Design Copyright

[Diarmuid]

Hiya,

 

I have been wondering, if after designing a show, is the director (or anyone else for that matter allowed to change the show), I am guessing that they are, so long as there isnt a clause in the contract, stating that the design is copyright of the designer.

 

And if that is the case, as I am only at a school and so dont have a contract, I was wondering whether anyone knew whether if there is no contract, it is possible to copyright the designing and all the other things related to the design.

 

Hopefully that made sense and thanks for your help!! :D

 

Diarmuid

[Tomo]

As you are at school, it's fairly likely that the school actually holds the copyright for anything created for school.

 

Otherwise, like all works of art, the lighting design is automatically copyright and the property of the designer unless a contract assigning that copyright elsewhere has been signed.

Many technicians and designers sign a copyright buyout clause if they are permanently employed. Freelance contarcts vary.

 

Asserting this copyright may be more difficult.

[jamie.west]

You own the copyright to the lighting design, unless you have agreed for someone else to hold the copyright. It's exactly the same laws as if you wrote a piece of music or a play.

 

You own the copyright to the design, which in actuality, is the paper plan you produce and the show disks as these are the only things that have recorded your design.

 

Like taking pictures of the set, pictures of your lighting may only be taken with your permission.

[AndrewR]

if you mean can you stop people from changing your design, in a word, no

Yes its is your intellectual property and so protected by law, but its down to the director, or the producer as to weather or not they actually use your design. And if they do decide to make significant changes to your design it actually is no longer your property. ultimately if they put your name on it then you can dictate the design, but if they want to change it (unless you have the qudos to demand your own way) you can either make the changes to your design and keep the credit, or you can throw your toys out of the pram and they just take your name off it.

 

At the end of the day you are providing a design to their requirements, so its all about giving them what they want. Even if you don't like it. :D

[saturnx21]

hi All

 

What has bin said so far is correct, BUT it must be remembered that it must be proved to be your design......... In the case of a picture, story or set of lyrics you have to prove you designed/ wrote it first, you can do this by sending a copy of it by royal mail to your self and leave it unopened, (the post mark is dated) proving you did it first! How you would do this with a light show I don't know!!!

 

It is also true that the school will own the rights to everything you design/do!!! (if I remember correctly ........ thats even if you invent it in your own time off of school premises) not sure on that one though!!!! :D

[obsoperator]

I hope that a UK union member will offer a comment of more direct use to you, but since I'm over here, and it's posted on the web (so I'm not revealing a union secret...), here's a clause from the designer's union contract for regional (not-for-profit, generally) theatres in the U.S.:

 

"All rights in and to the design as conceived by the Designer in the course of the rendition of his/her services hereunder shall be, upon its creation, and will remain, the sole and exclusive property of the Designer; it being understood, however, that the Theatre and its licensee(s) shall have a perpetual and irrevocable license to use such design in any stage production or electronic reproduction of the play under the terms of this Agreement. Any additional use or license of the design by the Theatre shall be subject to further agreement between the Theatre and the Designer."

 

A later paragraph adds:

"Whenever possible, the Theatre will consult with the Designer prior to making substantial alterations, substitutions, additions, or cuts in the scenery, costumes, and/or lighting, or any aspect thereof."

 

There are separate provisions covering payments for renting, moving, recording, and reviving the production.

 

It all depends on how much clout you have when you negotiate your contract, doesn't it? When we start our careers, we need them more than they need us!

[Ben Langfeld]

It is also true that the school will own the rights to everything you design/do!!! (if I remember correctly ........ thats even if you invent it in your own time off of school premises) not sure on that one though!!!! :D

 

Can anyone offer a citation for this one?

[mac.calder]

I cannot cite a source, however it is widely accepted as fact.

 

Anything created within the classroom (ie in school hours) at the school belongs to the school. Most schools are quite willing to sign over copyright to it's students though. It is rather simple - ask your principal and a witness to sign something along the lines of

 

I PRINCIPALS_NAME, in the presense of WITNESS'_NAME and as a legal representative of SCHOOL_NAME, hereby transfer copyright of all works created by STUDENTS_NAME within CLASS_NAME during the year of YEAR to STUDENT_NAME.

 

And voila - the work is once again yours.

 

Proving a design is yours is not always easy - some shows that decide to remount or go on tour are fairly easy to prove (ie it looks the same, so it is the same) - others are more difficult.

 

Directors will want to change your designs - get used to it - you just have to ensure that you are there to make the changes.

[Ben Langfeld]

What do you mean by "widely accepted as fact"? Is this in legislation somewhere? Also, assuming this is the case, how can the same thing apply to works created by a student of their own accord? Surely, if I were to produce a lighting design for a local am-dram, the work would be my own intellectual property, being nothing at all to do with a school?

[paulears]

The educational issue is a little uncertain up to 16, but after that gets firmed up by the contracts most colleges make the students sign.

 

A few years ago, a student 'composed' a piece of music, it was submitted for her music exam and she got quite good marks. Student wasn't quite in the same league her mother thought she was in and issued an instruction to the college stating that as the composition was her daughter's copyrighted material, the college were not able to keep it after she had left. The water got muddied by the examination entry statement signed by me - saying it was all her own unaided work. This, says mother admits we aknowlege it is hers. The trouble is that by submitting it, her exam entry form, which students rarely read effectively gives the 'ownership' to the exam board, who may wish to use it as exemplar or training material, so it starts to get complicated. The situation was geting quite unpleasant - the college took the view that has been stated here - that the work in question is the property of the XZY College Corporation. We weren't getting anywhere. The legal team at the college actually privately took the view that as this has never been tested in law, the outcome was quite unpredictable, and given the David and Two Goliaths, she could indeed win the case. There is a twist to the tale. I was listening to Sarah Kennedy and woke up with the sound of this girls composition coming out of my radio! Then - the vocal came back in. The matter was solved. The girl had indeed composed her exam entry, however, Lionel Richie had composed it first. I got the title from the BBC - and found it was an old rarely heard track on a pretty old album, that nobody would have heard. The next meeting with the mother - I took in a playback machine pressed play, and sat back and watched as they listened. "It's different" said mum "have a think about it, said I - "it also means the exam result could get changed now, as it doesn't appear to be her own composition, does it?"

 

I'd have given anything to have been in their car on the way home.

 

Everybody simply stopped even talking about it.

 

So there doesn't appear to be a court decision on educational copyright - yet.

 

 

The problem with the modified lighting design is that they often use the word 'substantive' - as in the modifications were substantive. Exactly what constitutes substansive is open to all sorts of interpretations. Comes up whe people get peeved about relights. Removing fixtures, adding new ones, sharing the jobs of multiple fixtures to reduce quantities, how to re-create that great sidelight effect when the touring venues won't have bars in the right places? all this involves changing the design quite a bit, and often on the spot. These changes could well be considered substantive and therefore ok.

 

Copyright is a legal minefield - the only people making money will be the lawyers.

[SimonW]

One of the most important things to realise here is that UK copyright law is a tangled web of statute and case law - it's very hard to get definitive answers, as anyone reading recent Legal Eagles in the Stage will appreciate. In addition, in the case of lighting design, many of the designers 'rights' come from contractural terms, rather than from the law itself. I am not a lawyer, and none of this is legal advice, but I felt that I should comment on some of the more definitive statements made in this post so far.

 

Firstly, its important to note that "Where a ... artistic work is made by an employee in the course of their employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work" (Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1998, section 11 (2)). This is generally overridden by the design contract, which usually retains copyright for the designer, and licenses the design to the management for a certain duration of run, within certain conditions.

 

It's very rare that I'll be explicitly asked for permission before pictures of the show are taken - although these are generally for publicity and archive purposes, and again, are specifically permitted by the contract. A more thorny issue is with what happens with future exploitation of these images. Some theatre photographers go on to produce exhibitions, catalogues or even mass-market books, containing production images, without discussing this with any of the creators of the photographed show.

 

As to changes to the design after the show has opened - generally, contracts require that these changes be mutually agreed between management and designer, and often require additional payment to the designer for any extra time they spend on the production. What happens if agreement cannot be reached seems to be very contract dependent. It may be that the management can simply replace the designer, as AndrewR suggests, but in shows with complex backend or royalty deals this may be a breach of the original contract. The one situation that isn't permissible is for a management to make changes to the design without approval and continue to use the designers name in relation to the show.

 

Simon.

[Ynot]

I have been wondering, if after designing a show, is the director (or anyone else for that matter allowed to change the show), I am guessing that they are, so long as there isnt a clause in the contract, stating that the design is copyright of the designer.

My personal viewpoint:

In the am-dram world and educational establishments it is not only hard to enforce any kind of copyright ownership, it would be pretty hard to prove, either way.

 

Professional LD's will have a LOT of things going for them - the right tools, the time (usually) to fully document the plot and rig plans, and the written contracts to back up any claims. However, that being said, how DO you protect a lighting design?? Can you really expect to copyright a blue wash at this point in that show? If the director's notes in a script, later used by an am-dram group CALLS for a blue wash, does some semblance of copyright mean that amateur LD can't use a blue wash?? Of course not!

 

Just how far a design can be copyrighted is open to all sorts of interpretation and mis-interpretation.

 

OK, there may be some specific effects that can be identified as specific to a particular scene, but what's to say that this effect hasn't been used in another show somewhere? After all, unless the LD is using cutting edge, brand new technology, the equipment, and thus the capability has been there for other LD's to use.

 

Personally, whilst it's fine to think that we might be able to exercise some copyright restrictions on our designs, it would likely be FAR more hassle than it's worth to contest such a possibility.

 

And I, for one, see effects and lighting states on other stages and on TV that I think - "Wow - that looked cool! I'll remember that for future use" as I am darned sure many others (am and pro) have done and will continue to do.

 

TD

[Shez]

Another note on the school copyright thing...

The subject came up recently at a conference I was at with a substantial strand dedicated to IPR. A lot of educational institutions do have a clause in their contracts with the students stating that the college claims copyright on work that their students produce. This is a completely one sided clause; as the contract is between a strong and a weak party, it has no legal standing. I'm not aware of it having been tested in a court yet, but the general feeling was that that term would be struck out if it ever was.

 

I'm not familiar with the various exam boards' conditions but I wouldn't rate their chances either if it came to a court case. I suspect it would also be considered an unfair contract.

 

The same term is in my contract of employment, which is acceptable as I'm being paid to do the job I do.

 

Shez

 

Usual caveats apply - I'm not a lawyer, seek legal advice etc.

[MarkPAman]

There is quite a lot information on the BBC site regarding copyright in music:

 

Music copyright

 

Here is some of it:

 

An example of how this works is a Radio 1 Session. If you go into the BBC's studios at Maida Vale to record tracks from your album for Zane Lowe, the BBC then own the copyright in that recording.

 

So if you wanted to release one of these recordings as a 'B' side you'd need the BBC's permission, even though the actual songs are yours.

 

You can still go off and record the songs again somewhere else and release those recordings. It's only the recordings that the BBC owns the rights to that you can't release.

 

Example 2

Or, to think of it another way, if a band records a song and releases it then there is a copyright in that recording.

 

If they then record and release another version - maybe a live version for a B-side - the new recording is a separate copyright.

 

But there's still only one song - one set of music and lyrics - and hence only one copyright in the song, even though there are two copyright recordings.

 

Who owns it

The copyright in the sound recording automatically belongs to the person or organisation that 'made the arrangements' for you to make the recording.

This will usually be the record company which paid for the studio time, or in the case of the Peel session above, it would be the BBC.

 

That's not 100% guaranteed, though and there'll usually be a clause in the recording contract stating this, just to be doubly sure.

 

If you are a label owner, you should make sure that you include such a clause in your contracts.

 

This is how the record companies make their money - by paying for recordings and then exploiting their rights as the owners of them.

My bold.

 

So it's not just schools!

 

I don't know if this helps or complicates! :)

 

Edit: A bit more digging and I've foud this:

 

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

 

There is a lot of it! Here is a small part:

(3) In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.

[wako_jacko]

Hope I'm not confusing this any more - but - I'm designing the sound & Lighting for a production of the tempest. it is going on tour to America with a school - it is also being recorded and shown on channel 28 (California's arts channel) - as

 

a) I have no contract (I'm a student) am I entitled to any royalties from the TV showing

b) do I own the copyright to the designs - or are they the schools

c) if some music is used from a recording label without permission (even if a request has been sent with no reply) who would then be responsible for the use of that music - the director for requesting it, or me for putting it in?

 

w.