No you could not make an exact duplicate of Micky Mouse and get away with renting it out and in fact many costume houses did get in trouble for that. What they do is change it just enough to step into the grey area. It really does not take to much to get there.

I really don't think that Russell's puppets infringe on the design of the original puppets, no more then Swazzel's take on Audry II infringe on the original puppet.

Let's not forget the Avenue Q itself is a bit of a copy. It is a parody of Sesame Street. This means that any puppets that would be built for it would need to be that style of puppets and the characters do have specific features that are needed that are outlined in the script.

No you could not make an exact duplicate of Micky Mouse and get away with renting it out and in fact many costume houses did get in trouble for that. What they do is change it just enough to step into the grey area. It really does not take to much to get there.

That's what I thought you meant - just wanted clarification.

I really don't think that Russell's puppets infringe on the design of the original puppets, no more then Swazzel's take on Audry II infringe on the original puppet.

Can't speak on that: I honestly don't know much about US copyright laws. One thing that I've been wondering though:

I've been sorely tempted to create a set of Audrey shadow puppets. I can't think that it would break copyrights, and unless the licencing for the show specifies a particular design for the puppets, would something like that be ok?

I mean, there's a vast difference between making a Swazzle replica of their Audrey/any other typical Audrey and making an Audrey shadow puppet... It's one of those grey areas, but again I don't know much about these kinds of copyright issues.

Let's not forget the Avenue Q itself is a bit of a copy. It is a parody of Sesame Street. This means that any puppets that would be built for it would need to be that style of puppets and the characters do have specific features that are needed that are outlined in the script.

Agreed. One thing I say a lot on my site is that you can copyright a character, but you can't copyright a building method. I think it's fine to parody characters or a show, or to use similar building methods to achieve similar character designs; but we can all agree there's a difference between similarity/inspiration and replication.

I've been sorely tempted to create a set of Audrey shadow puppets. I can't think that it would break copyrights, and unless the licencing for the show specifies a particular design for the puppets, would something like that be ok?

I know that many theatres will make their own Audrey puppets when they put on the show. In fact, my son worked for one summer as the puppeteer and helped to make all the Audrey puppets for that university's production of the show. But I don't know what the specifics on the agreement for the show were, so I cannot speak on that but I would love to see your shadow puppets of Audrey!

If anything on both shows what is protected legally would be the original designs and looks. Notice that in both instances the alternatives for rental form other places do not duplicate the original designs but have created their own version of the puppets.  If your shadow puppet does not step on either the original design or even Swazzels design of Audry I think maybe you would be ok but not sure.

There is an issue of the licensing for merchandise. I am not sure how far that licensing goes. It could be that is something an original producer holds and that once a show is released from that original contract merchandising licenses are no longer an issue. That being said with other works like books and such merchandising licenses are quite long lived. Just try making and selling a facsimile of your favorite super hero and you'll find out.   The reason I mention this is because it could be a shadow puppet would be seen as protected under a merchandising license.

Confusing isn't it? I guess that is why we have lawyers. I think ultimately what it comes down to is a persons personal ethics. If you feel it would be stepping on another artist then don't do it.

I know that many theatres will make their own Audrey puppets when they put on the show. In fact, my son worked for one summer as the puppeteer and helped to make all the Audrey puppets for that university's production of the show. But I don't know what the specifics on the agreement for the show were, so I cannot speak on that but I would love to see your shadow puppets of Audrey!

I just always assumed that there would be a clause in the licencing that would state something along the lines of being able to build/hire the puppets for the performance, and only for the performance. Although having said that, many companies then go on to hire out any puppets they make in order to recoup costs. So I don't know how that works. Maybe the licencing is more to do with the building of them (ie. you have permission to use our instructions to build the puppets, etc.) than to do with performance rights.

As for Audrey shadows, it's been on my mind for a while, but as I've got so much other stuff to do I doubt I'll ever do it. At the moment, I'm trying to reduce the amount of things I've got my hands in, rather than increase it

If anything on both shows what is protected legally would be the original designs and looks. Notice that in both instances the alternatives for rental form other places do not duplicate the original designs but have created their own version of the puppets.  If your shadow puppet does not step on either the original design or even Swazzels design of Audry I think maybe you would be ok but not sure.

That's what I was thinking, but wasn't entirely sure. Obviously before doing anything I'd make contact with the Australian licencing company and find out officially from them. I doubt it would cause any problems, but it's always best to check beforehand.

There is an issue of the licensing for merchandise. I am not sure how far that licensing goes. It could be that is something an original producer holds and that once a show is released from that original contract merchandising licenses are no longer an issue. That being said with other works like books and such merchandising licenses are quite long lived. Just try making and selling a facsimile of your favorite super hero and you'll find out.   The reason I mention this is because it could be a shadow puppet would be seen as protected under a merchandising license.

As far as I know, performance, design and merchandising would all be separate issues here. I wouldn't be seeking to merchandise the puppets, just offer them for hire since most companies have difficulty in locating Audreys.

One reason why I've put the idea on the backburner is because of the difficulty in coming up with a character design which doesn't infringe on someone else's design, but still having it remain 'Audrey' enough that it entices companies to hire them. After all, shadow puppet versions aren't common (done at all?) and it would be hard for amateur companies to be interested in something which doesn't look like a typical Audrey puppet.

Just wondering if there's been a reply from Russ since I posted this.

No I never got a reply from Russ on the email I sent.

That's disappointing. Ah well, it *was* out of curiousity anyway...