architecting
Copyright breaks my heart sometimes.
I went to P.S. 122 to see a show from a company who I'd seen before. They blew my mind. Their work was up to a new caliber. The show was Architecting, and after glowing reviews from Ben Brantley at the New York Times and anyone else you could ever imagine, it was extended. I saw the wreath of light around it, the excitement, and I noted that the reviews were not merely saying "good show." They were predicting this to be the new wave of American theater.
They were not wrong. The show captured something that is so incredibly difficult to capture. The company is called "Theater of the Emerging American Moment," and I have to say, they did exactly that. They captured the new American Moment. The one of my generation. The George W. Bush world, but in a way that spoke overtly about the present but tied itself into the historical past and the universal future. It spoke specifically about Hurricane Katrina but it was about destruction and rebuilding, about memorials, about destroyed communities. The ravaged South, the Hurricane country, the post-Suburban world.
What a shame that the whole thing was illegal.
Yes! Illegal theater! Banned theater! Theater which, under the law, is not to be done! I was even afraid to name the company involved, afraid to name the theater that is housing them, for fear that the lawyers will swoop in and crush them before the end of their run (February 15th--catch it before then!).
Now, I know what you're thinking. I went to the Czech Republic to hear stories of actually banned theater--Vaclav Havel's plays, or Belarus Free Theater. And of course, the people who are doing this theater have no fear of arrest. They won't find themselves on a 1930s era blacklist.
But it doesn't change that what these people are doing is illegal.
They're pirates. Copyright infringers. The people who make the RIAA sad. Because their work, which taps into historical American moments. Including an iconic historical book. Gone with the Wind.
Woah slow down, man! Did they pay for that Gone With The Wind? Did they get the approval of the estate of the writer?
Well, would the estate of the writer have granted it, even if TEAM had the money to option the stage rights? (any rights on one of America's most iconic classics are an arm and a leg--after all, a Broadway producer might be able to create a full run on Broadway with a classic adaptation of the play) Probably not. It has some very specific and harsh criticisms of the author, the book, the movie. Nothing slanderous, but... well, unless you're a very openminded individual (and not an estate of a dead individual), you might think twice about risking people taking away very strong messages against you.
But whatever the reason, this theater was illegal. It won't go into the historic canon, because there's a very low chance that it'll get published. Plays that only live in performance only live in the minds of the people that saw it, and in reviews that no one reads. Shakespeare is the first great English Playwright partly because he's the first published English Playwright. We remember him today because we still have his words.
This is why copyright breaks my heart. It is unfair that a book written about seventy years ago should force the most amazing play I've seen in the last year to be illegal. It simply breaks my heart.
I am reminded of something that Lawrence Lessig, one of my heroes, says (he's not the only one, and probably not the first, but I got it from him): we've criminalized a generation of kids. At the time, I thought he meant a generation in which music and movie piracy was the norm. But no. He's talking about the future artist/creators, who are growing up in an age where all of the artistic influence is already owned, where an entire century of American Experience is difficult to reference.
To talk about the southern experience without discussing Gone With The Wind would be as difficult as discussing American Government without discussing the Constitution. It's necessary for the cultural dialogue. That's why copyright should only last 7 years, or 7+7 if it's still profitable after the first 7. But 95 years? 95 + life? That's an entire century.
And as I discussed in the previous post, it drives this generation to look further into the past, to try and renovate the old plays--like the illegal theaters of Eastern Europe performing works of Shakespeare because the Bard gave cover for rebellious theater (read Dogg's Hamlet/Cahout's Macbeth by Tom Stoppard to see what I mean). Or they simply break the law, like TEAM did, like I have done in my theater.
And, being illegal, they may vanish forever rather than be preserved. It breaks my heart.
I went to P.S. 122 to see a show from a company who I'd seen before. They blew my mind. Their work was up to a new caliber. The show was Architecting, and after glowing reviews from Ben Brantley at the New York Times and anyone else you could ever imagine, it was extended. I saw the wreath of light around it, the excitement, and I noted that the reviews were not merely saying "good show." They were predicting this to be the new wave of American theater.
They were not wrong. The show captured something that is so incredibly difficult to capture. The company is called "Theater of the Emerging American Moment," and I have to say, they did exactly that. They captured the new American Moment. The one of my generation. The George W. Bush world, but in a way that spoke overtly about the present but tied itself into the historical past and the universal future. It spoke specifically about Hurricane Katrina but it was about destruction and rebuilding, about memorials, about destroyed communities. The ravaged South, the Hurricane country, the post-Suburban world.
What a shame that the whole thing was illegal.
Yes! Illegal theater! Banned theater! Theater which, under the law, is not to be done! I was even afraid to name the company involved, afraid to name the theater that is housing them, for fear that the lawyers will swoop in and crush them before the end of their run (February 15th--catch it before then!).
Now, I know what you're thinking. I went to the Czech Republic to hear stories of actually banned theater--Vaclav Havel's plays, or Belarus Free Theater. And of course, the people who are doing this theater have no fear of arrest. They won't find themselves on a 1930s era blacklist.
But it doesn't change that what these people are doing is illegal.
They're pirates. Copyright infringers. The people who make the RIAA sad. Because their work, which taps into historical American moments. Including an iconic historical book. Gone with the Wind.
Woah slow down, man! Did they pay for that Gone With The Wind? Did they get the approval of the estate of the writer?
Well, would the estate of the writer have granted it, even if TEAM had the money to option the stage rights? (any rights on one of America's most iconic classics are an arm and a leg--after all, a Broadway producer might be able to create a full run on Broadway with a classic adaptation of the play) Probably not. It has some very specific and harsh criticisms of the author, the book, the movie. Nothing slanderous, but... well, unless you're a very openminded individual (and not an estate of a dead individual), you might think twice about risking people taking away very strong messages against you.
But whatever the reason, this theater was illegal. It won't go into the historic canon, because there's a very low chance that it'll get published. Plays that only live in performance only live in the minds of the people that saw it, and in reviews that no one reads. Shakespeare is the first great English Playwright partly because he's the first published English Playwright. We remember him today because we still have his words.
This is why copyright breaks my heart. It is unfair that a book written about seventy years ago should force the most amazing play I've seen in the last year to be illegal. It simply breaks my heart.
I am reminded of something that Lawrence Lessig, one of my heroes, says (he's not the only one, and probably not the first, but I got it from him): we've criminalized a generation of kids. At the time, I thought he meant a generation in which music and movie piracy was the norm. But no. He's talking about the future artist/creators, who are growing up in an age where all of the artistic influence is already owned, where an entire century of American Experience is difficult to reference.
To talk about the southern experience without discussing Gone With The Wind would be as difficult as discussing American Government without discussing the Constitution. It's necessary for the cultural dialogue. That's why copyright should only last 7 years, or 7+7 if it's still profitable after the first 7. But 95 years? 95 + life? That's an entire century.
And as I discussed in the previous post, it drives this generation to look further into the past, to try and renovate the old plays--like the illegal theaters of Eastern Europe performing works of Shakespeare because the Bard gave cover for rebellious theater (read Dogg's Hamlet/Cahout's Macbeth by Tom Stoppard to see what I mean). Or they simply break the law, like TEAM did, like I have done in my theater.
And, being illegal, they may vanish forever rather than be preserved. It breaks my heart.
Soviet Satellites And Their Military Force
One of those undiscussed morsels of news: apparently the former soviet Satellites are forming a new version of the Warsaw Pact. A joint security pact centered in Moscow. This on the heels of Kyrgyzstan's ousting of America's base, but also not long after Russia's invasion of Georgia.
It is, of course, merely Kreminology to speculate on what's going on. But ah, speculation is unfortunately what I'm here for. I would say that Putin has come up with a new way to extend control deeper into its neighboring countries. The mission to "combat terrorism" is what's interesting. Obviously, uprising against the authoritarian governments of Russia and its neighbors (none of the nations involved have a very good track record with democracy themselves) would be terrorism, and thus Putin has carte blanche to combat them directly with his own troops in neighboring nations. And if a government goes off the rails, he can intercede, citing terrorist-sponsoring nations.
Putin's greatest talent has been figuring out how to use former President George W. Bush's stances and policies for his own benefit. Putin has finally figured out how to combine the West's "War on Terror" with the old Warsaw Pact to be able to extend control into his neighbors autonomy.
It is, of course, merely Kreminology to speculate on what's going on. But ah, speculation is unfortunately what I'm here for. I would say that Putin has come up with a new way to extend control deeper into its neighboring countries. The mission to "combat terrorism" is what's interesting. Obviously, uprising against the authoritarian governments of Russia and its neighbors (none of the nations involved have a very good track record with democracy themselves) would be terrorism, and thus Putin has carte blanche to combat them directly with his own troops in neighboring nations. And if a government goes off the rails, he can intercede, citing terrorist-sponsoring nations.
Putin's greatest talent has been figuring out how to use former President George W. Bush's stances and policies for his own benefit. Putin has finally figured out how to combine the West's "War on Terror" with the old Warsaw Pact to be able to extend control into his neighbors autonomy.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Obaminet: Daschle
I didn't really like Daschle when he was a Senate Majority (and then Minority) leader, but I was looking forward to his presence in the Obaminet. Then tax issues were raised--which really put him on par with Timothy Geithner, and I didn't think it would derail it. But then his speaking engagements began to be an issue, and I was torn. I still believe he would have been the best man for the job of creating health care, but as Matthew Yglesias pointed out, it would have pitted Obama's promise of health care against Obama's promise to clean up Washington. And as Lawrence Lessig points out in his Change Congress campaign, it is not enough to get rid of undue influence--we must also clean out the appearance of undue influence. Whether or not Daschle actually made different positions due to his speaking engagements is not the issue--it is bad enough that such implications could exist. Government is to be structured without trust.
I wish Obama was stricter about not putting forward these candidates with taint in the first place, but he hasn't been attempting to shield them (although it sounds like if Daschle hadn't withdrawn he would have defended him). Careful, President Obama.
I wish Obama was stricter about not putting forward these candidates with taint in the first place, but he hasn't been attempting to shield them (although it sounds like if Daschle hadn't withdrawn he would have defended him). Careful, President Obama.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Coyne Defends Dawkins; I Dissent
Jeff Coyne on the attempt to reconcile science and religion.
Andrew Sullivan picks Coyne's the money quote:
Jeff Coyne is correct in stating that Richard Dawkins and other New Athiests write "middle-brow" books because of the common, uncultured religion (if you see Bill Maher's movie Religulous you'll see what sort of religious people are really the target). But those who argue on behalf of a more cultured, philosophical, "high-brow" religion are not arguing in vain. You see, if Dawkins was targeting only fundamentalists, or only the ignorant religious, or only a specific segment of religion, then Coyne's objection would be an adequate defense.
But in my readings of Dawkins (this is actually more true of Hitchens but still seems true of Dawkins) it seems to me that for Dawkins, religion is inherently destructive; that religion is always delusional, that it always fosters hatred and dischord. And if they are trying to argue that all religion is damaging, hateful, etc., then they will have to come to grips with the fact that there are some very smart, reasoned, subtle, liberal traditions of religion as well. Otherwise, what Dawkins is arguing against when he targets religion and religious education is not stupidity, closemindedness, and bigotry inherent in religion, but stupidity, closemindedness, and bigotry that is attached to religion by the human beings who interpret it. The same stupidity, closemindedness, and bigotry that can manifest itself in nationalism (again: Obama's nationalism is not the same as Bush's nationalism) or even economic theory (as Communism/Capitalism proved).
Either Dawkins is targeting religion as a whole, and therefore needs to defend his argument against the intellectual elite of religion, or else he is only targeting ignorant religion, and therefore the burden of proof lies on him to prove that it is religion, and not ignorance.
(I'll quote it again, from Albert Camus:)
Andrew Sullivan picks Coyne's the money quote:
[S]ome theologians with a deistic bent seem to think that they speak for all the faithful. These were the critics who denounced Dawkins and his colleagues for not grappling with every subtle theological argument for the existence of God, for not steeping themselves in the complex history of theology. Dawkins in particular was attacked for writing The God Delusion as a "middlebrow" book. But that misses the point. He did indeed produce a middlebrow book, but precisely because he was discussing religion as it is lived and practiced by real people. The reason that many liberal theologians see religion and evolution as harmonious is that they espouse a theology not only alien but unrecognizable as religion to most Americans.
Jeff Coyne is correct in stating that Richard Dawkins and other New Athiests write "middle-brow" books because of the common, uncultured religion (if you see Bill Maher's movie Religulous you'll see what sort of religious people are really the target). But those who argue on behalf of a more cultured, philosophical, "high-brow" religion are not arguing in vain. You see, if Dawkins was targeting only fundamentalists, or only the ignorant religious, or only a specific segment of religion, then Coyne's objection would be an adequate defense.
But in my readings of Dawkins (this is actually more true of Hitchens but still seems true of Dawkins) it seems to me that for Dawkins, religion is inherently destructive; that religion is always delusional, that it always fosters hatred and dischord. And if they are trying to argue that all religion is damaging, hateful, etc., then they will have to come to grips with the fact that there are some very smart, reasoned, subtle, liberal traditions of religion as well. Otherwise, what Dawkins is arguing against when he targets religion and religious education is not stupidity, closemindedness, and bigotry inherent in religion, but stupidity, closemindedness, and bigotry that is attached to religion by the human beings who interpret it. The same stupidity, closemindedness, and bigotry that can manifest itself in nationalism (again: Obama's nationalism is not the same as Bush's nationalism) or even economic theory (as Communism/Capitalism proved).
Either Dawkins is targeting religion as a whole, and therefore needs to defend his argument against the intellectual elite of religion, or else he is only targeting ignorant religion, and therefore the burden of proof lies on him to prove that it is religion, and not ignorance.
(I'll quote it again, from Albert Camus:)
The narrator is inclined to think that by attributing overimportance to the praiseworthy actions one may, by implication, be paying indirect but potent homage to the worse side of human nature. For this attitude implies that such actions shine out as rare exceptions, while callousness and apathy and the general rule. The narrator does not share this view. The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack understanding. On the whole, men are more good than bad; that, however, isn't the real point. But they are more or less ignorant, and it is this that we call vice or virtue; the most incorrigible vice being that of an ignorance that fancies it knows everything and therefore claims for itself the right to kill. The soul of the murderer is blind; and there can be no true goodness nor true love without the utmost clearsightedness.
How Copyright Hurts Playwrights
I noticed, of late, that it seemed that the Greek playwrights (Sophocles and Euripedes mostly) were making a comeback. I know several friends who now love the Greeks and make it their area of focus. I wondered about that--why in this moment, when we have more writers than ever before, people are looking at plays that are increasingly dated for inspiration. Now, don't get me wrong--they're just as relevant and applicable, and there's no reason why they can't be the right choice--but I wondered why it feels like there's more and more.
I noticed, of late, that it seemed like Ibsen was making a comeback. Hedda Gabbler and Doll's House feel like they're everywhere. Again--no reason why not, but I wondered. Why Hedda Gabler. Why Doll's House.
And then I noticed it about Chekov. There's a high-profile Cherry Orchard and a high-profile Uncle Vanya.
I don't have a lot of statistics in front of me. I wish I could look up and see whether it's true that there's more Chekov, more Ibsen, and more Greek playwrights. More Shakespeare. Maybe even more Gertrude Stein.
Because if so, there's a very simple reason why this would be. Those playwrights are free--they're in the Public Domain.
It's not just about the fees, the royalties, the tracking down of estates. It's also the artistic direction that is becoming more and more a part of running an estate.
A few friends of mine attempted to put on a production of a big musical in which all the characters would be male. The playwright found out, and threatened to sue our school, and was only mollified with a letter of apology. Another playwright was in a similar situation, but no letter of apology would mollify him: only an instant pledge not to produce the play. Students find playwrights like Albee, Beckett, Sondheim, etc. off-limits, unless they can assure the playwrights that the production will be exact.
I go to the Experimental Theater Wing. Our job is to experiment. But for playwrights like Albee, Beckett, Sondheim, and others, there is no room for experimentation. If I want to take an established play and, well, play around with it, I have to go to the classics.
Eventually, many student directors and ensembles realize that it's simply not worth it. The struggle of getting a play that's in copyright onto the stage, fighting with the playwright's intentions, fighting to be able to play around with a text, is not worth it. And why should we, when we can do whatever we want with with Ibsen, Shakespeare, or Gertrude Stein?
There are some playwrights out there who aren't as fanatical as Albee, Beckett, or Sondheim about controlling the artistic production of their plays--who see the responsibility of the production being good as being of the people producing the play--but they wind up being hurt as well. Because we stop looking to fight with them.
It's a pity. But I think the director/ensemble needs leeway to try crazy things, to experiment with a play. Perhaps it's different for a first production, but when you have a play that's already out there? Why control the way the director interprets it? Interpretations reflect on the director, not on the playwright.
I noticed, of late, that it seemed like Ibsen was making a comeback. Hedda Gabbler and Doll's House feel like they're everywhere. Again--no reason why not, but I wondered. Why Hedda Gabler. Why Doll's House.
And then I noticed it about Chekov. There's a high-profile Cherry Orchard and a high-profile Uncle Vanya.
I don't have a lot of statistics in front of me. I wish I could look up and see whether it's true that there's more Chekov, more Ibsen, and more Greek playwrights. More Shakespeare. Maybe even more Gertrude Stein.
Because if so, there's a very simple reason why this would be. Those playwrights are free--they're in the Public Domain.
It's not just about the fees, the royalties, the tracking down of estates. It's also the artistic direction that is becoming more and more a part of running an estate.
A few friends of mine attempted to put on a production of a big musical in which all the characters would be male. The playwright found out, and threatened to sue our school, and was only mollified with a letter of apology. Another playwright was in a similar situation, but no letter of apology would mollify him: only an instant pledge not to produce the play. Students find playwrights like Albee, Beckett, Sondheim, etc. off-limits, unless they can assure the playwrights that the production will be exact.
I go to the Experimental Theater Wing. Our job is to experiment. But for playwrights like Albee, Beckett, Sondheim, and others, there is no room for experimentation. If I want to take an established play and, well, play around with it, I have to go to the classics.
Eventually, many student directors and ensembles realize that it's simply not worth it. The struggle of getting a play that's in copyright onto the stage, fighting with the playwright's intentions, fighting to be able to play around with a text, is not worth it. And why should we, when we can do whatever we want with with Ibsen, Shakespeare, or Gertrude Stein?
There are some playwrights out there who aren't as fanatical as Albee, Beckett, or Sondheim about controlling the artistic production of their plays--who see the responsibility of the production being good as being of the people producing the play--but they wind up being hurt as well. Because we stop looking to fight with them.
It's a pity. But I think the director/ensemble needs leeway to try crazy things, to experiment with a play. Perhaps it's different for a first production, but when you have a play that's already out there? Why control the way the director interprets it? Interpretations reflect on the director, not on the playwright.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)