Scott Rudin Tries To Turn Mess Of Shutting Down Community Theater Shows... Into Publicity Stunt For His Own Show

from the just-let-them-do-their-show,-scott dept

On Friday, we wrote about the cartoonishly evil decision by producer Scott Rudin, who is producing a big Broadway reboot of To Kill A Mockingbird, written by Aaron Sorkin, to shut down local community theater versions of the earlier play version of the story, written by Christopher Sergel. Apparently, the contract with the Harper Lee estate for a stage adaptation of her book involved some odd clause that said if there was a showing on Broadway of Mockingbird, there couldn't be any stagings near a city. And Rudin then had his lawyers threaten a whole bunch of small community theaters with cease-and-desist notices, claiming they may be on the hook for $150,000 in damages. All for small community theater operations which had paid their $100 license for the rights to perform the old Sergel version of the play.

As we noted in that post, rather than say this was about lawyers getting out of hand, Rudin doubled down on the idea, bizarrely making it sound like he had to block the productions:

"We hate to ask anybody to cancel any production of a play anywhere, but the productions in question as licensed by DPC infringe on rights licensed to us by Harper Lee directly," Rudin said in a statement.

Just because something might infringe doesn't mean you need to shut it down.

As that story got more and more attention, making Rudin look worse and worse, on Friday evening he announced a "solution" as told to the Hollywood Reporter: any theater that his lawyers had already threatened... would now be able to present the Rudin/Sorkin version of the play:

"As stewards of the performance rights of Aaron Sorkin's play, it is our responsibility to enforce the agreement we made with the Harper Lee estate and to make sure that we protect the extraordinary collaborators who made this production," said Rudin in a statement released exclusively to The Hollywood Reporter. "We have been hard at work creating what I hope might be a solution for those theater companies that have been affected by this unfortunate set of circumstances, in which rights that were not available to them were licensed to them by a third party who did not have the right to do so."

"In an effort to ameliorate the hurt caused here, we are offering each of these companies the right to perform our version of To Kill a Mockingbird, Aaron Sorkin's play, currently running on Broadway," continued Rudin's statement. "For these theaters, this is the version that can be offered to them, in concert with our agreement with Harper Lee. We hope they will choose to avail themselves of this opportunity."

On the one hand, you could say (as Rudin seems to suggest in patting himself on the back in putting forth this "opportunity") that letting small community theaters put on a big Broadway show while it's still on Broadway is quite a rare opportunity. It is. But... still, the whole situation stinks. If he's letting them put on that version, why did he threaten all of those community theaters with the potential of a lawsuit that would shut down most such theaters permanently first? And why not just let them perform the version they wanted to perform in the first place? Many of the theaters had already been rehearsing and preparing sets for the original version. And while it may feel like a nice offer to put on the newer version of the play, this whole thing feels like a cheap publicity stunt by Rudin after his cartoonishly evil moves earlier.

Just let them put on the play they wanted, rather than acting like you're making a giant concession after you made yourself look like an asshole with stupid threats to bankrupt community theaters.

"I think it's a good save from something that was, honestly, not the fault of the people who licensed it and not the fault of the people who owned the rights — which people are us — but I think ultimately for those who still can do it it's a good solution," said Rudin. "Everything that they licensed, we'll stand behind with ours."

A "good save"? Maybe stop patting yourself on the back and admit that you fucked up in the first place by unleashing lawyers with bogus threat letters to small community theaters? It's a "save" in that you're trying to save your reputation, but part of that is admitting that you made a mistake in the first place, rather than trying to turn this bad situation into free marketing for your own staging.

"Letting these theaters do it now is a substantial give for us, obviously, because it's really not in our interest to have the play out anywhere but on Broadway right now," he added.

"Substantial give." Oh come on. All you had to do was not threaten community theaters and let them put on their own version. This whole thing stinks of a Hollywood producer thinking that his own play must be what's really in demand and therefore he's being oh-so-generous in letting people present it after he basically threatened to bankrupt a ton of community theaters. Those community theaters should tell him to take his offer and stuff it.

Filed Under: aaron sorkin, community theater, copyright, infringement, scott rudin, threats, to kill a mockingbird

Producer Scott Rudin Going Around Killing Off Licensed Community Theater Shows Of To Kill A Mockingbird

from the promoting-the-progress dept

If you wanted to think of a children's story style "evil" character who must be stopped, you can't get much better than the evil rich out of towner going around the country trying to kill off local community theater productions of a beloved play, so that he can stage a massive Broadway reboot. So, step on up, Hollywood producer Scott Rudin, to the role of evil villain. Rudin is producing a new Broadway adaptation of Harper Lee's classic To Kill A Mockingbird. Of course, there already is a play based on the book, written by Christopher Sergel, that is widely performed around the country. Rudin, however, is producing a totally new version, written by famed Hollywood writer Aaron Sorkin.

Now, a normal, thinking, kind person would immediately recognize that local community theater productions can easily co-exist with this giant Broadway production with all the big Hollywood names behind it. But, that's apparently not Scott Rudin. Rudin's lawyers claim that part of the contract between the company that holds the rights to the earlier play -- a company called Dramatic Publishing Company -- if there is any version of Mockingbird on Broadway, there cannot be any other Mockingbird performances within 25 miles of any city that had a population of 150,000 or more in 1960. First off: what a weird contract. Second: this still seems like something any person with the slightest bit of emotional empathy would ignore in putting on the new Broadway show. But not Scott Rudin:

From Massachusetts to Utah, small community theater productions of "To Kill a Mockingbird" are being shut down under threat of a lawsuit by the producer of the new Broadway production.

It doesn't matter that the new version, penned by Aaron Sorkin, is completely different from the Christopher Sergel play that's been performed by high school students and community theater actors for decades. Nor does it matter that the community theaters paid a licensing fee of at least $100 dollars per performance to the Dramatic Publishing Company, which owns the rights to the earlier version of the play.

What matters, lawyers for Broadway producer Scott Rudin say, is that according to the contract between Dramatic and the Harper Lee estate, most amateur performances can't proceed now that a new version of the story is on Broadway.

Now, you might imagine that this was the kind of thing where the lawyers got ahead of themselves and were more aggressive than they needed to be, and once this started getting attention, Rudin would apologize and say it was all a mistake. But, nope. Not Scott Rudin:

"We hate to ask anybody to cancel any production of a play anywhere, but the productions in question as licensed by DPC infringe on rights licensed to us by Harper Lee directly," Rudin said in a statement.

That makes no sense. If you hate to ask anybody to cancel a production, then you don't have to demand that anyone cancels a production. The fact that it may "infringe on the rights" in the contract does not necessitate action. Rudin still had a choice. And he made a really awful one.

Even Rudin's statement is bullshit. His lawyers are not just "asking" small community theaters who have paid money to license the play to cancel their production, he's threatening them with massive court costs and penalties:

With the dispute unsettled, Rudin's lawyers in late February started sending letters directly to the theaters. The theaters are being threatened with damages of up to $150,000, the Associated Press reports. And so in towns across the country, performers are getting the bad news.

$150,000, of course, is the top statutory damages allowed for willful infringement of copyright. But, it takes a special kind of awfulness to argue that small community theaters who paid for and properly licensed a play are guilty of willful infringement.

And, of course, this kind of evil bullying is working:

Dozens of community and nonprofit theaters have canceled their productions, the AP says. More than 25 are scheduled to perform the original version this year, the New York Times reports. It's unclear whether those productions will proceed.

The Kavinoky Theatre in Buffalo, N.Y., which had sold around 3,000 advance tickets, will replace Mockingbird with an adaptation of George Orwell's "1984." "Thank you for supporting us during this difficult time," the theater posted on Facebook. "As we say in the theatre....THE SHOW MUST GO ON!!!!!!!!"

And at least one local theater has decided not to abandon its production, but rather to move it. The Mugford Street Players, based in the Marblehead suburb of Boston, is moving its performances to Gloucester in order to circumvent the contract's restriction on performances within 25 miles of a major city.

That's... awful. If you've ever been even remotely involved in community theater productions, you know that they're labors of love, rather than any serious moneymaking opportunity. These are people who put their hearts and souls into putting on a performance for their community and now an asshole producer and his high priced lawyers from Hollywood come barging in threatening them with bogus damages for a putting on a different play that they properly licensed.

People should boycott Rudin/Sorkin's production and go see a local community production instead.

Filed Under: aaron sorkin, broadway, community theater, copyright, evil, harper lee, scott rudin, to kill a mockingbird
Companies: dramatic publishing company

Harper Lee's Estate's First Order Of Business: Kill Off The Cheap Version Of To Kill A Mockingbird

from the that-seems-problematic dept

To Kill a Mockingbird is obviously one of the most well-known and widely read books in American literature. And, of course, there's been some controversy of late around its author, Harper Lee, who passed away last month. Much of the controversy focused on the decision last year to publish Go Set a Watchman, which was initially described as something of a long lost "sequel" to TKAM, but which it was later admitted was actually an early draft of TKAM. Many argued that Lee didn't actually intend for the book to be published, and that she may have been taken advantage of by those around her. Either way, the controversy is now growing, following Lee's death, as what appears to be the first and second orders of business for Lee's estate was to (1) have the details of her will sealed and (2) stop publishing the mass market paperback version of To Kill a Mockingbird, making sure that the only new versions of the book that will be available will be the noticeably more expensive trade paperbacks.

The New Republic has obtained an email from Hachette Book Group, sent on Friday, March 4 to booksellers across the country, revealing that Lee’s estate will no longer allow publication of the mass-market paperback edition of To Kill a Mockingbird.

According to the email, which a number of booksellers in multiple states have confirmed that they received a variation of, no other publisher will be able to produce the edition either, meaning there will no longer be a mass-market version of To Kill a Mockingbird available in the United States. Mass-market paperbacks are smaller and significantly cheaper than trade paperbacks—sometimes called “airport books,” mass-market paperbacks are typically available in non-bookstore retail outlets, like airports and supermarkets.

As the story at The New Republic notes, this could have a major impact on the ability of schools to assign the book to students -- a key part of what made the book such a classic American novel:

...the disappearance of the mass-market edition could have a significant impact on schools. The fact that To Kill a Mockingbird is both so accessible to young readers and so widely taught in America is crucial to its cultural importance. In 1988, the National Council of Teachers of English reported that To Kill a Mockingbird was taught in a whopping 74 percent of schools and that “Only Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, and Huckleberry Finn were assigned more often.” Today, To Kill a Mockingbird has almost certainly surpassed the controversial Finn as the most assigned novel in America’s middle- and high schools, and those often cash-strapped schools are far more likely to buy the cheaper mass-market edition than the more expensive trade paperback. According to the email sent by Hachette to booksellers, “more than two-thirds of the 30 million copies sold worldwide since publication have been Hachette’s low-priced edition.”

Without a mass-market option, schools will likely be forced to pay higher prices for bulk orders of the trade paperback edition—and given the perilous state of many school budgets, that could very easily lead to it being assigned in fewer schools. (Schools typically receive a bulk sale rate that gives them more than 50 percent off of the list price of a book—they most likely pay less than $4.50 per copy of the mass-market paperback of TKAM, whereas a copy of the trade paperback would cost no more than $7.50.) Hachette is upfront about this possibility: a bullet point in the email reads, “The disappearance of the iconic mass-market edition is very disappointing to us, especially as we understand this could force a difficult situation for schools and teachers with tight budgets who cannot afford the larger, higher priced paperback edition that will remain in the market.”

Of course, no one is denying that the Lee Estate (whoever is running it) has the legal right to do this. As the article also notes, while it will almost certainly mean much fewer book sales, the Estate itself will likely make more money, since the sales of the more expensive books will bring in more cash per sale. But from a cultural perspective, it's still rather depressing and unfortunate. The point of copyright, again, is supposed to be to help create those incentives to get these works spread out and available to the public. And yet here's it's being used in the opposite manner, yet again.

And the most damning of all in this is that when Lee published the book back in 1960, she knew that the absolute longest the book would be under copyright would be 56 years -- or, right up until this year. Yes, the incentive to Lee to write the book was such that it was perfectly fine for her knowing that on January 1st, 2017, the book would go into the public domain. Unfortunately, thanks to the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, it'll be many, many decades before the book actually goes into the public domain, if it ever does (if my calculations are correct, the book should hit the public domain in 2056 under current law).

And here we now see the clear market distortion of copyright. It's obvious that Lee did not need these additional four decades of copyright protection because, after all, she wrote the book having no clue that copyright would be extended in that manner. So there was no additional "incentive" necessary here. And yet, rather than going into the public domain in 9 months, allowing the book to be distributed freely on the internet or in a wide variety of super inexpensive mass market paperbacks (like other public domain material), instead, such versions of the book are being liquidated, and the only new copies available will be much more expensive. The gap between what the book should cost as a public domain book and what it will cost now as only a trade paperback -- for the next forty years -- is a blatant tax on the public created entirely by copyright law.

And, yes, I'm sure some will argue that there are plenty of used copies of the book, along with libraries. But this will clearly end up costing the book-buying public a significant sum of money. That's why the estate is doing this. And it's difficult to see how that fits with the intent or purpose of copyright law, even if it fits under what the law does allow.

Filed Under: availability, copyright, culture, harper lee, mass market paperback, money, public domain, to kill a mockingbird, trade paperback

Author Of To Kill A Mockingbird Sues Agent For Swiping Her Copyright

from the actual-copyright-theft? dept

I know that the big copyright guys now love to use the term "copyright theft" to describe mere infringement. But if the story presented by Harper Lee, the 87-year-old author of To Kill A Mockingbird, in a new lawsuit is accurate, it appears that she's one of the few actual victims of copyright theft. She's now sued her former literary agent Samuel Pinkus, claiming that he effectively tricked her into signing away her copyright on the work to Pinkus' company, Keystone Literary.

Lee, who has failing eyesight and hearing, was residing in an assisted-living facility in 2007 after suffering a stroke when she signed a document assigning her copyright to Pinkus’s company, according to the complaint. While the copyright was re- assigned to Lee last year after legal action and Pinkus was discharged as Lee’s agent, he was still receiving royalties from the novel as of this year, according to the complaint.

“Pinkus knew that Harper Lee was an elderly woman with physical infirmities that made it difficult for her to read and see,” Gloria Phares, Lee’s lawyer, said in the complaint. “Harper Lee had no idea she had assigned her copyright” to Pinkus’s company.

I've been trying to find the case in PACER and have so far failed (so if anyone has better luck, please let me know -- also shame on the news media for failing to post the actual filing). Though, in doing so, I discovered that Pinkus has been involved in a few other legal spats with authors, including with the heirs of John Steinbeck in a key case about termination rights and copyright.

Filed Under: copyright, harper lee, samuel pinkus, to kill a mockingbird