In my research for my previous blog regarding video recording on Broadway, I came across this 1987 New York Times article that describes Betty Corwin’s attempts to videotape plays on Broadway for archival purposes. Ms. Corwin was inspired when she “kept thinking of all those shows that were gone forever.” In order to save the shows of her lifetime, Ms. Corwin began videotaping them to create an archive. Broadway union workers and the playwright Neil Simon were among those who disapproved of Ms. Corwin’s work. As a result, the tapes are “available for viewing only to students, researchers and theater professionals.” While I generally disagree with recording live performances, I think this is a completely reasonable exception. This should make us question where we draw the line, though. Should every live performance be archived? Should the viewing audience be expanded? What has changed between 1987 (when the article was written) and now?
I suppose it would be up to the owner/creator of the performance. There will always be reasons to record between archives, history, documentaries. Let’s take this on a case by case basis.
I would approve of archiving as long as it is only used for archiving. It would most certainly be unlawful for the one taking these recording to sell them for profit. Otherwise, it is a good practice that preserves parts of our culture for future generations.
Archiving puts an interesting wrench into the gears of copyright. Copyright is meant to keep works safe and makers secure, while archiving allows the preservation of works. Theoretically they would work hand in hand to give the ultimate protection for publications and the like. However archiving almost always implies allowing people to freely access the work. After all, an inaccessible archive is the same as a nonexistent archive. It’s interesting how two things that work for the same goal end up working against each other.