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 commentChris 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: theatre, smoking, Jersey Boys, cigarettes, first amendment, free, speechUrinetown case settled July 2, 2008
Posted by Gordon Firemark in : Theatre law , add a commentPlaybill 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: noneThis day in Theatre Law History (Pennsylvania bans theatre performances) May 31, 2008
Posted by Gordon Firemark in : Theatre law , add a commentMay 31, 1759
Pennsylvania bans theater
Pennsylvania lawyers adopted a law forbidding the performance of plays. According to History.com, The law was adopted due to pressure from religious groups, on grounds that any performance was immoral. Fine for violation was 500 Pounds (source)
Tags: noneSmoking Bans and Theatre - the debate continues March 21, 2008
Posted by Gordon Firemark in : Theatre law, entertainment law , add a commentThe New York Times reports in this article, that a Colorado State appellate court has ruled against the owners of several theatres who’ve challenged the State’s ban on smoking indoors on First Amendment grounds. The theatres have indicated that they’ll appeal to the state’s Supreme Court.
Will they succeed. Is “smoking” an expressive form of speech? Isn’t the use of smoke, lighting cigarettes, etc., sometimes powerful in its symbolism, etc?
Suppose stage directions call for an actress to take a drag on her cigarette, and then, in response to something another character says or does, blow the smoke into his face? Isn’t this a significant part of the playwright’s expression of the characters’ disdain for one-another? Isn’t this a form of protected speech?
Under traditional first amendment analysis, the State’s law must be “narrowly tailored” to acheive a “compelling government interest”. The compelling government interest here is ensuring public health and safety… but is a total ban on indoor smoking really “narrowly tailored” . Is there some, less restrictive alternative available?
If so, should the theatres prevail? Should the burden be on the theatres’ entertainment lawyers to prove that such an alternative exists?
I’m inviting your comments… I look forward to hearing what readers think!
Tags: noneAre audience participation/interactive shows in peril? February 11, 2008
Posted by Gordon Firemark in : Theatre law, entertainment law , 2 comments
A Chicago man has filed a lawsuit against the producers of the Blue Man Group theatrical act. His suit claims that he was chosen by the performers to participate in their “esophagus video” gag. The actors held the man in place, and allegedly “forced the esophagus cam into his mouth, and while he struggled to free himself, an image of his mouth and throat was projected on a video screen before the other audience members (including the man’s grandson). The man claims that this amounted to “offensive touching” caused injury to his throat, mouth and dental work, and his lawsuit includes claims for Battery, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
The lesson for producers of live entertainment featuring interactions with the audience is that care must be taken to select audience participants who indicate their willingness to join in the show, and to be alert to signs that the audience participant may be embarrassed, upset or angered by the events as they unfold.
Audience members should be asked whether they consent to participate, and given a meaningful opportunity to decline. Ultimately, the performers should take “no” for an answer.
Photo courtesy of Flickr user “Stelb”, used by permission under Creative Commons License
Tags: none
