Dead Authors' Estates Preventing Even The Slightest Revisions To Works

from the creativity-not-allowed dept

Thu, Sep 13th 2012 3:04am — Mike Masnick

Justin Levine points us to the news that a revival of Ira Levin's famous play Deathtrap has been canceled because Levin's estate doesn't approve of very slight modifications in the play -- including one character disrobing and showing his naked rear for about 30 seconds, as well as this version of the play making it clear that a relationship between two males was a gay relationship (something not explicitly stated in the original, though many other interpretations have assumed the same thing). Either way, after the estate demanded changes to the staging, the LA Gay & Lesbian Center who was putting it on decided to cancel the show altogether, rather than having the estate give them creative notes.

Now, this may be entirely legal, but does that make it reasonable? One of the great things about plays is seeing how different companies interpret them -- sometimes in very different and creative ways. It seems overly controlling and silly to seek to block certain showings because they don't conform to the way the estate wants the play performed.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: adaptations, culture, deathtrap, ira levin, publicity rights

57 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2012 @ 3:26am

Hey Mike- what was your declarable income from Google-related entities last year?

We know *that* money is what funds this site, so in the spirit of transparency -which you claim to be a proponent of- please just go ahead and be forthcoming about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 3:47am
  
  Re:
  Got nothing to add so just thought you'd launch an attack anyway, huh?
  
  "We know *that* money is what funds this site"
  
  *citation needed*
  
  Who pays you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 4:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    My money is funding the site and I use Google services. I guess that's what he meant =/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ltlw0lf (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 11:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      My money is funding the site and I use Google services. I guess that's what he meant =/
      
      Me too...and I am as big of a Google fanboi as most Apple iPhone users are of Apple. Android Rulez!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2012 @ 3:56am
  
  Re:
  What's your motive to harrass the author like this ? You feel like a dangerous person. Get out of the way, start your own blog or wahtever. You're an obnoxious bully.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 4:21am
  
  Re:
  Maybe I should subpoena Mike for your IP address so I can sue you for copyright infringment, eh?
  
  That seems like a sensible plan to me...
  
  /s
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 5:03am
  
  Re:
  What's your declarable income last year from various entities?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2012 @ 6:21am
  
  Re:
  Wow, this guy can't tell the difference between government and private industry.
  
  Can someone please get this man/woman some help?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2012 @ 7:46am
  
  Re:
  "Hey Mike- what was your declarable income from Google-related entities last year?"
  
  Hey AC- what was your declarable income from MPAA/RIAA-related entities last year?"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2012 @ 8:14am
  
  Re:
  just the fact you tied this shows me you have some political motivation to take mmike down and have no legitimate points to bring to the table.
  
  ad homs and violence are the refuge of the incompetent.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Crazy Freetard (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 8:29am
  
  Re:
  Calm down, Mr. Lowery. Let's keep this civil.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seegras (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 3:33am

Thomas Babington Macauley already warned us in his 1841 speech
One of the most instructive, interesting, and delightful books in our language is Boswell's Life of Johnson. Now it is well known that Boswell's eldest son considered this book, considered the whole relation of Boswell to Johnson, as a blot in the escutcheon of the family. He thought, not perhaps altogether without reason, that his father had exhibited himself in a ludicrous and degrading light. And thus he became so sore and irritable that at last he could not bear to hear the Life of Johnson mentioned. Suppose that the law had been what my honourable and learned friend wishes to make it. Suppose that the copyright of Boswell's Life of Johnson had belonged, as it well might, during sixty years, to Boswell's eldest son. What would have been the consequence? An unadulterated copy of the finest biographical work in the world would have been as scarce as the first edition of Camden's Britannia.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Law_%28Macaulay%29

(Still, his best prediction is this: And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.)

Still some fucking morons thought extending the duration of copyright to after the death of the artist was a good idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2012 @ 5:37am
  
  Re: Thomas Babington Macauley already warned us in his 1841 speech
  well obviously they took into account the coming zombie apocalyps, once the formerly dead writer/author/musician is zombiefied, he'll have a proper incentive to create more content. Without afterlife IP rights he'd be doomed to eating brains like all the rest of us...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - AndyD273 (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 6:16am
    
    Re: Re: Thomas Babington Macauley already warned us in his 1841 speech
    "Without afterlife IP rights he'd be doomed to hunting for brains like all the rest of us... Now he'll be able to afford to buy them."
    
    Fixed that for you
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2012 @ 3:46am

Why make these "modifications"? What need is there to do so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 4:22am
  
  Re:
  You've never heard of creative license and directorial interpretation?
  
  Man, you must have lived a sheltered life!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 5:07am
  
  Re:
  "Why make these "modifications"? What need is there to do so?"
  
  Obviously you're an idiot.
  
  Ever watch Lord of the Rings?
  
  It's different from the book.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2012 @ 2:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Oh yeah, I forgot they made all of the Hobbits gay and Gandalf runs around without pants.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Beta (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 6:14am
  
  Re:
  I've been in a few plays, and there are always little modifications. Lines -- or whole scenes -- are omitted or rearranged; character concepts are altered a little or a lot; stage directions are treated as suggestions at best; with props and costumes, anything goes. Shakespeare is usually performed as written, but just try doing "Julius Caesar" exactly according to script-- some crucial lines make no sense!
  
  I think making the relationship in "Deathtrap" explicitly gay is ham-handed, especially since it's covert in the context of the story, but the Levin estate is being puritanical. It serves them right -- and the rest of us us poorly -- if the play fades further into obscurity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2012 @ 6:27am
  
  Re:
  I'm going to assume you don't know anything about live theater.
  
  Modifications are the norm. I've watched Hamlet 5 times in the past few years and each time it was presented in it's own original ways.
  
  Honestly to me, you might as well be asking "Why make these 'modifications' to fries? What need is there to add ketchup, cheese, spices, garlic..." I hope you get the point.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 9:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    I remember seeing a fully genderbent Midsummer Night's Dream. IT was the best fo the seven performances I've seen of the play, and each one had radically different approaches.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2012 @ 3:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Coming from you, that's no surprise.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dennis deems, 13 Sep 2012 @ 7:16am
  
  Re: Why make these "modifications"?
  In a broad sense, plays generally attempt to convince the audience that the action they are witnessing is actually occurring -- that the characters are real people. To accomplish this, the director and the actors bring a whole lot more to the stage than just the words that are written in the script. A script doesn't usually contain indications of a characters' every move and gesture, and rarely gives more than the most salient of the characters' physical interactions. The degree of information provided varies, of course; at some point it became the fashion to collate the stage manager's notes into the published script, so that very explicit designations of the exact spot each character is standing or sitting sometimes appears. But this is the blocking that was worked out in the original production by the director and the actors, in far more detail than the playwright would have supplied, and it's more often than not a burden to new productions because the arrangement of their stage set is likely to be quite different. But even in this sort of script you're not going to find a notation every time a character might heave a sigh, bite their lip, take a drink or run their fingers through their hair. In sum, the difference between the script as written and the play in performance is substantial.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PaulT (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 3:52am

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that this is a request that was refused due to the moral/political stance of the estate opposing the nature of the changes, rather than them being opposed to the breadth or number of changes.

Now, in this sense it opens up an interesting dilemma with this kind of issue. If Levin had intended that the characters were actually gay but was unable to make it explicit due to the social and political climate of the time he wrote it, it's likely that he'd have approved of the changes. If so, the estate is actually being allowed to *block* the author's intent rather than actually protect him in any way...

Of course, I might be completely wrong, but we will never know (unless Levin has some comment on this type of situation made before his death I'm not aware of). But, if I'm correct, this could be one of the more objectionable consequences of post-mortem copyright. Since corporations and the like will be often driven to profit as much from a work as possible rather than consider artistic merits, they could block uses that the author would have applauded in case they reduce the bottom line somewhere. Another defeat for the artstic argument for copyright being required.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2012 @ 10:52am
  
  Re:
  Oddly, the interest of plays and things may be exactly in those fraught situations where you have to say it covertly. That gives spark andf tension and a real story. It was written in Granta in 1992 that in the (free) West "there is nothing left for authors to write about". Because there is no tragedy and nothing needs fixing.
  Perhaps it is different now.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 4:49am

If I'm ever famous I'm gonna make sure my dead self becomes public domain. Can't those imbeciles see that they are negating further exposure? Recent movies reviewed Shakespeare and fairytales to modify them and produce new and interesting stuff which in turn will keep them alive. Do we really care if the Hamlets shown today have slight adaptations? Does it kill any of the brilliance of the originals?

It's about time we put the copyrights of the dead artists where they belong to: the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 9:20am
  
  Re:
  I'd make my body Public Domain, too. I cant' wqait to be ogled in my coffin, y'know.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ltlw0lf (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 11:24am
  
  Re:
  If I'm ever famous I'm gonna make sure my dead self becomes public domain.
  
  I don't know about making my body public domain, but if there is anything that I have created over the many years I've been here that isn't already under public domain (a majority of it is either public domain or open source,) I am on record now in saying that everything I have created that isn't public domain should be released to the public domain.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2012 @ 5:07am

'play the game i want, in the way i want or i'm taking my ball home'!

and this is by supposed adults? pathetic!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2012 @ 5:50am

As per your article the work was being presented by " LA Gay & Lesbian Center".

We can debate the morality of this, and it has been debated by people more knowledgeable and profound than anyone on this blog, but to the thinking of a large part of religion you have provided sufficient proof that what is really being discussed is moral degradation.

If you do not understand the implications of that then you have to go no further than today's world news headlines to see what happens in other parts of the world when such perversions occur.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Beta (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 6:00am
  
  Re:
  "If you do not understand the implications of that then you have to go no further than today's world news headlines to see what happens in other parts of the world when such perversions occur."
  
  I absolutely agree; religious bigotry keeps whole societies stuck in the bronze age, foments violence and condones murder all over the "holy land", blights the lives of countless--
  
  Wait... those are the perversions you're talking about, right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2012 @ 6:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    That's exactly what came to my mind..
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2012 @ 7:40am
  
  Re:
  Cultural standards are not morals.
  
  It's immoral to imply that society or morals are being degraded because people don't fall in step with your personal cultural definitions.
  
  Society as a whole suffers when you force your cultural standards on another person for no other reason than "I don't like you, that's why"
  
  If you can give me a reason beyond religion as to why you have a problem with this gay and lesbian center then have at it.
  
  I find ugly, stupid and retarded people having sex offensive and they probably negatively effect society by producing more ugly, stupid and retarded people in this world.
  
  Can you come up with a reason how gays and lesbians negatively effect society and develop an argument without using religion as your crutch?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 8:11am
    
    Re: Re:
    Forget it. He's ignored the actual point of the article and gone off on a rant about morals, the nature of which rant some people would find within itself "immoral". I don't think he's interested in developing an actual argument.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 8:50am
  
  Re:
  ...but to the thinking of a large part of religion you have provided sufficient proof that what is really being discussed is moral degradation.
  
  Correct me if I am wrong, but don't most religions include "tolerance" as a part of their teachings?
  
  And as a side note, based on my personal interactions with people who describe themselves as "religious", the words "thinking" and "sufficient proof" have much less importance then the word "faith" does to them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JJJoseph (profile), 14 Sep 2012 @ 7:23pm
    
    Re: tolerance
    @Gwiz:"Correct me if I am wrong, but don't most religions include "tolerance" as a part of their teachings?"
    
    The short answer: "No!" Maybe Christianity, but no others. (Consider yourself "corrected")
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 15 Sep 2012 @ 1:03am
      
      Re: Re: tolerance
      Consider yourself ignorant of most religions...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 9:24am
  
  Re:
  You mean like the "moral degradation" of children by the Roman Catholic Church, and a clergy that is so disconnected from its laity that it is fighting a losing battle?
  
  You mean "moral degradation" like the Islamic extremists who think that you should be killed, raped and pillaged for not being of their brand of Islamic faith?
  
  You mean "moral degradation" like the extremist Jews in Israel who think it's acceptable to say that you can rape Arabs because they're not Jews?
  
  Come back to me when you have a valid point that isn't, "I'm more orally superior to you because I have a faith and you disagree with me."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - gnudist, 13 Sep 2012 @ 11:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    'orally superior to you because i have a faith'
    
    Christians give better blowjobs?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
souehfes9h (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 5:53am

Maybe reasonable
Reasonable? Depends. Was there some kind of a contract that said that all performances will adhere to the letter of the play? If people chose to accept the contract, they have to abide by it. If so, any intentional deviation would make the result a derivative work. Sounds too bad? Don't make such contracts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 7:51am
  
  Re: Maybe reasonable
  Such a contract is required for any work that isn't in the public domain. All changes must be approved by the playwright. Of course, the playwright is dead, so...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 9:47am
  
  Re: Maybe reasonable
  No, that makes it legal, not reasonable (As was pointed out in the article).
  
  Just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
relghuar, 13 Sep 2012 @ 6:25am

"It seems overly controlling..."
Really? Just "seems"??
Like, it seems we could use some stronger language to tell such estates what we think about them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
aethercowboy (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 7:48am

The unauthorized changes to the play obviously caused harm to Levin.

He's dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2012 @ 10:58am
  
  Re:
  Or not. Maybe he has 88 evil clones all over Brazil and other wayward places.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 7:50am

This happens a lot when theatres want to remove foul language from a play and the playwright refuses. Theatres often just choose to not produce the play.

In the theatre world everyone is taught that the playwright is god, and everyone must bend to the playwright's will.

As playwright, I think it's a big joke. It basically says nobody else is allowed to be creative or contribute to the piece, which goes against the whole process of producing a play. Who's to say the changes won't improve the production? One presumes the director and theatre companies knows their audience well enough to justify the changes, which seems to be the case here.

It's really just the playwright trying to maintain their stature in a collaborative medium. It's all ego, and it's especially perverted when it's the estate and not the playwright themselves that are making demands.

Another reason why we need copyright reform so more works can return to the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2012 @ 11:01am
  
  Re:
  It's really just the playwright trying to maintain their stature in a collaborative medium.
  
  Your forthright clarity earns you blogspot number one!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jupiterkansas (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 12:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Thank you. I feel so honored.
    
    But honestly, a playwright is nothing without a director and actors. Calling their input invalid is just pompous. But they don't get to stand on stage and get applauded, so maybe they're just jealous.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pixelation, 13 Sep 2012 @ 7:50am

Levin's estate are most likely anti-gay. The really humorous thing about that is, well, it's a play put on in theater...
Think about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 7:52am
  
  Re:
  And it's a play about two gay people.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DanZee (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 7:51am

Not minor changes
I have to say I agree with the Levin estate on this one. The author purposely did not want to hit audiences over the head with the gay subplot. Obviously, that wasn't enough for the LA Gay & Lesbian Center which wanted to remove all doubt. And then because it couldn't do what it wanted, it canceled the production. The Center can do its production when the play goes into the public domain 70 or so years from now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 7:54am
  
  Re: Not minor changes
  Well, the real irony is that having the LA Gay & Lesbian Center produce this play totally ruins the big surprise that the whole mystery is based on.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 8:12am
  
  Re: Not minor changes
  "The author purposely did not want to hit audiences over the head with the gay subplot."
  
  Do you have a citation for that? Unless Levin specifically said that, or he left explicit instructions to that aim, you don't know that at all. It could be just as likely that he wanted to go further in his original production but couldn't because the audiences of the time wouldn't have accepted it.
  
  "The Center can do its production when the play goes into the public domain 70 or so years from now."
  
  ...so, Levin's wishes are OK to ignore after 70 years? What would change about them between now and the time copyright expires? Why is it moral to change them then but not now, other than an arbitrary limit that allows someone else to temporarily make his decisions for him?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2012 @ 1:36pm
    
    Re: Re: Not minor changes
    "What would change about them between now and the time copyright expires?"
    
    He'd be more dead.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
nate, 13 Sep 2012 @ 8:16am

What?
What does this have to do with Technology? NOTHING... Is this still techdirt.com?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2012 @ 9:13am
  
  Re: What?
  Yeah, precisely. What does this have to do with Dirt?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stephen, 13 Sep 2012 @ 7:39pm

why plays aren't changed
I was curious about exactly this question awhile back: Why can't directors change (non-PD) plays? A friend who's a director said it's to ensure that theatergoers see the play they bought tickets to see. Essentially, it's a trade mark-like issue. If you want to see Ira Levin's Deathtrap, you should be shown his Deathtrap, not another person's. While I am highly in favor of directors interpreting works, I do appreciate this bit of consumer protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]