Open Forum

Subtitled: The Post that Won't Make Me Many Friends Among the Playwright Community

Jonathan Dorf began an excellent conversation in a separate thread about the importance of compensating playwrights and protecting the integrity of the work, and how to create and sustain a system of accountability to ensure we are all doing the right thing. I'm posting this separately because I don't want to harsh the vibe of that productive and important conversation.

And a disclaimer: I do operate with integrity, pay our royalties, purchase our scripts, and teach a unit each year on copyright law.

I just don't like to.

The more I teach about copyright, the less I like it. Call me anti-capitalist, but it seems like copyright legislation has mutated from its original design - to encourage creativity by ensuring the safety of your ideas - and turned into something more "pay-me-or-else" oriented.

Obviously I'm not speaking to all playwrights, and I hope the writers who don't think that way understand that I'm not throwing shade on them. But in some ways the system seems flawed, and I'm wondering:

1. if I'm the only one who feels that way
2. if there's a way to fix it that doesn't cheat anyone of their due

It burns me to know I'm would be paying more on rights on some shows than they will bring in, so I don't do those shows, and lose the opportunity to do a piece I would love but cannot afford.

It burns me that there are plays I can't even consider, because I teach in a rural, ultra-conservative community, and I'm not able to alter a script with a great story to make it acceptable for the people I live around. (Example: The two-guys scene in "Almost, Maine" would still work as a love story if one role were female.)

Shakespeare gets adapted a million ways, and the script gets hacked to bits, translated, re-ordered, gender-bent, and manipulated in ways that would make the Bard froth at the mouth, but it's public domain so no one cares (unless the show is terrible). We call it "the director's vision," or "a contemporary take on a classic," or whatever. Why can't we do the same with "August, Osage County," or a Mamet play?

I guess I'm asking for perspective, especially from the people who hold tightly to the letter of the law, especially from the playwrights out there who are upset about the way their work is stolen and/or adapted. Is it about the money, or professional pride, or is there something else at stake that I'm not hip to?

I agree with you.  Let me say, I too, want to respect playwright's words and intentions, and I want to pay them for what they've created.  And I have to admit, than in the 25+ years I have been directing, I have slipped a few in that I did not pay for.  Did I feel bad?  Yes, I did, because as a teacher, I preach that you need to give credit where credit is due.  However, the times that I have done it, it was because I had students who desperately wanted to perform and the school gave us nothing--and Shakespeare or other public domain plays are not always an option.  I have dipped into my pocket far too many times to count, and I have gotten to a point where I can no longer do that (except for an occasional pizza party for the kids). 

There are plays I would love to do, but I can't because I can't make edits, or the rights are just too expensive (this is mostly a musical problem).  I would love to do Tennessee Williams, but his plays have to be done down to the letter, including set design and lighting design, and I just can't feasibly do it.  I use Streetcar quite often in my classes, and my kids love it, and I've had several students express interest in performing it--but it is not a possibility.  

I understand that the words are the playwright's vision, and there are some changes that will change the intention of the play, but I really believe that playwright's should be more open to edits and changes--theatre at the high school level is where our future performers, designers and writers are coming from--if they are not exposed to it then, they may never get exposed to it.  Being able to portray Laura in The Glass Menagerie may make a difference in someone's life.  Presenting August, Osage County or Almost Maine, even with edits, may open some eyes and some doors that wouldn't be open without them.  

As a writer of novel adaptions, I encourage director's who perform my shows to change what works for them--every school is different, every director is different--that's the beauty of theatre--you can spend your life only seeing one play, but it will different every time.

Pay playwrights, give them credit.  But playwrights, think of us, the little guys.  

Subtitled: The Post that Won't Make Me Many Friends Among the Playwright Community

Jonathan Dorf began an excellent conversation in a separate thread about the importance of compensating playwrights and protecting the integrity of the work, and how to create and sustain a system of accountability to ensure we are all doing the right thing. I'm posting this separately because I don't want to harsh the vibe of that productive and important conversation.

And a disclaimer: I do operate with integrity, pay our royalties, purchase our scripts, and teach a unit each year on copyright law.

I just don't like to.

The more I teach about copyright, the less I like it. Call me anti-capitalist, but it seems like copyright legislation has mutated from its original design - to encourage creativity by ensuring the safety of your ideas - and turned into something more "pay-me-or-else" oriented.

Obviously I'm not speaking to all playwrights, and I hope the writers who don't think that way understand that I'm not throwing shade on them. But in some ways the system seems flawed, and I'm wondering:

1. if I'm the only one who feels that way
2. if there's a way to fix it that doesn't cheat anyone of their due

It burns me to know I'm would be paying more on rights on some shows than they will bring in, so I don't do those shows, and lose the opportunity to do a piece I would love but cannot afford.

It burns me that there are plays I can't even consider, because I teach in a rural, ultra-conservative community, and I'm not able to alter a script with a great story to make it acceptable for the people I live around. (Example: The two-guys scene in "Almost, Maine" would still work as a love story if one role were female.)

Shakespeare gets adapted a million ways, and the script gets hacked to bits, translated, re-ordered, gender-bent, and manipulated in ways that would make the Bard froth at the mouth, but it's public domain so no one cares (unless the show is terrible). We call it "the director's vision," or "a contemporary take on a classic," or whatever. Why can't we do the same with "August, Osage County," or a Mamet play?

I guess I'm asking for perspective, especially from the people who hold tightly to the letter of the law, especially from the playwrights out there who are upset about the way their work is stolen and/or adapted. Is it about the money, or professional pride, or is there something else at stake that I'm not hip to?

I have a lot to say, so forgive me.

First, an email exchange I had with a student about ten years back. That student wanted to direct a Christmas play of mine, and didn't think he should have to pay the $35 royalty required to stage it. I told him he had to pay, to which he responded, "it's not like you're Shakespeare." I responded. "If it was Shakespeare, you wouldn't have to pay. Shakespeare's dead. I'm not."

If you want to adapt your own play, cut it to bits, alter it, create your own vision, etc... there is 2,400 years worth of material for you. Go for it. You don't even need to pay for that. Heck, you can write your own if you want to. That's what I did. I taught high school and middle school - my budget was zero in the middle school.

On the other hand, if you wish to use material that is not in the public domain, you must pay for it. This isn't a negotiable point. It's actually the law. You are exposing your school to a lawsuit and potential damages of $250,000 if you decide to do a show without paying. (We're far more reasonable than that, of course - no one gets sued, we just mention that and people usually pay up - in particularly troublesome cases a friendly letter to the principal informing them of the potential liability in a lawsuit usually frees up the necessary cash to pay for rights. And it often frees up a spot for a new theatre teacher.)

There are anywhere from 20-30 playwrights making a living in this country. That's about it. Period. If you want art, you need to assign value to it. If you want there to be a playwright capable of taking the time to write the next August: Osage County, then it's important to provide that writer with the ability to make a living. Otherwise, that person goes back to being an accountant, or switches to T.V., or does something else with their life. That next play never gets written. That life-changing role or experience is never created for your actress, or for anyone else.

I find it wholly unconvincing that your actor needs to play a role in my play, but cannot afford to pay for it, and cannot get the same experience playing MacBeth.

Lastly, think of it this way. I make something. If you think it has value, you pay for it. That's how the entire economy works. If I make something and people don't buy it, then it doesn't have value. If I make enough things, and enough people like them, then I can make more things for you. I can afford to keep making those things for you. I can make enough things so that I can afford to feed my children and send them to college. I work so that I can provide for my family.

I agree with you.  Let me say, I too, want to respect playwright's words and intentions, and I want to pay them for what they've created.  And I have to admit, than in the 25+ years I have been directing, I have slipped a few in that I did not pay for.  Did I feel bad?  Yes, I did, because as a teacher, I preach that you need to give credit where credit is due.  However, the times that I have done it, it was because I had students who desperately wanted to perform and the school gave us nothing--and Shakespeare or other public domain plays are not always an option.  I have dipped into my pocket far too many times to count, and I have gotten to a point where I can no longer do that (except for an occasional pizza party for the kids). 

There are plays I would love to do, but I can't because I can't make edits, or the rights are just too expensive (this is mostly a musical problem).  I would love to do Tennessee Williams, but his plays have to be done down to the letter, including set design and lighting design, and I just can't feasibly do it.  I use Streetcar quite often in my classes, and my kids love it, and I've had several students express interest in performing it--but it is not a possibility.  

I understand that the words are the playwright's vision, and there are some changes that will change the intention of the play, but I really believe that playwright's should be more open to edits and changes--theatre at the high school level is where our future performers, designers and writers are coming from--if they are not exposed to it then, they may never get exposed to it.  Being able to portray Laura in The Glass Menagerie may make a difference in someone's life.  Presenting August, Osage County or Almost Maine, even with edits, may open some eyes and some doors that wouldn't be open without them.  

As a writer of novel adaptions, I encourage director's who perform my shows to change what works for them--every school is different, every director is different--that's the beauty of theatre--you can spend your life only seeing one play, but it will different every time.

Pay playwrights, give them credit.  But playwrights, think of us, the little guys.  

Subtitled: The Post that Won't Make Me Many Friends Among the Playwright Community

Jonathan Dorf began an excellent conversation in a separate thread about the importance of compensating playwrights and protecting the integrity of the work, and how to create and sustain a system of accountability to ensure we are all doing the right thing. I'm posting this separately because I don't want to harsh the vibe of that productive and important conversation.

And a disclaimer: I do operate with integrity, pay our royalties, purchase our scripts, and teach a unit each year on copyright law.

I just don't like to.

The more I teach about copyright, the less I like it. Call me anti-capitalist, but it seems like copyright legislation has mutated from its original design - to encourage creativity by ensuring the safety of your ideas - and turned into something more "pay-me-or-else" oriented.

Obviously I'm not speaking to all playwrights, and I hope the writers who don't think that way understand that I'm not throwing shade on them. But in some ways the system seems flawed, and I'm wondering:

1. if I'm the only one who feels that way
2. if there's a way to fix it that doesn't cheat anyone of their due

It burns me to know I'm would be paying more on rights on some shows than they will bring in, so I don't do those shows, and lose the opportunity to do a piece I would love but cannot afford.

It burns me that there are plays I can't even consider, because I teach in a rural, ultra-conservative community, and I'm not able to alter a script with a great story to make it acceptable for the people I live around. (Example: The two-guys scene in "Almost, Maine" would still work as a love story if one role were female.)

Shakespeare gets adapted a million ways, and the script gets hacked to bits, translated, re-ordered, gender-bent, and manipulated in ways that would make the Bard froth at the mouth, but it's public domain so no one cares (unless the show is terrible). We call it "the director's vision," or "a contemporary take on a classic," or whatever. Why can't we do the same with "August, Osage County," or a Mamet play?

I guess I'm asking for perspective, especially from the people who hold tightly to the letter of the law, especially from the playwrights out there who are upset about the way their work is stolen and/or adapted. Is it about the money, or professional pride, or is there something else at stake that I'm not hip to?

I agree with you.  Let me say, I too, want to respect playwright's words and intentions, and I want to pay them for what they've created.  And I have to admit, than in the 25+ years I have been directing, I have slipped a few in that I did not pay for.  Did I feel bad?  Yes, I did, because as a teacher, I preach that you need to give credit where credit is due.  However, the times that I have done it, it was because I had students who desperately wanted to perform and the school gave us nothing--and Shakespeare or other public domain plays are not always an option.  I have dipped into my pocket far too many times to count, and I have gotten to a point where I can no longer do that (except for an occasional pizza party for the kids). 

There are plays I would love to do, but I can't because I can't make edits, or the rights are just too expensive (this is mostly a musical problem).  I would love to do Tennessee Williams, but his plays have to be done down to the letter, including set design and lighting design, and I just can't feasibly do it.  I use Streetcar quite often in my classes, and my kids love it, and I've had several students express interest in performing it--but it is not a possibility.  

I understand that the words are the playwright's vision, and there are some changes that will change the intention of the play, but I really believe that playwright's should be more open to edits and changes--theatre at the high school level is where our future performers, designers and writers are coming from--if they are not exposed to it then, they may never get exposed to it.  Being able to portray Laura in The Glass Menagerie may make a difference in someone's life.  Presenting August, Osage County or Almost Maine, even with edits, may open some eyes and some doors that wouldn't be open without them.  

As a writer of novel adaptions, I encourage director's who perform my shows to change what works for them--every school is different, every director is different--that's the beauty of theatre--you can spend your life only seeing one play, but it will different every time.

Pay playwrights, give them credit.  But playwrights, think of us, the little guys.  

Subtitled: The Post that Won't Make Me Many Friends Among the Playwright Community

Jonathan Dorf began an excellent conversation in a separate thread about the importance of compensating playwrights and protecting the integrity of the work, and how to create and sustain a system of accountability to ensure we are all doing the right thing. I'm posting this separately because I don't want to harsh the vibe of that productive and important conversation.

And a disclaimer: I do operate with integrity, pay our royalties, purchase our scripts, and teach a unit each year on copyright law.

I just don't like to.

The more I teach about copyright, the less I like it. Call me anti-capitalist, but it seems like copyright legislation has mutated from its original design - to encourage creativity by ensuring the safety of your ideas - and turned into something more "pay-me-or-else" oriented.

Obviously I'm not speaking to all playwrights, and I hope the writers who don't think that way understand that I'm not throwing shade on them. But in some ways the system seems flawed, and I'm wondering:

1. if I'm the only one who feels that way
2. if there's a way to fix it that doesn't cheat anyone of their due

It burns me to know I'm would be paying more on rights on some shows than they will bring in, so I don't do those shows, and lose the opportunity to do a piece I would love but cannot afford.

It burns me that there are plays I can't even consider, because I teach in a rural, ultra-conservative community, and I'm not able to alter a script with a great story to make it acceptable for the people I live around. (Example: The two-guys scene in "Almost, Maine" would still work as a love story if one role were female.)

Shakespeare gets adapted a million ways, and the script gets hacked to bits, translated, re-ordered, gender-bent, and manipulated in ways that would make the Bard froth at the mouth, but it's public domain so no one cares (unless the show is terrible). We call it "the director's vision," or "a contemporary take on a classic," or whatever. Why can't we do the same with "August, Osage County," or a Mamet play?

I guess I'm asking for perspective, especially from the people who hold tightly to the letter of the law, especially from the playwrights out there who are upset about the way their work is stolen and/or adapted. Is it about the money, or professional pride, or is there something else at stake that I'm not hip to?

I'm already up way too late and need to drive to Phoenix in the morning for Arizona Thespians, so this post won't be as long as it probably needs to be. Maybe it will be longer at some other time. So just a few points for now:

The plays that are tremendously expensive tend to be well-known plays or musicals concentrated at a few particular companies. Most companies have very reasonable amateur royalties, royalties that have nowhere near kept up with inflation.

Most playwrights--and I know a heck of a lot of them--are incredibly willing to work with a group that needs some cuts/changes to a script. In fact, at YouthPLAYS, I can't remember a playwright ever saying no to a request for a change. Personally, the only time I've ever done it--and I've worked with the group to find a way around it--is when the change fundamentally makes it a different play. I can count those times on probably one hand. (So when you're telling playwrights to remember the little guys, you're talking to virtually no playwright who frequents this forum.)

Playwrights often depend on their royalties to pay the bills. It's not a hobby for many of us, or it's one part of an often complicated income puzzle. A play may take months or even years to complete, and royalties are a way of compensating for all of that time, given that it's not salaried in the way that being a teacher is.

Jennifer, if you'd like to allow your productions to personalize your shows, that's your business. I've occasionally allowed groups to update the geography in Rumors of Polar Bears, for example. But normally the idea is that the text stays the same, and each production interprets the same text based on their understanding of it. The playwright is the creative artist--which is why his/her contribution is legally copyrighted--and the director and actors are interpretative artists, which is why their contribution cannot be.

Josh, in terms of why playwrights get upset when their work is stolen or changed without permission, I'd say it's:
A. The playwright put in the hard work, and he/she owns the product of that work, just like any other property or work product. As much as you might like it to be, it's simply not up to you. Just like you can't decide, "I like that car. I think I'll take it for a drive."
B. Let's face it--there's money involved. I would assume if somebody stole a chunk of your salary on a regular basis, you'd probably not be too thrilled, especially when you couldn't afford to pay for your healthcare or your dinner. There are a small group of playwrights who make a ton of money in royalties (think authors of Broadway musicals), but most of us, not so much.
C. While someone who makes changes to a play may think those changes honor the playwright's intent, unless you've actually heard from the playwright, you don't know, and often there are unintended consequences that you haven't considered, consequences that may make the play "less than." Following that...
D. The playwright's name is still on that play. So if someone makes a change, people who don't know the play will assume that that's what the playwright wrote. And that's the playwright's reputation on the line every single time. Maybe it's in a festival, for example, where other people may see that play and decided whether they're interested in that playwright's work. Personally, if I run into a change that I don't particularly love, but I can live with it, I ask groups to place a note in the program that states that changes have been made permission, but it's possible that certain elements of the play may no longer reflect the playwright's intent. I call it the "cover my a**" clause. Just as I would assume you would rather be thought of as a good teacher than a bad one, and you have certain ideas about what that means, we playwrights do too.

I wish I could think of a pithy summation, but I'm exhausted and need to be up way too soon. Perhaps more will come later.

Regards,
Jonathan

I agree with you.  Let me say, I too, want to respect playwright's words and intentions, and I want to pay them for what they've created.  And I have to admit, than in the 25+ years I have been directing, I have slipped a few in that I did not pay for.  Did I feel bad?  Yes, I did, because as a teacher, I preach that you need to give credit where credit is due.  However, the times that I have done it, it was because I had students who desperately wanted to perform and the school gave us nothing--and Shakespeare or other public domain plays are not always an option.  I have dipped into my pocket far too many times to count, and I have gotten to a point where I can no longer do that (except for an occasional pizza party for the kids). 

There are plays I would love to do, but I can't because I can't make edits, or the rights are just too expensive (this is mostly a musical problem).  I would love to do Tennessee Williams, but his plays have to be done down to the letter, including set design and lighting design, and I just can't feasibly do it.  I use Streetcar quite often in my classes, and my kids love it, and I've had several students express interest in performing it--but it is not a possibility.  

I understand that the words are the playwright's vision, and there are some changes that will change the intention of the play, but I really believe that playwright's should be more open to edits and changes--theatre at the high school level is where our future performers, designers and writers are coming from--if they are not exposed to it then, they may never get exposed to it.  Being able to portray Laura in The Glass Menagerie may make a difference in someone's life.  Presenting August, Osage County or Almost Maine, even with edits, may open some eyes and some doors that wouldn't be open without them.  

As a writer of novel adaptions, I encourage director's who perform my shows to change what works for them--every school is different, every director is different--that's the beauty of theatre--you can spend your life only seeing one play, but it will different every time.

Pay playwrights, give them credit.  But playwrights, think of us, the little guys.  

Subtitled: The Post that Won't Make Me Many Friends Among the Playwright Community

Jonathan Dorf began an excellent conversation in a separate thread about the importance of compensating playwrights and protecting the integrity of the work, and how to create and sustain a system of accountability to ensure we are all doing the right thing. I'm posting this separately because I don't want to harsh the vibe of that productive and important conversation.

And a disclaimer: I do operate with integrity, pay our royalties, purchase our scripts, and teach a unit each year on copyright law.

I just don't like to.

The more I teach about copyright, the less I like it. Call me anti-capitalist, but it seems like copyright legislation has mutated from its original design - to encourage creativity by ensuring the safety of your ideas - and turned into something more "pay-me-or-else" oriented.

Obviously I'm not speaking to all playwrights, and I hope the writers who don't think that way understand that I'm not throwing shade on them. But in some ways the system seems flawed, and I'm wondering:

1. if I'm the only one who feels that way
2. if there's a way to fix it that doesn't cheat anyone of their due

It burns me to know I'm would be paying more on rights on some shows than they will bring in, so I don't do those shows, and lose the opportunity to do a piece I would love but cannot afford.

It burns me that there are plays I can't even consider, because I teach in a rural, ultra-conservative community, and I'm not able to alter a script with a great story to make it acceptable for the people I live around. (Example: The two-guys scene in "Almost, Maine" would still work as a love story if one role were female.)

Shakespeare gets adapted a million ways, and the script gets hacked to bits, translated, re-ordered, gender-bent, and manipulated in ways that would make the Bard froth at the mouth, but it's public domain so no one cares (unless the show is terrible). We call it "the director's vision," or "a contemporary take on a classic," or whatever. Why can't we do the same with "August, Osage County," or a Mamet play?

I guess I'm asking for perspective, especially from the people who hold tightly to the letter of the law, especially from the playwrights out there who are upset about the way their work is stolen and/or adapted. Is it about the money, or professional pride, or is there something else at stake that I'm not hip to?

I'm quoting Mr. Dorf here (loved the plays of yours that I've produced, by the way; 4 AM is fantastic) to speak to this particular point, simply because I don't get this argument against the royalties myself.

Perhaps I've been in a fortunate position, but in my nine years teach here at RCHS, I've managed to produce eight musicals, and they've all been a) well known, and b) reasonably priced.  

Perhaps the funding I've received has been generous enough -- we're given seed money from the school board every year, and that usually pays for about a third of the royalties/rentals on a given musical -- but I've been surprised when I hear how expensive particular titles are, and then when I'm given a quote how it has always followed the same pricing structure.  

We've produced from Tams-Witmark, Music Theatre, and Samuel French -- and I've got a line on a Rogers and Hammerstien for this year, and they've all been roughly $2,500-$3,000 to get the musical in the door, but those prices have always been subject to 1) our ticket prices (we do a flat $7 advance/$10 door across the board; no senior, student, or child discount), and 2) our seating capacity (max capacity in our auditorium is 350 -- and that's packed to the gills; but we usually quote 320 or so to the publishers, as we remove about two rows to accommodate our lack of an actual Pit).

At those pricing structures, with our expected ticket sales, we're generally self-sustaining, and make the in-the-door costs back, with the remaining third that the school board covers covering the costs of each successive year's physical production (costume, makeup, set pieces, etc.).

I realize that a roughly $3,000-$4,000 budget is luxury to some, but that's generally what we're talking about, keeping in mind that those royalty quotes are dependent on the size of our house and our ticket pricing.

It all seems terribly reasonable to me.  As far as the youth production houses for one-acts and such (YouthPLAYS, TheatreFolk, Playscripts, etc.), those pricing structures are phenomenally reasonable.  If the rights/funding argument doesn't work on your administration, then it really boils down to a philosophical argument over why they want a Drama program to begin with.  And what admin won't provide, then turn to parents/the community to supplement, if they value the program -- if a given one-act or full-length play from one of the youth production houses can fit your community's needs, you're reasonably talking $150-$200 maximum to get that in the door, and you can easily start making ten times that by following all the rules.  (Our first year under my tenure, we did Dan O'Brien's The Disappearance of Daniel Hand from Playscripts with a wonderful approval process on content changes as well; we ended up with the seed money to do Little Shop of Horrors the following year, as our first musical in ten years, and our first under my tenure.)

Hope this helps.

I'm already up way too late and need to drive to Phoenix in the morning for Arizona Thespians, so this post won't be as long as it probably needs to be. Maybe it will be longer at some other time. So just a few points for now:

The plays that are tremendously expensive tend to be well-known plays or musicals concentrated at a few particular companies. Most companies have very reasonable amateur royalties, royalties that have nowhere near kept up with inflation.

Most playwrights--and I know a heck of a lot of them--are incredibly willing to work with a group that needs some cuts/changes to a script. In fact, at YouthPLAYS, I can't remember a playwright ever saying no to a request for a change. Personally, the only time I've ever done it--and I've worked with the group to find a way around it--is when the change fundamentally makes it a different play. I can count those times on probably one hand. (So when you're telling playwrights to remember the little guys, you're talking to virtually no playwright who frequents this forum.)

Playwrights often depend on their royalties to pay the bills. It's not a hobby for many of us, or it's one part of an often complicated income puzzle. A play may take months or even years to complete, and royalties are a way of compensating for all of that time, given that it's not salaried in the way that being a teacher is.

Jennifer, if you'd like to allow your productions to personalize your shows, that's your business. I've occasionally allowed groups to update the geography in Rumors of Polar Bears, for example. But normally the idea is that the text stays the same, and each production interprets the same text based on their understanding of it. The playwright is the creative artist--which is why his/her contribution is legally copyrighted--and the director and actors are interpretative artists, which is why their contribution cannot be.

Josh, in terms of why playwrights get upset when their work is stolen or changed without permission, I'd say it's:
A. The playwright put in the hard work, and he/she owns the product of that work, just like any other property or work product. As much as you might like it to be, it's simply not up to you. Just like you can't decide, "I like that car. I think I'll take it for a drive."
B. Let's face it--there's money involved. I would assume if somebody stole a chunk of your salary on a regular basis, you'd probably not be too thrilled, especially when you couldn't afford to pay for your healthcare or your dinner. There are a small group of playwrights who make a ton of money in royalties (think authors of Broadway musicals), but most of us, not so much.
C. While someone who makes changes to a play may think those changes honor the playwright's intent, unless you've actually heard from the playwright, you don't know, and often there are unintended consequences that you haven't considered, consequences that may make the play "less than." Following that...
D. The playwright's name is still on that play. So if someone makes a change, people who don't know the play will assume that that's what the playwright wrote. And that's the playwright's reputation on the line every single time. Maybe it's in a festival, for example, where other people may see that play and decided whether they're interested in that playwright's work. Personally, if I run into a change that I don't particularly love, but I can live with it, I ask groups to place a note in the program that states that changes have been made permission, but it's possible that certain elements of the play may no longer reflect the playwright's intent. I call it the "cover my a**" clause. Just as I would assume you would rather be thought of as a good teacher than a bad one, and you have certain ideas about what that means, we playwrights do too.

I wish I could think of a pithy summation, but I'm exhausted and need to be up way too soon. Perhaps more will come later.

Regards,
Jonathan

I agree with you.  Let me say, I too, want to respect playwright's words and intentions, and I want to pay them for what they've created.  And I have to admit, than in the 25+ years I have been directing, I have slipped a few in that I did not pay for.  Did I feel bad?  Yes, I did, because as a teacher, I preach that you need to give credit where credit is due.  However, the times that I have done it, it was because I had students who desperately wanted to perform and the school gave us nothing--and Shakespeare or other public domain plays are not always an option.  I have dipped into my pocket far too many times to count, and I have gotten to a point where I can no longer do that (except for an occasional pizza party for the kids). 

There are plays I would love to do, but I can't because I can't make edits, or the rights are just too expensive (this is mostly a musical problem).  I would love to do Tennessee Williams, but his plays have to be done down to the letter, including set design and lighting design, and I just can't feasibly do it.  I use Streetcar quite often in my classes, and my kids love it, and I've had several students express interest in performing it--but it is not a possibility.  

I understand that the words are the playwright's vision, and there are some changes that will change the intention of the play, but I really believe that playwright's should be more open to edits and changes--theatre at the high school level is where our future performers, designers and writers are coming from--if they are not exposed to it then, they may never get exposed to it.  Being able to portray Laura in The Glass Menagerie may make a difference in someone's life.  Presenting August, Osage County or Almost Maine, even with edits, may open some eyes and some doors that wouldn't be open without them.  

As a writer of novel adaptions, I encourage director's who perform my shows to change what works for them--every school is different, every director is different--that's the beauty of theatre--you can spend your life only seeing one play, but it will different every time.

Pay playwrights, give them credit.  But playwrights, think of us, the little guys.  

Subtitled: The Post that Won't Make Me Many Friends Among the Playwright Community

Jonathan Dorf began an excellent conversation in a separate thread about the importance of compensating playwrights and protecting the integrity of the work, and how to create and sustain a system of accountability to ensure we are all doing the right thing. I'm posting this separately because I don't want to harsh the vibe of that productive and important conversation.

And a disclaimer: I do operate with integrity, pay our royalties, purchase our scripts, and teach a unit each year on copyright law.

I just don't like to.

The more I teach about copyright, the less I like it. Call me anti-capitalist, but it seems like copyright legislation has mutated from its original design - to encourage creativity by ensuring the safety of your ideas - and turned into something more "pay-me-or-else" oriented.

Obviously I'm not speaking to all playwrights, and I hope the writers who don't think that way understand that I'm not throwing shade on them. But in some ways the system seems flawed, and I'm wondering:

1. if I'm the only one who feels that way
2. if there's a way to fix it that doesn't cheat anyone of their due

It burns me to know I'm would be paying more on rights on some shows than they will bring in, so I don't do those shows, and lose the opportunity to do a piece I would love but cannot afford.

It burns me that there are plays I can't even consider, because I teach in a rural, ultra-conservative community, and I'm not able to alter a script with a great story to make it acceptable for the people I live around. (Example: The two-guys scene in "Almost, Maine" would still work as a love story if one role were female.)

Shakespeare gets adapted a million ways, and the script gets hacked to bits, translated, re-ordered, gender-bent, and manipulated in ways that would make the Bard froth at the mouth, but it's public domain so no one cares (unless the show is terrible). We call it "the director's vision," or "a contemporary take on a classic," or whatever. Why can't we do the same with "August, Osage County," or a Mamet play?

I guess I'm asking for perspective, especially from the people who hold tightly to the letter of the law, especially from the playwrights out there who are upset about the way their work is stolen and/or adapted. Is it about the money, or professional pride, or is there something else at stake that I'm not hip to?

$2500-3000 is a lot for me .  Right now, the school that I'm working in--all I have is $100.00.  Granted, they haven't had a program in awhile, and I am in the process of rebuilding.  I only have six kids.  They are great, but they are not ready for Shakespeare.  I am not producing a play right now because I can't afford one.  We're doing some fundraising first.  $3,000, for me, is an entire's year's budget if not two years, and has been as long as I've been teaching.  I have looked at public domain plays, and frankly, many of them do not "speak" to me as a director, and if I don't love it, I can't direct it.  

Should we always pay, yes, and there are many play companies that will work with you, but there are some that won't.  And most authors are more than willing to work with you, but some are not.  And frankly, playing Laura in Glass Menagerie is far different than playing Lady Macbeth.  

I do want to honor playwrights and publishers, but I have never been able to afford a musical from Tams-Witmark for example, and I've had students desperately want to do them, as have I.  Musicals make far more money than straight plays, but I can't afford them, most of the time.  

Why am I still rambling?  I believe there can and should be exceptions, with permission.  

And in terms of my own work, I do want to get paid for it, however, if someone came to me and said they wanted to produce it but didn't have the money to pay for it, I'd let them.  I'd rather see it produced.  However, I do not make my living as a playwright, so I can see the reasoning.

I'm quoting Mr. Dorf here (loved the plays of yours that I've produced, by the way; 4 AM is fantastic) to speak to this particular point, simply because I don't get this argument against the royalties myself.

Perhaps I've been in a fortunate position, but in my nine years teach here at RCHS, I've managed to produce eight musicals, and they've all been a) well known, and b) reasonably priced.  

Perhaps the funding I've received has been generous enough -- we're given seed money from the school board every year, and that usually pays for about a third of the royalties/rentals on a given musical -- but I've been surprised when I hear how expensive particular titles are, and then when I'm given a quote how it has always followed the same pricing structure.  

We've produced from Tams-Witmark, Music Theatre, and Samuel French -- and I've got a line on a Rogers and Hammerstien for this year, and they've all been roughly $2,500-$3,000 to get the musical in the door, but those prices have always been subject to 1) our ticket prices (we do a flat $7 advance/$10 door across the board; no senior, student, or child discount), and 2) our seating capacity (max capacity in our auditorium is 350 -- and that's packed to the gills; but we usually quote 320 or so to the publishers, as we remove about two rows to accommodate our lack of an actual Pit).

At those pricing structures, with our expected ticket sales, we're generally self-sustaining, and make the in-the-door costs back, with the remaining third that the school board covers covering the costs of each successive year's physical production (costume, makeup, set pieces, etc.).

I realize that a roughly $3,000-$4,000 budget is luxury to some, but that's generally what we're talking about, keeping in mind that those royalty quotes are dependent on the size of our house and our ticket pricing.

It all seems terribly reasonable to me.  As far as the youth production houses for one-acts and such (YouthPLAYS, TheatreFolk, Playscripts, etc.), those pricing structures are phenomenally reasonable.  If the rights/funding argument doesn't work on your administration, then it really boils down to a philosophical argument over why they want a Drama program to begin with.  And what admin won't provide, then turn to parents/the community to supplement, if they value the program -- if a given one-act or full-length play from one of the youth production houses can fit your community's needs, you're reasonably talking $150-$200 maximum to get that in the door, and you can easily start making ten times that by following all the rules.  (Our first year under my tenure, we did Dan O'Brien's The Disappearance of Daniel Hand from Playscripts with a wonderful approval process on content changes as well; we ended up with the seed money to do Little Shop of Horrors the following year, as our first musical in ten years, and our first under my tenure.)

Hope this helps.

I'm already up way too late and need to drive to Phoenix in the morning for Arizona Thespians, so this post won't be as long as it probably needs to be. Maybe it will be longer at some other time. So just a few points for now:

The plays that are tremendously expensive tend to be well-known plays or musicals concentrated at a few particular companies. Most companies have very reasonable amateur royalties, royalties that have nowhere near kept up with inflation.

Most playwrights--and I know a heck of a lot of them--are incredibly willing to work with a group that needs some cuts/changes to a script. In fact, at YouthPLAYS, I can't remember a playwright ever saying no to a request for a change. Personally, the only time I've ever done it--and I've worked with the group to find a way around it--is when the change fundamentally makes it a different play. I can count those times on probably one hand. (So when you're telling playwrights to remember the little guys, you're talking to virtually no playwright who frequents this forum.)

Playwrights often depend on their royalties to pay the bills. It's not a hobby for many of us, or it's one part of an often complicated income puzzle. A play may take months or even years to complete, and royalties are a way of compensating for all of that time, given that it's not salaried in the way that being a teacher is.

Jennifer, if you'd like to allow your productions to personalize your shows, that's your business. I've occasionally allowed groups to update the geography in Rumors of Polar Bears, for example. But normally the idea is that the text stays the same, and each production interprets the same text based on their understanding of it. The playwright is the creative artist--which is why his/her contribution is legally copyrighted--and the director and actors are interpretative artists, which is why their contribution cannot be.

Josh, in terms of why playwrights get upset when their work is stolen or changed without permission, I'd say it's:
A. The playwright put in the hard work, and he/she owns the product of that work, just like any other property or work product. As much as you might like it to be, it's simply not up to you. Just like you can't decide, "I like that car. I think I'll take it for a drive."
B. Let's face it--there's money involved. I would assume if somebody stole a chunk of your salary on a regular basis, you'd probably not be too thrilled, especially when you couldn't afford to pay for your healthcare or your dinner. There are a small group of playwrights who make a ton of money in royalties (think authors of Broadway musicals), but most of us, not so much.
C. While someone who makes changes to a play may think those changes honor the playwright's intent, unless you've actually heard from the playwright, you don't know, and often there are unintended consequences that you haven't considered, consequences that may make the play "less than." Following that...
D. The playwright's name is still on that play. So if someone makes a change, people who don't know the play will assume that that's what the playwright wrote. And that's the playwright's reputation on the line every single time. Maybe it's in a festival, for example, where other people may see that play and decided whether they're interested in that playwright's work. Personally, if I run into a change that I don't particularly love, but I can live with it, I ask groups to place a note in the program that states that changes have been made permission, but it's possible that certain elements of the play may no longer reflect the playwright's intent. I call it the "cover my a**" clause. Just as I would assume you would rather be thought of as a good teacher than a bad one, and you have certain ideas about what that means, we playwrights do too.

I wish I could think of a pithy summation, but I'm exhausted and need to be up way too soon. Perhaps more will come later.

Regards,
Jonathan

I agree with you.  Let me say, I too, want to respect playwright's words and intentions, and I want to pay them for what they've created.  And I have to admit, than in the 25+ years I have been directing, I have slipped a few in that I did not pay for.  Did I feel bad?  Yes, I did, because as a teacher, I preach that you need to give credit where credit is due.  However, the times that I have done it, it was because I had students who desperately wanted to perform and the school gave us nothing--and Shakespeare or other public domain plays are not always an option.  I have dipped into my pocket far too many times to count, and I have gotten to a point where I can no longer do that (except for an occasional pizza party for the kids). 

There are plays I would love to do, but I can't because I can't make edits, or the rights are just too expensive (this is mostly a musical problem).  I would love to do Tennessee Williams, but his plays have to be done down to the letter, including set design and lighting design, and I just can't feasibly do it.  I use Streetcar quite often in my classes, and my kids love it, and I've had several students express interest in performing it--but it is not a possibility.  

I understand that the words are the playwright's vision, and there are some changes that will change the intention of the play, but I really believe that playwright's should be more open to edits and changes--theatre at the high school level is where our future performers, designers and writers are coming from--if they are not exposed to it then, they may never get exposed to it.  Being able to portray Laura in The Glass Menagerie may make a difference in someone's life.  Presenting August, Osage County or Almost Maine, even with edits, may open some eyes and some doors that wouldn't be open without them.  

As a writer of novel adaptions, I encourage director's who perform my shows to change what works for them--every school is different, every director is different--that's the beauty of theatre--you can spend your life only seeing one play, but it will different every time.

Pay playwrights, give them credit.  But playwrights, think of us, the little guys.  

Subtitled: The Post that Won't Make Me Many Friends Among the Playwright Community

Jonathan Dorf began an excellent conversation in a separate thread about the importance of compensating playwrights and protecting the integrity of the work, and how to create and sustain a system of accountability to ensure we are all doing the right thing. I'm posting this separately because I don't want to harsh the vibe of that productive and important conversation.

And a disclaimer: I do operate with integrity, pay our royalties, purchase our scripts, and teach a unit each year on copyright law.

I just don't like to.

The more I teach about copyright, the less I like it. Call me anti-capitalist, but it seems like copyright legislation has mutated from its original design - to encourage creativity by ensuring the safety of your ideas - and turned into something more "pay-me-or-else" oriented.

Obviously I'm not speaking to all playwrights, and I hope the writers who don't think that way understand that I'm not throwing shade on them. But in some ways the system seems flawed, and I'm wondering:

1. if I'm the only one who feels that way
2. if there's a way to fix it that doesn't cheat anyone of their due

It burns me to know I'm would be paying more on rights on some shows than they will bring in, so I don't do those shows, and lose the opportunity to do a piece I would love but cannot afford.

It burns me that there are plays I can't even consider, because I teach in a rural, ultra-conservative community, and I'm not able to alter a script with a great story to make it acceptable for the people I live around. (Example: The two-guys scene in "Almost, Maine" would still work as a love story if one role were female.)

Shakespeare gets adapted a million ways, and the script gets hacked to bits, translated, re-ordered, gender-bent, and manipulated in ways that would make the Bard froth at the mouth, but it's public domain so no one cares (unless the show is terrible). We call it "the director's vision," or "a contemporary take on a classic," or whatever. Why can't we do the same with "August, Osage County," or a Mamet play?

I guess I'm asking for perspective, especially from the people who hold tightly to the letter of the law, especially from the playwrights out there who are upset about the way their work is stolen and/or adapted. Is it about the money, or professional pride, or is there something else at stake that I'm not hip to?

I'm quoting Mr. Dorf here (loved the plays of yours that I've produced, by the way; 4 AM is fantastic) to speak to this particular point, simply because I don't get this argument against the royalties myself.

Perhaps I've been in a fortunate position, but in my nine years teach here at RCHS, I've managed to produce eight musicals, and they've all been a) well known, and b) reasonably priced.  

Perhaps the funding I've received has been generous enough -- we're given seed money from the school board every year, and that usually pays for about a third of the royalties/rentals on a given musical -- but I've been surprised when I hear how expensive particular titles are, and then when I'm given a quote how it has always followed the same pricing structure.  

We've produced from Tams-Witmark, Music Theatre, and Samuel French -- and I've got a line on a Rogers and Hammerstien for this year, and they've all been roughly $2,500-$3,000 to get the musical in the door, but those prices have always been subject to 1) our ticket prices (we do a flat $7 advance/$10 door across the board; no senior, student, or child discount), and 2) our seating capacity (max capacity in our auditorium is 350 -- and that's packed to the gills; but we usually quote 320 or so to the publishers, as we remove about two rows to accommodate our lack of an actual Pit).

At those pricing structures, with our expected ticket sales, we're generally self-sustaining, and make the in-the-door costs back, with the remaining third that the school board covers covering the costs of each successive year's physical production (costume, makeup, set pieces, etc.).

I realize that a roughly $3,000-$4,000 budget is luxury to some, but that's generally what we're talking about, keeping in mind that those royalty quotes are dependent on the size of our house and our ticket pricing.

It all seems terribly reasonable to me.  As far as the youth production houses for one-acts and such (YouthPLAYS, TheatreFolk, Playscripts, etc.), those pricing structures are phenomenally reasonable.  If the rights/funding argument doesn't work on your administration, then it really boils down to a philosophical argument over why they want a Drama program to begin with.  And what admin won't provide, then turn to parents/the community to supplement, if they value the program -- if a given one-act or full-length play from one of the youth production houses can fit your community's needs, you're reasonably talking $150-$200 maximum to get that in the door, and you can easily start making ten times that by following all the rules.  (Our first year under my tenure, we did Dan O'Brien's The Disappearance of Daniel Hand from Playscripts with a wonderful approval process on content changes as well; we ended up with the seed money to do Little Shop of Horrors the following year, as our first musical in ten years, and our first under my tenure.)

Hope this helps.

I'm already up way too late and need to drive to Phoenix in the morning for Arizona Thespians, so this post won't be as long as it probably needs to be. Maybe it will be longer at some other time. So just a few points for now:

The plays that are tremendously expensive tend to be well-known plays or musicals concentrated at a few particular companies. Most companies have very reasonable amateur royalties, royalties that have nowhere near kept up with inflation.

Most playwrights--and I know a heck of a lot of them--are incredibly willing to work with a group that needs some cuts/changes to a script. In fact, at YouthPLAYS, I can't remember a playwright ever saying no to a request for a change. Personally, the only time I've ever done it--and I've worked with the group to find a way around it--is when the change fundamentally makes it a different play. I can count those times on probably one hand. (So when you're telling playwrights to remember the little guys, you're talking to virtually no playwright who frequents this forum.)

Playwrights often depend on their royalties to pay the bills. It's not a hobby for many of us, or it's one part of an often complicated income puzzle. A play may take months or even years to complete, and royalties are a way of compensating for all of that time, given that it's not salaried in the way that being a teacher is.

Jennifer, if you'd like to allow your productions to personalize your shows, that's your business. I've occasionally allowed groups to update the geography in Rumors of Polar Bears, for example. But normally the idea is that the text stays the same, and each production interprets the same text based on their understanding of it. The playwright is the creative artist--which is why his/her contribution is legally copyrighted--and the director and actors are interpretative artists, which is why their contribution cannot be.

Josh, in terms of why playwrights get upset when their work is stolen or changed without permission, I'd say it's:
A. The playwright put in the hard work, and he/she owns the product of that work, just like any other property or work product. As much as you might like it to be, it's simply not up to you. Just like you can't decide, "I like that car. I think I'll take it for a drive."
B. Let's face it--there's money involved. I would assume if somebody stole a chunk of your salary on a regular basis, you'd probably not be too thrilled, especially when you couldn't afford to pay for your healthcare or your dinner. There are a small group of playwrights who make a ton of money in royalties (think authors of Broadway musicals), but most of us, not so much.
C. While someone who makes changes to a play may think those changes honor the playwright's intent, unless you've actually heard from the playwright, you don't know, and often there are unintended consequences that you haven't considered, consequences that may make the play "less than." Following that...
D. The playwright's name is still on that play. So if someone makes a change, people who don't know the play will assume that that's what the playwright wrote. And that's the playwright's reputation on the line every single time. Maybe it's in a festival, for example, where other people may see that play and decided whether they're interested in that playwright's work. Personally, if I run into a change that I don't particularly love, but I can live with it, I ask groups to place a note in the program that states that changes have been made permission, but it's possible that certain elements of the play may no longer reflect the playwright's intent. I call it the "cover my a**" clause. Just as I would assume you would rather be thought of as a good teacher than a bad one, and you have certain ideas about what that means, we playwrights do too.

I wish I could think of a pithy summation, but I'm exhausted and need to be up way too soon. Perhaps more will come later.

Regards,
Jonathan

I agree with you.  Let me say, I too, want to respect playwright's words and intentions, and I want to pay them for what they've created.  And I have to admit, than in the 25+ years I have been directing, I have slipped a few in that I did not pay for.  Did I feel bad?  Yes, I did, because as a teacher, I preach that you need to give credit where credit is due.  However, the times that I have done it, it was because I had students who desperately wanted to perform and the school gave us nothing--and Shakespeare or other public domain plays are not always an option.  I have dipped into my pocket far too many times to count, and I have gotten to a point where I can no longer do that (except for an occasional pizza party for the kids). 

There are plays I would love to do, but I can't because I can't make edits, or the rights are just too expensive (this is mostly a musical problem).  I would love to do Tennessee Williams, but his plays have to be done down to the letter, including set design and lighting design, and I just can't feasibly do it.  I use Streetcar quite often in my classes, and my kids love it, and I've had several students express interest in performing it--but it is not a possibility.  

I understand that the words are the playwright's vision, and there are some changes that will change the intention of the play, but I really believe that playwright's should be more open to edits and changes--theatre at the high school level is where our future performers, designers and writers are coming from--if they are not exposed to it then, they may never get exposed to it.  Being able to portray Laura in The Glass Menagerie may make a difference in someone's life.  Presenting August, Osage County or Almost Maine, even with edits, may open some eyes and some doors that wouldn't be open without them.  

As a writer of novel adaptions, I encourage director's who perform my shows to change what works for them--every school is different, every director is different--that's the beauty of theatre--you can spend your life only seeing one play, but it will different every time.

Pay playwrights, give them credit.  But playwrights, think of us, the little guys.  

Subtitled: The Post that Won't Make Me Many Friends Among the Playwright Community

Jonathan Dorf began an excellent conversation in a separate thread about the importance of compensating playwrights and protecting the integrity of the work, and how to create and sustain a system of accountability to ensure we are all doing the right thing. I'm posting this separately because I don't want to harsh the vibe of that productive and important conversation.

And a disclaimer: I do operate with integrity, pay our royalties, purchase our scripts, and teach a unit each year on copyright law.

I just don't like to.

The more I teach about copyright, the less I like it. Call me anti-capitalist, but it seems like copyright legislation has mutated from its original design - to encourage creativity by ensuring the safety of your ideas - and turned into something more "pay-me-or-else" oriented.

Obviously I'm not speaking to all playwrights, and I hope the writers who don't think that way understand that I'm not throwing shade on them. But in some ways the system seems flawed, and I'm wondering:

1. if I'm the only one who feels that way
2. if there's a way to fix it that doesn't cheat anyone of their due

It burns me to know I'm would be paying more on rights on some shows than they will bring in, so I don't do those shows, and lose the opportunity to do a piece I would love but cannot afford.

It burns me that there are plays I can't even consider, because I teach in a rural, ultra-conservative community, and I'm not able to alter a script with a great story to make it acceptable for the people I live around. (Example: The two-guys scene in "Almost, Maine" would still work as a love story if one role were female.)

Shakespeare gets adapted a million ways, and the script gets hacked to bits, translated, re-ordered, gender-bent, and manipulated in ways that would make the Bard froth at the mouth, but it's public domain so no one cares (unless the show is terrible). We call it "the director's vision," or "a contemporary take on a classic," or whatever. Why can't we do the same with "August, Osage County," or a Mamet play?

I guess I'm asking for perspective, especially from the people who hold tightly to the letter of the law, especially from the playwrights out there who are upset about the way their work is stolen and/or adapted. Is it about the money, or professional pride, or is there something else at stake that I'm not hip to?

This is specifically a reply to Russell about musical rights:

Our house seats around 1,400 people. Do that many people come to our musicals? No. It was built large in case of indoor graduations, for beginning of the year convocation with the whole district, and for rentals. We can sell MAYBE 800 seats if we do the right show. But we get charged for 1,400 seats by publishers, meaning we can be charged anywhere from $2,000-$10,000 depending on the show we want to do. So ticket prices must be high to respond accordingly. Which means we get fewer audience members sometimes. It's a vicious cycle: we choose a show that people will see regardless of tickets price since we're being charged HUGE amounts of money even though we will probably NEVER sell 1400 tickets to any show because we need to make back the money we paid for rights AND need to make a little money to fund the rest of our season.

I stopped doing shows at the community theatre in my hometown in South Texas because I found out they weren't paying royalties on shows unless it was an MTI musical, and even then not always. That made me angry. We MUST pay these artists.

I just wish there was a way to make some shows more reasonably priced for high schools despite house size and still adequately compensate the writers. 

I'm quoting Mr. Dorf here (loved the plays of yours that I've produced, by the way; 4 AM is fantastic) to speak to this particular point, simply because I don't get this argument against the royalties myself.

Perhaps I've been in a fortunate position, but in my nine years teach here at RCHS, I've managed to produce eight musicals, and they've all been a) well known, and b) reasonably priced.  

Perhaps the funding I've received has been generous enough -- we're given seed money from the school board every year, and that usually pays for about a third of the royalties/rentals on a given musical -- but I've been surprised when I hear how expensive particular titles are, and then when I'm given a quote how it has always followed the same pricing structure.  

We've produced from Tams-Witmark, Music Theatre, and Samuel French -- and I've got a line on a Rogers and Hammerstien for this year, and they've all been roughly $2,500-$3,000 to get the musical in the door, but those prices have always been subject to 1) our ticket prices (we do a flat $7 advance/$10 door across the board; no senior, student, or child discount), and 2) our seating capacity (max capacity in our auditorium is 350 -- and that's packed to the gills; but we usually quote 320 or so to the publishers, as we remove about two rows to accommodate our lack of an actual Pit).

At those pricing structures, with our expected ticket sales, we're generally self-sustaining, and make the in-the-door costs back, with the remaining third that the school board covers covering the costs of each successive year's physical production (costume, makeup, set pieces, etc.).

I realize that a roughly $3,000-$4,000 budget is luxury to some, but that's generally what we're talking about, keeping in mind that those royalty quotes are dependent on the size of our house and our ticket pricing.

It all seems terribly reasonable to me.  As far as the youth production houses for one-acts and such (YouthPLAYS, TheatreFolk, Playscripts, etc.), those pricing structures are phenomenally reasonable.  If the rights/funding argument doesn't work on your administration, then it really boils down to a philosophical argument over why they want a Drama program to begin with.  And what admin won't provide, then turn to parents/the community to supplement, if they value the program -- if a given one-act or full-length play from one of the youth production houses can fit your community's needs, you're reasonably talking $150-$200 maximum to get that in the door, and you can easily start making ten times that by following all the rules.  (Our first year under my tenure, we did Dan O'Brien's The Disappearance of Daniel Hand from Playscripts with a wonderful approval process on content changes as well; we ended up with the seed money to do Little Shop of Horrors the following year, as our first musical in ten years, and our first under my tenure.)

Hope this helps.

I'm already up way too late and need to drive to Phoenix in the morning for Arizona Thespians, so this post won't be as long as it probably needs to be. Maybe it will be longer at some other time. So just a few points for now:

The plays that are tremendously expensive tend to be well-known plays or musicals concentrated at a few particular companies. Most companies have very reasonable amateur royalties, royalties that have nowhere near kept up with inflation.

Most playwrights--and I know a heck of a lot of them--are incredibly willing to work with a group that needs some cuts/changes to a script. In fact, at YouthPLAYS, I can't remember a playwright ever saying no to a request for a change. Personally, the only time I've ever done it--and I've worked with the group to find a way around it--is when the change fundamentally makes it a different play. I can count those times on probably one hand. (So when you're telling playwrights to remember the little guys, you're talking to virtually no playwright who frequents this forum.)

Playwrights often depend on their royalties to pay the bills. It's not a hobby for many of us, or it's one part of an often complicated income puzzle. A play may take months or even years to complete, and royalties are a way of compensating for all of that time, given that it's not salaried in the way that being a teacher is.

Jennifer, if you'd like to allow your productions to personalize your shows, that's your business. I've occasionally allowed groups to update the geography in Rumors of Polar Bears, for example. But normally the idea is that the text stays the same, and each production interprets the same text based on their understanding of it. The playwright is the creative artist--which is why his/her contribution is legally copyrighted--and the director and actors are interpretative artists, which is why their contribution cannot be.

Josh, in terms of why playwrights get upset when their work is stolen or changed without permission, I'd say it's:
A. The playwright put in the hard work, and he/she owns the product of that work, just like any other property or work product. As much as you might like it to be, it's simply not up to you. Just like you can't decide, "I like that car. I think I'll take it for a drive."
B. Let's face it--there's money involved. I would assume if somebody stole a chunk of your salary on a regular basis, you'd probably not be too thrilled, especially when you couldn't afford to pay for your healthcare or your dinner. There are a small group of playwrights who make a ton of money in royalties (think authors of Broadway musicals), but most of us, not so much.
C. While someone who makes changes to a play may think those changes honor the playwright's intent, unless you've actually heard from the playwright, you don't know, and often there are unintended consequences that you haven't considered, consequences that may make the play "less than." Following that...
D. The playwright's name is still on that play. So if someone makes a change, people who don't know the play will assume that that's what the playwright wrote. And that's the playwright's reputation on the line every single time. Maybe it's in a festival, for example, where other people may see that play and decided whether they're interested in that playwright's work. Personally, if I run into a change that I don't particularly love, but I can live with it, I ask groups to place a note in the program that states that changes have been made permission, but it's possible that certain elements of the play may no longer reflect the playwright's intent. I call it the "cover my a**" clause. Just as I would assume you would rather be thought of as a good teacher than a bad one, and you have certain ideas about what that means, we playwrights do too.

I wish I could think of a pithy summation, but I'm exhausted and need to be up way too soon. Perhaps more will come later.

Regards,
Jonathan

I agree with you.  Let me say, I too, want to respect playwright's words and intentions, and I want to pay them for what they've created.  And I have to admit, than in the 25+ years I have been directing, I have slipped a few in that I did not pay for.  Did I feel bad?  Yes, I did, because as a teacher, I preach that you need to give credit where credit is due.  However, the times that I have done it, it was because I had students who desperately wanted to perform and the school gave us nothing--and Shakespeare or other public domain plays are not always an option.  I have dipped into my pocket far too many times to count, and I have gotten to a point where I can no longer do that (except for an occasional pizza party for the kids). 

There are plays I would love to do, but I can't because I can't make edits, or the rights are just too expensive (this is mostly a musical problem).  I would love to do Tennessee Williams, but his plays have to be done down to the letter, including set design and lighting design, and I just can't feasibly do it.  I use Streetcar quite often in my classes, and my kids love it, and I've had several students express interest in performing it--but it is not a possibility.  

I understand that the words are the playwright's vision, and there are some changes that will change the intention of the play, but I really believe that playwright's should be more open to edits and changes--theatre at the high school level is where our future performers, designers and writers are coming from--if they are not exposed to it then, they may never get exposed to it.  Being able to portray Laura in The Glass Menagerie may make a difference in someone's life.  Presenting August, Osage County or Almost Maine, even with edits, may open some eyes and some doors that wouldn't be open without them.  

As a writer of novel adaptions, I encourage director's who perform my shows to change what works for them--every school is different, every director is different--that's the beauty of theatre--you can spend your life only seeing one play, but it will different every time.

Pay playwrights, give them credit.  But playwrights, think of us, the little guys.  

Subtitled: The Post that Won't Make Me Many Friends Among the Playwright Community

Jonathan Dorf began an excellent conversation in a separate thread about the importance of compensating playwrights and protecting the integrity of the work, and how to create and sustain a system of accountability to ensure we are all doing the right thing. I'm posting this separately because I don't want to harsh the vibe of that productive and important conversation.

And a disclaimer: I do operate with integrity, pay our royalties, purchase our scripts, and teach a unit each year on copyright law.

I just don't like to.

The more I teach about copyright, the less I like it. Call me anti-capitalist, but it seems like copyright legislation has mutated from its original design - to encourage creativity by ensuring the safety of your ideas - and turned into something more "pay-me-or-else" oriented.

Obviously I'm not speaking to all playwrights, and I hope the writers who don't think that way understand that I'm not throwing shade on them. But in some ways the system seems flawed, and I'm wondering:

1. if I'm the only one who feels that way
2. if there's a way to fix it that doesn't cheat anyone of their due

It burns me to know I'm would be paying more on rights on some shows than they will bring in, so I don't do those shows, and lose the opportunity to do a piece I would love but cannot afford.

It burns me that there are plays I can't even consider, because I teach in a rural, ultra-conservative community, and I'm not able to alter a script with a great story to make it acceptable for the people I live around. (Example: The two-guys scene in "Almost, Maine" would still work as a love story if one role were female.)

Shakespeare gets adapted a million ways, and the script gets hacked to bits, translated, re-ordered, gender-bent, and manipulated in ways that would make the Bard froth at the mouth, but it's public domain so no one cares (unless the show is terrible). We call it "the director's vision," or "a contemporary take on a classic," or whatever. Why can't we do the same with "August, Osage County," or a Mamet play?

I guess I'm asking for perspective, especially from the people who hold tightly to the letter of the law, especially from the playwrights out there who are upset about the way their work is stolen and/or adapted. Is it about the money, or professional pride, or is there something else at stake that I'm not hip to?

Our house seats around 1,400 people. Do that many people come to our musicals? No. It was built large in case of indoor graduations, for beginning of the year convocation with the whole district, and for rentals. We can sell MAYBE 800 seats if we do the right show. But we get charged for 1,400 seats by publishers, meaning we can be charged anywhere from $2,000-$10,000 depending on the show we want to do. So ticket prices must be high to respond accordingly.

Fair enough.  I guess the blessing of a small house is the relative distribution of sell-through on tickets.  But don't the vendors price according to expected attendance?  I never quote a sell-out when I request royalties, because we've had maybe three or so sell-out audiences on our musicals.  They always ask a) size of the venue, and b) expected sell-through.  I believe the pricing's based on the latter, but I'm not sure.

I truly sympathize -- to musical or not to musical is a big consideration for any Drama Club; and the pricing based on expected profits seems like a gamble for everyone involved.

This is specifically a reply to Russell about musical rights:

Our house seats around 1,400 people. Do that many people come to our musicals? No. It was built large in case of indoor graduations, for beginning of the year convocation with the whole district, and for rentals. We can sell MAYBE 800 seats if we do the right show. But we get charged for 1,400 seats by publishers, meaning we can be charged anywhere from $2,000-$10,000 depending on the show we want to do. So ticket prices must be high to respond accordingly. Which means we get fewer audience members sometimes. It's a vicious cycle: we choose a show that people will see regardless of tickets price since we're being charged HUGE amounts of money even though we will probably NEVER sell 1400 tickets to any show because we need to make back the money we paid for rights AND need to make a little money to fund the rest of our season.

I stopped doing shows at the community theatre in my hometown in South Texas because I found out they weren't paying royalties on shows unless it was an MTI musical, and even then not always. That made me angry. We MUST pay these artists.

I just wish there was a way to make some shows more reasonably priced for high schools despite house size and still adequately compensate the writers. 

I'm quoting Mr. Dorf here (loved the plays of yours that I've produced, by the way; 4 AM is fantastic) to speak to this particular point, simply because I don't get this argument against the royalties myself.

Perhaps I've been in a fortunate position, but in my nine years teach here at RCHS, I've managed to produce eight musicals, and they've all been a) well known, and b) reasonably priced.  

Perhaps the funding I've received has been generous enough -- we're given seed money from the school board every year, and that usually pays for about a third of the royalties/rentals on a given musical -- but I've been surprised when I hear how expensive particular titles are, and then when I'm given a quote how it has always followed the same pricing structure.  

We've produced from Tams-Witmark, Music Theatre, and Samuel French -- and I've got a line on a Rogers and Hammerstien for this year, and they've all been roughly $2,500-$3,000 to get the musical in the door, but those prices have always been subject to 1) our ticket prices (we do a flat $7 advance/$10 door across the board; no senior, student, or child discount), and 2) our seating capacity (max capacity in our auditorium is 350 -- and that's packed to the gills; but we usually quote 320 or so to the publishers, as we remove about two rows to accommodate our lack of an actual Pit).

At those pricing structures, with our expected ticket sales, we're generally self-sustaining, and make the in-the-door costs back, with the remaining third that the school board covers covering the costs of each successive year's physical production (costume, makeup, set pieces, etc.).

I realize that a roughly $3,000-$4,000 budget is luxury to some, but that's generally what we're talking about, keeping in mind that those royalty quotes are dependent on the size of our house and our ticket pricing.

It all seems terribly reasonable to me.  As far as the youth production houses for one-acts and such (YouthPLAYS, TheatreFolk, Playscripts, etc.), those pricing structures are phenomenally reasonable.  If the rights/funding argument doesn't work on your administration, then it really boils down to a philosophical argument over why they want a Drama program to begin with.  And what admin won't provide, then turn to parents/the community to supplement, if they value the program -- if a given one-act or full-length play from one of the youth production houses can fit your community's needs, you're reasonably talking $150-$200 maximum to get that in the door, and you can easily start making ten times that by following all the rules.  (Our first year under my tenure, we did Dan O'Brien's The Disappearance of Daniel Hand from Playscripts with a wonderful approval process on content changes as well; we ended up with the seed money to do Little Shop of Horrors the following year, as our first musical in ten years, and our first under my tenure.)

Hope this helps.

I'm already up way too late and need to drive to Phoenix in the morning for Arizona Thespians, so this post won't be as long as it probably needs to be. Maybe it will be longer at some other time. So just a few points for now:

The plays that are tremendously expensive tend to be well-known plays or musicals concentrated at a few particular companies. Most companies have very reasonable amateur royalties, royalties that have nowhere near kept up with inflation.

Most playwrights--and I know a heck of a lot of them--are incredibly willing to work with a group that needs some cuts/changes to a script. In fact, at YouthPLAYS, I can't remember a playwright ever saying no to a request for a change. Personally, the only time I've ever done it--and I've worked with the group to find a way around it--is when the change fundamentally makes it a different play. I can count those times on probably one hand. (So when you're telling playwrights to remember the little guys, you're talking to virtually no playwright who frequents this forum.)

Playwrights often depend on their royalties to pay the bills. It's not a hobby for many of us, or it's one part of an often complicated income puzzle. A play may take months or even years to complete, and royalties are a way of compensating for all of that time, given that it's not salaried in the way that being a teacher is.

Jennifer, if you'd like to allow your productions to personalize your shows, that's your business. I've occasionally allowed groups to update the geography in Rumors of Polar Bears, for example. But normally the idea is that the text stays the same, and each production interprets the same text based on their understanding of it. The playwright is the creative artist--which is why his/her contribution is legally copyrighted--and the director and actors are interpretative artists, which is why their contribution cannot be.

Josh, in terms of why playwrights get upset when their work is stolen or changed without permission, I'd say it's:
A. The playwright put in the hard work, and he/she owns the product of that work, just like any other property or work product. As much as you might like it to be, it's simply not up to you. Just like you can't decide, "I like that car. I think I'll take it for a drive."
B. Let's face it--there's money involved. I would assume if somebody stole a chunk of your salary on a regular basis, you'd probably not be too thrilled, especially when you couldn't afford to pay for your healthcare or your dinner. There are a small group of playwrights who make a ton of money in royalties (think authors of Broadway musicals), but most of us, not so much.
C. While someone who makes changes to a play may think those changes honor the playwright's intent, unless you've actually heard from the playwright, you don't know, and often there are unintended consequences that you haven't considered, consequences that may make the play "less than." Following that...
D. The playwright's name is still on that play. So if someone makes a change, people who don't know the play will assume that that's what the playwright wrote. And that's the playwright's reputation on the line every single time. Maybe it's in a festival, for example, where other people may see that play and decided whether they're interested in that playwright's work. Personally, if I run into a change that I don't particularly love, but I can live with it, I ask groups to place a note in the program that states that changes have been made permission, but it's possible that certain elements of the play may no longer reflect the playwright's intent. I call it the "cover my a**" clause. Just as I would assume you would rather be thought of as a good teacher than a bad one, and you have certain ideas about what that means, we playwrights do too.

I wish I could think of a pithy summation, but I'm exhausted and need to be up way too soon. Perhaps more will come later.

Regards,
Jonathan

I agree with you.  Let me say, I too, want to respect playwright's words and intentions, and I want to pay them for what they've created.  And I have to admit, than in the 25+ years I have been directing, I have slipped a few in that I did not pay for.  Did I feel bad?  Yes, I did, because as a teacher, I preach that you need to give credit where credit is due.  However, the times that I have done it, it was because I had students who desperately wanted to perform and the school gave us nothing--and Shakespeare or other public domain plays are not always an option.  I have dipped into my pocket far too many times to count, and I have gotten to a point where I can no longer do that (except for an occasional pizza party for the kids). 

There are plays I would love to do, but I can't because I can't make edits, or the rights are just too expensive (this is mostly a musical problem).  I would love to do Tennessee Williams, but his plays have to be done down to the letter, including set design and lighting design, and I just can't feasibly do it.  I use Streetcar quite often in my classes, and my kids love it, and I've had several students express interest in performing it--but it is not a possibility.  

I understand that the words are the playwright's vision, and there are some changes that will change the intention of the play, but I really believe that playwright's should be more open to edits and changes--theatre at the high school level is where our future performers, designers and writers are coming from--if they are not exposed to it then, they may never get exposed to it.  Being able to portray Laura in The Glass Menagerie may make a difference in someone's life.  Presenting August, Osage County or Almost Maine, even with edits, may open some eyes and some doors that wouldn't be open without them.  

As a writer of novel adaptions, I encourage director's who perform my shows to change what works for them--every school is different, every director is different--that's the beauty of theatre--you can spend your life only seeing one play, but it will different every time.

Pay playwrights, give them credit.  But playwrights, think of us, the little guys.  

Subtitled: The Post that Won't Make Me Many Friends Among the Playwright Community

Jonathan Dorf began an excellent conversation in a separate thread about the importance of compensating playwrights and protecting the integrity of the work, and how to create and sustain a system of accountability to ensure we are all doing the right thing. I'm posting this separately because I don't want to harsh the vibe of that productive and important conversation.

And a disclaimer: I do operate with integrity, pay our royalties, purchase our scripts, and teach a unit each year on copyright law.

I just don't like to.

The more I teach about copyright, the less I like it. Call me anti-capitalist, but it seems like copyright legislation has mutated from its original design - to encourage creativity by ensuring the safety of your ideas - and turned into something more "pay-me-or-else" oriented.

Obviously I'm not speaking to all playwrights, and I hope the writers who don't think that way understand that I'm not throwing shade on them. But in some ways the system seems flawed, and I'm wondering:

1. if I'm the only one who feels that way
2. if there's a way to fix it that doesn't cheat anyone of their due

It burns me to know I'm would be paying more on rights on some shows than they will bring in, so I don't do those shows, and lose the opportunity to do a piece I would love but cannot afford.

It burns me that there are plays I can't even consider, because I teach in a rural, ultra-conservative community, and I'm not able to alter a script with a great story to make it acceptable for the people I live around. (Example: The two-guys scene in "Almost, Maine" would still work as a love story if one role were female.)

Shakespeare gets adapted a million ways, and the script gets hacked to bits, translated, re-ordered, gender-bent, and manipulated in ways that would make the Bard froth at the mouth, but it's public domain so no one cares (unless the show is terrible). We call it "the director's vision," or "a contemporary take on a classic," or whatever. Why can't we do the same with "August, Osage County," or a Mamet play?

I guess I'm asking for perspective, especially from the people who hold tightly to the letter of the law, especially from the playwrights out there who are upset about the way their work is stolen and/or adapted. Is it about the money, or professional pride, or is there something else at stake that I'm not hip to?

We get charged based on house size, even though we tell then our expected attendance is much lower. So we have to balance passion projects with lucrative ones. Godspell wasn't very expensive for royalties, but it also didn't sell more then maybe 400 tickets a night. Probably less than that, really. But we made money since the upfront cost wasn't much, and our costumes were provided by the kids.

Beauty and the Beast was EXTREMELY expensive upfront, but had really big crowds. 

But neither show sold out. So we paid for the empty seats upfront for both shows, which is a big flaw in the current system. 

Our house seats around 1,400 people. Do that many people come to our musicals? No. It was built large in case of indoor graduations, for beginning of the year convocation with the whole district, and for rentals. We can sell MAYBE 800 seats if we do the right show. But we get charged for 1,400 seats by publishers, meaning we can be charged anywhere from $2,000-$10,000 depending on the show we want to do. So ticket prices must be high to respond accordingly.

Fair enough.  I guess the blessing of a small house is the relative distribution of sell-through on tickets.  But don't the vendors price according to expected attendance?  I never quote a sell-out when I request royalties, because we've had maybe three or so sell-out audiences on our musicals.  They always ask a) size of the venue, and b) expected sell-through.  I believe the pricing's based on the latter, but I'm not sure.

I truly sympathize -- to musical or not to musical is a big consideration for any Drama Club; and the pricing based on expected profits seems like a gamble for everyone involved.

This is specifically a reply to Russell about musical rights:

Our house seats around 1,400 people. Do that many people come to our musicals? No. It was built large in case of indoor graduations, for beginning of the year convocation with the whole district, and for rentals. We can sell MAYBE 800 seats if we do the right show. But we get charged for 1,400 seats by publishers, meaning we can be charged anywhere from $2,000-$10,000 depending on the show we want to do. So ticket prices must be high to respond accordingly. Which means we get fewer audience members sometimes. It's a vicious cycle: we choose a show that people will see regardless of tickets price since we're being charged HUGE amounts of money even though we will probably NEVER sell 1400 tickets to any show because we need to make back the money we paid for rights AND need to make a little money to fund the rest of our season.

I stopped doing shows at the community theatre in my hometown in South Texas because I found out they weren't paying royalties on shows unless it was an MTI musical, and even then not always. That made me angry. We MUST pay these artists.

I just wish there was a way to make some shows more reasonably priced for high schools despite house size and still adequately compensate the writers. 

I'm quoting Mr. Dorf here (loved the plays of yours that I've produced, by the way; 4 AM is fantastic) to speak to this particular point, simply because I don't get this argument against the royalties myself.

Perhaps I've been in a fortunate position, but in my nine years teach here at RCHS, I've managed to produce eight musicals, and they've all been a) well known, and b) reasonably priced.  

Perhaps the funding I've received has been generous enough -- we're given seed money from the school board every year, and that usually pays for about a third of the royalties/rentals on a given musical -- but I've been surprised when I hear how expensive particular titles are, and then when I'm given a quote how it has always followed the same pricing structure.  

We've produced from Tams-Witmark, Music Theatre, and Samuel French -- and I've got a line on a Rogers and Hammerstien for this year, and they've all been roughly $2,500-$3,000 to get the musical in the door, but those prices have always been subject to 1) our ticket prices (we do a flat $7 advance/$10 door across the board; no senior, student, or child discount), and 2) our seating capacity (max capacity in our auditorium is 350 -- and that's packed to the gills; but we usually quote 320 or so to the publishers, as we remove about two rows to accommodate our lack of an actual Pit).

At those pricing structures, with our expected ticket sales, we're generally self-sustaining, and make the in-the-door costs back, with the remaining third that the school board covers covering the costs of each successive year's physical production (costume, makeup, set pieces, etc.).

I realize that a roughly $3,000-$4,000 budget is luxury to some, but that's generally what we're talking about, keeping in mind that those royalty quotes are dependent on the size of our house and our ticket pricing.

It all seems terribly reasonable to me.  As far as the youth production houses for one-acts and such (YouthPLAYS, TheatreFolk, Playscripts, etc.), those pricing structures are phenomenally reasonable.  If the rights/funding argument doesn't work on your administration, then it really boils down to a philosophical argument over why they want a Drama program to begin with.  And what admin won't provide, then turn to parents/the community to supplement, if they value the program -- if a given one-act or full-length play from one of the youth production houses can fit your community's needs, you're reasonably talking $150-$200 maximum to get that in the door, and you can easily start making ten times that by following all the rules.  (Our first year under my tenure, we did Dan O'Brien's The Disappearance of Daniel Hand from Playscripts with a wonderful approval process on content changes as well; we ended up with the seed money to do Little Shop of Horrors the following year, as our first musical in ten years, and our first under my tenure.)

Hope this helps.

I'm already up way too late and need to drive to Phoenix in the morning for Arizona Thespians, so this post won't be as long as it probably needs to be. Maybe it will be longer at some other time. So just a few points for now:

The plays that are tremendously expensive tend to be well-known plays or musicals concentrated at a few particular companies. Most companies have very reasonable amateur royalties, royalties that have nowhere near kept up with inflation.

Most playwrights--and I know a heck of a lot of them--are incredibly willing to work with a group that needs some cuts/changes to a script. In fact, at YouthPLAYS, I can't remember a playwright ever saying no to a request for a change. Personally, the only time I've ever done it--and I've worked with the group to find a way around it--is when the change fundamentally makes it a different play. I can count those times on probably one hand. (So when you're telling playwrights to remember the little guys, you're talking to virtually no playwright who frequents this forum.)

Playwrights often depend on their royalties to pay the bills. It's not a hobby for many of us, or it's one part of an often complicated income puzzle. A play may take months or even years to complete, and royalties are a way of compensating for all of that time, given that it's not salaried in the way that being a teacher is.

Jennifer, if you'd like to allow your productions to personalize your shows, that's your business. I've occasionally allowed groups to update the geography in Rumors of Polar Bears, for example. But normally the idea is that the text stays the same, and each production interprets the same text based on their understanding of it. The playwright is the creative artist--which is why his/her contribution is legally copyrighted--and the director and actors are interpretative artists, which is why their contribution cannot be.

Josh, in terms of why playwrights get upset when their work is stolen or changed without permission, I'd say it's:
A. The playwright put in the hard work, and he/she owns the product of that work, just like any other property or work product. As much as you might like it to be, it's simply not up to you. Just like you can't decide, "I like that car. I think I'll take it for a drive."
B. Let's face it--there's money involved. I would assume if somebody stole a chunk of your salary on a regular basis, you'd probably not be too thrilled, especially when you couldn't afford to pay for your healthcare or your dinner. There are a small group of playwrights who make a ton of money in royalties (think authors of Broadway musicals), but most of us, not so much.
C. While someone who makes changes to a play may think those changes honor the playwright's intent, unless you've actually heard from the playwright, you don't know, and often there are unintended consequences that you haven't considered, consequences that may make the play "less than." Following that...
D. The playwright's name is still on that play. So if someone makes a change, people who don't know the play will assume that that's what the playwright wrote. And that's the playwright's reputation on the line every single time. Maybe it's in a festival, for example, where other people may see that play and decided whether they're interested in that playwright's work. Personally, if I run into a change that I don't particularly love, but I can live with it, I ask groups to place a note in the program that states that changes have been made permission, but it's possible that certain elements of the play may no longer reflect the playwright's intent. I call it the "cover my a**" clause. Just as I would assume you would rather be thought of as a good teacher than a bad one, and you have certain ideas about what that means, we playwrights do too.

I wish I could think of a pithy summation, but I'm exhausted and need to be up way too soon. Perhaps more will come later.

Regards,
Jonathan

I agree with you.  Let me say, I too, want to respect playwright's words and intentions, and I want to pay them for what they've created.  And I have to admit, than in the 25+ years I have been directing, I have slipped a few in that I did not pay for.  Did I feel bad?  Yes, I did, because as a teacher, I preach that you need to give credit where credit is due.  However, the times that I have done it, it was because I had students who desperately wanted to perform and the school gave us nothing--and Shakespeare or other public domain plays are not always an option.  I have dipped into my pocket far too many times to count, and I have gotten to a point where I can no longer do that (except for an occasional pizza party for the kids). 

There are plays I would love to do, but I can't because I can't make edits, or the rights are just too expensive (this is mostly a musical problem).  I would love to do Tennessee Williams, but his plays have to be done down to the letter, including set design and lighting design, and I just can't feasibly do it.  I use Streetcar quite often in my classes, and my kids love it, and I've had several students express interest in performing it--but it is not a possibility.  

I understand that the words are the playwright's vision, and there are some changes that will change the intention of the play, but I really believe that playwright's should be more open to edits and changes--theatre at the high school level is where our future performers, designers and writers are coming from--if they are not exposed to it then, they may never get exposed to it.  Being able to portray Laura in The Glass Menagerie may make a difference in someone's life.  Presenting August, Osage County or Almost Maine, even with edits, may open some eyes and some doors that wouldn't be open without them.  

As a writer of novel adaptions, I encourage director's who perform my shows to change what works for them--every school is different, every director is different--that's the beauty of theatre--you can spend your life only seeing one play, but it will different every time.

Pay playwrights, give them credit.  But playwrights, think of us, the little guys.  

Subtitled: The Post that Won't Make Me Many Friends Among the Playwright Community

Jonathan Dorf began an excellent conversation in a separate thread about the importance of compensating playwrights and protecting the integrity of the work, and how to create and sustain a system of accountability to ensure we are all doing the right thing. I'm posting this separately because I don't want to harsh the vibe of that productive and important conversation.

And a disclaimer: I do operate with integrity, pay our royalties, purchase our scripts, and teach a unit each year on copyright law.

I just don't like to.

The more I teach about copyright, the less I like it. Call me anti-capitalist, but it seems like copyright legislation has mutated from its original design - to encourage creativity by ensuring the safety of your ideas - and turned into something more "pay-me-or-else" oriented.

Obviously I'm not speaking to all playwrights, and I hope the writers who don't think that way understand that I'm not throwing shade on them. But in some ways the system seems flawed, and I'm wondering:

1. if I'm the only one who feels that way
2. if there's a way to fix it that doesn't cheat anyone of their due

It burns me to know I'm would be paying more on rights on some shows than they will bring in, so I don't do those shows, and lose the opportunity to do a piece I would love but cannot afford.

It burns me that there are plays I can't even consider, because I teach in a rural, ultra-conservative community, and I'm not able to alter a script with a great story to make it acceptable for the people I live around. (Example: The two-guys scene in "Almost, Maine" would still work as a love story if one role were female.)

Shakespeare gets adapted a million ways, and the script gets hacked to bits, translated, re-ordered, gender-bent, and manipulated in ways that would make the Bard froth at the mouth, but it's public domain so no one cares (unless the show is terrible). We call it "the director's vision," or "a contemporary take on a classic," or whatever. Why can't we do the same with "August, Osage County," or a Mamet play?

I guess I'm asking for perspective, especially from the people who hold tightly to the letter of the law, especially from the playwrights out there who are upset about the way their work is stolen and/or adapted. Is it about the money, or professional pride, or is there something else at stake that I'm not hip to?

This is specifically a reply to Russell about musical rights:

Our house seats around 1,400 people. Do that many people come to our musicals? No. It was built large in case of indoor graduations, for beginning of the year convocation with the whole district, and for rentals. We can sell MAYBE 800 seats if we do the right show. But we get charged for 1,400 seats by publishers, meaning we can be charged anywhere from $2,000-$10,000 depending on the show we want to do. So ticket prices must be high to respond accordingly. Which means we get fewer audience members sometimes. It's a vicious cycle: we choose a show that people will see regardless of tickets price since we're being charged HUGE amounts of money even though we will probably NEVER sell 1400 tickets to any show because we need to make back the money we paid for rights AND need to make a little money to fund the rest of our season.

I stopped doing shows at the community theatre in my hometown in South Texas because I found out they weren't paying royalties on shows unless it was an MTI musical, and even then not always. That made me angry. We MUST pay these artists.

I just wish there was a way to make some shows more reasonably priced for high schools despite house size and still adequately compensate the writers. 

This is specifically a reply to Russell about musical rights:

Our house seats around 1,400 people. Do that many people come to our musicals? No. It was built large in case of indoor graduations, for beginning of the year convocation with the whole district, and for rentals. We can sell MAYBE 800 seats if we do the right show. But we get charged for 1,400 seats by publishers, meaning we can be charged anywhere from $2,000-$10,000 depending on the show we want to do. So ticket prices must be high to respond accordingly. Which means we get fewer audience members sometimes. It's a vicious cycle: we choose a show that people will see regardless of tickets price since we're being charged HUGE amounts of money even though we will probably NEVER sell 1400 tickets to any show because we need to make back the money we paid for rights AND need to make a little money to fund the rest of our season.

I stopped doing shows at the community theatre in my hometown in South Texas because I found out they weren't paying royalties on shows unless it was an MTI musical, and even then not always. That made me angry. We MUST pay these artists.

I just wish there was a way to make some shows more reasonably priced for high schools despite house size and still adequately compensate the writers. 

I'm quoting Mr. Dorf here (loved the plays of yours that I've produced, by the way; 4 AM is fantastic) to speak to this particular point, simply because I don't get this argument against the royalties myself.

Perhaps I've been in a fortunate position, but in my nine years teach here at RCHS, I've managed to produce eight musicals, and they've all been a) well known, and b) reasonably priced.  

Perhaps the funding I've received has been generous enough -- we're given seed money from the school board every year, and that usually pays for about a third of the royalties/rentals on a given musical -- but I've been surprised when I hear how expensive particular titles are, and then when I'm given a quote how it has always followed the same pricing structure.  

We've produced from Tams-Witmark, Music Theatre, and Samuel French -- and I've got a line on a Rogers and Hammerstien for this year, and they've all been roughly $2,500-$3,000 to get the musical in the door, but those prices have always been subject to 1) our ticket prices (we do a flat $7 advance/$10 door across the board; no senior, student, or child discount), and 2) our seating capacity (max capacity in our auditorium is 350 -- and that's packed to the gills; but we usually quote 320 or so to the publishers, as we remove about two rows to accommodate our lack of an actual Pit).

At those pricing structures, with our expected ticket sales, we're generally self-sustaining, and make the in-the-door costs back, with the remaining third that the school board covers covering the costs of each successive year's physical production (costume, makeup, set pieces, etc.).

I realize that a roughly $3,000-$4,000 budget is luxury to some, but that's generally what we're talking about, keeping in mind that those royalty quotes are dependent on the size of our house and our ticket pricing.

It all seems terribly reasonable to me.  As far as the youth production houses for one-acts and such (YouthPLAYS, TheatreFolk, Playscripts, etc.), those pricing structures are phenomenally reasonable.  If the rights/funding argument doesn't work on your administration, then it really boils down to a philosophical argument over why they want a Drama program to begin with.  And what admin won't provide, then turn to parents/the community to supplement, if they value the program -- if a given one-act or full-length play from one of the youth production houses can fit your community's needs, you're reasonably talking $150-$200 maximum to get that in the door, and you can easily start making ten times that by following all the rules.  (Our first year under my tenure, we did Dan O'Brien's The Disappearance of Daniel Hand from Playscripts with a wonderful approval process on content changes as well; we ended up with the seed money to do Little Shop of Horrors the following year, as our first musical in ten years, and our first under my tenure.)

Hope this helps.

I'm already up way too late and need to drive to Phoenix in the morning for Arizona Thespians, so this post won't be as long as it probably needs to be. Maybe it will be longer at some other time. So just a few points for now:

The plays that are tremendously expensive tend to be well-known plays or musicals concentrated at a few particular companies. Most companies have very reasonable amateur royalties, royalties that have nowhere near kept up with inflation.

Most playwrights--and I know a heck of a lot of them--are incredibly willing to work with a group that needs some cuts/changes to a script. In fact, at YouthPLAYS, I can't remember a playwright ever saying no to a request for a change. Personally, the only time I've ever done it--and I've worked with the group to find a way around it--is when the change fundamentally makes it a different play. I can count those times on probably one hand. (So when you're telling playwrights to remember the little guys, you're talking to virtually no playwright who frequents this forum.)

Playwrights often depend on their royalties to pay the bills. It's not a hobby for many of us, or it's one part of an often complicated income puzzle. A play may take months or even years to complete, and royalties are a way of compensating for all of that time, given that it's not salaried in the way that being a teacher is.

Jennifer, if you'd like to allow your productions to personalize your shows, that's your business. I've occasionally allowed groups to update the geography in Rumors of Polar Bears, for example. But normally the idea is that the text stays the same, and each production interprets the same text based on their understanding of it. The playwright is the creative artist--which is why his/her contribution is legally copyrighted--and the director and actors are interpretative artists, which is why their contribution cannot be.

Josh, in terms of why playwrights get upset when their work is stolen or changed without permission, I'd say it's:
A. The playwright put in the hard work, and he/she owns the product of that work, just like any other property or work product. As much as you might like it to be, it's simply not up to you. Just like you can't decide, "I like that car. I think I'll take it for a drive."
B. Let's face it--there's money involved. I would assume if somebody stole a chunk of your salary on a regular basis, you'd probably not be too thrilled, especially when you couldn't afford to pay for your healthcare or your dinner. There are a small group of playwrights who make a ton of money in royalties (think authors of Broadway musicals), but most of us, not so much.
C. While someone who makes changes to a play may think those changes honor the playwright's intent, unless you've actually heard from the playwright, you don't know, and often there are unintended consequences that you haven't considered, consequences that may make the play "less than." Following that...
D. The playwright's name is still on that play. So if someone makes a change, people who don't know the play will assume that that's what the playwright wrote. And that's the playwright's reputation on the line every single time. Maybe it's in a festival, for example, where other people may see that play and decided whether they're interested in that playwright's work. Personally, if I run into a change that I don't particularly love, but I can live with it, I ask groups to place a note in the program that states that changes have been made permission, but it's possible that certain elements of the play may no longer reflect the playwright's intent. I call it the "cover my a**" clause. Just as I would assume you would rather be thought of as a good teacher than a bad one, and you have certain ideas about what that means, we playwrights do too.

I wish I could think of a pithy summation, but I'm exhausted and need to be up way too soon. Perhaps more will come later.

Regards,
Jonathan

I agree with you.  Let me say, I too, want to respect playwright's words and intentions, and I want to pay them for what they've created.  And I have to admit, than in the 25+ years I have been directing, I have slipped a few in that I did not pay for.  Did I feel bad?  Yes, I did, because as a teacher, I preach that you need to give credit where credit is due.  However, the times that I have done it, it was because I had students who desperately wanted to perform and the school gave us nothing--and Shakespeare or other public domain plays are not always an option.  I have dipped into my pocket far too many times to count, and I have gotten to a point where I can no longer do that (except for an occasional pizza party for the kids). 

There are plays I would love to do, but I can't because I can't make edits, or the rights are just too expensive (this is mostly a musical problem).  I would love to do Tennessee Williams, but his plays have to be done down to the letter, including set design and lighting design, and I just can't feasibly do it.  I use Streetcar quite often in my classes, and my kids love it, and I've had several students express interest in performing it--but it is not a possibility.  

I understand that the words are the playwright's vision, and there are some changes that will change the intention of the play, but I really believe that playwright's should be more open to edits and changes--theatre at the high school level is where our future performers, designers and writers are coming from--if they are not exposed to it then, they may never get exposed to it.  Being able to portray Laura in The Glass Menagerie may make a difference in someone's life.  Presenting August, Osage County or Almost Maine, even with edits, may open some eyes and some doors that wouldn't be open without them.  

As a writer of novel adaptions, I encourage director's who perform my shows to change what works for them--every school is different, every director is different--that's the beauty of theatre--you can spend your life only seeing one play, but it will different every time.

Pay playwrights, give them credit.  But playwrights, think of us, the little guys.  

Subtitled: The Post that Won't Make Me Many Friends Among the Playwright Community

Jonathan Dorf began an excellent conversation in a separate thread about the importance of compensating playwrights and protecting the integrity of the work, and how to create and sustain a system of accountability to ensure we are all doing the right thing. I'm posting this separately because I don't want to harsh the vibe of that productive and important conversation.

And a disclaimer: I do operate with integrity, pay our royalties, purchase our scripts, and teach a unit each year on copyright law.

I just don't like to.

The more I teach about copyright, the less I like it. Call me anti-capitalist, but it seems like copyright legislation has mutated from its original design - to encourage creativity by ensuring the safety of your ideas - and turned into something more "pay-me-or-else" oriented.

Obviously I'm not speaking to all playwrights, and I hope the writers who don't think that way understand that I'm not throwing shade on them. But in some ways the system seems flawed, and I'm wondering:

1. if I'm the only one who feels that way
2. if there's a way to fix it that doesn't cheat anyone of their due

It burns me to know I'm would be paying more on rights on some shows than they will bring in, so I don't do those shows, and lose the opportunity to do a piece I would love but cannot afford.

It burns me that there are plays I can't even consider, because I teach in a rural, ultra-conservative community, and I'm not able to alter a script with a great story to make it acceptable for the people I live around. (Example: The two-guys scene in "Almost, Maine" would still work as a love story if one role were female.)

Shakespeare gets adapted a million ways, and the script gets hacked to bits, translated, re-ordered, gender-bent, and manipulated in ways that would make the Bard froth at the mouth, but it's public domain so no one cares (unless the show is terrible). We call it "the director's vision," or "a contemporary take on a classic," or whatever. Why can't we do the same with "August, Osage County," or a Mamet play?

I guess I'm asking for perspective, especially from the people who hold tightly to the letter of the law, especially from the playwrights out there who are upset about the way their work is stolen and/or adapted. Is it about the money, or professional pride, or is there something else at stake that I'm not hip to?

Subtitled: The Post that Won't Make Me Many Friends Among the Playwright Community

Jonathan Dorf began an excellent conversation in a separate thread about the importance of compensating playwrights and protecting the integrity of the work, and how to create and sustain a system of accountability to ensure we are all doing the right thing. I'm posting this separately because I don't want to harsh the vibe of that productive and important conversation.

And a disclaimer: I do operate with integrity, pay our royalties, purchase our scripts, and teach a unit each year on copyright law.

I just don't like to.

The more I teach about copyright, the less I like it. Call me anti-capitalist, but it seems like copyright legislation has mutated from its original design - to encourage creativity by ensuring the safety of your ideas - and turned into something more "pay-me-or-else" oriented.

Obviously I'm not speaking to all playwrights, and I hope the writers who don't think that way understand that I'm not throwing shade on them. But in some ways the system seems flawed, and I'm wondering:

1. if I'm the only one who feels that way
2. if there's a way to fix it that doesn't cheat anyone of their due

It burns me to know I'm would be paying more on rights on some shows than they will bring in, so I don't do those shows, and lose the opportunity to do a piece I would love but cannot afford.

It burns me that there are plays I can't even consider, because I teach in a rural, ultra-conservative community, and I'm not able to alter a script with a great story to make it acceptable for the people I live around. (Example: The two-guys scene in "Almost, Maine" would still work as a love story if one role were female.)

Shakespeare gets adapted a million ways, and the script gets hacked to bits, translated, re-ordered, gender-bent, and manipulated in ways that would make the Bard froth at the mouth, but it's public domain so no one cares (unless the show is terrible). We call it "the director's vision," or "a contemporary take on a classic," or whatever. Why can't we do the same with "August, Osage County," or a Mamet play?

I guess I'm asking for perspective, especially from the people who hold tightly to the letter of the law, especially from the playwrights out there who are upset about the way their work is stolen and/or adapted. Is it about the money, or professional pride, or is there something else at stake that I'm not hip to?

Subtitled: The Post that Won't Make Me Many Friends Among the Playwright Community

Jonathan Dorf began an excellent conversation in a separate thread about the importance of compensating playwrights and protecting the integrity of the work, and how to create and sustain a system of accountability to ensure we are all doing the right thing. I'm posting this separately because I don't want to harsh the vibe of that productive and important conversation.

And a disclaimer: I do operate with integrity, pay our royalties, purchase our scripts, and teach a unit each year on copyright law.

I just don't like to.

The more I teach about copyright, the less I like it. Call me anti-capitalist, but it seems like copyright legislation has mutated from its original design - to encourage creativity by ensuring the safety of your ideas - and turned into something more "pay-me-or-else" oriented.

Obviously I'm not speaking to all playwrights, and I hope the writers who don't think that way understand that I'm not throwing shade on them. But in some ways the system seems flawed, and I'm wondering:

1. if I'm the only one who feels that way
2. if there's a way to fix it that doesn't cheat anyone of their due

It burns me to know I'm would be paying more on rights on some shows than they will bring in, so I don't do those shows, and lose the opportunity to do a piece I would love but cannot afford.

It burns me that there are plays I can't even consider, because I teach in a rural, ultra-conservative community, and I'm not able to alter a script with a great story to make it acceptable for the people I live around. (Example: The two-guys scene in "Almost, Maine" would still work as a love story if one role were female.)

Shakespeare gets adapted a million ways, and the script gets hacked to bits, translated, re-ordered, gender-bent, and manipulated in ways that would make the Bard froth at the mouth, but it's public domain so no one cares (unless the show is terrible). We call it "the director's vision," or "a contemporary take on a classic," or whatever. Why can't we do the same with "August, Osage County," or a Mamet play?

I guess I'm asking for perspective, especially from the people who hold tightly to the letter of the law, especially from the playwrights out there who are upset about the way their work is stolen and/or adapted. Is it about the money, or professional pride, or is there something else at stake that I'm not hip to?

Subtitled: The Post that Won't Make Me Many Friends Among the Playwright Community

Jonathan Dorf began an excellent conversation in a separate thread about the importance of compensating playwrights and protecting the integrity of the work, and how to create and sustain a system of accountability to ensure we are all doing the right thing. I'm posting this separately because I don't want to harsh the vibe of that productive and important conversation.

And a disclaimer: I do operate with integrity, pay our royalties, purchase our scripts, and teach a unit each year on copyright law.

I just don't like to.

The more I teach about copyright, the less I like it. Call me anti-capitalist, but it seems like copyright legislation has mutated from its original design - to encourage creativity by ensuring the safety of your ideas - and turned into something more "pay-me-or-else" oriented.

Obviously I'm not speaking to all playwrights, and I hope the writers who don't think that way understand that I'm not throwing shade on them. But in some ways the system seems flawed, and I'm wondering:

1. if I'm the only one who feels that way
2. if there's a way to fix it that doesn't cheat anyone of their due

It burns me to know I'm would be paying more on rights on some shows than they will bring in, so I don't do those shows, and lose the opportunity to do a piece I would love but cannot afford.

It burns me that there are plays I can't even consider, because I teach in a rural, ultra-conservative community, and I'm not able to alter a script with a great story to make it acceptable for the people I live around. (Example: The two-guys scene in "Almost, Maine" would still work as a love story if one role were female.)

Shakespeare gets adapted a million ways, and the script gets hacked to bits, translated, re-ordered, gender-bent, and manipulated in ways that would make the Bard froth at the mouth, but it's public domain so no one cares (unless the show is terrible). We call it "the director's vision," or "a contemporary take on a classic," or whatever. Why can't we do the same with "August, Osage County," or a Mamet play?

I guess I'm asking for perspective, especially from the people who hold tightly to the letter of the law, especially from the playwrights out there who are upset about the way their work is stolen and/or adapted. Is it about the money, or professional pride, or is there something else at stake that I'm not hip to?

From reading through this and previous threads on copyright and the playwrights right to make a living, what saddens me most is not the attempts to be treated as an exception to the law - though that is in  itself problematically - but it is the seeming disinterest in school boards and/or administrations to take their drama/theatre offerings seriously.

Can you imagine a science department not being able to have the necessary chemicals to teach a chemistry course. Better still can you imagine the football program not having the funds for uniforms and footballs.

It is apparent that the performing arts are not seen as real subjects, and in many cases were probably only included in the curriculum because the state mandated it be available.

REALLY SAD.  a $100 budget for a show .... please that will barely buy a decent meal for two people at a chain restaurant.  What planet to administrators live on.  The average person sitting in that front office is making more than that a day for turning up.

Am I angry .. seems like it, but then since the election I have been reacting this way to far too many things.  Another sign of the times.  Wonder if Trumps "we need more and better education" statements will include theatre programs.

Subtitled: The Post that Won't Make Me Many Friends Among the Playwright Community

Jonathan Dorf began an excellent conversation in a separate thread about the importance of compensating playwrights and protecting the integrity of the work, and how to create and sustain a system of accountability to ensure we are all doing the right thing. I'm posting this separately because I don't want to harsh the vibe of that productive and important conversation.

And a disclaimer: I do operate with integrity, pay our royalties, purchase our scripts, and teach a unit each year on copyright law.

I just don't like to.

The more I teach about copyright, the less I like it. Call me anti-capitalist, but it seems like copyright legislation has mutated from its original design - to encourage creativity by ensuring the safety of your ideas - and turned into something more "pay-me-or-else" oriented.

Obviously I'm not speaking to all playwrights, and I hope the writers who don't think that way understand that I'm not throwing shade on them. But in some ways the system seems flawed, and I'm wondering:

1. if I'm the only one who feels that way
2. if there's a way to fix it that doesn't cheat anyone of their due

It burns me to know I'm would be paying more on rights on some shows than they will bring in, so I don't do those shows, and lose the opportunity to do a piece I would love but cannot afford.

It burns me that there are plays I can't even consider, because I teach in a rural, ultra-conservative community, and I'm not able to alter a script with a great story to make it acceptable for the people I live around. (Example: The two-guys scene in "Almost, Maine" would still work as a love story if one role were female.)

Shakespeare gets adapted a million ways, and the script gets hacked to bits, translated, re-ordered, gender-bent, and manipulated in ways that would make the Bard froth at the mouth, but it's public domain so no one cares (unless the show is terrible). We call it "the director's vision," or "a contemporary take on a classic," or whatever. Why can't we do the same with "August, Osage County," or a Mamet play?

I guess I'm asking for perspective, especially from the people who hold tightly to the letter of the law, especially from the playwrights out there who are upset about the way their work is stolen and/or adapted. Is it about the money, or professional pride, or is there something else at stake that I'm not hip to?

Your observations here and in related threads about the problems with maintaining a program due to budget constraints have caught my attention as well.  Where you may "seem angry", my reaction is closer to outraged.  I drafted a lengthy response that attempts to describe the outrage, but don't want to hijack this conversation.

I know that the playwrights need to receive fair compensation for their work.  The copyrighting system may also have some flaws.  As a parent, teacher, and director these are matters outside my control.  My responsibility to support my fellow artists and uphold the laws of the land is clear.  And while there may be good and effective ways to change the system, those are matters I am not equipped to address and will keep faith with the community as they seek to improve our art.

From reading through this and previous threads on copyright and the playwrights right to make a living, what saddens me most is not the attempts to be treated as an exception to the law - though that is in  itself problematically - but it is the seeming disinterest in school boards and/or administrations to take their drama/theatre offerings seriously.

Can you imagine a science department not being able to have the necessary chemicals to teach a chemistry course. Better still can you imagine the football program not having the funds for uniforms and footballs.

It is apparent that the performing arts are not seen as real subjects, and in many cases were probably only included in the curriculum because the state mandated it be available.

REALLY SAD.  a $100 budget for a show .... please that will barely buy a decent meal for two people at a chain restaurant.  What planet to administrators live on.  The average person sitting in that front office is making more than that a day for turning up.

Am I angry .. seems like it, but then since the election I have been reacting this way to far too many things.  Another sign of the times.  Wonder if Trumps "we need more and better education" statements will include theatre programs.

Subtitled: The Post that Won't Make Me Many Friends Among the Playwright Community

Jonathan Dorf began an excellent conversation in a separate thread about the importance of compensating playwrights and protecting the integrity of the work, and how to create and sustain a system of accountability to ensure we are all doing the right thing. I'm posting this separately because I don't want to harsh the vibe of that productive and important conversation.

And a disclaimer: I do operate with integrity, pay our royalties, purchase our scripts, and teach a unit each year on copyright law.

I just don't like to.

The more I teach about copyright, the less I like it. Call me anti-capitalist, but it seems like copyright legislation has mutated from its original design - to encourage creativity by ensuring the safety of your ideas - and turned into something more "pay-me-or-else" oriented.

Obviously I'm not speaking to all playwrights, and I hope the writers who don't think that way understand that I'm not throwing shade on them. But in some ways the system seems flawed, and I'm wondering:

1. if I'm the only one who feels that way
2. if there's a way to fix it that doesn't cheat anyone of their due

It burns me to know I'm would be paying more on rights on some shows than they will bring in, so I don't do those shows, and lose the opportunity to do a piece I would love but cannot afford.

It burns me that there are plays I can't even consider, because I teach in a rural, ultra-conservative community, and I'm not able to alter a script with a great story to make it acceptable for the people I live around. (Example: The two-guys scene in "Almost, Maine" would still work as a love story if one role were female.)

Shakespeare gets adapted a million ways, and the script gets hacked to bits, translated, re-ordered, gender-bent, and manipulated in ways that would make the Bard froth at the mouth, but it's public domain so no one cares (unless the show is terrible). We call it "the director's vision," or "a contemporary take on a classic," or whatever. Why can't we do the same with "August, Osage County," or a Mamet play?

I guess I'm asking for perspective, especially from the people who hold tightly to the letter of the law, especially from the playwrights out there who are upset about the way their work is stolen and/or adapted. Is it about the money, or professional pride, or is there something else at stake that I'm not hip to?

Subtitled: The Post that Won't Make Me Many Friends Among the Playwright Community

Jonathan Dorf began an excellent conversation in a separate thread about the importance of compensating playwrights and protecting the integrity of the work, and how to create and sustain a system of accountability to ensure we are all doing the right thing. I'm posting this separately because I don't want to harsh the vibe of that productive and important conversation.

And a disclaimer: I do operate with integrity, pay our royalties, purchase our scripts, and teach a unit each year on copyright law.

I just don't like to.

The more I teach about copyright, the less I like it. Call me anti-capitalist, but it seems like copyright legislation has mutated from its original design - to encourage creativity by ensuring the safety of your ideas - and turned into something more "pay-me-or-else" oriented.

Obviously I'm not speaking to all playwrights, and I hope the writers who don't think that way understand that I'm not throwing shade on them. But in some ways the system seems flawed, and I'm wondering:

1. if I'm the only one who feels that way
2. if there's a way to fix it that doesn't cheat anyone of their due

It burns me to know I'm would be paying more on rights on some shows than they will bring in, so I don't do those shows, and lose the opportunity to do a piece I would love but cannot afford.

It burns me that there are plays I can't even consider, because I teach in a rural, ultra-conservative community, and I'm not able to alter a script with a great story to make it acceptable for the people I live around. (Example: The two-guys scene in "Almost, Maine" would still work as a love story if one role were female.)

Shakespeare gets adapted a million ways, and the script gets hacked to bits, translated, re-ordered, gender-bent, and manipulated in ways that would make the Bard froth at the mouth, but it's public domain so no one cares (unless the show is terrible). We call it "the director's vision," or "a contemporary take on a classic," or whatever. Why can't we do the same with "August, Osage County," or a Mamet play?

I guess I'm asking for perspective, especially from the people who hold tightly to the letter of the law, especially from the playwrights out there who are upset about the way their work is stolen and/or adapted. Is it about the money, or professional pride, or is there something else at stake that I'm not hip to?

I fully agree that playwrights should be fairly and equally compensated for their work. I believe that the work should remain unchanged unless the playwright has given permission. My first play this year had those permissions stated within the script (change the slang, some of the things that could become dated, most of the character names were written two ways so that they could be played by either gender)- so I am probably a bit spoiled right now and am going to feel completely tethered when I start my musical next week. 

But here's where it hits me, and I know this has come up before- the publishing houses do charge huge amounts of money for some of these shows. I, personally, am a musical fanatic. I'd direct 5 a year if we could afford them. But we can't. My budget this year was literally 300 dollars and had to be spent on supplies for the classroom by the end of September. I cheated and bought things I knew I needed for the "theatre" (cafeteria) like a label maker and tape to go with it, etc. 

So I guess my question is, are the authors getting fairly compensated through the publishing houses? I almost feel like I would rather have an author in residence and pay him/her directly sometimes.

Subtitled: The Post that Won't Make Me Many Friends Among the Playwright Community

Jonathan Dorf began an excellent conversation in a separate thread about the importance of compensating playwrights and protecting the integrity of the work, and how to create and sustain a system of accountability to ensure we are all doing the right thing. I'm posting this separately because I don't want to harsh the vibe of that productive and important conversation.

And a disclaimer: I do operate with integrity, pay our royalties, purchase our scripts, and teach a unit each year on copyright law.

I just don't like to.

The more I teach about copyright, the less I like it. Call me anti-capitalist, but it seems like copyright legislation has mutated from its original design - to encourage creativity by ensuring the safety of your ideas - and turned into something more "pay-me-or-else" oriented.

Obviously I'm not speaking to all playwrights, and I hope the writers who don't think that way understand that I'm not throwing shade on them. But in some ways the system seems flawed, and I'm wondering:

1. if I'm the only one who feels that way
2. if there's a way to fix it that doesn't cheat anyone of their due

It burns me to know I'm would be paying more on rights on some shows than they will bring in, so I don't do those shows, and lose the opportunity to do a piece I would love but cannot afford.

It burns me that there are plays I can't even consider, because I teach in a rural, ultra-conservative community, and I'm not able to alter a script with a great story to make it acceptable for the people I live around. (Example: The two-guys scene in "Almost, Maine" would still work as a love story if one role were female.)

Shakespeare gets adapted a million ways, and the script gets hacked to bits, translated, re-ordered, gender-bent, and manipulated in ways that would make the Bard froth at the mouth, but it's public domain so no one cares (unless the show is terrible). We call it "the director's vision," or "a contemporary take on a classic," or whatever. Why can't we do the same with "August, Osage County," or a Mamet play?

I guess I'm asking for perspective, especially from the people who hold tightly to the letter of the law, especially from the playwrights out there who are upset about the way their work is stolen and/or adapted. Is it about the money, or professional pride, or is there something else at stake that I'm not hip to?