Just saw Avenue Q this weekend (For the second time, sort of… first time was in a huge theatre and our seats were in a different ZIP code, so it’d be more accurate to say we “heard” it that time).
The building superintendent is Gary Coleman. No, Gary Coleman has not come back from the dead to play himself - the character’s name is Gary Coleman, and the persona is that of Gary (frequent cracks about his parents stealing his money, “what-choo talkin’ about” etc.).
How does that work? Did the real GC get any money from this? Does it fall under Fair Use somehow?
Avenue Q was originally to be a Comedy Central show- basically South Parkish Sesame Street for adults, and the show’s creators met with Coleman to discuss him being in the project. Coleman was- as he tended to be- totally obnoxious to them, stood them up at one meeting and kept them waiting at another and all this while they were paying his expenses to meet with them in L.A. and NYC, and they finally decided “Screw it”, plus Coleman wasn’t that interested anyway.
The Comedy Central show fell through and the creators revamped it as an off-Broadway musical. At that point they paid Coleman for the rights to use him as a character. I don’t know how much: it was a significant enough sum for him to sell but not a life changing one, but in the thousands as opposed to hundreds of thousands or higher. The contract was a one time payment, no residuals or interest in the show or whatever, and nobody (especially Coleman) expected the show to become huge and move to Broadway and London and have touring companies and all that. Once it did it was one more thing for him to be bitter about.
So short answer: he signed away his rights for a one time payment. His estate receives no money from the show.
It was definitely a female in NYC, and I think (but don’t recall… not sure I could tell from where we were sitting!) in the travelling show as well.
Sampiro, thanks for the info. Acsenray, my thinking was more that someone might have grounds for a lawsuit if their name and mannerisms were used in that way. If he signed permission for this to be done, that explains why it hasn’t caused any trouble.
Yes, he might have, under privacy law or right of publicity law. My point was that “fair use,” as was used in the thread title, isn’t an issue in this area of the law.
It’s traditionally female, and the songs are written for the female vocal range. I always assumed that they were able to use him because of parody laws or something, but didn’t actually know. It’s nice to find out the actual answer.
Sampiro’s info is consistent with what I’ve heard. And yes, Gary is always played by a woman (or I guess almost always… Omar’s comment is the first I’ve ever heard of it not happening).
Just to add a little bit, when Gary died, the writers did come back and re-write a small portion of the show. I can’t remember exactly what was changed/deleted, but basically it eased off the poor bastard a little bit. That’s right; whatever you saw this weekend in regards to the insults toward him, it used to be worse.
Actually he’s kind of a cool character, especially in You Can be as Loud as the Hell You Want When You’re Making Love and in Schadenfreude. Pity he wasn’t interested in the role (until it became a hit) because it probably could have been as near to a comeback vehicle as he’d have ever gotten.
Well yeah, but I can’t see somebody being interested in playing a role where the phrase “It sucks to be you” is actually directed towards them, and not just their character.
I don’t think parody would be needed as a justification, as this wasn’t a case where copyrighted material was being used.
As Acsenray said, where the producers of Avenue Q could have gotten into trouble was with regard to privacy and right of publicity. But as a public figure Coleman had less right to privacy than the average person. His name and many of the events of his life are already widely known. As long as Avenue Q didn’t contain anything truly private or defamatory and didn’t use Coleman’s name or likeness to promote the show I think they were probably in the clear legally whether or not they had his consent.
The public figure doctrine is part of defamation law, not personality law, which is the main issue here. Indeed, in some states, public figures have more protection under misappropriation of image/identity/persona statutes than unknown people.
Agreed. The opera Nixon in China didn’t require permissions from the people portrayed; and I seriously doubt that George W. Bush gave Oliver Stone permission to use him in W. Back in the 60s, there was a Broadway play called “Red, White, and Maddox,” which was a devastating satire of segregationist Governor Lester Maddox of Georgia. Clearly, he wouldn’t have allowed himself to be portrayed that way if he had any say in it.
Paying Coleman for the use of his name was partly a courtesy, and partly a way to avoid having to defend a lawsuit (they probably would have won, but the costs would have been a nuisance).
AQ didn’t start off as a big budget blockbuster musical, but it became one pretty fast. It was first performed at the 2002 National Music Theatre Conference at the Eugene O’Neill Theater Center in Waterford, Connecticut. It was co-produced Off Broadway by The New Group and the Vineyard Theatre, where it opened in March 2003.
The production transferred to Broadway in July 2003, where it won three Tony Awards, including Best Musical (where it beat out Wicked, one of the major Tony upsets of all time), and spawned Las Vegas and West End productions, two national tours, and a variety of international productions. The show has been a hit everywhere it has played, despite being seen as a “New York” production that wouldn’t translate to other cities.
It doesn’t matter how fast it became one. Off off Broadway shows die if lawsuits are brought against them. Anything but the biggest productions are put together on the tightest of budgets. If Gary Coleman had sued them when they were in previews before they got to Broadway, the show wouldn’t have ever opened.
When What’s Love Got to Do With It? was filmed Ike Turner was given $40,000 for the rights to film a character based on him. It wasn’t necessary- they could have filmed the movie with or without his consent. At the time he was broke and deperately needed the money, but later- when he was much better off financially (he made a lot of money from people sampling his songs and he kept touring til his death) he said he never would have taken it had he read the script.
I think the producers paid him for that “I waive all rights to sue” signature, not because it was needed or even because they felt it was a nice gesture. They probably feared he’d later sue for a share of the profits or for defamation, which he possibly would have, and since they changed some really major things about the Ike-Tina story (such as when they first hooked up, or Ike coming to her dressing room with a gun [it never happened nor did Tina ever claim it did]) it’s possible he could have won, and almost certainly it would have cost more than $40k in legal fees.
