Parody or Copyright Violation?
12-7-13
I get a lot of questions on our tumblr and twitter about copyright stuff. People just wanting to know simple things like can they cut lines from a script? (The basic answer - no.) Other questions I get lots of are: Can I film my show? (Only if it's in the public domain or you have permission from the copyright holder.) I only took one class in school that covered theatre law and my understanding of the laws is strictly from an American perspective but I've been happy to help people who have been stumped by the language in their contracts. If you don't understand something in the contract or know you're going to violate the agreement - don't sign it!
Little tiny theatres have been sued in the past by the big dogs for little changes. Famous examples include: Neil Simon shutting down productions for eliminating the cursing, Beckett shutting down an all female production of Godot, (My favorite quote from him on this trial, "If I wanted women in the play I would have written them that way!), Beckett's estate is still engrossed in a trial with director JoAnna Akalaitis for changing the setting and race of the actors in a famous production of Endgame. But if you want to read a really well written article on copyright violation and the effects it can have on a theatre you have to read the infamous "Little Shop of Horrors" case.
This weekend in Hong Kong we had a very good thing happen for comics. Parody, as defined as, a humorous or satirical imitation of a serious piece of literature or writing, has been considered a copyright violation for a long time in HK as HK was a British colony and the UK has some really weird laws about parody. (You remember back during the Royal Wedding - they weren't allowed to do any mocking of the wedding on tv/radio?) This is because they have a really picky law when it comes to parody. Basically to parody a piece of copyrighted material in the UK, you must have the permission of the person who owns the copyright. See more info here.
Today in Hong Kong it was announced that a panel has been assembled to review whether parody violates a copyright or not. "To keep up with the rapid development of the knowledge-based economy, we keep our copyright regime under regular review to ensure that it continues to evolve and serve the best interests of Hong Kong. Parody may be exempted from criminal liability under a proposed copyright regime." Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Gregory So Kam-leung said at a press conference yesterday.
This is a big step forward for comics and artists in HK. In October we'll find out whether we can parody movies/shows freely without a lawsuit coming down on us. "Article 23" in my opinion, does infringe on a person's freedom of speech and I hope that it will be amended in October. For more information on the panel, you can read about it in The Standard.
And for one of my favorite parodies in HK, go over to Tom Grundy's blog and read the Sub-Standard - a parody of HK's lackluster news scene - and read his posting on when the Standard got their knickers in a twist over a parody about a month back.
It's good to see that people are growing a sense of humor and learning to lighten up. I grew up in the States where we openly parody and mock everyone. I hope HK can become a delightful haven where all copyrighted material can be treated equally: as fodder for my jokes.
Have any copyright questions? Leave them below in the comment section!
Comments
No comment at the moment.