Return-Path: X-Processed-By: Virex 7 on prxy.net X-Real-To: stagecraftlist [at] theatrical.net Received: by prxy.net (CommuniGate Pro PIPE 4.2.6) with PIPE id 11564451; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 03:01:00 -0800 X-ListServer: CommuniGate Pro LIST 4.2.6 List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Message-ID: From: "Stagecraft" Sender: "Stagecraft" To: "Stagecraft" Precedence: list Subject: Stagecraft Digest #244 Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 03:00:44 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on prxy.net X-TFF-CGPSA-Version: 1.4f2 X-prxy-Spam-Filter: Scanned For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see --------------------------------------------------- Stagecraft Digest, Issue #244 1. Re: Triscuit Studwall ?? by Cosmo Catalano 2. Re: Intellectual property rights by "Paul Guncheon" 3. Re: Intellectual property rights by John McKernon 4. Re: Intellectual property rights by "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" 5. Re: Interlectual [sic] property rights by "Scheu Consulting Services" 6. Re: Interlectual [sic] property rights by "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" 7. Re: Scenic printing on wide format printers by "Michael Wade" 8. Re: Intellectual property rights by "ladesigners [at] juno.com" 9. Re: Intellectual property rights by IAEG [at] aol.com 10. Re: Intellectual property rights by "Rufus" 11. Re: intellectual property - long post by Bruce Purdy 12. Re: Scenic printing on wide format printers (Rose Brand phone #) by MPTecDir [at] aol.com 13. Re: Intelectual Property Rights by 14. Re: intellectual property - long post by "ladesigners [at] juno.com" 15. Re: Intellectual property rights by "ladesigners [at] juno.com" 16. Re: behringer et al continued..... by 17. Puccini, Butterflies, and Saigon (was RE: Interlectual [sic] property right by andy [at] ducksechosound.com 18. Re: Puccini, Butterflies, and Saigon (was RE: Interlectual [sic] property r by IAEG [at] aol.com 19. Tirfor/Griphoist question by Jared Fortney 20. Re: Puccini, Butterflies, etc by Boyd Ostroff *** Please update the subject line of your reply to use the subject *** line of the message you are replying to! Please only reply to *** one message subject in each reply. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:03:01 -0500 From: Cosmo Catalano Subject: Re: Triscuit Studwall ?? In-reply-to: Message-id: <22C99ADB-5A63-11D9-AF05-000D936C1414 [at] williams.edu> References: Josh-- We use the studwalls on 4ft centers. We have no problem rolling my cherry picker over them (700+ lbs) at that span--provided they are built correctly and installed in the proper orientation. As to cross bracing, we find we can go about 12" high w/o and braces in either direction, but we achieve that by screwing them into the deck with screws near the edges of the bottom 2x4. This forms a quasi-moment connection that is reasonably stiff. With no way to attach them to the floor, I'd brace them horizontally at the bottom between walls and diagonally in both directions. Note, if you have an assembly of triscuits, say 12' x12', you'd only need to brace the exterior walls to achieve a good rigid platform. Of course if you face the perimeter walls with ply--suitably attached--you've taken care of most of your bracing needs. We also often overhang the triscuits 4" to 6" beyond the studwall on the DS edges, this give a very nice look. We avoid placing large loads on this overhang. Cosmo Cosmo Catalano Production Manager Williams College Dept. of Theatre 1000 Main St. Williamstown, MA 01267 > Is this a misprint, or are >> studwalls needed in the middle of a triscuit that the triscuit is not >> bolted to? >> >> Josh Wirtz >> ------------------------------ Message-ID: <031801c4ee82$8d4f9a60$0202a8c0 [at] MyLastPC> From: "Paul Guncheon" References: Subject: Re: Intellectual property rights Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:16:33 -1000 <> I'm not quite clear on this. If I have an idea, be it a design, a story concept, or as part of a bid proposal, and write it down, it is not protected? Laters, Paul "These percussion instruments taste great," said Tom symbolically. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 10:53:05 -0500 Subject: Re: Intellectual property rights From: John McKernon Message-ID: In-Reply-To: > I'm not quite clear on this. If I have an idea, be it a design, a story > concept, or as part of a bid proposal, and write it down, it is not > protected? What's protected under copyright are the actual words used to express your idea, not the idea itself. - John McKernon ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" Subject: RE: Intellectual property rights Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 10:59:38 -0500 Message-ID: <000301c4ee88$96501490$6601a8c0 [at] Dell> In-Reply-To: > > I'm not quite clear on this. If I have an idea, be it a design, a > > story concept, or as part of a bid proposal, and write it > down, it is > > not protected? > > What's protected under copyright are the actual words used to > express your idea, not the idea itself. For example, if you're doing "Fiddler on the Roof", you may use the idea of doing the set in the style of Marc Chagall (since the title of the show derives from a metaphor frequently used by Chagall, it makes sense to do so, the recent revival notwithstanding), but you may not duplicate the original designs. ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: "Scheu Consulting Services" Subject: RE: Interlectual [sic] property rights Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:18:52 -0500 Organization: Scheu Consulting Services, Inc. Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Just a quick chime in... Spell checker? Lighten up! I think most of us got the gist of Boyd's = humor. And Boyd will remember a certain director at a certain SUNY College on a certain Great Lake that would, on a regular basis, not only usurp = classic story lines, but take full credit for the story itself. So we had such = "new" children's theatre classics as "Mary Poppins", "Huckleberry Finn", or = "Alice in Wonderland" BY (insert director's name here). This is how it would literally be written on the programs and promotional posters. Not even = an acknowledgement to the original authors... Jeeze... Copyright laws have never been a limiting factor for giant egos. Back to lurking mode... Have a great New Years everyone! Peter Scheu Scheu Consulting Services, Inc. www.scheuconsulting.com Tel: 315.422.9984 fax: 413.513.4966 ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" Cc: peter [at] scheuconsulting.com Subject: RE: Interlectual [sic] property rights Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:23:56 -0500 Message-ID: <001101c4ee8c$0ab25cf0$6601a8c0 [at] Dell> In-Reply-To: > This > is how it would literally be written on the programs and > promotional posters. Not even an acknowledgement to the > original authors... I was simultaneously amused and appalled to read in the program notes for "Miss Saigon" a long description of the creators' sources of inspiration...with no mention whatsoever of Puccini. ------------------------------ Message-ID: <001201c4ee8e$55a1cb90$6600a8c0 [at] Mike> Reply-To: "Michael Wade" From: "Michael Wade" References: Subject: Re: Scenic printing on wide format printers Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:40:53 -0500 Another option is to call Image King Visual Services in NYC. They can print on any number of materials and the turn around is usually pretty quick and most of their products come with an FR rating. They can print on this stuff called 'Primed Canvas' that looks pretty darn good. Give either Spencer or Jean a call [at] 212-867-4747 Good luck. Feel free to email off list with any questions. Mike ---------------------------------------------------- On 12 28 John Ares wrote: Just mulling my options... I was finding that the rolls of this fabric, 33 feet long, is running over=20 $250 each. Each banner I'd make would be at least 20' long... this might be=20 a really expensive route, after all! (I am looking at perhaps a dozen=20 banners.) But I can't imagine Rose Brand would do this cheaper than I=20 could..... ------------------------------ From: "ladesigners [at] juno.com" Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 16:55:42 GMT Subject: Re: Intellectual property rights Message-Id: <20041230.085558.21852.115786 [at] webmail06.lax.untd.com> That is correct. NOT morally correct, just legally correct under Copyright. Again there may be unfair competition statutes on the State level that could afford you some relief, but it is my no means assured. /s/ Richard If I have an idea, be it a design, a story concept, or as part of a bid proposal, and write it down, it is not protected? Paul ________________________________________________________________ Juno Gift Certificates Give the gift of Internet access this holiday season. http://www.juno.com/give ------------------------------ From: IAEG [at] aol.com Message-ID: <1ee.31f9c022.2f05913c [at] aol.com> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 12:13:32 EST Subject: Re: Intellectual property rights In a message dated 12/30/04 12:06:44 PM, ladesigners [at] juno.com writes: >That is correct. NOT morally correct, just legally correct under Copyright. >Again there may be unfair competition statutes on the State level that >could afford you some relief, but it is my no means assured. >/s/ Richard > >If I have an idea, be it a design, a story concept, or as part of a bid >proposal, and write it down, it is not protected? >Paul although you have to admit that legal protection, , either copyright or patent is being given these days for such "general" things ( i e the whole Source Four issue, as well as the "sound of a Harley Davidson exhaust ) that would NEVER have been considered as "protectable" by the federal agencies years ago, so ya never know, , very best, Keith Arsenault IAEG - International Arts & Entertainment Group Tampa, Florida 813 831 3465 Mr. Arsenault's Office 813 205 0893 Mr. Arsenault's Cellular www.iaeginc.com ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: "Rufus" Subject: RE: Intellectual property rights Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:20:53 -0600 Message-ID: <00ae01c4ee93$eaa28860$6400a8c0 [at] PC123093183111> In-Reply-To: >>although you have to admit that legal protection, , either copyright or patent is being given these days for such "general" things ( i e the whole Source ------- In patents, an idea is not protectable, only the method in witch the action is carried out. Using someone's intellectual property to create a design or product, simply makes the design or product a derivative of the others work. Moreover original ideas are hard to come by, so a few people go shopping for them, in work produced by others. Rufus Warren III Voice 708-499-0107 Fax Line 708-499-0046 E-Mail rufus [at] design-drafting.com Web Site www.design-drafting.com autodesk OEM partner, UAR & authorized developer HP authorized developer ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 12:35:17 -0500 Subject: Re: intellectual property - long post From: Bruce Purdy Message-ID: In-Reply-To: As part of his excellent post about copyrights, Richard Finkelstein wrote: > "Yes we changed the characters in Godot to women but that's ok because we > didn't change the lines" > < Snip > > > For those not already in the know, all of the above rationalizations are > totally wrong. Recently there was a discussion centring around West Side Story, in which various tales were recounted about changing the racial or ethnic identities of characters in that and other shows. This was often done in response to available talent, and sounded like accepted practice. Genders have also been changed - sometimes to fulfil a director's "Artistic vision". At the time, Richard's point was not mentioned. Is it OK to change elements of a show or not? Sometimes yes - sometimes no? -- Bruce Purdy Technical Director Smith Opera House ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 13:02:30 -0500 From: MPTecDir [at] aol.com Subject: Re: Scenic printing on wide format printers (Rose Brand phone #) Message-ID: <1D69A72D.03720613.00740ECC [at] aol.com> StevenEhrenberg [at] clearchannel.com writes: >John - Don't imagine... call Peter Monahan at Rose Brand ..... >Rose brand in NYC 800 222 1624 Steven, You've got a typo. The # is 800-223-1624 rather than -222- -- Michael Michael Powers, Technical Director U Mass Amherst, Dept of Theatre 112 Fine Arts Center West 151 Presidents Drive Ofc 2 Amherst, MA 01003-9331 Phone: 413-545-6821 Fax: 413-577-0025 http://www.umass.edu/theater/ mfpowers [at] theater.umass.edu mptecdir [at] aol.com ------------------------------ From: Subject: Re: Intelectual Property Rights Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 13:23:54 -0500 Message-Id: <20041230182356.STDL17983.fed1rmmtao02.cox.net [at] smtp.west.cox.net> >if I alter a recipe for a contest, I have to >change at least three ingredients or other aspects of >the original recipe to "create" an original recipe. >I'm not sure how this falls in line with stage design >though. Me neither, but if I change one mount, change one ingredient, and add an ingredient that wasn't in the original, is that a new recipe? Chris Babbie OTR Location Sound ------------------------------ From: "ladesigners [at] juno.com" Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 18:25:41 GMT Subject: Re: intellectual property - long post Message-Id: <20041230.102544.2280.115947 [at] webmail16.lax.untd.com> NOT Legally... /s/ Richard At the time, Richard's point was not mentioned. Is it OK to change elements of a show or not? Sometimes yes - sometimes no? Bruce Purdy ________________________________________________________________ Juno Gift Certificates Give the gift of Internet access this holiday season. http://www.juno.com/give ------------------------------ From: "ladesigners [at] juno.com" Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 18:36:55 GMT Subject: Re: Intellectual property rights Message-Id: <20041230.103735.2280.116155 [at] webmail16.lax.untd.com> Yes, the "potato-potato-potato" sound is protected, but the "rivet-rivet" sound of actors portraying frogs from a TV show may not be. /s/ Richard the "sound of a Harley Davidson exhaust ) that would NEVER have been considered as "protectable" by the federal agencies years ago, so ya never know, , Keith Arsenault ________________________________________________________________ Juno Gift Certificates Give the gift of Internet access this holiday season. http://www.juno.com/give ------------------------------ From: Subject: Re: behringer et al continued..... Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 13:44:58 -0500 Message-Id: <20041230184500.TGLZ17983.fed1rmmtao02.cox.net [at] smtp.west.cox.net> >To the best of my knowlege, Mackie gear is and always has been made in the >USA. Thank you for playing, we have some nice prizes for you in the back. Tell 'im what he's won, Johnny! Greg took his operation to China, so he could compete with Behringer. No way he could develop the stuff for Behringer and pay americans what they want at the same time and sell at a price that a competitor was offering, already manufacturing in China and stealing designs left and right. Chris Babbie OTR Location Sound ------------------------------ Message-ID: <1800.67.85.231.27.1104455853.spork [at] webmail.ducksechosound.com> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 17:17:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Puccini, Butterflies, and Saigon (was RE: Interlectual [sic] property rights) From: andy [at] ducksechosound.com Jeff Salzbert wrote: > I was simultaneously amused and appalled to read in the > program notes for "Miss Saigon" a long description of the > creators' sources of inspiration...with no mention whatsoever > of Puccini. What production was this? I know that the NY production made quite clear reference to Puccini, as well as all the other predecessors. On the website for the UK tour (which matches my recollection from both the souvenir program and the CD liner notes of the Complete Recording), there are two sections on inspiration. The first, from Claude Michel Sch�nberg, doesn't explicitly reference Puccini, but does reference Madame Butterfly. Then, there is the typical program-esque third-person background note (which is, in fact, under a heading on the webpage titled "Madam Butterfly"), which reads: "From Madame Chrysantheme "In 1897 a story was published in Century Magazine called Madame Butterfly. It was written by John Luther Long. It is probable that Long had read a popular novel of the time called Madame Chrysantheme by a French Navel officer, Piere Loti. The novel was based on Loti's stay in Japan and told of his short lived contract marriage to a Geisha girl in Nagasaki. The magazine story was a great success and it was from this that the American playwright and producer David Belasco created a one act play also called Madam Butterfly. The play premiered in New York in 1900, it took the public storm and a month later it was taken to London where it opened at the Duke of York's Theatre. "Puccini was in London for the premier of TOSCA and went to see the play. He immediately realised its potential as an opera. On 17 February 1904 Puccini's Madame Butterfly premiered at La Scala, Milan. "Alain Boublil and Claude Michel Sch�nberg were first inspired by a photo, taken a few weeks before the fall of Saigon, of a women giving up her child at Saigon airport in the hope of a new life in America. This photo led them back to the story of Madame Butterfly and then to its source, Madame Chrysantheme. This in turn inspired them to write their own version of the story, Miss Saigon." So, not only do they give profuse credit to Puccini, but also to those whom you and many others deny credit by accrediting the story to Puccini! --Andy ------------------------------ From: IAEG [at] aol.com Message-ID: <1df.31fdfe29.2f060929 [at] aol.com> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 20:45:13 EST Subject: Re: Puccini, Butterflies, and Saigon (was RE: Interlectual [sic] property rights) In a message dated 12/30/04 8:18:15 PM, andy [at] ducksechosound.com writes: > > >So, not only do they give profuse credit to Puccini, but also to those > >whom you and many others deny credit by accrediting the story to Puccini! > > > >--Andy and of course we should note that MOST (but not all!) of the Puccini repertoire has now passed into Public Domain, , ( Boyd, , Turandot and one other are still under copyright? I am sure you will know ) very best, Keith Arsenault IAEG - International Arts & Entertainment Group Tampa, Florida 813 831 3465 Mr. Arsenault's Office 813 205 0893 Mr. Arsenault's Cellular www.iaeginc.com ------------------------------ Message-ID: <45c56d340412301756d6ff99c [at] mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 20:56:51 -0500 From: Jared Fortney Reply-To: Jared Fortney Subject: Tirfor/Griphoist question The tightwire discussion from a few weeks back reminded me of a question that came up this summer while I was working for a circus rigging tightwires with Tirfors. Does anyone know how a Tirfor fails from overloading? I don't mean the sheer pin breaking, but actually overloading the gripping mechanism. Will the wire rope slip? Will it break? Will the machine just give way? Anyone have any experience with a failing Tirfor? Thanks, -Jared Fortney UC-CCM ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 22:38:13 -0500 (EST) From: Boyd Ostroff Subject: Re: Puccini, Butterflies, etc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 IAEG [at] aol.com wrote: > and of course we should note that MOST (but not all!) of the Puccini > repertoire has now passed into Public Domain, , ( Boyd, , Turandot and > one other are still under copyright? I am sure you will know ) Sorry, copyrights and royalties are not really my area of expertise in the world of opera. However I would assume that even if his compositions are falling into the public domain, the scores which we all use from the usual publishers (Ricordi, Schirmer) are still protected by copyright. Just listen and you will hear snippets of Puccini in various places. One of the most blantant examples would the the "humming chorus" from Butterfly, which bears a more than coincidental resemblance to "Bring him home" from Les Mis... | Boyd Ostroff | Director of Design and Technology | Opera Company of Philadelphia | http://tech.operaphilly.com | ostroff [at] operaphilly.com ------------------------------ End of Stagecraft Digest #244 *****************************