The issue of copyright’s role in live speeches and music performances comes with very difficult questions. Obviously, people who write books or compose music have ownership over their respective works. However, a public speech or concert is not so easy to categorize. After all, one could take this to the extremes and say that everything that somebody says is protected by law.

The way I look at it has do with whether or not there was intent for money to be made on the public performance or not. Paid events, such as the Tony Blair and Jane Goodall talks, have a price attached to them. So, it would be unfair to publicly distribute recordings of such performances without permission. Granted, this stance is not heavily enforced, as is seen with the countless phone recordings of concerts that are available online. However, it does set a relatively easier standard to follow.

As much as I would love to analyze the performance and meaning of Eve Ensler’s production, let me limit my discussion to matters of copyright and artistic license. From what I saw last night, I can tell that the radical feminist has no qualms about letting her play be performed or changed. The original script calls for only 3 women, but there were easily more than ten Lafayette students and faculty on stage. When I spoke to our fair director, Gene, he said that he had to increase the number of parts because of the high demand of women who wanted to perform. (Joy of my heart!) Though I did not get to speak with him concerning copyrights for the show, it was clear from the performance last night that such changes were permitted. Just like the script for Arabian Nights, you can buy a script for The Good Body straight off of Amazon or from the publishing house itself. An extra fee must be paid in order to actually perform the piece, along with a standard application form. In terms of the art of the play, the effect it gives to the audience, I think this kind of freedom is just. The play is structured as a series of vignettes, personal stories related by a great diversity of women. The choice to increase the cast size could be a way to recreate the intimacy of these stories. The freedom Ensler gives to those who wish to perform the play is in the hopes that it will be presented with appropriate intimacy relative to the audience. And let me tell you, this performance was one which struck a chord with every person in that chapel.

From I could tell during the brownbag with Mary Jo Lodge, the general attitudes toward copyright in theater are tight. Arabian Nights was an exceptional exception which allowed incredible freedom on the part of the director and cast. However, most plays come with strict contracts which state that nothing is to be changed in the script. This seems to come from a branding mentality. When a show called Book of Mormon is performed, it better be the same show that appeared two months ago in two cities over, or it won’t be Book of Mormon. From the perspective of the creators or copyright holders, a show which deviates from the original would give the original a bad reputation. However, the smart play-goer would understand the show as not being performed by the original cast nor director, thus of course it would be different from the real thing. Regardless of our perceptions, it seems that copyright holders in theater want to do the easiest thing possible to protect their play’s integrity.