http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Sweet_Lord#Copyright_infringement_suit
There's actually some precedent for legal action against people who accidentally copy your work. This is exactly the sort of unproductive back and forth that sometimes makes me sad to be subscribed to this list. I think we can safely say that the issue is complex and that none of us is qualified to give advice on the matter. If someone is interested in practical advice, they should probably consult a lawyer. http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=759#comic On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Dave Casserly <[email protected]>wrote: > 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. > >
