People have put various thoughts forth here about whether or not contra
dance sequences are sufficiently original to be copyrightable. In my view,
they are. In some others' views, apparently they're not. If they are not,
then yes, nobody can take legal action based on copyrighted dances. If
they are, then fair use is not going to provide a safe harbor. It's a
narrower doctrine than most people think it is in the first place (a lot of
people claim "fair use" when their use would never hold up as "fair
use" in
court), and contra dances that charge admission would almost certainly be
outside of fair use.
Your example isn't really what we're talking about here, either. If you
conjure up a dance on the spot, you did not violate a copyright even if
dances are copyrightable and somebody else has already come up with that
sequence of figures. If two people independently produce the same exact
work of art, they each have a copyright to it. Doesn't really happen in
most instances, but with contra dances, it happens all the time.
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Greg McKenzie <grekenzie(a)gmail.com> wrote:
David wrote:
Fair use does not cover public performance at a
contra dance.
This assumes, however, that a specific sequence of common figures
constitutes a copyrightable work by the author. I am not at all convinced
that this is the case. If I conjure up a dance, on the spot, at a gig and
call it using my own instructions I don't see how anyone can claim that
they already "own" the rights to that sequence of figures. They can
copyright the *name *of the dance, the *book *they publish it in, and
any *comments
*they may make about the dance--but to take legal action on the sequence of
figures alone would be a fools errand. I think their "case" would never
make it to court.
Just a thought.
Greg McKenzie
West Coast, USA
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
--
David Casserly
(cell) 781 258-2761