[Callers] Choreography and Copyright

[Jeff Kaufman via Callers]

Here's a post I wrote a couple years ago summarizing what I found when I
looked into this: http://www.jefftk.com/p/can-you-copyright-a-contra-dance
On Jan 25, 2016 8:22 AM, "Read Weaver via Callers" <
callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Well, maybe. But:
>
> "Congress has stated that the subject matter of choreography does not
> include ‘‘social dance steps and simple routines.’’ H.R. Rep. 94–1476 at 54
> (1976). A compilation of simple routines, social dances, or even exercises
> would not be registrable unless it results in a category of copyrightable
> authorship. A mere compilation of physical movements does not rise to the
> level of choreographic authorship unless it contains sufficient attributes
> of a work of choreography. And although a choreographic work, such as a
> ballet or abstract modern dance, may incorporate simple routines, social
> dances, or even exercise routines as elements of the overall work, the mere
> selection and arrangement of physical movements does not in itself support
> a claim of choreographic authorship.”
> From the Copyright Office, CFR Part 201 (in Federal Register
> 77(121):37605-08 (6/22/2012))
>
> Case law (which might exist but I’d be surprised) would start to clarify
> whether a new contra dance would “contain sufficient attributes of a work
> of choreography,” but the explicit exclusion of “social dance steps” says
> to me it’s not straightforward. My own guess is that a judge who
> understands social dance would instruct a jury toward “yes, copyrightable,”
> and one who didn’t would rely on this language and instruct toward “no, not
> copyrightable."
>
> But bear in mind http://smbc-comics.com/comics/20070314.gif
>
> --Read Weaver
>
> On Jan 25, 2016, at 4:11 AM, Neal Schlein via Callers <
> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Since the original question had two points, about legal and moral
> standing,  I'll answer the legal part:
>
> The short answer is NO YOU MAY NOT WITHOUT PERMISSION.
>
> US law is both extremely clear and exceptionally vague.  The clear parts:
> 1.  Any new creative work that is set down in a fixed form is instantly
> copyrighted.  There is a bare minimum of creativity needed to generate
> copyrightable material.
> 2.  Dance choreography is a copyrightable form.
> 3. The following acts are SOLELY allowed to the copyright holder or
> specifically licensed user:  performance, reproduction, reprinting,
> publishing,  public display, broadcast, recording, creation of a derivative
> work.  I may have forgotten a few.
> 4. US copyright law has no moral requirements; it is purely financial and
> transactional in nature.  You have no legal moral requirement (whatever
> that means...) to acknowledge the author's wishes or even identify them as
> the author.  In Europe this is different.
> 5. There is no mechanism established in US copyright law for a person to
> place an item into the public domain, nor for unclaimed and otherwise
> orphan works except if they clearly fall into the public domain due to
> age.  See Creative Commons for an attempted fix.
> 6.  If an item is not registered with the Copyright Office, you can only
> sue for actual damages and demand cessation.  (Usually neither worth it nor
> desired in our world.)  If an item has been registered with the Copyright
> Office, you can sue for many thousands of dollars, plus court costs and
> actual damages.
> 7.  There are no provisions for traditional or folk material or forms, and
> very little case law.
>
> So, all modern contra dances are copyrighted works, and under the main
> part of the law it is clear that you may not legally publish, reprint, call
> (perform), or video tape them without permission from the copyright holder
> (this is not necessarily the author).
>
> The unclear part:
> The Fair Use provision allows for anyone to use copyrighted material
> without permission in any of the otherwise prohibited ways...under
> unspecified circumstances, according to at least four criteria that must be
> applied to each individual situation and weighted uniquely by a judge, and
> which can only be determined with certainty for a given case by the Supreme
> Court.  So, basically useless as a planning guide.
>
>
> *Whether you think the above should be true or not, it is correct based on
> the law*.
>
> Feel free to ask questions.  I actually enjoy this stuff.
> Neal
>
> Neal Schlein
> Youth Services Librarian, Mahomet Public Library
>
>
> Currently reading: *The Different Girl* by Gordon Dahlquist
> Currently learning: How to set up an automated email system.
>
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Colin Hume via Callers <
> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 10:47:04 -0500, Tom Hinds via Callers wrote:
>> > My understanding is that here in the US choreography can't be
>> > protected by law but the written word or the description of it can
>> > be legally copyrighted.
>> >
>> > It would be interesting to know what the law is in the UK.
>>
>> My understanding is that it's the same here.  But when we've discussed
>> copyright on lists the usual conclusion is that there just isn't
>> enough money in it for anyone to make a fuss no matter what happens!
>>
>> Colin Hume
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/attachments/20160125/ecfd3120/attachment.htm>