Posted on 05/21/2005 9:15:41 PM PDT by Rastus
GLENELG, Md. - A black Huck Finn and a white Jim might be OK for a high school production of Mark Twain's classic tale — but those performances had to be edited out of a C-Span talent show after the copyright holder objected to the cross-casting.
Jay Frisby, a black student who played Huck, and Nick Lehan, a white student who played Jim, taped their performance of the song "Muddy Water" for "Close Up," a weekly show that highlights high school excellence.
When the program aired Friday, the two Glenelg Country School seniors were introduced, but viewers were told that "Close Up" could not show their performance because of "copyright restrictions."
Lehan and Frisby had played the roles of Jim and Huck in the school's production of "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" without complaint. But when the show's executive producer asked for the right to air the students' performance, permission was denied.
Bert Fink, a spokesman for R&H Theatricals — the Rodgers & Hammerstein organization, which holds the license to the play — said his organization is not against cross-casting in general.
"But when you're dealing with a theatrical work and race or ethnicity is a key factor, many authors or playwrights feel strongly that ethnicity has to be reflected in the actors who portray the characters," he said.
"In the books, Jim is a runaway slave. He is clearly in the novel an African-American man. And Huck is a free white man — that is central to the story. To ignore that component or to comment on it by switching is not faithful to the story."
Frisby's father, Washington attorney Russell Frisby, said he was appalled by the decision.
"The only rationale for it is that someone in New York believes Huck Finn can't be played by an African-American. I thought we were past the days of 'whites only' clauses," the elder Frisby said.
I can't wait to see what they do with "Porgy and Bess"
Butt, that's what gives it the flavor!
Can you expand on Disney Co. bending copyright rules???
It has attracted my attention.
"The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998"
Gee, you'd never guess that Bono was an entertainer and copyright holder, would you?
The Constitution empowers the government "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
This law goes *way* beyond that.
"For works created after January 1, 1978, copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years."
Should be "for twenty years following the creation of the work." Or maybe ten years.
"For anonymous and pseudonymous works and works made for hire, copyright lasts 95 years from the year of first publication or 120 years from the year of creation, whichever ends first."
If it's anonymous, whose name is on the copyright? And 120 years? Is that what the framers of the Constitution meant by "a limited time?" I don't think so.
"For pre-1978 works (Like everything Sonny and Cher did) still in their original or renewal term of copyright, copyright is extended to 95 years from the date that copyright was originally secured."
This law is mercantilism in a malignant form.
Everything the huge media conglomerates do could be done better and more cheaply, conferring great benefits on the public while providing reasonable protection for "authors and inventors," if not for these unconstitutional copyright laws.
The only thing these laws do is to protect the power of parasitic media conglomerates to shaft both the public and the actual creators of music and other entertainment. And with their power safely entrenched, these media conglomerates use it also to determine what the public sees and hears.
Not right now as I am studying and can't/won't track it down, but as I recall the last time they changed the rules I read an article on how every time they change the rules is just so happens that Mickey Mouse is about to lose copywrite protection.
Never mind that, they are now doing a black version of "The Honeymooners" with Cedric the Entertainer as Ralph Kramden, what's the world coming to?
My question is how come they have to keep doing remakes.
Can no creative person pass the political test for admission to Hollyweird?
It's the Rodgers & Hammerstein version that's copyright protected.
I wish someone would challenge it in court. The following song, sung with the current "happy birthday" tune [save for the lack of subdivision on the first word of each line] was published long enough ago to be out of copyright:
Good morning to youPerhaps substituting "happy birthday" for "good morning" justifies a new copyright, but I would tend to doubt it.
Good morning to you
Good morning dear children
Good morning to all
Huckleberry Finn is public domain. I fail to see why the R & H concert library is claiming copyright on a work published in the 1800s, unless it's a contemporary adaptation of some sort. More Hollywood ypes in action, I suppose.
They should have cast a disabled, Latina Lesbian as Huck and an overweight, Chinese man as Jim. That would have been an interesting bit of casting.
As I understand it, it takes the characters and situations into a stage play production complete with songs, new dialog, etc. I don't know how long ago it was done, but it would make sense that it exists as its own copyright protectable entity.
"The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 extended many copyrights by 20 years. Here are the details, straight from the Copyright Office FAQ:"
That's an awfull lot of work to go through to keep making money from "I Got/Had You Babe".
It's not the Mark Twain novel that's copyrighted in this case; It's the Broadway musical based on the book.
Which is richly ironic: The copyright holder heavily altered the original to turn it into a stage musical, and now sues because someone in turn alters that work.
"Never mind that, they are now doing a black version of "The Honeymooners" with Cedric the Entertainer as Ralph Kramden, what's the world coming to?"
Now that is truly stupid.
It won't be long before you can buy pre-chewed food on aisle 6.
It is a ridiculous claim, to be sure. Here's the history:
Originally published in 1893 as "Good Morning to All" in the collection "Song Stories for the Kindergarten." Words by Patty Smith Hill (1868-1946), Music by Mildred J. Hill (1859-1916). The music and original words entered the public domain in 1949 at the very latest.
The phrase "Happy Birthday to You" lacks sufficient originality to be the subject of copyright. Nevertheless, one of the predecessors of today's Federal Mullahcracy declared that the COMBINATION of PD words with PD music was sufficient reason for a copyright (Jessica M. Hill v. Sam H. Harris, et al). So the copyright was duly registered in 1935 and remains in force until the year 2031 (if the term isn't extended between now and then). Warner Brothers owns the copyright - yet another example of degenerate Hollywood leftists raking in the cash. When are folks going to wake up and stop funding their own destruction?
and isn't that why restaurants began singing their own birthday songs?
That's a correct outline of the copyright terms. Some other posters have pointed out that the extension was done on behalf of Disney, which is correct. The nickname for the "Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act" is the "Mickey Mouse Copyright Law." It was passed in 1998 (after Bono's death) and signed into law by Beelzebubba himself. It only cost Michael Eisner about 600,000 in donations to campaign funds. Maybe if we raised a couple of million they'd change it back. Ha!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.