Dance to be sure is a broad art form; we have ballet, modern, tap, and jazz. Not to mention all the dances symbolic to countries, or dances becoming more popular today such as hip hop. It is interesting to find out that like a book dances can have copyrights. One might have the question why, and in this paper we will try to discover an answer for that little question of why. We shall explore the possibilities that it should only be allowed on “dead dance forms” to the possibilities that perhaps it really is only done to keep famous names alive. Keeping the integrity of the choreographer. We shall be exploring the issue of dance being protected not only in America but also in other countries.
Ballet is classic. Ballet is what little girls want to grow up and do, they want to be a ballerina. They see works like Swan Lake, The Nutcracker and others, and an odd thing is occurring; if they are seeing the ballet created by certain people, they are watching a copyrighted piece. It’s a story their little studio may do, but it has a copy write safety lock on it. So, how do they get to do it? They get to do it because their teachers made up their own combinations of classical ballet movements to the same music, they used different lighting, and they used different sets. The greats like Balanchine had his works copy written, and why? He was a genius when it came to choreography apparently, his great works had to be remembered and protected. Even more recent choreographers have had their ballets protected. Why ballets though? Not many modern dances have been so protected, so why ballet and not modern?
Here is where you can bring in the facts that the modern world is ever growing. It is constantly searching for something new and sometimes shocking. That’s what those who first broke into this wonderful world of modern dance were looking for after all. A break away from tradition. So is it right to copy right modern dances? If it’s always changing, will it stop growth?
Ballet is very much a stale form of dance; classical ballet in its simplest form can be compared to Latin. Classical ballet is classical; it is the same sets of movement. Devlope, tondu, releve and so on, you hear these words all the time and they are used over and over in combinations. You could almost say that it is a dying art form, so you should protect it. Like how we as humans protect animals going extinct. To protect it only seems right.
It is such a sticky subject though, that those in the dance world are confused about it. They look at this law and wonder where the line in the sand is, as Julie Van Camp stated in her book Copyright of Choreographic Works “Numerous legal commentators have analyzed the new copyright protections, but many questions remain unanswered for the dance community” (Camp 1). So here we stand, over looking the dance field. Ballet in one corner, and modern in another, in between these two some other dance forms such as contemporary ballet and jazz. What needs protecting, if anything, and what is taking it too far? Is it even for the dances sake that it is protected, or is it just for the great names such as Balanchine and his integrity that certain thing are protected?
If a copy write were to be put on modern dances, the art form too would grow stale. The sets of movements would become like classical ballet, they wouldn’t be allowed to be changed or manipulated because then you would be stealing another’s idea’s, another’s work. Not that Balanchine protected simply specific moves, his whole ballet’s are copyrighted. The process of this happening to modern dances I believe would begin to narrow down the modern world. It would begin to categorize different moves more and more until one day modern would become stale too. Copyrights on dances is such an odd line, but it is most definitely there. Classical ballets are protected and yet, despite our last paragraph, some very early modern dances are also. I think it should not be done though in the modern world. Classical ballet is already never changing, you can’t help that it is like Latin now. Modern on the other hand is alive and well in the people and should be free.
Are some modern, very modern dances, such as some hip hop and some jazz protected? If they’re on T.V. or the internet does it make a difference? This is when the great internet device known as YouTube comes into play. Type in songs, type in the word dance, type in dance show’s and you will surely find dances. So many dances it would take days to watch them all. Television clips are on YouTube, clips from famous shows such as So You Think You Can Dance. Millions of viewers watch this every week.
Even more people can watch the dances alone from that show online, they can skip the announcers and the commentary and just catch the dance. Now the company, Dick Clark, does take precautions. They protect what’s theirs. It has happened to my friend, she put up a video of “their” dancers dancing a combination from the show. The company took it off very quickly. Yet, another video that was put up by a YouTube user, Dancersongold, that was a parody of the show, was not taken off. It was, as of today’s date, left up.
This perhaps is a rabbit’s trail. Let us stay the main course. What would occur if teens put up an exact reenactment of a dance from the show? They found the moves to be inspirational and intriguing and so they re-did it and put it up on their own personal site on YouTube. The answer to that is fuzzy, it would really depend on the company, but according to YouTube, this is what they have to say, “As a general matter, we at YouTube respect the rights of artists and creators, and hope you will work with us to keep our community a creative, legal and positive experience for everyone, including artists and creators” (YouTube). YouTube itself doesn’t have the control over the dances, it is still the company, such as Dick Clark.
Luckily these people aren’t taken to court, they’re just given a slap on the wrist having their video taken off. There really has only been one case taken to court, and it wasn’t even over Balanchine’s whole ballet. It was over a book of photographs. So here we are in a world where you thought copying a whole dance was copyright infringement, and yet this was over photographs. In Julie Van Camp’s book Copyright of Choreographic Works she states “The Court of Appeals placed great significance on what can be captured in a single photograph, including ‘a gesture, [or] the composition of dancers' bodies’” (Camp 65). Obviously the sets and costumes could be scrutinized in a photograph as well, so in this Horgan v. MacMillan which was taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals, then sent back to the lower courts with a “proper test” to see if it truly was a copyright infringement. The case ended up being settled and left hanging in the air with plenty of questions.
So since with YouTube cases we see that it depends on the company that produced the dance, and the Balanchine case we saw that it was never really resolved, let us look at another case that occurred in a different country. This one takes place in China, it is over one pose created by CDPAPT's that claims they came up with the pose first. In this case other troupes allegedly took the pose and used it. This case, according to CDPAPT, was an infringement on their intellectual property.
Intellectual property is what they stated, not even their artistic domain. They say intellectual property, as in they thought of this clever thing first, it came out as a pose, and this other troupe infringed on their thought process. Their very own brilliant idea. Brilliant or not some scholars wondered if CDPAPT could really lay claim to such a thing as stated in the article Dance Copyrights Infringed by Joel Martinsen “Some Chinese scholars of Buddhist art, however, doubt the authenticity and legality of the troupe's copyright on the dance” (Martinsen). So again, like with the YouTube problems and the Balanchine case, the line is fuzzy. It isn’t clear, is the move, the pose, can it really property of one specific dance troupe?
The resolve of this case was simply that CDPAPT at a press conference stated that they didn’t want to monopolize the dance. They said that asking for permission before using this pose would suffice. So, what was the point of protection over this pose? If all you must do is ask for permission, then you can use it, why protect it at all?
The answer lies in the probable statement of give credit where credit is due. As stated before, classical ballets are mostly protected by or for the greats like Balanchine. It is his integrity, not even so much the dance form that needs kept in shape. Then there are those early modern pieces that are protected for or by the mothers of modern dance; it too is their integrity under safekeeping. Then let’s even look at the case from China, it seems they just wanted recognition, they wanted their integrity intact. When we look at it from this standpoint, it doesn’t matter whether or not the dance is like Latin, never to grow, never to evolve. This whole issue with dance being protected by copyrights is simply to protect the name of the greats, to keep their integrity intact.
A project was put into motion with the death of Heinz Poll, the founder of the Ohio Ballet. It was a two year project to annotate five of his ballets, and the use of them is possible under one condition as stated in the article Preserving Poll “If a company wants to perform the work, it needs to contact these dancers, who may go out to restage them, coaching the company so they understand everything about them” (Guregian). So, here you see it is more about the integrity of Poll’s ideas. Not as many people have heard of Poll, so you can’t say it’s just because of his popularity these dances are protected as one might assume with Balanchine, it really is about the integrity. As Hernando Cortez put it in the Preserving Poll article, who was part of the “saving” process, “It will be a great Bible for dancers” (Guregian). Even dancers of his, colleges of Poll’s, see it as rather a grateful thing, a process not hindering dance, but making its integrity live longer. Poll’s name, Poll’s ideas can’t go down with him to them. They need them saved.
It’s the integrity that is meant to be saved with these copyright laws. As you can see with all the examples put forward, that of YouTube, Balanchine, CDPAPT, and Heinz Poll. At first glance it looks like choreographers or companies such as Dick Clark are greedy. It is not quite the case, they simply want recognition where it is due. Proof they came up with it first, that they were the creative ones in that field.
For now little studio’s can still do their versions of the Nutcracker, troupes in China can ask CDPAPT if they can use “their” pose, and people can enjoy dance on television and watch it again on the computer if companies ok it. The fear is that one day copyright issues will get out of hand, it will make dances die out and become stale like ballet. For now that fear is at bay, kept there by the fact that these people just want recognition for their work. So simply if kept that way, dance will continue to flourish and amazing choreographers will still be kept fresh in peoples minds. So as Julie Van Camp was left in question in her book about what was left open at the end of the Horgan v. Macmillan case, we can see that it is deduced down to integrity and keeping credit where credit is due.
Work Cited Camp, Julie Van. “Copyright of Choreographic Works.” New York: Clark, Boardman, and Callaghan, 1994.
“Copyright Tips.” YouTube. 2009, April 27, 2009. . Guregian, Elaine. "The Akron Beacon Journal, Ohio, Elaine Guregian column: 'Preserving Poll' captures details of five ballets." Akron Beacon Journal (OH) (26 Oct. 2007). Newspaper Source. EBSCO. Baily, Slippery Rock, PA. 9 Mar. 2009 .
Martinsen, Joel. “Dance Copyrights Infringed. Danwei, Chinese media, advertising, and urban life.” Danwei. April 7, 2005, march 10. .
Its amazing what happens when you begin to learn to accept yourself. You start to see things differently. Each day isn't a work out to look different. You simply wake up, stretch, and your day has begun. Minimal time is spent, wasted in front of the mirror. It's when you're finally true to yourself, you are the most open
Being open isn't bad, and people open up in different ways. Being open doesn't mean compromising ones beliefs. Being open, well, being open is sort of like being like a top notch, cozy hotel with rooms available. People want to stay there, they want to feel welcome, comfortable, and hey-get a great breakfast. Being open is being enjoyable, in some way or another, to be around.
I guess you could say this advice is for more or less happy people in life. You will always run into those that are abrasive and unwelcoming. Unfortunately thats who they are.
Abrasive people can change though. Become nicer. It's hard work, and you might say it contradicts what I said first off, but not exactly. Once you see you're a type that pushes people away, you can change that. Even nice people can decide to work on being more amiable.
All of that to say, once you begin to find the core to one's self, you can really begin to be open and realize stereotypes were created by those who looked to abolish them in the first place. When you work so hard to be unique, you look just like everyone else working just as hard as you. Slow down, relax. Don't fall for the trick you're breaking out of stereotypes. You truely aren't.
Don't think you have to be locked in one crowd; and especially don't think that that's where you have to find your mate. In fact, I encourage you to not go for "your type". It is amazing what you'll find when you're open.
What you may think is your opposite might just be that missing link in the evolution of your wonderfully surprising life. Opposites attract, support, sustain, and suprise. You may find a side of someone that you realize you need. Why can’t artsy kids be with a tuff kid? After all, the mood swings of the artsy one can finally have support by a stronger personality. It’s amazing the combinations you can find. The possibilities in life expand ten fold when you’re open, when you unlock yourself from the lie of stereotypes. You can find your match in such unusual places, and after all, isn’t that what is the most unique? Finding a surprise and surprising those around you? The world is so much brighter once open, so pull back those blinds. Shed the layers of excess trash plastered on by the world. Stretch and avoid mirrors. Look around corners expecting, wanting anything. Take the long way home. Don’t do the same thing every weekend. Be open, but hold onto your beliefs. The ones that define your soul, not your closet.
so here's the thing... we all grow up. and you can tell when your ready to. it comes right after that stage where your completely scared too, when your so afriad of loosing what you have that you hang on for dear life because you just don't know where your feet will land.
but people grow and people change. you have to accept it. no matter how cliche that sounds. its hard. you grow so comfortable in one atmosphere i know... home is home, but what happens when you move away? my boyfriend asked me how i felt when i came home, like is it like a sigh of relief ah i'm back.... its sad to say but its not anymore. not to just be in my hometown.
where i feel a sigh and a happiness and a release is when i'm with those i love. that really is what feels good. i don't ever want to be afraid to move away, because everywhere you go you build new ties. and i think friendships never die, because you were friends with those people once. you shared good times. but release and get ready for a new wave or you'll be stuck in the same old place for forever with your buid up of usual friends.
i don;t know, that probably sounded mean and like i hate all my friends and i'm ready to drop them when ever i can. i'm not, i love them, i feel like myself around them, but at the same time, i'm ready to move to colorado to climb mountains and fish. i'm ready to be away. i'm ready for change. because growing requires it.
its a tearing situation this growing up. you want to be the same but you know you can't. i love to think back on the times i've had, but now i'm in college. and its like i can't experience those anymore. my girls are changing and finding new friends. and so am i.
i can remember when my brothers friends would complain to me about caleb changing. you see he found his match, the one he loved. and he loved being with her. so over tim e he grew to love and be with her more often. that suited him as he grew. i'm not saying he disregarded his friends,but he had to learn how to manage his time, mediate more. i find myself more in his shoes.
things change. there's a season for everything. people grow attached to other people. its sad. its exciting. you just have to learn to let go but still be there. me and lowman are still the ballerina's sisters, and caleb is still my brother. but you can't always live like your fifteen anymore. and i think its just hitting me more and more especially after i saw my ballerinas go and dance this weekend all by themselves, well without me and lowman. i saw how they stayed the same stayed working hard for joan. and now i'm the different one.
it hurts.
but i think i'm ready to accept it more now. i am growing up. home isn't home unless i'm in the arms of the one i love. i want to make my own home now someplace else it seems because it seems like it'd be easier. to make new memories rather than being glued to the past. i hate the feeling yet love it at the same time knowing i can finally be who i want to be.
ok, so i haven't written in here for a WHILE but me and my friend have been looking back on our posts and i figured why not.
and this one on september 11 is about war.
war is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. the person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. --john stewart mill-
i so agree with this quote. everyone hates war. who wants to see innocent die? but really you have to have it in our imperfect world. our world where there are other people willing to draw first blood. our country is free and people take it for granted.
come on women, we've got to atleast be happy about our freedom. there are women who now get killed for not dating someone approved by their father or in they're religion. look it up. two girls were in the news about it, they called 911 becouse they're own father had shot them for disgracing the family by dating guys they liked.
these are the people who we're protecting ourselves from and at the same time trying to set free.
you gotta fight for what you believe in. you have to believe in something, or life's not worth it.
so to all you troops thank you for serving our country. protecting what you love, and protecting those whimps out there who can't stand for anything.
