Wedding Attendees Worldwide Rejoice: Electric Slide Legal To Use Again
from the DMCA-abuse dept
Remember how the (disputed) creator of the annoying "Electric Slide" dance had been issuing DMCA takedown notices to anyone who put up videos of people doing a version of the dance? The EFF stepped in and sued the guy for abusing the DMCA. It appears that someone finally sat down the guy and explained to him how the law works and he's now agreed to not just back away from his DMCA threats, but also to "license" the dance for non-commercial use via a Creative Commons license. Of course, this is still somewhat problematic. Why should anyone need to license the dance from him? While it sounds nice that he's offering a CC license, doesn't that just reinforce the idea that he can actually tell people how they can dance?Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And that includes the movements that result in idiotic BS like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theory and Reality
A propagandist blog like this will quote legal theory out of context and confuse it with reality, arguing that doctors are abducting babies or whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Theory and Reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Theory and Reality
No, it IS required unless they would like to face a multi-million dollar malpractice suit. It only takes a family that is deeply religious and doesn't believe in organ donation, even if the victim did, to make it a reality. I know of many similar cases thanks to my wife having worked for a settlement group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dorpus, please go away ! ! !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
License
Because the entire dance -- these particular moves in this particular order -- was a creative work, like a ballet only shorter. His copyright doesn't prevent people dancing any of the component steps, not even if they do it in the order he copyrighted. His copyright is for works featuring that set of moves termed "Electric Slide", a misnomer of the original dance, The Electric, ©1976.
Choreography can be copyrighted. Paid performances must be licensed, subject to (the precious few) copyright limitations. As I understand it, he has no claim against any person or group spontaneously dancing the Electric, only against the commercial use of this dance. He might have something to say if one of Clear Channel's CW radio stations held an Electric Slide contest, but there's not much he can do when a bunch of good ol' boys and gals decide to start Sliding on a Friday night after a few rounds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: License
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goal Celebration Patented
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Umm... no. Unless you can find some citation, that's bollox. I live in Yerp, I can't find a thing about this, and no one I know who follows footie has heard of anything so preposterous, and they're pretty rabid fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just to let everybody know
[1] That is the full trademarked name and not to be used by: (a) Haters.
(b) Richard Silver.
(c) Anyone who has some self respect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is a CC License a Cover?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is a CC License a Cover?
But, since it's in the Public Domain, you could take the text, add stuff (study notes or whatever) and copyright the result. That would protect your (presumably) enhanced version, but not (of course) the original version.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is a CC License a Cover?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is a CC License a Cover?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]