Royalties And Players

Radio Record, 14 April 1938, Page 42

Royalties And Players

Myles F. E.

Wright

(Wellington) .-

May I correct the misapprehension of "C.H.E.," who writes about amateur dramatie societies and royalties, "C.H.F." devotes the greater part of his article to the defence of the royalities charged for performances of plays eontrolled by Samuel French. With these there is, as far ag I know, na quarrel whatever. The royalty in question has been that charged, or threatened to be charged, for readings of plays by societies to an audience of members only. "O.H.F." states that for royalties for readings to more than 50 persons there is a set fee of £1/1/-. "Jack Daw’s" article dealt with the proposed charges, as set out by a Dunedin firm of solicitors, which gave royalties for readings on a Sliding scale which reached the sum of £5/5/- for the larger societies. "C.H.F." has evidently been commissioned to reply on behalf of the royalty owners, and the fact that he has announced the reduction to £1/1/- (or no fee when the audience numbers less

than 50)’ suggests that already the Toy: © alty owners realise that their original demands were wildly excessive. These new charges, which are presumably authentic, represent some relief, but the position is still serious for the larger societies (the very large societies may have some chance of meeting the £1/1/- royalty). One of the larger societies will read probably 30 to 40 plays in a season --the consequent charge of 30 or 40 guineas for royalties will make these readings impossible. Incidentally, it is amusing to note that "O.H.F." complains that a good deal of "misleading information has been bruited abroad." Presumably this refers to the sliding scale of royalties for readings, printed in "Jack Daw’s" article, which came originally from the letter sent out by Messrs. French’s agents in New Zealand If Messrs. French have seen the error of their ways, and decided to abandon the sliding scale in favour of the flat rate of £1/1/- to audiences of more thay 50, there is no doubt that this improves the situation considerably, but why not frankly announce that this is the case?