mostlyprudent
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
lordarka wrote:
It's not similar at all. The reason that Yoga poses are not protected by U.S. Copyright is because they are public domain that are hundreds of years old; it has nothing to do with the fact that they are poses. See Open Source Yoga Unity v. Choudhury, 2005 WL 756558 (N.D.Cal. 2005) (with parties conceding that yoga asanas are ancient works which belong to the public at large). In this sense, yoga is like Shakespeare or Van Gogh.
Dance poses may certainly be protected by copyright.
"Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
...
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly..."
17 U.S.C. ยง 106(5).
The OP probably does not infringe the choreographer's copyright though. A federal court in the Second Circuit (New York) held that a photographer could indeed infringe a choreographic work, but only if the photograph (s) are substantially similar to the choreography. Horgan v. Macmillan, Inc., 789 F.2d 157 (2d Cir. 1986). The facts in that case involved a picture book which sequentially depicted a choreographer's ballet. Here, the OP has a single picture of a single pose; doesn't sound like his photographs rise to the level of infringement.
You do not need to register a work with the copyright office to validate it. The copyright on the pose is presumptively valid.
Arka C.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer (yet), but have studied these issues more than the average person. That said, these opinions are not offered as legal counsel.
...Show more →
I have some experience in this area which I will share in a general way, but not as advise that should be relied on (since we're talking about the law, I thought a little disclaimer was in order :=D).
RE: Arka's comments:
Some accurate information in here, but again this missed the real issue here. One of the fundamental requirements for copyright protection is "fixation". That is, the subject of the copyright must be fixed in one medium or another. Knowing how to pose someone, or telling them to pose themselves in a certain way is not copyrightable. Once it is photographed or videotaped you then have something that may be subject to protection by copyright law. HOWEVER, the photo/video as a WHOLE is what gets protected...NOT the individual elements of that work. Now, it gets a little complicated when you start talking about derivative works (something that is not an exact copy, but close enough that it still gets proected). But that is not the issue here. There are a series of court cases that analyze the issue of the "work" vs. "elements" of the work. The two that come to mind involved the design of a distinct looking manikin and one involving belt buckles. A copyright on a book is not a copyright on each word, name, phrase or even sentence therin. The point is, to be copyrightable, the pose has to be recorded. Then, that picture/video becomes the "work" which is evaluated for copyright protection. So, think about things like costume, lighting, props, background, etc. All come together with the pose to create a copyrightable work. From there, the next question is who owns it. In this case, I don't think that analysis is terribly complicated.
It's always frustrating to see how afraid people are of getting sued. Yes, it sucks. No, the media does not present anything close to a realistic picture of how many people actually get sued and how many of those suits actually lead to legal fees of any consequence. Worse than that though, is how many lawyers either advise their clients to be overly cautious because of their lack of understanding of a certain area of law, or feed of that fear to rack up a needlessly high bill.
To the OP:
Seriously, a competant copyright attorney should be able to resolve this for you in less than an hour. From a practical standpoint, ask yourself if a dance instructor is going to front the legal fees to sue over this. If it were me, I would rather be on the defensive side of this case. It is so much easier to respond to a silly lawsuit in a way that makes it very expensive for the person suing without being expensive for you (at least early on).
|
