Have you seen the ITI license agreement? And if so, is it weighted rather heavily towards ITI? I mean, there's no exclusivity allowance, a company can't get any broadcast rights, there's no recourse if you disagree with any of the license. And ITI is very averse to making any changes...in fact, they just say no. Any thoughts?
unexp...@aol.com (Unexprod) wrote: >Hey, I got a question:
>Have you seen the ITI license agreement? And if so, is it weighted rather >heavily towards ITI? I mean, there's no exclusivity allowance, a company >can't >get any broadcast rights, there's no recourse if you disagree with any of the >license. And ITI is very averse to making any changes...in fact, they just >say >no. Any thoughts?
>Keith Dahlgren >Unexpected Productions >Seattle WA
I've seen the ComedySportz licensing agreement, and felt much the same way about it. Outside of the community of improv performers and students, how much weight does a TSI (or CSz) franchise name carry? Very little with the viewing public, I suspect. Less with most venues.
I saw your show when I was in Seattle last summer. I think you guys carry TS a lot more than they carry you. ---------------------- --Bob Kennedy Alexandria, VA And for you spambots out there: fcci...@fcc.gov sse...@fcc.gov bkenn...@fcc.gov sn...@fcc.gov hfurc...@fcc.gov mpow...@fcc.gov gtris...@fcc.gov presid...@whitehouse.gov first.l...@whitehouse.gov
In article <19991023194855.27758.00000...@ng-fo1.aol.com>, bobki...@aol.comspamblok (BobKinDC) wrote:
> >Have you seen the ITI license agreement
The ITI Theatresports license is mostly weighted to protect the Theatresports name. That is an expected outcome. The agreement is not onerous in any fashion. Your group can elect to use or not use the TS platform as you see fit. They want 3% of the gross gate. In our case 3% of nothing doesn't amount to much. However the contract did cost us one venue.
We had started the application 8 months earlier. There were several telephone calls (about every 2 months) to check on how lost our application was. Finally we had signed all the paperwork and sent in the application. We started a gig at Yuk Yuks and called it Theatresports. At that point we had not had the application certified and they sent a legal beagle letter to Yuk Yuks advising them that THEY were being naughty. When really it was our fault, jumping the gun on the application. There was no trouble with the application we now have it, but YukYuks was suitably freaked by the letter. So the producer changed the name to Improv Comedy Challenge. He has not changed the name back to TS as ICC is doing fine, and no legal beagle letters can be sent. Meanwhile I am sitting on the TS license for Hamilton waiting until a safe space is ready for its release. If that ever happens.
There is no franchise support from ITI. You are responsible for all your own advertising, they take 3%, and you get to use the name. There are other names that attract more attention nowadays though. Whose Lying In It Anyways was a big draw, lots of people do not know what TS is nowadays.
Seattle has a great show, great gates, great investment in the TS name. 3% could add up to a pretty penny for you all. People know TS there because of how great your show is and all the work that UP has done. This will sound ruthless, but unless you are doing a TS tourney (drawing groups from all over) there is not too much benefit to the TS name. Over the next few years start making the Unexpected Productions presents TS more and more prominent until people are going to see UP and cannot remember what TS is. Well the next step is obvious and it depends how much you are attached to the institution of TS.
Hold the TS license for conventions and tourneys, allowing you to enter and allowing you host them. Make a charitable donation to ITI on a yearly basis (to help out a disorganized, but goodly cause) and put the 3% towards selling UP.
:)hUe, Hugh MacLeod, www.staircase.org Used to live across the street from a public library.
In article <7v5ltt$11...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Hugh <h...@hwcn.org> writes: >Seattle has a great show, great gates, great investment in the TS name. >3% could add up to a pretty penny for you all. People know TS there >because of how great your show is and all the work that UP has done. >This will sound ruthless, but unless you are doing a TS tourney >(drawing groups from all over) there is not too much benefit to the TS >name. Over the next few years start making the Unexpected Productions >presents TS more and more prominent until people are going to see UP >and cannot remember what TS is. Well the next step is obvious and it >depends how much you are attached to the institution of TS.
Ummm... You are aware that people who are closely associated with the ITI read the newsgroup, aren't you?
Paul Killam San Francisco Partake... Enjoy... Proceed!
>Ummm... >You are aware that people who are closely associated with the ITI read the >newsgroup, aren't you?
>Paul Killam >San Francisco >Partake... Enjoy... Proceed!
Paul:
I am certainly aware of it, and would love to see some discussion on the matter from other groups with TS licenses. Then maybe ITI will pay attention.
My opinion is this: For 3% of our gross TS income, we should surely be able to receive some area exclusivity, broadcast rights, and ITI support. Instead, the license is entirely restrictive. I think for such a restrictive license, a flat annual fee (say, $500) is enough. Then, if a company wants more (exclusive rights in the city/county/state/province, local broadcast rights) they can renegotiate a license with fees that reflect those changes. A simple business concept.
I guess my last post didn't quite give enough info. The thing is is that there are a number of companies working under the ITI agreement, and they like to protect the confidentiality that that agreement implies. If you wish to discuss this, maybe you should take this discussion to email with the parties involved.
If you are unhappy with the terms of the agreement and the name recognition that Theatresports brings you, do not renew. If you didn't like the contract up front, you shouldn't have signed.
In article <19991027122238.01979.00000...@ng-cp1.aol.com>, kjd...@aol.com
(KJDahl) writes: >I am certainly aware of it, and would love to see some discussion on the >matter >from other groups with TS licenses. Then maybe ITI will pay attention.
Keith- I'm all for open discussion. I think it would be great to have a more negotiated set of terms rather than dictates. My earlier post was directed at the "this is how you can get around the liscense" tone Hugh Mc.'s post had taken. No offense intended to you either, Hugh. That's just how I read your post.
I have not read the ITI agreements, so I cannot pretend to know the specifics. But I have been associated with Theatresports for a long time and this is my opinion: For years and years the Loose Moose Theatre Co. tried to foster the growth of Theatresports worldwide, manage the copyright and trademark questions, and tried to keep the spirit of the work going in relatively the same direction in a hundred different citites. With very little support. Hell, they had to keep their own theatre going too. I think that the ITI folks are working with the reality of having to answer the minutiae questions ("Uhhh... how do we kick somone out of the group?") as well as the relatively important questions (broadcast rights, how many liscensed companies in Trenton New Jersey, enforcing copyright violations, etc.), pay the phone bills and pay someone to keep up with it all. I have always found that Canadians are pretty reasonable people too. (Double sorry for my attitude, Hugh). Negotiate - and do it with an open mind. I don't think this is a squeeze play.
Paul Killam San Francisco Partake... Enjoy... Proceed!
In article <19991027200537.06579.00001...@ngol04.aol.com>, improb...@aol.com (Improbats) wrote:
> (Double sorry for my attitude, Hugh). > Negotiate - and do it with an open mind. I don't think this is a
squeeze play.
No offence taken.
I let people know what our experience was with the ITI to see if other would share positive or negative. I have never produced anything that infringes on the TS TM. I know of at least half a dozen other groups that have done so from coast to coast. For the most part these people do not bother to deal with the bureaucracy of TS. Not that the bureaucracy is even onerous (we just finished rezoning our theatre NOW that's bureaucracy). I have worked in franchises and 3% off the gross is not that bad. Many of these franchises also require product to be purchased from the parent company. Franchising is hell. The ITI agreement is far from onerous.
ITI needs to deal with the perception that they are irrelevant in the improv theatre community. For most improv troupes even calculating and mailing a cheque to Calgary is beyond their organizational skills. So most groups do not even bother. I bet the majority of producers don't even know what ITI is. If there was even the slightest effort on the part of the ITI/Loose Moose to support the little guys that don't even break even doing the format things would be different. Even giving a T- Shirt or a paper placque (TS in Good Standing 1994) would make a world of difference.
ITI should talk with the big guys (of which I am not one). Vancouver TS has been selling probably 500 tickets a week for more than a decade. UP is as successful. That is a lot of coverage for TS, these groups have even created games that are standards in TS all over the world. I do not speak for either organization, but ITI should work closely with them treat them with respect. People go create TS groups because of groups like VTSL and UP. These are the engines of proliferation. Impro is great, but no one finds it in the library and seeks out a TS franchise.
I prefaced my comments with the fact that they may sound nasty. I have posted them to hear what people think. Many groups want to support TS, but find the legal wrangle beyond their abilities. They are not cheap or intending to steal. They just don't bother with the paper work, call it TS and go have fun. In the end TS loses, the improvisers lose by not supporting TS. With the advent of WLIIA no one will be seeking TS licenses in the future. Just letting people know 'its just like WLIIA' saves all the time and explanation.
Sad but true.
:)hUe, Hugh MacLeod, www.staircase.org Used to live across the street from a public library.
>If you are unhappy with the terms of the agreement and the >name recognition that Theatresports brings you, do not renew. >If you didn't like the contract up front, you shouldn't have signed.
>Vose >The way it is.
Ah, Chris, but you forget that agreements *do* need to renew, and most agreements can be negotiated for better terms (on both sides). There's nothing unsavory about that. I don't object to previously signed agreements whose period is now over. It's the new ones that I am concerned about.
Keith Dahlgren Unexpected Productions Welcome to the business world
Thanks for a great post. (and thanks Hugh). I personally doubt that ITI receives questions about how to kick someone out of the group, but nonetheless. James has his hands full, there's no doubt. I know exactly how he feels.
In article <19991028021529.18405.00001...@ng-co1.aol.com>, kjd...@aol.com
(KJDahl) writes: >I personally doubt that ITI >receives questions about how to kick someone out of the group, but >nonetheless. > James has his hands full, there's no doubt. I know exactly how he feels.
That is only a slight exaggeration of a type of question that was asked of Dennis Cahill & Deborah Iozzi of the Loose Moose Theatre Co. when they were dealing with international Theatresports over the years.
>You need to read your license.
I don't run things at this point in time. I'm just an improvisor with a very long memory.
Paul Killam San Francisco Partake... Enjoy... Proceed!
This posting is intended to tell everyone a bit about the International Theatresports Institute (ITI) and let everyone know why we exist. If you have any specific questions please e-mail them to me directly. Unless you are a licensed group, I will not respond to specific license agreement questions, as our license agreement is confidential.
The ITI is a non-profit organization that was setup by Keith Johnstone. The ITI took over the licensing duties from Loose Moose Theatre just over a year ago to allow the Moose to focus on what they were setup to do, run a theatre.
Currently we manage the copyrights and trademarks to Theatresports, Gorilla Theatre, Micetro Impro and the Life Game (formats which Keith created and that he owns). In running this company, we need to ensure that the copyright and trademark for these formats are protected. In doing so, it is necessary for us to acquire the advice and expertise of various lawyers (in various countries). This is a very time consuming and expensive activity. This is why we collect royalties. (FYI: All royalty payments collected go directly to ITI, Keith Johnstone receives none of this money.) If these formats were not trademarked by Keith Johnstone, someone else could have registered them and taken them for their own. This is why these are not in the public domain.
We do not dictate to groups how they are to run their company. There are no strict franchise rules, no high overhead or yearly membership costs and only a minimal license application fee. Setting royalty payments on a percentage basis ensures fair pricing across the board, why pay a large amount for something you only use once a month. This makes starting a company with any of the formats very reasonable, thus allowing small groups to, quite simply, have the option of starting of Theatresports group. Allowing a group access to Theatresports gives them a product which is has been tested and proven worldwide. Theatresports and the other formats are products that you are given the right to use by being licensed.
Groups which are licensed can, and do, have some input as to some minor adjustments to their contracts. Since we hold licenses around the world, it is impossible for us to rewrite a license for each group, therefore, we have a section in the license which allows for minor alterations. In order for us to make these alteration, we find that it is necessary for groups wanting alteration to request them. We cannot accept any contracts which have been entirely rewritten by a third party and find it very difficult to accept demands over requests.
Any group which is looking for support or instruction can, upon request, book a workshop with Keith Johnstone. If you are interested in a workshop, contact James at the ITI office and you will be sent information on the cost of booking a workshop. Or check out Keith's homepage at http://www.ultralink.com/johnstone for a workshop scheduled in your area. You will also find a history to the beginnings of Theatresports.
As we all know, with any business whether it is running a theatre, an administration office, or a store, there will always be some unhappy customers. This is an inevitable fact of running a business. All we can do is treat them in a fair and equitable manor and hope for the same in return.
If anyone has any comments regarding this posting please send them to ad...@intl-theatresports.ab.ca
James Faulkner General Manager International Theatresports Institute tel: (403) 246-5496 homepage: http://www.intl-theatresports.ab.ca e-mail: ad...@intl-theatresports.ab.ca
As the Theatresports contract is being discussed on the internet, I'll explain something about the 'ownership' of Theatresports. 1. A contract for the use of an intellectual property is not a pact, is not a treaty between two parties: it's a commercial document entirely in favour of the licensee. As James Faulkner says, 'try hiring a car and read the small print on that contract'. 2. I was told that Theatresports and the name Theatresports had to be copyrighted or some less benevolent person would do it and take it away from us - and as you know there have been all sorts of commercial rip-offs.. 3. Money was needed for administration and lawyers. A percentage seemed fair because then the successful groups would be helping the less successful groups (to a small extent, and why not?). Anyway, at three per cent they'd be getting something dirt cheap. If a few groups spent all the money, then the accumulated debt may seem a burden, but they should have anticipated this. 4. I asked myself if I needed a smart car, or nice clothes, and decided that I didn't, so from the very beginning I've taken no money from Theatresports. Nor have I ever taken any for Gorilla Theatre, Maestro, etc., (although I'm asking the I.T.I to separate out the money for the non-Theatresports forms). 5. Some years ago Dennis Cahill (of Loose Moose) approached groups on my behalf to see if they'd like me to put it in the public domain. We were asked not to do this, so it pisses me off when I get rude letters from people who think I'm squandering their money by floating about in the Mediterranean being fed grapes by Benny Hill teen-agers. They're sure that I'm behaving as any normal person in this culture would behave, i.e., taking the money and ripping everyone off. 6. Until recently the money's gone to lawyers and to administration (although none to me), but when we were finally out of the red I formed the International Theatresports Institute (a non-profit group), plus an advisory group who's mandate is to find a reasonably fair and non-destructive way to involve all official Theatresports groups in some kind of democratic process. 7. Groups who signed the contract promised not to reveal it's contents - a normal commercial request - so why the Hell is this stuff being dragged out onto the internet? We're trying not to spend money on lawyers, and yet this whole debate is likely to lead to more legal hassles. 8. I've promised the advisory group that I will sign over all my rights to Theatresports on, if not before, my 70th birthday, and if I snuff it before then, that the I.T.I. non-profit organization will inherit all the rights to Theatresports. At that time the groups can close the organization down and spend any money in the kitty on fireworks if they want to. But my hope is that they'll see the advantage of having the I.T.I.
In haste - Keith Johnstone
NOTE - The King Game is excellent but a bit slow. Introduce it the normal way, but after a while, have the have the players work together in pairs - when the Servant is killed they change roles.
In article <381A193E.41E17...@intl-theatresports.ab.ca>,
ad...@intl-theatresports.ab.ca wrote: >THEATRESPORTS - WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE?
Great responses. Thanks for taking the time to address public concerns about the secret license document. The responses are much more in the moment than the legal contract. You guys should consider adding these two emails to the application package. It should help remind people where the license is coming from. It is much more in keeping with the BRAND of TS. Even an art form acquires a brand after a while.
I will defend the license a bit (without revealing its secret contents). It is simple and straightforward. The application fee is very low, the licensing fee is acceptable. The perception is the problem.
The perception of the license is legendary, in much the same way 'who invented freeze tag' is legendary. There are stories that abound from Coast to Coast that scares away potential licencees. I have seen this happen in several groups that were very capable of putting on excellent TS shows. Several of these groups are still around and would have been doing TS for 5 or 10 years in university centers. Both were scared off by their incorrect perception of 1)legal action 2)frightening paperwork 3)getting nothing in return 4)loss of control of creative process.
None of these are a problem with the present super secret ITI license document. However they remain a perception. I have yet to see greed get in the way. I have yet to see intentional theft of intellectual property get in the way. I have yet to see dyslexia get in the way. However the perception of a problem does get in the way. We all know that a license exists, so here are a few things to help fight the perception problem. This is free marketing advice for free :)
1) To the secret license application add a cover letter from Keith Johnstone describing his disconnection from any fees, the glowing benevolence of the institute, the international legal challenges and a secret hand signal. This letter should be from Keith Johnstone to keep people from thinking he is being fed peeled grapes on the ocean. (I had always pictured Mr. Johnstone on an improvised boat eating mimed grapes). Anyone applying for a TS license already knows these things, but they have to convince a board or even worse a co-operative of 30 improvisers.
2) When you send back the finalized documents of the secret license pact add an 8x11.5 license that can be displayed where the audience can see. "Kensington Heights Theatre is sanctioned to perform TS for 1993" This first helps by giving the TS troupe something to show for as opposed to more paperwork after each show. Second the public will also realize that TS is more than just some artsies doing their own thing, but a form that world recognized. The people applying for the license understand the value of the TS name, but they need something physical to show for their board, improvisers, techies, landlords, and parents.
3) Talk with the big players. They are your best clients. Get them on side to help promote ITI, and TS. Everyone knows VTSL and STS (I know nothing about their secret licenses and I do not represent them in any way). No one in the public knows Loose Moose. Hardly any improvisers know what ITI is. The big groups are promoting TS, not ITI. It you want things to continue cut them deals for God sakes. Do what you need to do to keep the kids playing TS.
A lot more of them do now. Thanks to this discussion.
Sometimes when something like this gets going it is hard to tell if the you have undertaken the task or the task has undertaken you. The impact of TS is worldwide and amazing. TS must be one of the most successful theatre movements ever. You are faced with the complex task of internationally protecting intellectual property and communicating this to that are trying to keep theatres afloat. Two very difficult agendas to mesh. This post comes out of appreciation for the task, love of TS as a form, and understanding what it is like on the licencee side. However, if some poor theatre group is struggling the general form of improv should come before TS.
I have read ACI daily for about 4 or 5 years now. I have never seen a discussion about the TS secret license. ITI should take advantage of this great resource and get a sense of what people are thinking.
Thanks for taking the time to listen to my hubris to advise the ITI ;)
NOTE: in the queen game the monarch is on the spot and if she does not immediately accept the offer she is dethroned.
not in haste :)hUe, Hugh MacLeod, www.staircase.org Used to live across the street from a public library.
In article <3819F984.1F67E...@intl-theatresports.ab.ca>,
ad...@intl-theatresports.ab.ca (J. Faulkner) wrote: > Unless you are a licensed group, I will not respond to specific license > agreement questions, as our license agreement is confidential.
I am intrigued as to why the agreement is confidential. In particular, how is anyone to decide whether they want to apply for a license, if they cannot see the agreement they will be entering into beforehand, and you will not answer any of their questions about it? It seems a bit like, "Sign here and then we'll let you see what you've signed."
In article <memo.19991102173358.503...@tup.dircon.co.uk>,
t...@dircon.co.uk wrote: > > Unless you are a licensed group, I will not respond to specific license > > agreement questions, as our license agreement is confidential.
> I am intrigued as to why the agreement is confidential. In particular, how > is anyone to decide whether they want to apply for a license, if they > cannot see the agreement they will be entering into beforehand, and you > will not answer any of their questions about it? It seems a bit like, > "Sig.n here and then we'll let you see what you've signed."
In my experience confidentiallity is standard for most companines that provide licensing or franchising. If you want to get a McDonald's franchise they don't just send out the information to anyone. Typically , they want to know who you are first and then you sign a non- disclosure (confidentiallity) agreement that prohibits you from disclosing the company's proprietary information. After you sign the non-disclosure, then they send you the actual franchise information/agreement. Once you see the actually agreement you can still decide you don't want to be a franchise but you are still bound by the non-disclosure agreement to not reveal any of the information you were sent.
In article <7vnmji$jq...@nnrp1.deja.com>,> In my experience confidentiallity is standard for most companines that
> secret stuff
You can find out everything that you need before you sign anything. The secret license is benign in nature. As Vose said, "if you don't like it lump it"
> provide licensing or franchising. If you want to get a McDonald's > franchise they don't just send out the information to anyone.
This is true. There are also some common domain information about Mickey Dee franchises. 1) there is an upfront unreturnable fee of usually 250000 US$. 2) you pay for all site development probably 1000000 US$ in most centers 3)McDee's marketing department picks the location for you 4)you are buying into a very strong brand that will automatically have a world wide customer base 5) you will go to their university 6) you be supported by megabuck worldwide advertising campaign.
I do not expect to be sued by McDonalds for those approximations.
You can go shop for franchises at www.franchise.com Money is discussed there and nothing else.
The TS license is about spreading TS around the world and helping it support itself in doing so. An internet discussion of this could have been useful.
:)hUe, Hugh MacLeod, www.staircase.org Used to live across the street from a public library.
