On Tuesday 6th January, The Stage reported that the producers of Valentino: Only a Man, had decided to cancel their forthcoming production after receiving a “cease and desist” letter from rival producers, Hollywoodland Productions.

Writers, David Kane and Keith Powell (songs and lyrics) collaborated with Ricky Kane (book) to create a show about the silent movie actor, Rudolph Valentino. The Basingstoke Gazette quotes David Kane as saying:

“I did the research, Keith and I wrote the songs and lyrics, and then Ricky wrote the script around the songs – which is a bit of a strange way of doing it, but it worked quite well. Ricky is a very talented writer and very easygoing” (3 October 2008).

The Uxbridge Gazette quotes backer Allan Miller as saying:

“I have enormous confidence in the show, the actors we have had audition have also loved it and I simply don’t do failure” (1 October 2008).

It seems that David Kane had received a letter from the US based Hollywoodland Productions on Christmas Eve, claiming to own copyright in the Valentino story.

UK law in relation to copyright is fairly clear. There is no doubt that the script, score and lyrics are all protected by copyright. However, the intellectual property rights in those elements of the production will only be breached if a ‘signficant’ portion of the works is copied. If the UK musical was created with no reference to the US material, by definition, no copying can have taken place.

The Stage reported that the US production company was claiming copyright in the Valentino story. In the UK, there is no protection in the ‘idea’ that forms the basis of a musical work. A biography of Valentino may well be copyright protected, but his life story is public domain. It would be interesting to have more feedback from the US producers on how they come to the conclusion that the UK work breaches copyright.

Copyright does not exist in the word “Valentino” or even the title of the production, neither being “works” protected by copyright as defined in the UK’s 1988 Act.

Reputation in a show is protected – and a production company would be within its rights to protect its goodwill if a show was being marketed in a way that confused the public into thinking that the two musicals were one and the same. Here, the musicals do not even have the same name. In a world where more than one musical version of “Phantom of the Opera” exists, it would be interesting to see if Hollywoodland Productions (whose reputation seems to be based on a 2000 cast recording and a less than four week run at an off-off broadway venue in 2003) can justify its claims before a judge.