Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Copyright question of the day
Copyright was originally designed to give an incentive to create - you get a limited monopoly over your work so that you can sell it. These days copyright is used for much more.

In your opinion, is it acceptable to use copyright as an authorisation method, by refusing to sell to people if you don't like what they're doing with your work?

Example 1: The Samuel French Company denies rights for an all-female cast to perform a production of Grease in which Danny Zuko is played by a girl.

Example 2: A high school adds social comment to a production of Huckleberry Finn by swapping ethnicity of the two lead characters - a black student plays Huck and a white student plays Jim. The publisher (not the author) denies the request for rights on the basis that the author's intent has been modified.

Honest opinions please. (Gathering data from my oh-so-large sample size...)

  • 1
This is a tough one isn't it! I would have to say that if the author was alive to have their say, then that is fair enough. If said author says no, then you have to respect their work.

In both of these cases it seems that it is someone other than the author giving the answer on usage of the copyrighted material and I think that is wrong. Collect the rights, but they didn't write it, so can't comment on the "author's intent".

  • 1