Karen, Grace is having a bit of a problem with ISP access, not to mention busy with her own ballet students right now. I'm sure she will respond to you as soon as her regular ISP access is up again.<P>And, yes, we do have that link also to the Martha Graham Center Support site. It was brought to our attention by another criticaldance.com member, Tadejny, who is a dancer with the Graham Company. Just go to the top of this post, where you will also see links to previous discussions we've had, including some useful clarifications by TMDell, who was the General Manager/Executive Director of the company.

A new twist in the saga. The Graham Center is investigating whether many of the pre-1978 works (that year marks a change in copyright law) are already in the public domain and thus Ron canot stop the MGDC performing them.<P>If this proves to be the case then this could clearly have a great effect on a large body of work from the period pre-1978.<P>Gosh!!<BR> <A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58959-2000Jul27.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58959-2000Jul27.html</A>

Another updare by Kate Mattingly in <A HREF="http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0031/mattingly.shtml" TARGET=_blank>this Village Voice story</A>.

dear karen, awfully sorry i didn't see your query till now - i guess things must have changed, because, in short, what's required is documentation. that can be in any form which works, basically....yes, video is acceptable.<P>would like to hear more about what you studied there and when. we have a notation thread in BACKSTAGE forum, which would probably be the right place, if you'd like to find it and comment at all? - i'm sure that would be interesting.....<P>hope to 'see' you there

the <A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58959-2000Jul27.html" TARGET=_blank>washington post article</A> is an excellent and wide-ranging one - recommended reading. the village voice article is long and informative - mostly as to what a grubby business this is. no holds barred commentary on some of the people involved. (tadejny is mentioned here too)<P>only thing that bothered me (apart from the mudslinging, apparently deserved!)is the confusion i was left with, by linda hodes' quoted comment that martha may have done it deliberately because she wanted the company to die with her...but then, i don't understand, how that ties in with what is said afterwards. <P><p>[This message has been edited by grace (edited August 02, 2000).]

Graham did seem to have an ambivalent attitude to her choreography. There is a story that late in her dancing career she was asked by Tudor, I think, whether she would like to be remembered as a dancer or as a choreographer. She replied instantly, 'As a dancer' and Tudor replied, 'Then I am very sorry for you.'<P>She was also reluctant to work on recreations of her early pieces, sometimes refusing and sometimes agreeing, but with a lot of gnashing of teeth. On the other hand she did get a lot of her work down on video.<P>Another enigma in the Graham legend.

tadejny and others, how are the rehearsals coming along for the August 16th show? Where are you rehearsing, by the way?

Good morning to all,<BR>This came to me today.<P>LA Times <BR>August 11, 2000<P> THE ARTS <BR> Martha Graham Trust Forbids Use of Her Name: In a strongly worded letter, lawyers for the Martha Graham Trust (legal owners of her name, image, technique and repertory) are demanding that the now-defunct Martha Graham Center for Contemporary Dance stop using the name of the late pioneering modern dance choreographer in connection with any of its activities--including its certificate of incorporation, Web site and any future performances. At the end of May, the center closed the Martha Graham Dance Company and school, citing financial problems, after which the trust declared the previous licensing agreement with the center null and void. In addition to mounting a protest, dancers from the company have scheduled performances later this summer of works by choreographers other than Graham, but still using the Graham Dance Company name. Robert N. Solomon, attorney for the center, said, "We don't plan to respond to this unfounded demand . . . that only hurts Martha's name." <P>Any comments?<P><BR> <BR>

And to answer your Q Azlan, we are getting ready for our Wednesday performance rehearsing all over the town. We are blessed to have people helping us with flyers, rehearsal space,....<BR>We also received a little financial help from couple of individuals.<BR>

Legal question-can a person's NAME be copyrighted? I know that a person's technque, works, whatever can be ...but their name? That seems a bit beyond the pale? I am referring to the previous posting regrading the Martha Graham Center for Contemporary Dance.

Trina, Shag and Jennifer will know more about this than I do but here's my two cents': A name can be copyrighted but within context. In this case, someone else even though she may be named Martha Graham cannot create another dance company after her name or use that name to promote her dances. She can however use it to create a theater company or to author a book on opera, for examples.

Tadejny, how are the dancers reacting to this? Do they fear the legal actions that may result if they proceed with the performance using the Martha Graham name? Have the dancers been contacted directly by the trust?<P>Personally, I think it may be a PR blunder by the trust. First, it projects a certain heavy-handedness that will surely alienate them from the general public It is already enough that they are preventing the works from being performed -- people get the message already. Now, they're just rubbing it in with the name. Secondly, what kind of action can they take if they insist on enforcing this copyright? Go after each dancer individually? There is no better way to galvanize artistic and public opinion against them if they do so.<P>BTW, the article Tadejny quoted was written by Lisa Boone of the LA Times and can be found by <A HREF="http://www.calendarlive.com/tvent/mreport/20000810/t000075073.html" TARGET=_blank>clicking here</A>.

Artists of the <BR>Martha Graham Dance Company<BR>present<P><BR>"Keeping the channels open"<P><BR>A concert by Company Members<BR>and Guest Choreographers<P><BR>August 16, 2000<BR>at 6pm<P><BR>Union Square <BR>(14th Street Between Broadway and 4th Avenue) <BR>as Part of a Summer Dance Series <BR>"Dance in the Park"<P>Choreography by: Tadej Brdnik<BR> Jacqulyn Buglisi<BR> Erica Dankmeyer<BR> Javier Dzul<BR> Gary Galbraith and Karen Potter<BR> Errol Grimes<BR> Kun-Yang Lin<P><BR>Come and join us in this free performance !!!<p>[This message has been edited by Press (edited August 15, 2000).]

The dancers are not afraid at all. Sometimes we hope that he would sue us. Then the WHOLE truth would come out. <BR>And nothing will scare him more than the truth.<P>The performance went very well this afternoon. <BR>I can sit down tonight and be very proud of what we did. <BR>There was no money to be spent or other resources to use, but yet there was a spirit which connected us all together.<BR>There was a lady in the audience who started to scream "Martha Graham is alive" as others were giving the standing ovation in the end of the performance. <BR>Maybe she is not, but we are here to carry her torch. <BR>It is just a shame that we can't also do her dances.

Delighted that the performance went so well tadejny. It sounds like a really good experience for the dancers. Wish I could have been there.<P>Keep carrying that torch and rest assured that 99% of dance lovers also wish that you could perform her dances.