Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 1993 - 32

rhe agreemen r.
According ro rhese agreemenrs, you
can nor alrer rhe code in rhe applicarion
nor can ~'ou orherwise disrribure rhe
whole or pam (usually called modules)
of an applicarion excepr where permirred. (File compression sofrware, for
example, allows rhe disrriburion of an
expan ion module wirh a compressed
file.) You can nor make copies for
friends, bur only ro preserve rhe original
disks ar rheir prisrine besr.
Phorographs and illusrrarions produced before 1 Januan' 1978 enjoy prorecrion for 75 years from rheir dare of
crearion or publicarion. Afrer 1978, rhe
issue becomes more Byzanrine, bur rhe
images srill have legal prorecrion.
Byzanrine refers ro rhe facr rhar, afrer
1978, rhe law does nor prorecr all individual parrs of an image. The law considers colors, rexrures, and simple geomerric shapes, for example, parr of rhe
public domain.
Also, rhe "fair use" clause alluded ro
earlier is a merhod of analysis of rhe use
of copyrighrable images. Fair use has
four basic crireria. "Purpose of use"
defines educarional or non-proflr u e as
more acceprable rhan crass commercialism, bur really guaranrees norhing
excepr a more lenienr hearing. "The
narure of copied work" is an assumprion
rhar copying of cerrain crearive enriries,
like newspapers and magazines, occurs
more ofren rhan rhar of oil painrings or
song lyrics. "Amounr of use" arremprs ro
derermine wherher rhe copied marerial
is rhe crearive basis of rhe work or jusr a
porrion of rhe image.
Lasrly, "economic impacr" quanrifles
rhe income, if any, rhar rhe original
arrisr losr because of duplicarion. \Xlhen
a copyrighr expires wirh no renewal, rhc
image enrers rhe public domain. So,
image manipularion is nor a legally
defined issue. Unri! ir is, rhe choice of
wherher ro copy is largel~' one of conscience and erhical belief.
Does rhe individual designer need
prorecrion' ~losr designers are jusriflably proud of rhe individual arr rhcy
crearc and have no need ro copy anorher
person's design. People who would srcal
work in an indu rn' as small as ours
would probably be discovered evenrualIr, bur whar if rhey were clever enough
nor ro be? Someone who would rake
cr dir for adapring ~ling Cho Lce's
work is a despicable person, bur if rhcy
arc willing ro risk ir, whar i, ro srop
rhem;
Imagine a scenario where a rcsidenr
designcr in a small civic rhcarre or summer rcpCrlory house has ro havc a ser for
30

1993 FAll

TD&T

Death of a Salesman by yesrerday
because rhe guesr designer had a screaming fighr wirh rhe guesr direcror and
rook rhe drawings and lefr rown. If rhe
possibiliry exisrs of scanning Jo ~lelzin-
er's renderings and rhen changing rhem
inro a design rhar looks vaguel~' similar
bur is nor idenrical. .. This ma\' seem
farferched-bur whar if ir isn'r?
In addirion, a more subrle rhrear
exisrs. As rhe sofrware and hardware
become more sophisricared and less
expensive and we become more skilled
ar image manipularion, even rhose of us
who consider ourselves above reproach

USITT IS CONSIDERING A
POLICY TO COVER
COMPUTER EVENTS AND
SOFTWARE USE AT ITS
NATIONAL CONFERENCES
TO PROTECT THE INSTITUTE
AND ITS VENDORS FROM
POSSIBLE LAWSUITS.
may submir ro rhe remprarion ro
"improve" on a design image wirhour
rhe designer's permission. Evenrually,
moS( if nor all our original images will
be digiral, and even rhose rhar are nor
can be converred wirh lirrle efforr.
If a direcror or a producer in rhe
pursuir of a vision alrers a plavwrighr's
work ro suir crireria rhar is somerimes
vague and ofren arbirrary in narure,
mighr nor rhey wish ro rake rhe same
license wirh a designer's work in rhe preproducrion srages? Imagine a siruarion
where rhe designer is nor available ro
make needed changes wirhour exrra cosr
in rransporrarion and long disrance relephone calls. \X/harever rhe jusriflcarion.
is such alrerarion acceprable' Is rhe original image always subjecr ro some ubiquirous law or is ir simply a reflecrion of
currenrly available rechnique' If rhe
rechnique changes, do rhe rules change
as well'

Many designers believe rhar rhey do.
As improvemenrs in rhe rechnology of
image adjusrmenr make ir rhe equivalenr of rexr ediring, rhose in charge of
coordinaring producrions may well
become image edirors. If rhis happens,
rhen how much ediring. if anv, is
acceprable? More imporranr, how much
of one image should ir be allowable ro
use as rhe basis of anorher crearive work'
As ro how much ediring is acceprable, some designers argue rhar direcrors
and producers have always fiddled wirh
designs. So, a possible solurion is ro srarr
wirh responsible direcrors and producers
and reach rhem whar is and is nor
acceprable. Ir is a marrer of rrusr, as
always. If a direcror or producer respecrs
your work, rhen a lirrle enlighrenmenr is
usually rhe key ro making rhe respecr
murual. On rhe orher hand, rhere is a
lor ro be said for a firm ser of erhical
srandards.
Proporrionare image alrerarion in
rhe crearive process is a far more nebulous issue. Ar whar poinr does an alrered
image become nor a copy or a derivarive, bur an original work? The answer is
more complex rhan simply limiring
duplicarion ro non-copyrighred images.
Afrer all, haven'r designers always used
orher's images for inspirarion? Can rhe
merhod of appropriarion of irs parrs
define rhe originaliry of a work'
The resolurion of rhis issue musr rely
on rrusr and professionalism. Since rhe
rapid evolurion of rechnology prevenred
updares ro rhe copyrighr law of 1909
unril 1975, ir is unlikely rhar congress
will keep pace wirh rhe speed of digiral
processor. Yer, in rhe face of so many
rransgressions, can mere moraliry hope
ro prevail? Will each new rechnology
ourmode each new erhical collecrive'
Ir is possible rhar a srandard of qualifving degrees of manipularion, maybe
even on rhe pixel level, may form parr of
a new erhical framework rhar will guide
rhe rapidly changing paradigms of digiral imagery. \Xlharever happens, rhere
are rwo cerrainries here. One is rhar rhe
almosr myrhic qualiry rhar rhe "original"
image has 0 long enjoyed is no longer
valid and rhe orher is rhar inrellccrual
properry lawvers will have no shorrage
of work in rhe years ro come.
ffi
Parrick Gill is the resident lig/uing
dt'J'igner lit tile Center fOr Tbeatre Arts at

Cornell Unil'ersil)'. He is also illtercomCompllter ),pplicamission Liaisoll
tiollS fOr USITT and serlles 011 tbe Tbeatre, Televisioll, rllld Film Lighring
Commirtee o/the iE5.

/01'

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 1993