King and I reviews?

carolyn wrote:
>
> Where do you get the idea that the amateur rights are "much
> discounted"
>
> In my experience they are definitely not.



That had been my perception, based upon inquiries at websites such as this, that plainly state so:

> Restrictions exist because professional producers and touring groups pay much higher royalties than nonprofessionals, thus guaranteeing them exclusivity and financial "security." (Dramatists Play Service , www.dramatists.com)


However, further inquiry came up with this clause, which modifies the way I should have applied that information:


> How do I know whether our theatre is considered "professional" or "nonprofessional"?
>If you are unsure about this, don't worry. Just fill out the nonprofessional application, and we will review it and make a determination. Our decision is largely based on the amounts of money changing hands. We look at the actors' weekly salaries, your theatre's seating capacity and ticket prices when making the decision. One general rule of thumb is that if you are paying the majority of your actors $150 a week or more, we are likely to consider your production "professional."
>It's not necessarily a question of Equity or non-Equity. Showcase code productions in New York and the 99 Seat Plan productions in Los Angeles may include professional Equity actors, but, as they are being paid next to nothing for their work, the production itself is considered "nonprofessional."



So therefore, Carolyn, your experience may well have been that your amateur productions were likely to make a fair bit of money, and so the rights were more expensive.
Therefore, my statement regarding the MS Society paying cheaper rights is probably incorrect, as they were charging quite high ticket prices.

Thanks for clarifying.

Cheers,
Craig