Help needed with Ethical question

Can anyone please help with this on.All names have been removed to protect the innocent and guilty.I have this "FRIEND" and my friend lent an UNPUBLISHED script (that my friend had been tracking down for 6 years and is still unpublished [I think]) to a person,my friend was very reluctant to hand over the script because my friend was going to do this play quite soon.Now, the person my friend lent the script to said that they were going to do the show ONLY in the country as not to take away audience and so the show would be "fresh" to a metro theatre going public.BUT it has come to my friends attention that this unpublished play is beingput on very, very, very close to the home theatre of my friend, meaning thatmy friend can't do her production.It seems to be a direct "stealing" of audienceis my friend just stupid for lending the script or does she have a genuinereason to complain. is there anything my friend can do ?A. Friend

My advice (spurious as it may be) is that it is unfortunate that the lending of the the play wasn't recorded in any fashion, nor an agreement drawn up in writing. Another point is that unless your friend makes their sole livelihood froom theatrical productions, there's little weight to any loss of income argument. Matter aren't helped by the play not being published. If it was, then there would have to be rights applied for and granted. This would act as proof of "hire", and would have documentation as a back-up.Yes it is probably "stealing" an audience, but there seems little recourse that I can think of, other than appeals to the decency of the involved parties.> is my friend just stupid for lending the script or does she have> a genuine reason to complain.Possibly both. I'm certainly wary of lending out any stuff I've written or composed without the magic words "Copyright of..." on it somewhere. Then again, if this "person" was a decent human being to begin with, they wouldn't have done the dirty in the first place.>is there anything my friend can do ?Yep. Scream from the rooftops and bring other people's attaention to his/her plight.Alternatively, track the rotten person down, ring them up at half hour intervals and sing "Bess, You Is My Woman Now" down the phone at them until they crack.You'd be surprised just how effective insanity/surrealism/Dada can be in breaking someone's will.Bye, El> A. Friend

I just want to make sure I follow what's going on, as the original message wasn't too clear:As I understand it, Jane Doe had a copy of an unpublished script, which she had been hunting for six years, and was intending to produce the play in question. Before Jane got the chance to produce the play, Mary Smith asked to borrow Jane's script. Jane was reluctant to lend the script since she had been chasing it for so long and was intending to produce it in the very near future.Jane lent her script to Mary Smith on an assurance from Mary that Mary was intending to stage a production at a country venue - well away from Jane's home theatre. However, it now transpires that Mary has reneged on this assurance, and is presenting the play in Jane's immediate area.Well, I don't know if anything CAN be done. It would be interesting to hear Mary's reasons for poaching in Jane's home grounds, particularly when Jane was nice enough to lend Mary the script in the first place. Has Jane approached Mary? Has Mary returned the original script?True, Mary may have eventually found a copy of the script without Jane's help and staged the production anyway. That would simply have been a case of bad luck for Jane. The problem here is that Mary promised not to impinge on Jane's proposed production, in order to get Jane's script as quickly as possible, then simply ignored Jane's request.Unfortunately, it seems as though Jane has learnt a nasty lesson the hard way. It's a pity to think that there are some people that you can't trust with your script or intentions.

I'm getting lost with all the pseudonyms - lets just call them "stupid" and "wanker". Stupid doesn't have standing to issue an injunction to prevent the Perth performances. All he/she can do is bitch about "wanker" incessantly. If it was pro theatre you could argue for an account of profits but even so the right to produce a play is held by the author/agency. In my limited experience people are always lending scripts they admire to other people only to have them turn up in some clubs season for next year (perhaps Grant can comment on this) The real answer is find another play and do it so well that wanker is jealous. There are actually so many great plays screaming to be done that crying over spilt milk is unnecessary. Call me if you want some good plays.>> I just want to make sure I follow what's going on, as the original> message wasn't too clear:> As I understand it, Jane Doe had a copy of an unpublished script,> which she had been hunting for six years, and was intending to produce> the play in question. Before Jane got the chance to produce the play,> Mary Smith asked to borrow Jane's script. Jane was reluctant to lend> the script since she had been chasing it for so long and was intending> to produce it in the very near future.> Jane lent her script to Mary Smith on an assurance from Mary> that Mary was intending to stage a production at a country venue -> well away from Jane's home theatre. However, it now transpires that> Mary has reneged on this assurance, and is presenting the play in> Jane's immediate area.> Well, I don't know if anything CAN be done. It would be interesting> to hear Mary's reasons for poaching in Jane's home grounds, particularly> when Jane was nice enough to lend Mary the script in the first place.> Has Jane approached Mary? Has Mary returned the original script?> True, Mary may have eventually found a copy of the script without> Jane's help and staged the production anyway. That would simply have> been a case of bad luck for Jane. The problem here is that Mary promised> not to impinge on Jane's proposed production, in order to get Jane's> script as quickly as possible, then simply ignored Jane's request.>> Unfortunately, it seems as though Jane has learnt a nasty lesson> the hard way. It's a pity to think that there are some people that> you can't trust with your script or intentions.>

Nice to see you online Trevor !!

*cringe*hehehe*feebly*Hi Trevor!i'll have to admit to having done the dirty on Trevor in pretty much precisely the manner described by "A. Friend". I think he forgave me - probably more than i deserved.In a nutshell, i think Trevor and Jarrod are right. Published or no, ownership of performance rights rests with the playwright or their agent. Owning a copy of a script confers no rights whatsoever.However the law, sir, is an ass. Regardless of the legality, i know what i did was ethically wrong and i hope i have the chance to make amends some time.> I'm getting lost with all the pseudonyms - lets just call them> "stupid" and "wanker".erm... so who would be who?*sigh**hides in corner with paper bag over head*CheersGrant

Actually i've been silently listening in for a while now - actually for a theatrical site (albeit a gossip page) i'm surprised that theere have been more references to "Looking For Eliot" than "Waiting For Godot"! p.s Grant all is forgiven - I even have P. Ridleys more recent play if you want to borrow/do it> Nice to see you online Trevor !!>

EMAILNOTICES>noI have very little experience with the legalities of the whole situation butI believe the friend who loaned the script has now a distinct advantage.sure they've been ripped off but a trusted member of the theatricalcommunity and may have to postpone doing the show until, say, nextyear, but now they get to see someone else do the show first and bepresented with (possibly) an alternate interpretation!This could then present other ideas and could only result in creatinga BETTER PRODUCTION when it finally is presented!So yes, do another show and do it real well. Then go see thecompetition's show and plan to do it better then they did.Revenge can be oh so sweet!Jeff.

> Actually i've been silently listening in for a while now - actually> for a theatrical site (albeit a gossip page) i'm surprised that there> have been more references to "Looking For Eliot" than "Waiting> For Godot"!And with good reason Trevor- I'm far better looking than Godot, more useful in a crisis situation, won't blow out in a strong gust of wind, and the taste lasts twice as long as ordinary household bleach.Yep, still mad. How 'bout you?Best Wishes,El

Good point Jeff.Unfortunately, if the situation is the one I think it is, the play is going on in the SAME VENUE as "stupid Jane" was intending to use later in the year.( Different theatre company but same venue ).YOU SHOULDN'T BE SO BLOODY NICE JANE !!!!!!!!!!!Shelley-Kate

Yes it sounds like you are talking about the right people, the rigth venue and the right showA. Friend> Good point Jeff.> Unfortunately, if the situation is the one I think it is, the> play is going on in the SAME VENUE as "stupid Jane" was> intending to use later in the year.> ( Different theatre company but same venue ).> YOU SHOULDN'T BE SO BLOODY NICE JANE !!!!!!!!!!!> Shelley-Kate

Hi Trevor> Actually i've been silently listening in for a while now - actually> for a theatrical site (albeit a gossip page) i'm surprised that theere> have been more references to "Looking For Eliot" than "Waiting> For Godot"!i think i'd sooner watch paint dry than try and talk about Godot - i remember loving the play but being appalled at what people tried to make it "mean"now if we could get an Oleanna thread going, or perhaps one about nudity in theatre, better still arts funding...> p.s Grant all is forgiven - I even have P. Ridleys> more recent play if you want to borrow/do itwow! You really are a treasure! Incidentally, i just finished reading "Dakota of the White Flats" a children's book by Ridley. The resonances with Pitchfork made me shiver.CheersGrant

EMAILNOTICES>no> Yes it sounds like you are talking about the right people, the> rigth venue and the right show.Then in that case, ... ummm ... I think you're stuck.Alternate alternatives;Consider another theatre location (there are plenty around)Or wait one year (if that is legally possible of course) before trying again.On another point, while the experience has not been enjoyable for"Unfortunate Jane", it has made me very aware of other similar situations.At least we can all learn from this.

OK..OK..OK..OK..OK..OKI JUST CAN'T TAKE IT ANY MORE...............I have spent the whole Easter long long weekend trying to findout what, who and where all you people are talking about. This pussyfooting around is starting to get to me {twitch...twitch}Can someone tell me what is going on, then we can get all the facts and I canwork this thing out once and for all and get some sleep> I'm getting lost with all the pseudonyms - lets just call them> "stupid" and "wanker". Stupid doesn't have standing> to issue an injunction to prevent the Perth performances. All he/she> can do is bitch about "wanker" incessantly. If it was pro> theatre you could argue for an account of profits but even so the> right to produce a play is held by the author/agency. In my limited> experience people are always lending scripts they admire to other> people only to have them turn up in some clubs season for next year> (perhaps Grant can comment on this) The real answer is find another> play and do it so well that wanker is jealous. There are actually> so many great plays screaming to be done that crying over spilt milk> is unnecessary. Call me if you want some good plays.>

Grantus!,> i think i'd sooner watch paint dry than try and talk about Godot> - i remember loving the play but being appalled at what people tried> to make it "mean"Does the name Lucien Savron mean nothing to you? It means nothing to me, despite me having sat through his Black Swan effort at Beckett's play.A friend here in Melbourne designed an OTHELLO Savron directed at Uni. He feels the same way about the little Kosky-wanna-be. (now that's an insult! I mean, to want to be Barrie Kosky!).> now if we could get an Oleanna thread going, or perhaps one about> nudity in theatre...Hmm, do I dare?> Cheers> GrantI say "three cheers" Grant,D.M.

Meddoes!I have been trying to get through to you on the address you sent me, but no server recognises "fenork" as a legitimate entity... mainly because it's come FROM YOUR DISEASED MIND!!tee-hee :)You hath bested me this time, but the next...?Until then, GWAR GWAR GWAR GWAR!Eliot.

> Actually i've been silently listening in for a while now - actually> for a theatrical site (albeit a gossip page) i'm surprised that theere> have been more references to "Looking For Eliot" than "Waiting> For Godot"!The content of Gossip Central is determined entirely by the interests of the people who contribute. Perhaps fnding Eliot has been a more pressing need for recent contributors than Waiting for Godot?:)If you can't wait for literary discussion to flower on Gossip Central (which could take a while!), i recommend a visit to the rec.arts.theatre.plays newsgroup where such topics are debated endlessly (and often very poorly).Don't have a newsreader? Visit DejanewsCheersGrant

> The content of Gossip Central is determined entirely by the interests> of the people who contribute.What does it say about the interests of this particular group of netties that they should be looking for me? They know they'll never find me! Never! D'you hear?? Ah-hahahahahahaaaahhhaaahhgh.....It's my problem, I'll deal with it... :)>Perhaps finding Eliot has been a more pressing need for recent contributors >than Waiting for Godot?Absolutely. My dry-cleaning firm will press pants, time and matters at Perth's most reasonable rates.Further correspondence may be directed to the loony bin....Eliot

> What does it say about the interests of this particular group> of netties that they should be looking for me? They know they'll never> find me! Never! D'you hear?? Ah-hahahahahahaaaahhhaaahhgh.....The vengence of messrs Gilbert and Sullivan risen from the grave and visited upon the revisionists?

> The vengence of messrs Gilbert and Sullivan risen from the grave> and visited upon the revisionists?Too true...God forbid I ever meet Gilbert; he was a swine with a pithy comment. Observe:"No-one can possibly have a higher opinion of him (Sullivan) than me... and I think he's a dirty little beast!"Match wits with that if you can!