And then once you cross an ocean, it's even messier.  There have been complete copies of Broadway productions overseas...scenery, costumes, lights, choreography, blocking, etc... that have no offiliation with the original licensing, but since it's in a different country, there's not much we can do over here.

In Australia it may be slightly different. We have a large population, but a very small theatre market: what this means is that if you're in a large city, and most here are, you will have very quick saturation of your target audience. Ie. Mamma Mia will have been seen by the majority of theatre-goers no matter which capital city you perform in.

This has a knock-on effect in that it raises interest in local amateur performances of the same show; but it also means that you'll find it difficult to perform something amateur-wise that rips off from professional productions. It would be very easy to notice: and it is. Local amateur groups get caught out all the time using unlicenced music/scripts. People here from the relevant organisations do check these things out.

I think though that most local amateur groups here - the established ones - are more likely to pay royalties, not just because they can afford them, but because they respect the artists. Unfortunately, where I think it goes haywire is in the local independent/fringe (what you Americans would consider off-Broadway) groups are somewhat less respectful. But then, they tend to produce things that no one has heard of, and are not likely to be caught out copying Mamma Mia but rather some indie band's latest song.

Sadly, I know of one specific case where our national opera company (basically the only professional opera company in Oz) completely ripped off a well-known movie. See the blog/video I posted last year on my site:
http://www.puppetsinmelbourne.com.au/blog.php/2010/08/30/pirated-pirates

Despite being easily noticeable as ripping off something, they don't seem to have suffered any repurcussions. Maybe they got permission, but I think it's poor form for an opera company to trade on this.

I'll also note that your Broadway productions are pretty much what our Australian theatre audience will see at any given time. Getting them to - even an Australian well-known - original Oz works is near impossible. The only thing that is Australian about the show is the cast; because local producers are required to use everything that overseas designers created, from choreography to lighting design. I doubt that major producers would risk losing rights to a money-making show (the only ones that make any money are Broadway imports); so any breaches of copyright are more than likely going to come from amateurs.

[/soap box]

I believe that the following place hires or previously hired out Ave Q puppets in Australia and Asia...so I don't know if this is any help to you
http://www.powerarts.com.au.
They used to be called Arts Asia Pacific so I am not sure why the name change and I am in no way recommending the company, only because I know nothing about them..
We previously made some Ave Q puppets for Matt Byrne Media who had the license to put on the show and make the puppets.

Arts Asia Pacific is the producer of the professional show in Australia. They don't have anything to do with licencing as far as I know - that would have been MTI (at least MTI has been involved in other overseas licencing, so I assume would have it for here too).

I suspect AAP would be hiring out the official Rick Lyon-made puppets for a high price, and only for corporate events. I remember seeing something similar a while back on the Aus. Avenue Q website (which seems to no longer work...). Surprisingly, lots of local well-known productions do this; Cirque du Soleil when they're in town can be hired for corporate functions, etc.

I feel like I need to add that the cases of people copying shows overseas are rare and few and far between.  There ARE legit, offical licensed versions of current Broadway shows running all over the world.  Don't think that just because your production of "X" musical, that looks just like the Broadway version is a fake.  Chances are, it the real deal!

This is true to a certain extent. Any professionally-produced import of a show is likely to follow certain guidelines as to what they're allowed to do/not allowed to do with the licenced material. Good example is Samuel Beckett's work, which the family trust guards with its life and ensures that everything is done to the T. They've shut down shows around the world for simple things, like changing the gender of a character.

Broadway and West End musicals are not allowed to be changed at all, except for certain 'insert here' jokes which are designed to be about local/current events. Other than a locally-hired cast, nothing else can be changed. So yes, if it looks like the original, more than likely it's because of licensing.

But this doesn't necessarily translate to amateur groups who don't know/care/afford licencing or other responsibilities; nor does it prevent small independent professional companies from doing the wrong thing.

Costume rental places don't have to obtain licensing for such packages as a rule.  What they can not do is say rent or sales copyrighted characters or designs. In other words if they built a duplicate of a certain mouse we all know and called it Mickey they would be in big trouble but they can and do rent out mouse costumes.   Now that is a bit of a grey area but they all do it.

So technically I could build an exact replica of Mickey Mouse's costume, and just call it "mouse costume" and it'd be ok? Or you mean they're ignoring copyrights hoping not to get caught? Not sure where that grey starts...

Remember though that scripts for theater shows are a whole different ball game as a rule.  The characters themselves are not owned by the puppeteers that made the original puppets for Avenue Q.

No, but presumably a puppet maker might have rights, not over the characters, but over the character designs. Which is why I wondered if Russell's work comes close to infringement.

Over at the MTI site they have a forum and this thread actually has a reply by one of the MTI personal and they don't mention anything about not being able to use another persons puppets for the show. I would think they would have said something about the other puppet builders that mentioned in that post that they could supply or build puppets.

I agree that you probably wouldn't have to use specific characters/designs for the puppets, nor using Rick Lyon's work: that'd be exorbitant and would defeat the purpose of licencing the show. The problem for me is that most people wouldn't think about whether or not they'd need permission to make replicas for amateur shows (partly because it would be tied into getting permission to use the script/music) and that some random Googler who doesn't know about rights for the show may just wander over to Russell's site and assume that anyone can make a replica.

To paraphrase from the source: there's a fine, fine line between supplying puppets for a licenced show; and ignoring or being ignorant of, licencing responsibilities.

Hmm.... MTI also has Audry II puppets for rent. http://www.mtishows.com/content.asp?id=6_3_0_5

MTI also licences the script/music for Little Shop of Horrors. I would guess that again, the puppets come as a package deal in terms of copyrights.

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