Famed Choreographer Dies... Intellectual Property Lawyers Take Over?
from the this-can't-end-well dept
A few years back, we wrote about the guy who claimed to have invented The Electric Slide sending DMCA takedown notices to people who put up videos of people (at weddings, for example) dancing the dance. Eventually, the EFF sued and the guy backed down, but it looks like we haven't seen the end of aggressive enforcement of copyright control over choreography. Mockingbird writes in to let us know of a story talking about the recent death of choreographer Merce Cunningham, which focuses on how his estate is moving rapidly to execute a plan concerning the intellectual property he held in his dances. After discussing one of his famous routines that involved (literally) rolling some dice to determine the sequence, the article notes:Yet, in a press conference held in Cunningham's dance studio shortly before his death, Fishman announced, "The future of his life's work cannot be left to chance."And from there, we get statements such as:
Cunningham, according to board member Allan Sperling, "wanted clarity with respect to the ownership, control, and continuity of his choreography." Mr. Sperling adds, "He wanted it to be in the hands of those he trusted to carry out his philosophy and approach." The trust, which has meticulously documented his works, controls licensing of revivals. "Presumably," Sperling says, "the trustees will set standards for the way the work is performed."From there, the article branches off into a discussion on copyright. While it gets some of the facts wrong (claiming that copyright exists to protect an artist's income, rather than the truth: it exists to create an incentive to create), it at least tries to balance some of the questions, discussing things like Creative Commons and the public domain. It also discusses exactly how other choreographers have been held back by copyright:
New York choreographer Jane Comfort has been inhibited artistically in the past by copyright barriers. She now commissions new scores for her dances rather than attempting to use copyrighted music. "It is stultifying and difficult," she says. "The music industry and literary estates can be really tough."The article also quotes numerous other creative types hoping to get away from copyright and the hoops and hurdles people need to go through to create:
Contemporary composer Joel Durand, a professor of composition at the University of Washington in Seattle, knows composers rely on royalties for income but says, "I wish we were not so obsessively entrenched in our little discoveries." He'd like his work to be freely available since, Durand says, "Everything we do is universal in a spiritual way. It all belongs to everybody because it doesn't come from us as individuals." Works "of an aesthetic nature," he adds, are produced "in collaboration with the world, and the creator should offer it to all rather than clasp their fists around their thought for gain."But... don't expect that to happen with Cunningham's work from the sound of things. Even though the article notes that when he was alive he embraced change, collaboration, innovation and new technologies -- it's difficult to square that with this whole idea of his estate carefully controlling and licensing his works. It's equally troubling to think that you can stop someone from dancing in a certain way just because someone else choreographed it first.
Holby, too, wonders if unfettered access might flower into "a new Renaissance with everyone inspiring everyone else."
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
Filed Under: choreography, copyright, dance, intellectual property, merce cunningham
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Short sighted
No one will use his work because there is too much hassle and money involved.
Sooner or later most art will be based entirely on CC licensing of one sort or another.
And the works that belong to the copyright culture will simply disappear due to not being used or referenced, and they will be replaced by other, freer works.
I can say for sure that in my works I will not deal with copyright maniacs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In the VERY SAME paragraph that you note copyright "exists to create an incentive to create", you say that "choreographers have been held back by copyright"...because one of them now commissions new music rather than using music already copyrighted.
In other words (say it with me now): AN INCENTIVE TO CREATE.
Which, as you just noted, was exactly how copyright was supposed to work...yeah?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In this case, while there is new creation happening, copyright in not the incentive. The incentive is in avoiding copyrighted works, which is completely opposite.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thought Police
You are hereby ordered to cease and desist and dancing actions from here on out so that you do not sully the reputation of this dance.
Yours truly,
The Thought Police
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Depending on who is put in charge of the Cunningham copyrights, we may have a long wait before we get such a "reawakening of imaginative interest" applied to the Cunningham dances. If the Cunningham estate goes the way of the James Joyce and Samuel Beckett estates, policing Cunningham's work with a heavy hand, the wait will seem long indeed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Walking as dance?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
What is amazing is that you wrote it without understanding the concept.
Without copyright, the people who are now "innovating" and creating new stuff might just be doing the old stuff over again. Copyright (of the original material) has encouraged the newcomers to do something different, aka, create something new - that is innovation and advancement.
Just going over the same rut over and over again isn't innovation. Making something new, something unique - that is where innovation happens, and that is one of the side effects of strong copyright. It is making people think outside of the box, rather than just using someone else's box.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Defenders of this are so uncreative it blows my mind. You were the kid in school that didn't get picked so you took your ball home. I hope douche bags are copyrighted so you all can't speak for 20 years!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I think you missed it Mike
Luckily I read the original article and the information I gleaned was that he did not want intellectual property fighting from preventing the use of his work as was the case with the Graham estate.
Masnick lemmings be warned, the facts are not always accurately represented in rewrites.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FYI
[ link to this | view in thread ]
IP/copyright
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Without copyright, the people who are now "innovating" and creating new stuff might just be doing the old stuff over again. Copyright (of the original material) has encouraged the newcomers to do something different, aka, create something new - that is innovation and advancement."
What is truly amazing, fellow anonymous coward, is how you used my comment (which was NOT about the validity of copyright) as a launching point for your rant.
I never said we should go over the same rut again and again, or endlessly re-use the same old stuff. In this case, it doesn't even apply as a choreographer is using music for dance. A completely different artistic area. If a musician was using another musician's work, I might understand what you meant.
I was merely making the distinction of ASH's comment that while this innovation may appear to be driven by copyright, it is NOT. It is being driven by the heavy-handed enforcement of copyright. The difference may be subtle, but I think it important. While the end result (new works being created) may be the same, the reasons differ.
And with that said, I'll stop replying. Remember, arguing on the internet is like the special olympics. Win or lose, you're still retarded.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
omfg
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: omfg
Artists should sign distribution agreements with the publishers, where the creative person can assign distribution rights, possibly exclusive, for their art, for whatever recompense they agree on. Those distribution right should be the only thing companies can own.
Although movies and TV shows are collaborative efforts and probably having them owned by the studio that created them is the best way to handle them.
Just sick of seeing RIAA and MPAA persecute people who only want to enjoy art, when the settlements only go to fuel more of the same, or line the RIAA/MPAA coffers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: omfg
Just sick of seeing RIAA and MPAA persecute people who only want to enjoy art, when the settlements only go to fuel more of the same, or line the RIAA/MPAA coffers."
When did the RIAA and MPAA join this lawsuit?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:Ash - If I have a Hammer, I'll Hammer in the morning
I mean if you want to do create the same thing creating, but I'm standing here with a big hammer threatening to hit you on the head if you do, then you are going to create something different, right? Great incentive...
Is that really what you would consider an incentive? If so get me your contact info, I'd like to give you a few incentives to buy a bridge I've been looking to get rid of for quite a while now.....
sheesh, some people children just never learn.
/sarcasm off
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The point of copyright is to put for an incentive for the ORIGINAL CREATOR to create in the first place. The original point is say "you create this, you get a limited monopoly" so that by providing protection, a person will create art to begin with. The idea being that without this incentive, people wouldn't create art because it'd instantly become public domain. They're supposed to get a LIMITED monopoly to incentivize them to create, then it becomes public domain in time for them to have created their next piece of art.
What's happening is, people are creating art to avoid the previously created art. So, the original artist no longer needs to create, but now it takes a new artist to come in and create, allowing the original artist to STOP CREATING new work, because they can effectively cash in on one piece of art for the rest of their lives.
It REDUCES the incentive for the ORIGINAL CREATOR to ever create anything else again in their lives. Because why create 100 novels and get paid once each, when you can create 1 novel and get paid 100 times (hard cover, soft cover, audiobook, 5 different eBook versions to put on different eBook readers, and then each person that has the audacity to reference or talk about your book).
So, the original protectionism to create through copyright is a failure, because it reduces the need to commission the original artist to create more.
Now as a side effect, because now art requires people to continuously pay monetarily for its influence on culture is other artists are forced to IGNORE THE PREVIOUS ART, thus removing it from popular culture, to create new works to avoid continuing that works influence. Because to continue its influence would require to continue paying the original artist. So, it is effectively creating an incentive for OTHER PEOPLE to create, so that ORIGINAL CREATOR doesn't get to live a cushy life on the work of other people by getting paid for work they've already been paid for.
To boil it down:
Copyright exists to create an incentive on the original artist to create.
Copyright in practice creates an incentive on other artists to create while reducing the incentive for the original artist to create.
So, it's not contradictory. It's talking about different things entirely. Would Shakespeare have written as much as he had had he (1) had to pay all the previous story creators whom he "borrowed" and was "influenced" by, or (2) was able to continuously get paid over and over again for Romeo & Juliette and got paid for each and every revision or version through copyright?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I think you missed it Mike
So, the rewrite states:
Choreographer - totally cool with sharing
Estate of choreographer - totally cool with controlling everything
Mike is claiming the estate is actually going against the wishes and mentalities the choreographer held while alive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
From: Ministry of Silly Walks
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Walking as dance?
[ link to this | view in thread ]