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@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@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@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@lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > >