jump to navigation

Producers of “Jersey Boys” don’t “Walk like a Man”, cave to Chicago anti-smoking law. July 8, 2008

Posted by Gordon Firemark in : Theatre law, entertainment law , add a comment

Chris Jones of the Chicago Tribune reports that the producers of the hit jukebox musical “Jersey Boys” have decided to present the show “smoke-free” in Chicago, where the city’s anti-smoking ordinance doesn’t permit any form of smoking (whether tobacco, or herbal cigarettes) in public spaces,  including theatres.  Jones’ article points to the absurdity of the anti-smoking law designed to “protect” the public, but which essentially requires a revisionist approach to history.  The fact is, these people (Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons) smoked in real life, but in the musical portraying their lives, they’re supposed to be non-smokers?

Jones has written on this subject before, and  I agree with his position.  In his current article, he calls for a specific exception for arts presentations featuring smoking.

As I’ve previously written here, here and here, I think these laws will fall under constitutional scrutiny.  Limits on the actions conducted on-stage by actors are an unacceptable abridgement of the rights of artistic expression.

Where there’s a less-restrictive-alternative to a total ban on speech,  a governmentally imposed restriction on speech will not stand.  Here, I submit that there ARE such alternatives… mandatory use of special high-power ventilation systems, for example… that would acheive the same governmental goal (public protection)

All we need now is someone to stand up for the First Amendment by defying one of these  overbroad anti-smoking laws.  It’s a shame the Jersey Boys producers didn’t show more backbone.

Whether you favor smoking bans or not, this is a matter of concern for you.  This is the beginning of a slippery slope.  What’s next?  Shall we permit government to ban on-stage portrayals of points-of-view we don’t agree with?  Could a local government ban  the use of weapons on stage, because portrayals of violence lead to the real thing?  (Sword fights in Romeo and Juliet, knife/gun fight in West Side Story, etc.).  What happens when a law is passed prohibiting negative portrayals of the President?  Where will we draw the line?

Tags: , , , , , ,

Urinetown case settled July 2, 2008

Posted by Gordon Firemark in : Theatre law , add a comment

Playbill is reporting that the lawsuit against Akron, Ohio based Carousel Dinner Theatre, by the broadway team responsible for the original production of Urinetown  has been settled by the parties, with the Arkon producers paying the New York team an undisclosed sum, and acknowledging the unlicensed use of elements from the New York production.  

According to the Society of Stage Directors and Choreographers,   the parties expressed regret over the circumstances leading to the suit, and agreed to terms of a license agreement for the material used without permission. 

The dispute arose in Late 2006 when the Akron company  (along with another at the Mercury Theatre in Chicago),  mounted productions of Urinetown which, in addition to the properly licensed uses of the book, score and lyrics of the show, also incorporated components of the Broadway direction, choreography and design.  Those elements were not licensed to the Illinois and Ohio productions. 

After a cease and desist letter  from the Broadway team’s entertainment lawyer and request for an accounting from the Broadway team,   the Carousel Dinner Theatre engaged its own attorneys, and  sued in the Ohio Federal District Court  seeking a declaratory judgment that the Akron production was ‘not substantially similar’ to the Broadway production.  

 The current settlement , according to a statement, acknowledges similarities in various elements  of the different productions, but also acknowledges some original contributions by the Akron cast.     

 The lesson for producers is clear.  Obtaining production rights from a publisher (such as Samuel French, Tams-Witmark, Rodgers & Hammerstein, etc.), does NOT include the right to copy all or part of the broadway, off-broadway or other original production.  It is incumbent on producers to either (a) obtain such rights separately, or (b) re-imagine the show and create a new, original production from the ground up. When in doubt… consult your attorney.

Tags: none