Copyright Limitations

[gallente]

I dont know if this is the right place to post this, but what are the copyright limitations on films? I want to stage a film, but my school has no liscences for anything like that I dont think. The way the film is, would be easy to convert into a stage play, taking out certain scenes. I heard a rumour that if you change something by 10% then it bypass's the copyright. Does anyone know if this is true?

 

Cheers

[paulears]

nope - very dodgy ground. you could ask for permission, but if it's a film by a major, then they're almost certainly going to say no. even if you change every characters name, move location, turn night into day - they could still say you stole their intelectual property. Even parodies have snags - I seem to remember the bbc getting into trouble for making a comedy 'in the style of' back in the 70's - cant remember if it was a python sketch - seems to ring a vague bell.

[Guest lightnix]

The UK Copyright Service website might be of some assistance here.

 

Here's a quote from their page on copyright infringement...

 

"[To prove copyright infringement] The work should be substantially similar in design, structure or content, to the degree that it can be said that the work was coped (sic) or adapted from your original, rather than simply a similar idea or concept."

 

You can find out more about the basics of copyright here and here.

[Just Some Bloke]

Incidentally, if the film (or a stage show) is a musical and you want to do the songs, then that's OK if they have been published (e.g. in a songbook) BUT you mustn't do them in similar costumes or on a similar set and you certainly can't narrate the story.

[Dave]

Incidentally, if the film (or a stage show) is a musical and you want to do the songs, then that's OK if they have been published (e.g. in a songbook)

Sorry, I disagree. In some circumstances that might not be the case.

 

Publication of a work is a separate "right" to public performance of that work. An author (eg composer) can allow his work (eg a song) to be published, but that does not in itself give anyone the permission to perform that work in public.

 

In most cases, the author will be happy for their work to be performed. Frequently, they will assign their public performance rights to the PRS (Performing Rights Society), which grants permission upon payment of a royalty. But this is not necessarily so and is completely separate to publication.

 

It is no different in law to the situation where the script for a play is published and freely available, but you are not permitted to perform the play unless you buy a licence.

[Just Some Bloke]

Every day people perform published songs and then fill in PRS returns. I've never known the PRS turn round and say "actually you shouldn't have performed that song".

 

I got my information from the PRS themselves many years ago when I was involved in one of those 'Best Of The West End' shows. I was told we were OK to do the songs as long as we didn't wear appropriate costume, didn't use a set that related to the show and didn't narrate the story. There was no information given as to any songs we couln't do.

 

I suspect it's, in practice, a matter of looking for information on the printed music as to who holds the rights and putting this all down on the PRS return. There shouldn't, then, be a problem.

[Guest lightnix]

That's as maybe, although you will still have to pay the royalties, surely. Anyway, gallente's original post referred to doing a film as a play, there was no mention of music or songs at all.

 

But let us not forget the reason that copyright exists: to protect the endevours of the people who created the original work. Sorry if I sound like an old fogey here, but I think it's really a bit mean-spirited to try to find loopholes which allow you to rip off somebody's work without paying any dues at all.