Remix Culture Vs. Copyright Protection: What's Best for Dance?
From a culture production standpoint, the Twentieth Century was largely about the centralization of the creation and distribution of content by large corporate entities. We were in a read-only era where music and TV programming were broadcast to large audiences who did not have the technical or financial means to remix what they consumed.
The Internet and inexpensive digital technologies have changed everything. If you have a computer, you can edit, build upon and mashup any type of digital content: music, videos, images and text. Then you can share your remixed work with the global Internet community. We have gone from the read-only culture of the last century back to the read/write era where a large percentage of the population, at least in the US, can be both consumers and creators of digital content.
As Law Professor and copyright expert Larry Lessig explains in his 2007 TED speech, "How creativity is being strangled by the law," our intellectual property laws are behind the times and do not reflect the needs of our remix culture:
Lessig believes that the Internet presents an opportunity to revive our read/write culture and recreate the amateur art-making environment that existed prior to the Twentieth Century. And that one of the important ways to accelerate the success of this remix culture is for artists to choose to make their work available more freely when it is used by amateur art-makers.
RIP: A Remix Manifesto
The 2008 open source documentary film "RIP: A Remix Manifesto" takes the position that corporations are the enemy of culture and should not be using copyright laws to constrain artistic creativity. Here's the trailer:
How Should Artists View the Possibilities and Perils of Remix Culture?
I don't have an easy answer to this question. I do have my preference, which is that I think that most artists will benefit, from both a creative and business perspective, by allowing amateur art-makers to build upon and remix their work. I believe that dance-makers will be able to tap into the creativity of Internet audiences if they encourage users around the globe to experiment with, edit and mashup their video content.
At the same time, I fully understand the perspective of artists who wish to maintain control over their artistic work and vision, and prefer for their audiences and users not to be given free reign to edit and change the underlying work.
Wherever one falls on this issue of intellectual property protection versus remix culture, what I do think would be beneficial would be for there to be more in-depth discussion within the dance community about these competing issues.
Thanks to a post I read this morning by Collin Douma on Radical Trust, which encouraged me to think more about these issues.
Before the dance world can responsibly consider the benefits/detriments of remixing, there first needs to substantially more progress on ensuring the choreography has basic copyright protections on the table. 99.9% of the dance creators out there would likely jeopardize the copyright protection on their work. It's great what Graham has done, but their copyright situation is very different from most other companies.
Even if a choreographer wanted their material up, there are still other rights holders to consider: music, the dancers, costumes, lighting, etc.
Perhaps you can elaborate on the business benefits you anticipate?
I'd start with the premise that we've already entered a digital remix culture and that it's up to each individual artist to decide if they wish to participate or not participate.
For specific existing dance works, it may be the case that IP issues have to be addressed before it would be possible to participate in a remix/mashup project. But, at the same, a dancer or dancers could get together today create a new work and launch a digital remix project instantly--there's nothing stopping them as long as everybody agrees how their creative work will be used and they are not infringing on anybody's intellectual property rights.
I mentioned above that I believe there are both creative and business benefits for dancers to launch remix projects. There is a tremendous amount of energy and excitement around our ability to use low-cost digital tools and technologies to build on what others have created--both online and at live events. This is especially true among younger audiences. By tapping into a remix culture, dancers are offering people the opportunity to interact in a very direct, hands-on manner with their choreography and dance-making. This type of engagement, I believe, is an invaluable, fun way to connect with one's audiences, and may also lead to more fans, increased ticket sales, financial supporter and bookings.
But we are in the very early stages and in terms of concrete results, we will have to see how dance-focused remix initiatives work over the coming year to two to assess what works from an artistic and financial perspective.
Remix of dance has many different contexts, but some of these are surely happening already. How far from a source of inspiration must a work be to no longer be a remix?
In the live performance arena, it's not mass copying on the scale of p2p file-sharing.
With digital content of large-scale live performance, remixing of videos of other works would surely be equivalent to remixing of any other video content: music video, film, tv, etc. The cost of full control (a fallacy anyway) paid to increase exposure.
The interesting part of this, in my opinion, would be the space where artists start to collaborate/remix small works specifically made for digital sharing or manipulation.
Still mulling this over but I'm really pleased to find this site, intelligent talk about dance in the time of the internet.
Thanks for your comment and good to meet you through Twitter.
On topic of live performances, one of areas I'm interested in learning more about is real-time remixing, scratching and loops of dance clips used by VJs and visualists. Here's a post with performance videos by Tiago Pereira.
about copyright andIP,
the creativity and possibilities of the dance industry is partly thanks to this system where it’s uncommon to claim ones material as intellectual property.
So in the discussion concerning more or less copyright within the dance industry, I'd like state following; The creativity within, interest for and production of dance would decrease and reduce if these notions of copyright and IP where more accepted and applied! We have only to win from the embrace of the read-write culture.
Few choreographers/dance companies do seek copyright protection for their work as you wrote.
But if more did, would that necessarily lead to less creativity? It could be the case. But in some circumstances a greater emphasis on securing intellectual property rights might lead dancers to consider alternative ways to share their work--such as through a Creative Commons license--where the emphasis was on providing clear guidelines on how other artists (and fans) could use, alter and add to an original work.
It seems that this conversation tends to have shined a light on some general misconceptions and lack of understanding as it relates how copyright protection works for choreography, as well as attitudes within the field. To say that most dance companies don't seek or want protection for their work is patently untrue. In fact, of the choreographers we've met with, virtually all (exceptions can be counted on one hand), have demonstrated that protection is not only important, but vital for them to want to proceed with the exact advanced media strategies that you support.
Also, Creative Commons is downright horrible for protecting choreography, not to mention that unless they have acquired appropriate permissions (eg. music, dancers), it's still not an option regardless.
I'm not clear about what you wrote in your last comment:
1) Are you saying that most dance companies do seek formal copyright protection? Do you know what the numbers and percentages are?
2) Why are you averse to alternative approaches to licensing and distributing work? That's what my post is about and it's clearly a large and growing trend.
I am saying that most companies want protection. Being able to seek it is another process entirely. As far as the numbers are concerned, I don't keep a running tally, but it has come up near the top of every conversation I've had with artistic or executive staff.
I am not averse to alternative approaches at all. What I am averse to is companies being told that in theory, something is or may be in their best interests, when in reality there are significant risks involved that you're not disclosing, and that the path you suggest could result in some serious legal ramifications for dance companies.
There is also an implicit assumption being made that choreography, from an protection standpoint, is the same as other art forms. It isn't.
Can you give an example of a dance company which has copyrighted their work? And how is it possible to claim the actual performances as intellectual property?
I did a quick search for Martha Graham and found a number of copyright filings that matched. But I did not find the copyright documents themselves that describe what is being copyrighted in-depth. Maybe they are available online - I don't know. I'm going to go back to the search options and see what I can find.
Great Dance is devoted to Internet marketing and social media strategies for dancers and dance companies. And you will find extensive coverage of dance videos, animations, movement-based installations and cutting-edge cinematography.
To share stories and ideas, offer feedback, and ask questions, please email Doug Fox.
Please subscribe to the monthly Great Dance Email Newsletter. You
will receive news, recaps and links to the best in dance-focused Internet
marketing and video content.
11 Comments
Doug,
A few quick things:
Before the dance world can responsibly consider the benefits/detriments of remixing, there first needs to substantially more progress on ensuring the choreography has basic copyright protections on the table. 99.9% of the dance creators out there would likely jeopardize the copyright protection on their work. It's great what Graham has done, but their copyright situation is very different from most other companies.
Even if a choreographer wanted their material up, there are still other rights holders to consider: music, the dancers, costumes, lighting, etc.
Perhaps you can elaborate on the business benefits you anticipate?
Marc,
Thanks for your comment.
I'd start with the premise that we've already entered a digital remix culture and that it's up to each individual artist to decide if they wish to participate or not participate.
For specific existing dance works, it may be the case that IP issues have to be addressed before it would be possible to participate in a remix/mashup project. But, at the same, a dancer or dancers could get together today create a new work and launch a digital remix project instantly--there's nothing stopping them as long as everybody agrees how their creative work will be used and they are not infringing on anybody's intellectual property rights.
I mentioned above that I believe there are both creative and business benefits for dancers to launch remix projects. There is a tremendous amount of energy and excitement around our ability to use low-cost digital tools and technologies to build on what others have created--both online and at live events. This is especially true among younger audiences. By tapping into a remix culture, dancers are offering people the opportunity to interact in a very direct, hands-on manner with their choreography and dance-making. This type of engagement, I believe, is an invaluable, fun way to connect with one's audiences, and may also lead to more fans, increased ticket sales, financial supporter and bookings.
But we are in the very early stages and in terms of concrete results, we will have to see how dance-focused remix initiatives work over the coming year to two to assess what works from an artistic and financial perspective.
Remix of dance has many different contexts, but some of these are surely happening already. How far from a source of inspiration must a work be to no longer be a remix?
In the live performance arena, it's not mass copying on the scale of p2p file-sharing.
With digital content of large-scale live performance, remixing of videos of other works would surely be equivalent to remixing of any other video content: music video, film, tv, etc. The cost of full control (a fallacy anyway) paid to increase exposure.
The interesting part of this, in my opinion, would be the space where artists start to collaborate/remix small works specifically made for digital sharing or manipulation.
Still mulling this over but I'm really pleased to find this site, intelligent talk about dance in the time of the internet.
James,
Thanks for your comment and good to meet you through Twitter.
On topic of live performances, one of areas I'm interested in learning more about is real-time remixing, scratching and loops of dance clips used by VJs and visualists. Here's a post with performance videos by Tiago Pereira.
about copyright andIP,
the creativity and possibilities of the dance industry is partly thanks to this system where it’s uncommon to claim ones material as intellectual property.
So in the discussion concerning more or less copyright within the dance industry, I'd like state following; The creativity within, interest for and production of dance would decrease and reduce if these notions of copyright and IP where more accepted and applied! We have only to win from the embrace of the read-write culture.
Best, Chris
Chris,
Few choreographers/dance companies do seek copyright protection for their work as you wrote.
But if more did, would that necessarily lead to less creativity? It could be the case. But in some circumstances a greater emphasis on securing intellectual property rights might lead dancers to consider alternative ways to share their work--such as through a Creative Commons license--where the emphasis was on providing clear guidelines on how other artists (and fans) could use, alter and add to an original work.
It seems that this conversation tends to have shined a light on some general misconceptions and lack of understanding as it relates how copyright protection works for choreography, as well as attitudes within the field. To say that most dance companies don't seek or want protection for their work is patently untrue. In fact, of the choreographers we've met with, virtually all (exceptions can be counted on one hand), have demonstrated that protection is not only important, but vital for them to want to proceed with the exact advanced media strategies that you support.
Also, Creative Commons is downright horrible for protecting choreography, not to mention that unless they have acquired appropriate permissions (eg. music, dancers), it's still not an option regardless.
Marc,
I'm not clear about what you wrote in your last comment:
1) Are you saying that most dance companies do seek formal copyright protection? Do you know what the numbers and percentages are?
2) Why are you averse to alternative approaches to licensing and distributing work? That's what my post is about and it's clearly a large and growing trend.
Doug,
I am saying that most companies want protection. Being able to seek it is another process entirely. As far as the numbers are concerned, I don't keep a running tally, but it has come up near the top of every conversation I've had with artistic or executive staff.
I am not averse to alternative approaches at all. What I am averse to is companies being told that in theory, something is or may be in their best interests, when in reality there are significant risks involved that you're not disclosing, and that the path you suggest could result in some serious legal ramifications for dance companies.
There is also an implicit assumption being made that choreography, from an protection standpoint, is the same as other art forms. It isn't.
Can you give an example of a dance company which has copyrighted their work? And how is it possible to claim the actual performances as intellectual property?
Dan,
You can search the website of the US Copyright office at the following link:
http://www.copyright.gov/records/
I did a quick search for Martha Graham and found a number of copyright filings that matched. But I did not find the copyright documents themselves that describe what is being copyrighted in-depth. Maybe they are available online - I don't know. I'm going to go back to the search options and see what I can find.
Leave a Comment