Choreography and Copyright – Some Comments on Choreographic Works as Newly Defined in the Canadian Copyright Act



CHOREOGRAPHYANDCOPYRIGHT

SOMECOMMENTSONCHOREOGRAPHICWORKSASNEWLYDEFINEDINTHE
CANADIANCOPYRIGHTACT

by
LaurentCarrière
*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers,
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242-Fax(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com

TextofSection
1.0RelatedSections
2.0RelatedRegulations
3.0PriorLegislation
3.1CorrespondingSectioninPriorLegislation
3.2LegislativeHistory
3.2.1S.C.1988,c.15,s.1(3).
4.0Purpose
5.0Commentary
5.1History
5.1.1Since1988
5.1.2From1924to1988
5.1.3Before1924
5.2Includes
5.3WhatIsChoreography?
5.3.1ChoreographicWorks:ADictionaryDefinition
5.3.2ChoreographicWorks:ATechnicalApproach
5.3.3ChoreographicWorks:ALegalApproach
5.4ADramaticWork
5.4.1TextualContext
5.4.2″anystoryline”/”aitounonunsujet”
5.4.3Pantomime
5.5Fixation
5.5.1RequirementofaTangibleForm
5.5.2MeansofFixation
5.5.3NotationSystems
5.5.4VisualRecordation
5.6Retroactive/Retrospective
5.7Infringement
5.7.1UnauthorizedAppropriationBeforeFixation





























































©LaurentCarrière,1995-2003.
*Lawyerandtrademarkagent,LaurentCarrièreisoneoftheseniorpartnerswiththelawfirm
LEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andwiththepatentandtrademarkagencyfirmROBIC,g.p
.
Publication105.



5.7.2UnauthorizedPerformance
5.7.3PictorialReproductions
5.7.4MoralRights
5.8SocialDanceStepsandSimpleRoutines
6.0CaseLaw
6.1CaseLaw-Canada
6.2CaseLaw-UnitedKingdom
6.3CaseLaw-UnitedStatesofAmerica
7.0ListofCases
7.1ListofCases-Canada
7.2ListofCases-UnitedKingdom
7.3ListofCases-UnitedStatesofAmerica
7.4ListofCases-France
8.0Authors
8.1Authors-Canada
8.1.1InterpretationIssues
8.1.2CopyrightIssues
8.2Authors-UnitedKingdom
8.3Authors-UnitedStatesofAmerica
8.4Authors-France
8.5Authors-Belgium
8.6Authors-Australia
8.7Authors-Varia
8.7.1Law
8.7.2Art&Technique
9.0ComparativeLegislation
9.1ComparativeLegislation-UnitedKingdom
9.1.1CopyrightAct,1911,Section35(1)
9.1.2CopyrightAct,1956,Section48(1)
9.1.3CopyrightAct,1988,Section3(1)
9.2ComparativeLegislation-UnitedStatesofAmerica
9.2.1CopyrightAct,1976,Section102(a)(4)
9.3ComparativeLegislation-France
9.3.1CopyrightAct,1957,Section3
9.3.2Codedelapropriétéintellectuelle,1992,section112-2
9.4ComparativeLegislation-Australia
9.4.1CopyrightAct,1968,Section10
9.5ComparativeLegislation-Germany
9.5.1CopyrightAct,1965,Section2(1)
9.6ComparativeLegislation-India
9.6.1CopyrightAct,1957,Section2(h)
9.7ComparativeLegislation-SouthAfrica
9.7.1CopyrightAct,1978,Section1
10.0Varia
10.1DebatesoftheHouseofCommons
10.1.1DebatesoftheHouseofCommons(1987.06.26),p.7689
10.1.2DebatesHouseofCommons(1987.06.26),p.7691
10.2Illustrations
10.2.1Pasdebourré
10.2.2Glissade
10.3.3Labanotation
10.2.4ActionStrokeDanceNotation





“CHOREOGRAPHICWORK”
“choreographicwork”includesanyworkof
choreography,whetherornotithasany
storyline;

«ŒUVRECHORÉGRAPHIQUE»
«œuvrechorégraphique»S’entendde
toutechorégraphie,quel’œuvreaitounon
unsujet.

R.S.C.1985(4thSupp.),c.10,s.1(3)

§1.0RelatedSections
Section2—Definitions:“dramaticwork”,“everyoriginalliterary,dramatic,
musicalandartisticwork”,“performance”,“work”;section2.2—Definitionof
“publication”.

§2.0RelatedRegulations

None.

§3.0PriorLegislation
§3.1CorrespondingSectioninPriorLegislation
Section2—From1988.06.08topresent.
§3.2LegislativeHistory
S.C.1988,c.15,s.1(3);C.I.F.1988.06.08;R.S.C.1985,c.10(4thSupp.),s.1(3);
C.I.F.1989.11.01.
§3.2.1S.C.1988,c.15,s.1(3)

“CHOREOGRAPHICWORK”
“choreographicwork”includesanyworkof
choreography,whetherornotithasany
storyline;

«ŒUVRECHORÉGRAPHIQUE»
«œuvrechorégraphique»S’entendde
toutechorégraphie,quel’œuvreaitou
nonunsujet;



§4.0Purpose
Thissectionprovidesforanon-exhaustivedefinitionofchoreographicwork,
onespeciesofdramaticwork.
§5.0Commentary

“Dancingisaperpendicularexpressionofanhorizontaldesire.”
—GeorgeBernardSHAW
“Obodyswayedtomusic,Obrighteningglance
Howcanweknowthedancerfromthedance?
—WilliamB.YEATS,AmongSchoolChildren(1927)

§5.1History
§5.1.1Since1988
SincetheenactmentoftheCopyrightAct,1921,“choreographicwork”(as
wellasapieceforrecitation,entertainmentindumbshowand
cinematographproduction)hasbeenincludedinthedefinitionof“dramatic
work”,oneofthefourmaincategoriesofintellectualworksprotectedunder
theCopyrightAct.However,astatutorydefinitionof“choreographicwork”
wasonlyintroducedonJune8,1988bytheCopyrightAmendmentAct(S.C.
1988,c.15,s.1(3)).
SincetheCopyrightAmendmentAc,1988,thenexuswith“drama”isno
longerrequiredforcopyrighttosubsistinachoreographicwork.To
paraphraseSINGER(BarbaraA.),InSearchofAdequateProtectionfor
ChoreographicWorks:LegislativeandJudicialAlternativesvs.TheCustomof
theDanceCommunity(1983-84),38UniversityofMiamiLawReview287,atp.
288,itcouldbesaidthatchoreographyis“nolongeramerestepchildof
drama”,eventhoughchoreographicworksdonotyetbythemselves
constituteacategoryofprotectedworksandarestillcomprisedinthemore
generaldefinitionofdramaticwork.
§5.1.2From1924to1988
Priortothatamendment,itwasunclearastowhetherachoreography,
withoutaplotorstoryline,couldbeprotectedunderthemoregeneraland
non-exhaustivedefinitionof“dramaticwork”:seeVAVER(David),The
CanadianCopyrightAmendmentsof1988(1989),4IntellectualProperty
Journal122,atpp.144-145.



Thesection2definitionof“dramaticwork”providesspecificallythatdramatic
work“includes(…)choreographicworkorentertainmentindumbshow,the
scenicarrangementoractingformofwhichisfixedinwritingorotherwise
(…)”.Thedefinitionof“dramaticwork”introducedbysection2ofthe
CanadianCopyrightAct,1921isamereduplicationofthedefinitionof
“dramaticwork”foundinsubsection35(1)oftheUnitedKingdomCopyright
Act,1911,thechoreographicpartofwhichcorrespondstothemodification
ofthedefinitionofprotectedworksintroducedbytheBerlinRevision(1908)of
theBerneConvention.ThefirstparagraphofArticle2oftheBerlinRevision
(1908)oftheBerneConventionreadspartlyasfollows:

Theexpression“literaryandartistic
works”shallincludeanyproductionin
theliterary,scientificorartisticdomain,
whatevermaybethemodeorformofits
reproductionsuchas…dramaticor
dramatico-musicalworks,choreographic
worksandentertainmentsindumbshow,
theactingformofwhichisfixedinwriting
orotherwise….
L’expression“œuvreslittéraireset
artistiques”comprendtouteproduction
dudomainelittéraire,scientifiqueou
artistique,quelqu’ensoitlemodeoula
formedereproductiontelque:….
œuvresdramatiquesoudramatico
musicales,lesœuvreschorégraphiques
etlespantomimes,dontlamiseen
scèneestfixéeparécritouautrement
[TheunderlinedpartwasaddedbytheBerlinRevisionof1908.]
§5.1.3Before1924
BeforetheCopyrightAct,1921,copyrightintheperformanceof
choreographies,asdramaticworks,wasprotectedinCanadabyvirtueofthe
applicationoftheUnitedKingdomDramaticCopyrightAct,1833andofthe
UnitedKingdomLiteraryCopyrightAct,1842.Dramaticworks,when
published,benefitedfromtheprotectiongiventoliteraryworks:Durand&Cie
v.LaPatriePublishingCo.,[1960]S.C.R.649.
§5.2“Includes”

Theword“includes”isgenerallyusedininterpretationclausestoextendthe
meaningofwordsorexpressionsinthebodyofastatute.Whenthesewords
orexpressionsareused,theymustbeconstruedascomprehendingnotonly
suchthingsastheysignifyaccordingtotheirnaturalimportbutalsothose
thingswhichtheinterpretationclausedeclarestheyshallinclude.“Ithasbeen
establishedthatwhenthestatuteemploystheword“including”or“includes”
ratherthan“means”thedefinitiondoesnotpurporttobecompleteor



exhaustiveandthereisnoexclusionofthenaturalmeaningofthewords”:
Laidlawv.MetropolitanToronto(Municipality),[1978]2S.C.R.736,SpenceJ.
at744-745.
Therefore,sinceintroducedbytheword“includes”,thedefinitionof
“choreographicwork”shouldbeconstruedasillustrativeorextensiveandnot
asacompleteandexhaustiveenumeration:CÔTÉ(Pierre-André),The
InterpretationofLegislationinCanada,2nded.(Cowansville,Blais,1992),at
pp.55-58;DRIEDGER(ElmerA.),ConstructionofStatutes,2nded.(Toronto,
Butterworths,1983),atpp.18-22;PIGEON(Louis-Philippe),Draftingand
InterpretingLegislation(Toronto,Carswell,1988),atpp.32-35.
§5.3WhatIsChoreography?

Lesdansesmodernes?Cen’estplusdeladanse,c’estdeladécadence.
—AlfredCAPUS(1857-1922)
§5.3.1Choreographicworks:adictionarydefinition
AccordingtoWebster’sNinthNewCollegiateDictionary,“choreographic”
hasaGreeketymologyandcomesfromchoreia(dancing)andgraphe
(writing).Itisdefinedas“theartofarrangingadanceoraperformanceand
thenotationofthestepsofthedancesindetail”.“Choreography”isalsothe
writtennotationofdancingwhichis,accordingtothe1984RevisedThird
EditionofTheShorterOxfordEnglishDictionaryonHistoricalPrinciples,“to
leap,skip,hop,orglidewithmeasuredstepsandrhythmicalmovementsof
thebody,usuallytoamusicalaccompaniment”and,assuch,doesnot
necessarilycontaindramaticaction.Inordinaryparlance,“choreography”is
generallyunderstoodastheartofdance.
§5.3.2Choreographicworks:atechnicalapproach
“Choreography”couldbedescribedasthestepsofadanceputtogetherfor
performance,ortheartofcomposingdanceor,asexpressedbyElise
OrensteinoftheCanadianAssociationofProfessionalDanceOrganizations,
“anarrangementoranorganizedthoughtintimeandspacewhichuses
humanbodiesasdesignunits”:seeMinutesoftheSubcommitteeofthe
StandingCommitteeonCommunicationsandCultureontheRevisionof
Copyright,No.15(1985.06.14),1stSess.,33rdParl.(1984-85),atp.87.

Amoreclassicalapproach,eventhoughnotrestrictedtoballet,isfoundin
KERNER(Mary),BarefoottoBalanchine—HowtoWatchDance(NewYork,
Doubleday,1991),atpp.132-133:
Achoreographerofclassicalballethasaspecificmovementvocabularyto
workwith.Likenotesofmusic,however,thesesamestepscanbeput
togetherinaninfinitenumberofcombinations.Theprescribedstepscan
alsobemodified,asincontemporaryballetandmoderndance,or
repeatedindifferentdirectionsordonebyavarietyofdancers.Inother
words,thesamestepwilllookdifferentinadancedependingonwhatstep
comesbeforeandafterit;thedirectionortempoinwhichitisexecuted;
whetheritisperformedwhileturningorleaping;whattherestofthebodyis
doingatthesametime;andhowmanydancersaredoingit
simultaneously.Inshort,whatmakeschoreographyinteresting—insteadof
repetitiveandboring—isthecombinationofthesteps.

§5.3.3Choreographicworks:alegalapproach
“Choreographyisthecompositionandarrangementofdancemovements
andpatterns,anddanceisstaticandkineticsuccessionsofbodilymovement
incertainrhythmicandspatialrelationship”:CopyrightLawReporter(New
York,CCH,1991),atno.625,andneedsnottellastoryinordertobe
protectedbycopyright.
§5.4ADramaticWork
§5.4.1Textualcontext
PriortotheCopyrightAmendmentAct(S.C.1988,c.15,S.1(3)),itwasunclear
(and,indeed,neverjudiciallydecidedbyCanadiancourts)whethera
choreographywithoutaplotorsequenceofactionscouldfallwithinthe
generalcategoryofdramaticworkandbeprotectedassuchunderthe
CopyrightAct,1921.
Infact,“choreographicwork”was—andstillis—includedinthelarger
categoryof“dramaticwork”.Underthenosciturasociisruleofinterpretation,
themeaningofawordcouldbedeterminedorfurtherascertainedbyits
associationwithothers:seeR.v.ShearwaterCo.,[1934]S.C.R.197,DuffJ.,at
p.206;CÔTÉ(Pierre-André),TheInterpretationofLegislationinCanada,2nd
ed.(Cowansville,Blais,1992),atpp.263-264;DRIEDGER(ElmerA.),
ConstructionofStatutes,2nded.(Toronto,Butterworths,1983),atpp.109-111.
Accordingly,itmaybesustainedthat,tofallwithinthisrecognizedcategory,
achoreographicworkmustconveysomedramaticconcept,havea
sequenceofactions,orsomehowmeetthecriterionof“tellingastory”:see
definitionof“dramaticwork”insection2.

Thisprerequisiteofa“dramaticaction”hasbeenseriouslycriticized:“Onlya
farfetchedinterpretationoftheoldActcouldproducetheresultitclaimed.
Choreography,includedasaspeciesof“dramaticwork”,maytakesome
colourfromitsgenus,butobviouslyextendstootherthingsthanOthelloon
point.TwoothermajorgeneraintheAct,literaryandartisticworks,alsonon-
exhaustivelylistanumberofmiscellaneousspeciesintheirdefinitions,butdo
notrequirethemtohaveallthecharacteristicsofthegenus”:VAVER(David),
TheCanadianCopyrightAmendmentsof1988(1989),4IntellectualProperty
Journal122,atpp.144-145.
Infact,atleastforthelayman,choreographydoesnotnecessarilyinvolvethe
presenceofadrama.Thisisevenmoresowhendealingwithsome
contemporaneousballetorchoreography,theabstractdancemovements
ofwhichappearsmoreintendedtoconvey,forinstance,feelingsoraesthetic
impressionsratherthanastory.
Suchcontroversyhasended,atleastforchoreographiescreatedsincethe
comingintoforceonJune8,1988ofsubsection1(3)oftheCopyright
AmendmentsAct(S.C.1988,c.15),as“choreographicwork”includes“any
workofchoreography,whetherornotithasanystoryline”[Emphasisadded];
seealso§5.5.6,infra.
§5.4.2“anystoryline”/“aitounonunsujet”
ThereisanapparentdiscrepancybetweentheEnglishandFrenchtextsofthe
definitionof“choreographicwork”.Indeed,thewords“aitounonunsujet”
(whichcouldbetranslatedas“hasornotathemeortopic”)intheFrench
textappearsmoreextensivethantheEnglish“whetherornotithasanystory
line”,whichismoredirectedtoaplotorsequenceofactions.
§5.4.3Pantomime
Asnonewdefinitionwasprovidedforpantomime(or“entertainmentindumb
show”),itmaybearguedthattheimplicitstorylinerequirementhasbeen
maintainedinregardthereto.However,itmaybequestionedwhetherornot
thereisstillastorylinerequirementforpantomimesincethedifference
betweenpantomimeandthenewlydefinedchoreographyissometimesthin.
§5.5Fixation


§5.5.1Requirementofatangibleform
FortheCopyrightActtoapplytoachoreographicwork,thisworkhasfirstto
befixedonsometangiblemediumofexpression,i.e.,onamaterialsupport.
Section2specificallyprovidesthat“‘dramaticwork’includes(…)
choreographicwork(…)thescenicarrangementoractingformofwhichis
fixedinwritingorotherwise(…)”.
“Thefirstrequirement,fixationintangibleform,presentsaprobleminthe
protectionofchoreographybecausemovementisnotsusceptibleoffixation
asareotherartforms(…)Achoreographer’sfinishedproductisephemeral,
lastingonlythelengthofthedancerperformance.Musichassimilarproblems,
butrecordingdanceismuchmoredifficultthanrecordingmusicbecause
dancersmoveinspaceaswellastime”:COOK(Melanie),MovingtoaNew
Beat:CopyrightProtectionforChoreographicWorks(1977),24UCLALaw
Review1287,atp.1294.
Thereforeaperformedbutunfixedchoreographywillnotbeentitledto
copyrightprotectionundertheAct.“Itvanishespromptlyuponperformance.
Thechoreographicworktransmittedtraditionally,i.e.,orally,isimpermanentin
forminthatthereisnorecordofitfollowingperformance.Itisimpermanent
byreasonofnon-fixation”:TAUBMAN(Jospeh),Choreographyunder
CopyrightRevision:TheSquarePegintheRoundHoleUnpegged(1980),10
PerformingArtsReview219,atp.241.
Thepreservationofaparticulardancebythesimplememorizationofits
movementsandpatternsinthedancer’sorteacher’smindwillmeetneither
thefixationrequirementnortheperformanceinpublicofthework:see
TRAYLOR(MarthaM.),Choreography,PantomimeandtheCopyrightRevision
Actof1976(1981),16NewEnglandLawReview227,atp.235,note20.
Itisthechoreographyitself—andnotthethemeorstory,ifany—thatshould
besoreducedinsometangibleform.
§5.5.2Meansoffixation
AsexpressedbyBOURGAT(Marcelle),Techniquedeladanse,8thed.(Paris,
PUF,1986),atp.18:“Écrireladanse,c’estdéfinirdansletempsetdans
l’espace,pardeslettres,deschiffres,etdessignesappropriés,unesuccession
d’attitudesducorpspermettantlasuccessiond’unthèmedansant”.
Accordingtothesection2definitionof“dramaticwork”whichmaybesaid
tooriginatefromthefirstparagraphofArticle2oftheBerlinRevision(1908)of


theBerneConvention,suchacrystallizationorreductionorthechoreography
shallbeinwritingorotherwise.Itisworthwhiletonotehoweverthatthewords
“orotherwise”intheaforesaidArticle2wereinsertedasamatterof
compromisebetweentheGermanandItalianpositionsandweretogivethe
widestpossiblelatitudesofarasmodesoffixationwereconcerned:seeActes
delaconférenceréunieàBerlindu14octobreau14novembre1908,Report
ofLouisRenault,atp.231;seealsoÉtudesgénérales—Laconventionde
Berneréviséedu13novembre1908,[1909]22Droitd’Auteur76,atp.78.
Subsection35(1)ofTheInterpretationAct(R.S.C.1985,c.I-21),providesthatin
everyActoftheParliamentofCanada(asistheCopyrightAct),“writing”
“includeswordsprinted,typewritten,painted,engraved,lithographed,
photographed,orrepresentedorreproducedbyanymodeofrepresenting
orreproducingwordsinvisibleform”.
Fixationmaytakemanyforms,aspictorialornarrativedescription,filmor
videotape,photographs,hologram,computeranimationandvideography,
orwrittennotation.
Specificsymbolicnotationmaybeusedtofixchoreography,i.e.,toreduce
movementtosymbols.
§5.5.3Notationsystems
“Recordationofdancebywritingonpaperhasalonghistory.Originally,a
simpledescriptionofthechoreographyineverydaylanguagewasthebest
availablemeansforrecordation.Soontitlesweregivenbytheartiststooften-
usedsequencesofmovement,suchas“rondedejambe,”[sic]andthese
titleswereusedinthewrittendescriptionsasakindofshorthandofdance.
Fromtheseearlybeginnings,modernnotationsystemsdeveloped”:TRAYLOR
(MarthaM.),Choreography,PantomimeandtheCopyrightRevisionActof
1976(1981),16NewEnglandLawReview227,atp.231.
ThefirstvisualattempttodescribedanceisThoinot-Arbeau’sOrchésographie
(1588)wherethewrittendescriptionofpositionandstepswereaccompanied
bydrawingsandtheirgivennames.ItwasfollowedbyRaoulFeuillet’s
Chorégraphieoul’artd’écrireladanseparcaractères,figuresetsignes
démonstratifs(1700)whereisfoundatruestenographyofthedancesteps
which,however,coveredonlyfootwork,andbyMagny’sPrincipesde
Chorégraphie(1765)whichconstitutesacompletedictionaryofdancesand
dancesteps.Thereafter,ArthurSain-LéonpublishedhisOsténographieoul’art
d’écrirepromptementladanse(1852)whichstenochorégraphiesystem


combinedstickfigureswithamusicalstaffforclarification,aswasthecase
withAlbertZorn’sGrammaroftheArtofDancing(1887).
Allthesesystemsweremoreorlessbasedonmusicstaffsorvariationthereof
andthestickfigurenotationusedcarriesitsowndrawbacks.“Itisusually
drawnfromtheaudience’spointofview,sothatrightandlefthavetobe
reversedbythedancerreadingit;itcannotindicatethethirddimension;and
itgivespositiondescriptionratherthanmovementdescription”:see
HUTCHISON(Ann),Labanotation:TheSystemofAnalysingandRecording
Movement,3rded.(NewYork,TheatreArtsBooks,1977),atp.3.
However,sinceStepanov’sL’alphabetdesmouvementsducorpshumain
(1892),asystembasedontheanatomicalstructureofthehumanbody,the
dancenotationevolvestomoreaccuratesystemsofrecordinginwritingthe
movementsofthedancersasnowfound,forinstance,inLaban’s
Labanotation(1928),Benesh’sChoreology(1956),Sutton,Eskhol-Wachman,
(1972)systems:seeHistoricalDevelopmentandAppendixDofHUTCHISON-
GUEST(Ann),DanceNotation:TheProcessofRecordingMovementonPaper
(NewYork,DanceHorizons,1984).Still,today,dancenotationrecordsdance
movementsonpaperinawaysimilartothewaymusicisrecordedonastaff;
likewise,asanobjectivemanifestationofthework,thedancerremainsfreeto
interpretitashepleases.
Some(…)notationsystemsemployshorthand-typedrawingsonamusical
staff[Sutton]oranalysisofmovementbydegreesofarcs,cones,orrotations
onahorizontalstaff[Eskhol-Wachman].Oncenotated,thenotationproduct
iseasilyreproducedinprintedorphotocopiedformandthereforelendsitself
todistributionandreconstructionbyothers”:seeFISHERKathleenAnne),The
CopyrightinChoreographicWorks:ATechnicalAnalysisoftheCopyrightAct
of1976(1984),31ASCAPCopyrightLawSymposium145,atp.153.
However,twomodernnotationsystemsdominatethefieldofwrittennotation.
AsexplainedbyWEINHARDT(AnneK.),CopyrightInfringementof
Choreography:TheLegalAspectsofFixation(1987-88),13Journalof
CorporationLaw839,at847:
ThemostcommonlyusedtypeofnotationisLabanotation.Labanotation
involvesastaffthatisdividedverticallybyacenterlinetorepresentthetwo
sidesofthebody.Thestaffisdividedfurtherintotwototwelvevertical
columns.Thecomplexsymbolsinthesecolumnsofthestaffrepresentthe
positionsofallpartsofthebodyatagivenpointinspaceandtime.The
centerlinerepresentsthespineandtherightandleftlinescorrespondto
therightandleftsidesofthebody.Thestaff,whichisreadbottomtotop,
containssymbolswhichconveyspecificmovements.Thelengthofthese
symbolssignifiesthelengthoftimeallottedforthatmovement.[Emphasis
added.]



§5.5.4Visualrecordation
Motionpicturesandvideotapesarealsomeanstorecordachoreographic
workandwillmeetthestatutoryrequirementoffixation.Thisphysicalsupport
mayalsobeprotectedasacinematographwork,asthecasemaybe:see
subsections2(6)and3(2).
§5.6Retroactive/Retrospective
Doesthedefinitionof“choreographicWork”applyonlytochoreographies
createdafteritscomingintoforceonJune8,1988ordoesitapplyalsoto
choreographiescreatedbeforethatdate?
Certainlythisdefinitiondoesnotpurporttooperateretroactivelysinceitisnot
indicatedaschangingthelawasofatimepriortoitsenactment:see
GustavsonDrilling(1964)Ltd.v.MinisterofNationalRevenue(1975),[1977]1
S.C.R.271,DicksonJ.,at279.Thisdoesnotmean,however,thatthisdefinition
shouldnotbeinterpretedsoastoattachretrospectivelynewconsequences
toworkscreatedpriortoitsenactment.AsputbyDRIEDGER(ElmerA.),
Statutes:RetroactiveRetrospectiveReflections(1978),56CanadianBar
Review264,atp.269:
Aretroactivestatutechangesthelawfromwhatitwas;aretrospective
statutechangesthelawfromwhatitotherwisewouldbewithrespecttoa
priorevent.

Thefactisthattherearenotransitionalprovisionsthatstatespecificallythat
thisnewdefinitionappliesinrespectofchoreographiesthatweremadeprior
tothecomingintoforceoftheCopyrightAmendmentAct(S.C.1988,c.15,s.
1).Itisworthwhiletonotethattransitionalprovisionswerespecifically
inceptedalongwiththeconcomitantintroductionintheCopyrightActofthe
definitionsof“moralrights”and“computerprograms”:seesections21and22
oftheCopyrightAmendmentAct(S.C.1988,C.15).

Whetheraliberalbutretrospectiveapplicationofthisnewlyintroduced
definitionwillbeallowedtostandandinterferewithvestedrightsisleftopen
forjudicialdetermination:seeCÔTÉ(Pierre-André),TheInterpretationof
LegislationinCanada,2nded.(Cowansville,Blais,1992),atpp.99-106;
DRIEDGER(ElmerA.),ConstructionofStatutes,2nded.(Toronto,Butterworths,
1983),atpp.195-203.


§5.7Infringement
§5.7.1Unauthorizedappropriationbeforefixation
TheprotectionoftheCopyrightActdoesnotextendtoachoreographic
workthatisnotreducedinatangibleform,whichisseldomthecase,atleast
duringthecreativeprocess.AsexplainedbyWALLIS(LeslieErin),TheDifferent
Art:ChoreographyandCopyright(1986),33UCLALawReview1442,atp.
1459:
Achoreographergenerallycallsagroupofdancerstoarehearsalafterhe
orshehasformulatedideasforadance,includinganyplotlinetobe
incorporatedintothework(…)Heorsheprobablyhasconceiveda
numberofthedancestepsbeforeactuallymeetingwiththedancers,but
thevastmajorityofthecreativeworkisdevelopedusingthedancers.(…)
Thedancersperformthesestepsasthechoreographerdirectsandheor
shealtersthemovementstoshapethemoodorideaofthework.(…)
Dancersarenothandedsheetmusicfromwhichtoreadtheirsteps.

SeealsoTRAYLOR(MarthaM.),Choreography,PantomimeandtheCopyright
RevisionActof1976(1981),16NewEnglandLawReview227,atpp.234-235
astothe“setting”ofachoreography.
Therefore,becauseatthisstagethechoreographicworkisnotyetfixed,itwill
notbenefitfromcopyrightprotectionsoastopreventanunauthorized
appropriationofthechoreography.Itwouldseem,however,thatthe
provisionofsection89oftheCopyrightActdealingwithbreachoftrustor
confidencemayapplytosuchasituation;seealsoMIRREL(LeonI.),Legal
ProtectionforChoreography(1952),27NewYorkUniversityLawReview792.
§5.7.2Unauthorizedperformance
Thedegreeoffixation,whilenotnecessarilyprecise,maybecomemore
acutewhenconsideredintheperspectiveofdetermininginfringement,
whichincludesthecolourableimitation:seesection2definitionof“infringing”.
Now,withrespecttochoreographicworks,copyrightprotectionisnot
attachedtothethemebyitselfbutrathertoitsperformance.Itismoreorless
thecombinationofstepsthatisprotected.Thefactis,however,thatthe
performanceofthesestepsmaygreatlyvaryfromonedancertoanother,
accordingtotheirowninterpretation.Thereforethestepsmaybequitesimilar
buttheirrenderingbyadancerbesodifferentthatthecopying
choreographymaybeperceivedasdifferentfromthecopiedone.Itis
submittedhoweverthatundertheCopyrightAct,itisnottheperformanceof
aworkthatisprotectedbutrathertheworkitself.Whetherornotspecific


arrangementsofmovementswillconstituteaprohibitedperformancein
publicofthechoreographicworkorsubstantialpartthereofwillobeythe
samerulesasforotherprotectedworks:seesection2definitionof“infringing”
andsection3.
“Fixationinexpressdetailisalsobeneficialinprovingthataninfringer‘copied’
fromtheoriginalworkasopposedtocreatingtheworkitself.Theunlikely
similarityofspecificmovementsanddetailscutsagainstthepossibilitythat
twochoreographersindependentlycreatedthemovements”:COOK
(Melanie),MovingtoaNewBeat:CopyrightProtectionforChoreographic
Works(1977),24UCLALawReview1287,atp.1296,note44.
§5.7.3Pictorialreproductions
Infringementofachoreographicworkisnotrestrictedtoitsunauthorized
performanceinpublic;itmayalsooccurbywayofadaptationofthe
choreographicwork,aswellaspictorialreproduction(drawingofsketches,
takingofphotographsofthespectacle,filmingorvideo-recording),or
telecommunicationofsame:seesections3and27;alsoLADAS(StephenP.),
TheInternationalProtectionofLiteraryandArtisticProperty,inHarvardStudies
onInternationalLawNo.3(NewYork,Macmillan,1938),atp.222.
§5.7.4Moralrights
Authorship.Themoralrightsofachoreographerastheauthorofa
choreographicworkmaybeinfringedifheisnotassociatedwiththeworkas
author:subsection14.1(1).Aninterestingquestionmightariseastothebasis
andnatureoftheremedyopentoachoreographerwhenhisnameis
associatedwithachoreographytowhichheisnotrelatedoronlyremotely
related(asinthecaseofasubstantiallydepartingadaptation)orwhenhis
nameisassociatedwithanunauthorizedortruncatedversionofhisoriginal
work.
Integrity.Themoralrightofachoreographerastheauthorofa
choreographicworkmaybeinfringediftheworkismodifiedorassociated
withaproductorservicetotheprejudiceofhishonourorreputation:see
subsection28.2(1);seeralsoSINGER(BarbaraA.),InSearchofAdequate
ProtectionforChoreographicWorks:LegislativeandJudicialAlternativesv.
TheCustomoftheDanceCommunity(1983-84),38UniversityofMiamiLaw
Review287,atpp.291-296,307-317.


§5.8SocialDanceStepsandsimpleRoutines

Danceisnota“spectatorsport”.Itisacreativeactivitywhichimpliestodo
andonlysecondarysomethingtosee.[…]Adanceperformanceisthe
sharingofthedancer’sexperiencewithanaudience.[…]Entertainingan
audienceisnotthesameascommunicatinganartexperience.
Entertainmentprovidesapleasantwayofpassingawaythetime.Theart
experienceoffersanintensifiedawarenessofsomeaspectoflife.
—METTLER(Barbara),ModernDance:ArtorShowBusiness:ArtorShow
Business(1952),19-5DanceObserver68

Whetherornotsocialdancesandsimpleroutinesshouldbetreatedas
choreographicworksisleftopenforjudicialdetermination.
InCanada,thematterwasraisedattheinterlocutorylevelwithrespectto
dancestepsdescribedas“EastTexasStyleDancing”butunresolvedinRocky
MountainDanceCo.v.Brookes(1987),19C.P.R.(3d)131,CullenJ.,at132
(F.C.T.D.).IntheUnitedStates,socialdancestepsandsimpleroutinesarenot
includedaschoreographicworks:HouseCommissionontheJudiciary,H.
Rep.No.1476,94thCong.,2dSess.(1976),pp.54-54,note8;suchnon-
recognizancemaybetheconsequenceofinsufficientoriginality(i.e.,
creativity),acriterionthatishigherundertheUnitedSatesCopyrightAct,1976
thanundertheCanadianCopyrightAct.
Thefactisthatballetclassicalmovementssuchasarabesque,assemblé,
cabriole,entrechat,glissade,jeté,pirouetteorsissonnearenotbythemselves
copyrightable.Howeverthesemovementsarethebuildingblocksofmost
choreographiesandtheoriginalcombinationofthesemovementsmay
constituteaprotectedchoreographicwork.Thereisnoapparentjustification
forsuchanelitistapproach.Anoriginalcombinationofdancingstepsinaso-
called“socialdance”shouldalsobeprotectableasachoreographicwork,
asthecasemaybe.
Inviewoftheliberaldefinitionnowgiventochoreography,anargument
couldbemadethat,subjecttotherequirementsoforiginalityandfixation,
nothingshouldpreventthequalificationaschoreographicworksof
gymnasticsoracrobaticsroutines:seeFWSJointSportsClaimantsv.Canada
(CopyrightBoard)(1991),[1992]1F.C.487,LindenJ.,at490(F.C.A.).Seealso
KUNSTADT(RobertM.)etal.,AreSportMovesNextinIPLaw?—SportsMoves
CouldBeViewedasChoreography(1996.05.20)TheNationalLawJournalC-2
andDORION(André),NetirezpassurlajugebrésilienneouLaprotectiondes
chorégraphiessportivesendroitd’auteur(1994),7Lescahiersdepropriété
intellectuelle99.


§6.0CaseLaw
§6.1Canada

1.ReRoyaltiesforRetransmissionRightsofDistantRadio&TelevisionSignals
(1990),32C.P.R.(3d)97,theBoard(majority)at138(CopyrightBd.).
Incontrast,BBCandCRRAarguedthatsportingeventsthemselvesarenot
entitledtocopyrightprotection.Althoughthereiscopyrightinateam’s
playbooksandgameplansaswellasintheteamcrestsanduniform
designs,BBCcontendedthattheyareofnovaluetocableoperatorsand
thatcableoperatorsmakenouseofthem.Thegameplaysequenceisnot
achoreographicworkbecause,unlikeadance,asportingeventisforthe
mostpartarandomseriesofevents.Theunpredictabilityoftheactionis
inconsistentwiththeconceptofchoreography.

TheboardacceptstheargumentsofBBCandfindsthatasportsgameitself
isnotacopyrightwork.[atp.138]

2.FWSJointSportsClaimantsv.Canada(CopyrightBoard)(1991),36C.P.R.
(3d)483,LindenJ.(F.C.A.).
ThethirdissuearguedbyFWSwaswhetherthereisacopyrightinthe
playingofasportsgame.Theboarddecidedtherewasnosuchcopyright,
althoughtherewasinthetelevisionproductionofagame.Italsoheldthat
therewascopyrightinthecoaches’writtenplaybooksandgameplans,as
wellasintheteamcrestsanduniformdesigns,butthatthesewerenotused
bythecableoperators.Asfortheplayingofthegameitself,eventhoughit
isplayedasmuchaspossibleinaccordancewiththoseplans,theboard
foundthatthiswasnotcopyrightable,sinceitwasnota“choreographic
work,because,unlikeadance,asportingeventisforthemostparta
randomseriesofevents.Theunpredictabilityoftheactionisinconsistent
withtheconceptofchoreography”.[atp.488C.P.R.]

Iagreewiththeboard.Eventhoughsportsteamsmayseektofollowthe
playsasplannedbytheircoaches,asactorsfollowascript,theotherteams
arededicatedtopreventingthatfromoccurringandoftensucceed.As
well,theopposingteamtriestofollowitsowngameplan,which,inturn,the
otherteamtriestothwart.Intheend,whattranspiresonthefieldisusually
notwhatisplanned,butsomethingthatistotallyunpredictable.Thatisone
ofthereasonswhysportsgamesaresoappealingtotheirspectators.No
onecanforecastwhatwillhappen.Thisisnotthesameasaballet,where,
barringtheunforeseenaccident,whatisperformedisexactlywhatis
planned.NoonebetsontheoutcomeofaperformanceofSwanLake.
Balletistherefore,copyrightable,butteamsportsevents,despitethehigh
degreeofplanningnowinvolvedinthem,arenot;seeHaroldG.Fox,
CanadianLawofCopyright&IndustrialDesign,2nded.(Toronto,Carswell,
1967),p.139;NimmerOnCopyright(1990),atpp.2-138;CanadianAdmiral
Corp.v.Rediffusion(1954),20C.P.R.75,atp.192,[1954]Ex.C.R.382,14Fox
Pat.C.114,A“merespectaclestandingalone”cannotbecopyrighted:
seeTatev.Fullbrook,[1908]1K.B.821at832,77L.J.K.B.577,98L.T.706
(C.A.).Itisnecessaryforcopyrightnottohave“changingmaterials”that


are“lackingincertainty”or“unity”:seeGreenv.BroadcastingCorp.of
NewZealand,[1989]2AllE.R.1056,perLordBridge(P.C.)atp.1058,even
thoughsomevariationscouldbepermitted:seeKantelv.Grant,[1938]Ex.
C.R.84atp.95;seealsoWilsonv.BroadcastingCorp.ofNewZealand
(1988),12T.P.R.173.Theunpredictabilityintheplayingofafootballor
hockeygameissopervasive,despitethehighdegreeofplanning,thatit
cannotbesaidtobecopyrightable.TheAmericancasesarenothelpful
here,giventhestatutoryprovisionsandjurisprudence:see,forexample,
BaltimoreOriolesv.M.L.B.PlayersAsn.,805F.2d663(1986).[atpp.489-490]

3.Pastorv.Chen(2002),19C.P.R.(4th)206,RomillyProv.J.(B.C.Prov.Ct.).
[85]IfindthattheClaimantgraphicallydisplayedtomeduringhis
evidencehisuniquelychoreographedmovesanddancestyleswhichIfind
werehisinventionandproperlycoveredbycopyright.Hereadilyadmitted
thatsomeofhismovesliketheoneheinventedattheageof16werenow
inthepublicdomain.Howevertheonesthathemadethesubjectofa
ConfidentialityAgreementsignedbyallhisperformerscertainlywerenot.I
findthattheClaimant’smovesanddancestyleshavea“significant
elementoforiginality,notalreadyintherealmofpublicknowledge,”and
certainlycouldnotbefoundingardenvarietyinstructionalvideoswhich
demonstrateratherbasicstepsformerenovices.

§6.2UnitedKingdom
1.Massinev.DeBasil(1937),81Sol.Jo.670,LuxmoreJ.(Ch.D.).

(…)Thataballetwascomposedofseveralelements—music,storyor
libretto,choreographyornotationofthedancing,sceneryandcostumes.
[atp.670]

§6.3UnitedStates
1.Martinettiv.Maguire(1867),16F.Cas.161(C.C.Cal.).
TheBlackCrookisamerespectacle;inthelanguageofthecraft,a
“spectacularpiece.”Ithasnopretensionstobecalledadramatic
composition.Thedialogueisveryscant,andappearsinthelightofamere
accessory—apieceofwordmachinerytackedontotheballetsand
tableaux.Theprincipalpartandattractionofthespectacleseemstobe
theexhibitionofwomeninnoveldressorundress,orinstrikingattitudesor
action.Theclosingsceneiscalled“Paradise”andconsists,aswitness
Hamiltonexpressesit,“ofwomenlyingaboutloose”—asortof
Mohammedanparadise,Itakeit,withimitationgrottosandearthlyhouris.
Tocallsuchaspectaclea“dramaticcomposition”isanabuseof
language.Anexhibitionofmodelartistes,oramenagerieofwildbeasts,
mightaswellbecalledadramaticcomposition,andclaimtobeentitledto
copyright.Amenagerieisaninterestingspectacle,andsothismaybe;but
itisnothingmore.Anexhibitionofwomen,whetherintheballetor



tableaux,oreven“lyingroundloose”insuchaparadise,isnotadramatic
compositionandentitledtothebenefitandprotectionofcopyright.[atp.
162][Emphasisadded.]

2.Fullerv.Bemis,50F.926,LacombeJ.(S.D.N.Y.1892).
Itisessentialtosuchacompositionthatitshouldtellsomestory.Theplot
maybesimple.Itmaybebutthenarrativeorrepresentationofasingle
transaction;butitmustrepeatormimicsomeaction,orspeech,emotion,
passion,orcharacter,realorimaginary.Andwhenitdoes,itistheideas
thusexpressedwhichbecomesubjectofcopyright.Anexaminationof
complainant’sdance,asfiledforcopyright,showsthattheendsoughtfor
andaccomplishedwassolelythedevisingofaseriesofgraceful
movements,combinedwithanattractivearrangementofdrapery,lights,
andshadows,tellingnostory,portrayingnocharacter,depictingno
emotion.Themerelymechanicalmovementsbywhicheffectsare
producedonthestagearenotsubjectsofcopyrightwheretheyconveyno
ideaswhosearrangementmakesupadramaticcomposition.Surelythose
describedandpractisedhereconvey,andweredevisedtoconvey,tothe
spectator,nootherideathanacomelywomanisillustratingthepoetryof
motioninasingularlygracefulfashion.Suchanideamaybepleasing,butit
canhardlybecalleddramatic.[atp.929]

3.Danev.M.&H.Co.,136U.S.P.Q.426,AurelioJ.(N.Y.Sup.Ct.1963).
Theprincipalbasisofplaintiff’sclaimforinfringementofacommonlaw
copyrightisthatshecreatedamusicalchoreographiccomposition[i.e.,
military/stripteasedancenumber,whichshehadusedtoauditionforarole]
whichcombinesmusicandactioninsuchamannerastoprovokean
emotion,portrayacharacterandhaveatheme,ortellastory.The
foregoingrulehasbeeninterpretedbyourcourtssoastopermit
choreographicworkstobesubjecttocopyrightunderTitle17U.S.C.A.,
section5,classD,whichprovidesforrecognitionof“dramaticor
dramatico-musicalcomposition”.[atp.428]

Thecourtfurtherfindsthatplaintiffwasnotknowninthetheatricalworldfor
herabilitytocreatechoreographiccompositionsandthatwhenshe
performedattheauditionitwasherskillasanactressordancerwhichshe
wastryingtosellratherthanapieceofproperty.

Plaintiffhastestifiedthatnopartofhernumberwaseverreducedto
concreteformandthatsheneverhadanyothermaterialcopyrighted
duringhercareer.Whilethisalonewouldnotprecludeplaintifffromher
righttoassertherownershiptothepieceofproperty,thecourtfindsthat
plaintiff’smaterial,evenifsamecouldbecharacterizedasa
choreographiccomposition,ofitselfwouldnotbesubjecttocopyright
protection.

Thewords“dramaticordramatico-musicalcomposition,”asusedinthe
statute,mustbeheldtoincludeopenlytorepresentationsandexhibitions
whichtendatleast“topromotetheprogressofscienceandusefularts.”


Whereaperformancecontainsnothingofaliterary,dramaticormusical
characterwhichiscalculatedtoelevate,informorimprovethemoralor
intellectualnaturesoftheaudience,itdoesnottendtopromotethe
progressofscienceortheusefularts.…Thus,noteverything,putonthe
stagecanbesubjecttocopyright.Whileplaintiff’sperformancewasno
doubtamusingandentertainingtomany,itdoesnotfallwithinthepurview
ofthestatuteasaproductiontendingtopromotetheprogressofscience
andusefularts.[atp.429]

4.Horganv.MacMillanInc.,789F.2d157,FeinbergJ.(2ndCir.1986).
Choreographywasnotmentionedinthepriorlaw,the1909CopyrightAct,
61Stat.652,andcouldonlyberegistered,pursuanttoregulationsissued
underthatlaw,asaspeciesof“dramaticcomposition.”Dancewas
protectableonlyifittoldastory,developedorcharacterizedanemotion,
orotherwiseconveyedadramaticconceptoridea.…Therightsof
choreographerinhisworkwerenotclearlydefined,inpartbecausethe
meansforreducingchoreographytotangibleformhadbecomereadily
availableonlycomparativelyrecently…andinpartbecauseofresistance
totheacceptanceofabstract,non-literarydanceasaworthyformof
artisticexpression.[atp.160]
§6.4France
1.Stichelv.Mendès,[1911]1Gaz.Pal.193,MoréJ.(T.Civ.Seine).
Attenduqueletravaildumaîtredeballetestdesplusdélicats,puisque
c’estluiqui,aprèsavoirétudiélelivretetlapartition,alachargede
décrire,partouslesmoyenspossibles,touslesmouvementsvisiblespar
lesquelssemanifestentlessentimentshumains,detirerlemeilleurpartides
motifsquiluisontfournis,derégler,defaçonàéviterles“déjàvu”,lespas
etlesensemblesquiserontdansésetdes’entendreaveclecompositeur
pourleremaniementdelamusique,etenraisondugenreetdu
tempéramentdeschefsd’employerqui,deparleurtitularisation,doivent
remplirlesprincipauxrôles;qu’ilestdoncainsipermisdedirequ’unballet
d’actionestuneœuvred’artdontlemériterevientengrandepartieau
chorégraphe.[atp.194][Emphasisadded.]

2.Chaslesv.Soutzo,[1926]39D.A.53,(T.Civ.Seine).
Attenducependantque…laDelleSoutzo,unedesinterprètes,aprèsavoir
prispartauxrépétitionsdeMlleChasles,luiécrivitquelepasqu’ellelui
avaitapprisétantsurtoutréglépouruneartistedecomédie,ellese
proposaitd’endanserunautre,quepassantoutreà…unesommation…
elleexécutaunpasnouveauspécialementcomposépourelleparlesieur
Staats,maîtredeballetdel’Opéra;

Attenduque,cefaisant,aurisquedecréerdansl’espritdesspectateurs
entrel’œuvreannoncéeetlepasdifférentintroduitparelle,laDelleSoutzo
aportéatteinteaudroitmoraldelademanderesse,l’auteurd’unballet


commeceluid’uneœuvrelittéraire,dramatiqueetmusicaleayantledroit
absoludes’opposeràtoutealtération,modification,correctionou
addition,siminimequ’ellesoit,susceptiblededénaturersapensée.[atp.
58]

3.Poggiv.ÉditionsSalabert(1958),20R.I.D.A.94(C.A.Paris).
Considérantentoutcasquelaprotectionnepeut-tre[sic]invoquéeque
lorsquel’auteurrapportelapreuvedel’existencedesonœuvre
permettantd’apprécierlaréalitéetlaconsistancedesacréationoriginale;
Considérantquel’art.2delaConventiondeBerneexigelafixationdela
miseenscène[i.e.,theoperettaLaBelledeCadix]parécritouautrement,
c’est-à-direparphotographie,dessin,etc.;…ConsidérantquePoggi,
s’agissantd’uneœuvrefugitiveettoutedemouvement,auraitdûen
assurerlafixationafind’enménagerlapreuve,cequ’iln’apasfait.[atp.
95]

4.Martonnv.Leitz,[1957]2J.C.P.10031(T.Corr.Seine).
Attenduqu’àcepointdevuec’estlecaractèreoriginaldel’œuvre[i.e.,
numérodetransformisteàvue]quienjustifielaprotection,caractèrequise
manifestenonplusdansl’invention,maisdanslerenouvellementdeformes
d’artachevéesdansleurprincipe,maisperfectiblesdansleurs
manifestations.…[L]aseulequestionestdesavoirsi,àl’intérieurdece
genreilaréaliséuneœuvreimitéedanssaportéemaisoriginaledanssa
conception.[Emphasisadded.]

5.Eudesv.Cocteau(1960),31R.I.D.A.83(C.A.Paris),Concl.Combaldieu.
Siladanseestl’artdumouvement,c’est,àlafois,unartplastiqueetunart
dynamiqueetc’estuneharmonieusecombinaisondesdeuxquiproduit,
nonseulementuneimpressiond’esthétique,maisquicommunique,qui
traduitaussiuneidéeouunsentiment,sedégageantdel’argumentdu
ballet.…

Maisilfautdetouteévidence,uneidéequiprésideàcesélucubrations
esthétiques,ilfautquelquechoseàexprimer,sinonontourneenrond.Cela
estsivraiqu’unballetabstraitn’existepas:onparttoujoursd’uneidée,
d’unsentiment.Toutaupluspeut-onconcevoirque,surdesétudes
symphoniquesdeSchuman,onrègledesétudeschorégraphiques;mais
desétudeschorégraphiquesnesontpasunballet.Ainsidoncilconvient,je
crois,demettrel’accentsurlerôleprimordialdel’argumentdansleballet.
…Quelachorégraphiesoitunartetquecetartpuisseavoirsescréateurs,il
suffit,pourenconvenir,derappelerquelesGrecs,nosmaîtresdanstousles
arts,avaientfaitdeladanseundesneufmuses.Lachorégraphieadapte,
réalisescéniquement,transposedansdesfiguresrythméesetdes
mouvementscadencés,dansdesgestes,lesexpressions,lamimique,les
entimentsdespersonnagesquequi[sic]résidedanslatraduction
esthétiquedel’œuvredeladanse.[atpp.87-88][Emphasisadded.]


§6.5CaseLaw—Varia
1.Béjartv.AssociationPlanK(1988),179R.I.D.A.372(C.A.Bruxelles-9
th
Chambre,1998.09.18):
Attenduque,contrairementàcequel’appelantsoutient,lademandede
protectionparledroitd’auteurneportepasuniquementsurl’image
visuelled’unhommenuouquasinu,munid’ailesetchaussédetélévisons;

Quecetteprotectionestdemandéepourunescèned’unballetconsistant
enunenouvelleinterprétationdumythed’Icare,àsavoirinIcareempché
devolerpardestéléviseursaccrochésàsespieds;
Quecettescèneestforméeparlacombinaisondesélémentssuivants:un
hommenuouquasinu,munid’ailesetchaussédetélévisionsquitraverse
lentementlascènedepartenpart,dedroiteàgaucheetfaitunarrtau
milieudelascène;
Quecettescènecomprenddonclemouvement,l’enchaînementde
mouvements,pluslecostume,lesaccessoiresutilisés,lepositionnement,la
miseenévidencedupersonnage,sapuissance,sasignification
symbolique;
Quecettescènedégageunegrandeforceévocatrice,symbolique,
représentativequin’apaséchappéauxcritiquesd’artdanslamesureoù
cettescèneestdevenuelascènepharede“Lachuted’Icare”;
Attenduquecettecombinaisond’élémentsformeuntoutquinepeuttre
diviséensesdifférentsélémentspourtenterdedémontrerquel’œuvrene
seraitpasprotégeableparcequechacundesesélémentspris
individuellementneleseraitpas;
Quelaplupartdesœuvresd’artsontforméesparl’agencementoriginal
d’élémentssansoriginalité(juxtapositiondemotscourants,denotesde
musiquepréexistantes,depasdedanseconnus…);[atpages373-374]

§7.0ListofCases
§7.1Canada
1.R.v.ShearwaterCo.,[1934]Ex.C.R.1(Ex.Ct.);rev’d[1934]S.C.R.197.
2.Durand&Ciev.LaPatriePublishingCo.,(1951),14C.P.R.129(Ex.Ct.—
Default);(1951),15C.P.R.86(Ex.Ct.—Particulars);(1957),28C.P.R.1(Ex.
Ct.—Evidence);(1959),32C.P.R.1(Ex.Ct.);rev’d(1960),34C.P.R.169
(S.C.C.).


3.GustavsonDrilling(1964)Ltd.v.MinisterofNationalRevenue,[1972]F.C.
92(F.C.T.D.);aff’d[1972]F.C.1193(F.C.A.);aff’d(1975),[1977]1S.C.R.
271.
4.Laidlawv.MetropolitanToronto(Municipality),(1974),7L.C.R.111(Land
Comp.Bd.);rev’d(1976),9L.C.R.269at270(Ont.Div.Ct.);rev’d(1976),
9L.C.R.269at275(Ont.C.A.);rev’d[1978]2S.C.R.736.
5.Patsalasv.NationalBalletofCanada,(1986),13C.P.R.(3d)522(Ont.
H.C.J.).
6.RockyMountainDanceCo.v.Brookes(1987),19C.P.R.(3d)131
(F.C.T.D.).
7.ReRoyaltiesforRetransmissionRightsofDistantRadio&TelevisionSignals
(1990),32C.P.R.(3d)97(C.B.);(1990),34C.P.R.(3d)383(Can.Gov.in
Council);(1991),36C.P.R.(3d)483(F.C.A.)(subnom.F.W.S.JointSports
Claimantsv.CopyrightBoard),(1991),36C.P.R.(3d)455(F.C.A.)(sub
nom.CanadiennedeTélévisionparCablev.AmericanCollegeSports
CollectiveofCanada,Inc.).
8.Drapeauv.Carbone14,[2000]R.J.Q.1525(Que.S.C.).
9.Pastorv.Chen(2002),19C.P.R.(4th)206(B.C.Prov.Ct.).
§7.2UnitedKingdom

1.Leev.Simpson(1847),136E.R.349(C.P.).
2.Karnov.PahtéFrères,Ltd.,(1908),99L.T.114(K.B.D.);aff’d(1909),100L.T.
260(C.A.).
3.Bishopv.Viviana&Co.,(1909),[1905-10]MacG.Cop.Cas.210(K.B.D.).
4.Hollandv.VivianVanDamnProductionsLtd.,[1936-45]MacG.Cop.Cas.
69(Ch.D.).
5.Massinev.DeBasil,(1937),81Sol.Jo.670(Ch.D.);aff’d(1938),82Sol.Jo.
173(C.A.).
6.Norowzianv.ArksLimited,(1998),[1999]F.S.R.79(Ch.Div.);affirmed
(1999),[2000]F.S.R.363(C.A.).



§7.3UnitedStates
1.Martinettiv.Maguire,16F.Cas.161(C.C.Cal.1867).
2.Fullerv.Bemis,50F.926(S.D.N.Y.1892).
3.Barnesv.Miner,122Fed.480(C.C.S.D.N.Y.1903).
4.Savagev.Hoffmann,159F.584(C.C.N.Y.1908).
5.Danev.M.&H.Co.,136U.S.P.Q.426(N.Y.Sup.Ct.1963).
6.Horganv.MacMillanInc.,227U.S.P.Q.975(S.D.N.Y.1985);rev’d229
U.S.P.Q.684(2ndCir.1986).
7.Edwardsv.Ruffiner,229U.S.P.Q.157(S.D.N.Y.1985).

8.Andersonv.M&TPretzelInc.,46U.S.P.Q.(2d)1094(S.D.N.Y.1997).

§7.4France

1.Stichelv.Mendès,[1911]1Gaz.Pal.193(T.Civ.Seine,1911.02.10);rev’d
(1919),[1920]D.A.33(C.A.Paris).
2.Chaslesv.Soutzo,[1926]39D.A.53,(T.Civ.Seine).
3.Martonnv.Leitz,[1957]2J.C.P.10031(T.Corr.Seine);[1958]D.159(C.A.
Paris).
4.Poggiv.ÉditionsSalabert(1958),20R.I.D.A.94(C.A.Paris).
5.Eudesv.Cocteau,[1958]2J.C.P.10762(T.Civ.Seine);aff’d[1960]2
J.C.P.11710(C.A.Paris).
§7.5Varia
1.Béjartv.AssociationPlanK(1998),179R.I.D.A.372(C.A.Bruxelles-9
th
Chambre,1998.09.18).

§8.0Authors


§8.1Canada
§8.1.1Interpretationissues
1.BARBE(RaoulP.),Lesdéfinitionscontenuesdanslesacteslégislatifset
réglementaires(1983),43RevueduBarreau1105.
2.CÔTÉ(Pierre-André),Interprétationdeslois,2nded.(Cowansville,Blais,
1990),atpp.109-116,293-295.
3.CÔTÉ(Pierre-André),TheInterpretationofLegislationinCanada,2nded.
(Cowansville,Blais,1992),atpp.55-58,99-106and263-264.
4.DRIEDGER(ElmerA.),ConstructionofStatutes,2nded.(Toronto,
Butterworths,1983),atpp.109-111,195-203.
5.DRIEDGER(ElmerA.),Statutes:RetroactiveRetrospectiveReflections
(1978),56CanadianBarReview264.
6.PIGEON(Louis-Philippe),DraftingandInterpretingLegislation(Toronto,
Carswell,1988),atpp.32-35.
7.PIGEON(Louis-Philippe),Rédactionetinterprétationdeslois(Québec,
éditeurofficiel,1965),atpp.20-22.
§8.1.2Copyrightissues
1.BURSHTEIN(Howard),Studentdidn’tbreachcopyrightinteacher’sHula
dance:court(1993.11.26),TheLawyersWeekly25.
2.DebatesHouseofCommons,1987(1987.06.26),atpp.7689and7691-
7692.
3.FOX(HaroldGeorge),TheCanadianLawofCopyright,1sted.(Toronto,
UniversityofTorontoPress,1944),atpp.126-127.
4.FOX(HaroldGeorge),TheCanadianLawofCopyrightandIndustrial
Designs,2nded.(Toronto,Carswell,1967),atpp.138-140.
5.GENDREAU(Ysolde),Lecritèredefixationendroitd’auteur/TheCriterion
ofFixationinCopyrightLaw(1994),159Revueinternationaledudroit
d’auteur110,atpp.154-159.


6.HAHN(Richard),AnAnalysisofBillC-60AnActtoAmendtheCopyright
ActandtoAmendotherActsinConsequenceThereof(1988),5
CanadianIntellectualPropertyReview154,atp.157.
7.ReportoftheSub-CommitteeontheRevisionofCopyright:ACharterof
RightsforCreators(Ottawa,CCAC,1985),atpp.25-26.
8.RUDOFF(M.L.),TheDancerandtheDance:AnEssayofComposers,
PerformersandIntegrityRights(1991),29AlbertaLawReview884.
9.RUSH(AndreaF.),CaughtintheAct:CopyrightReformontheWay
(1987),24PerformingArtsinCanada(JuneIssue)40.
10.VAVER(David),TheCanadianCopyrightAmendmentsof1988(1989),4
IntellectualPropertyJournal122,atpp.144-145.
11.WOOD(Sean),TwoLeftFeet:Government’sTangowithCopyrightand
Choreography(1991),6IntellectualPropertyJournal291.
§8.2UnitedKingdom
1.ARNOLD(Richard),Performers’RightsandRecordingRights(Oxford,ESC,
1990),atnos.2.03-2.09.
2.CORYTON(John),Stageright(London,Nutt,1873),atpp.54-59.
3.DRONE(EatonS.),ATreatiseontheLawofPropertyinIntellectual
ProductionsinGreatBritainandintheUnitedStates(Boston,LittleBrown,
1879),atp.588.
4.FLINT(MichaelF.),AUser’sGuidetoCopyright,3rded.(London,
Butterworths,1990),ch.20.
5.LESTER(David)etal.,Joynson-HicksonUKCopyrightLaw(London,Sweet
&Maxwell,1990),atnos.1.12-1.14.
6.ROBERTSON(GeorgeStuart),TheLawofCopyright(Oxford,Clarendon
Press,1912),atpp.14-15.
7.SKONEJAMES(F.E.),CopingerandSkoneJamesontheLawof
Copyright,8thed.(London,Sweet&Maxwell,1948),atpp.63-65.


8.SKONEJAMES(EdmundP.)etal.,Copinger&SkoneJamesonCopyright,
12thed.(London,Sweet&Maxwell,1980),atnos.161-168,1129.
9.SKONEJAMES(EdmundP.)etal.,Copinger&SkoneJamesonCopyright,
13thed.(London,Sweet&Maxwell,1991),atnos.2.11,8-48to8-50.
10.STERLING(J.A.L.)etal.,CopyrightLawintheUnitedKingdom,1sted.
(London,LegalBooks,1986),atno.237.
11.WILLIAMS(Robert),HighCourtConsidersExtentofCopyrightProtection
forDramaticWork(1998),12WorldIntellectualPropertyReport328.

§8.3UnitedStates
1.AMDUR(LeonH.),CopyrightLawandPractice(NewYork,Clark
Boardman,1936),atpp.122-127.
2.ARCOMANO(Nicholas),ADancer’sBusiness:choreographyand
copyright[1980]Dancemagazine58;[1980]Dancemagazine70.
3.ARCOMANO(Nicholas),TheCopyrightLawandDance,inWELL(BenH.)
etal.ed.,inModernCopyrightFundamentals(NewYork,VanNostrand
Reinhold,1985),pp.84-86.
4.CHULOY(Anatole),NewTryMadetoCopyrighttoChoreography(1953),
22-2DanceNews4.
5.COMMENT,UnravellingtheChoreographer’sCopyrightDilemma(1982),
49TennesseeLawReview594.
6.COOK(Melanie),MovingtoaNewBeat:CopyrightProtectionfor
ChoreographicWorks(1977),24UCLALawReview1287.
7.CopyrightLawReporter(NewYork,CCH,1989),atno.625.
8.DERENBERG(WalterF.),LettredesEtats-Unis—Lenouveaurèglementdu
CopyrightOffice(1957),70,LeDroitd’Auteur195,atp.198.
9.DORION(André),NetirezpassurlajugebrésilienneouLaprotectiondes
chorégraphiessportivesendroitd’auteur(1994),7Lescahiersde
propriétéintellectuelle99.


10.FISHER(KathleenAnne),TheCopyrightinChoreographicWorks:A
TechnicalAnalysisoftheCopyrightActof1976(1984),31ASCAP
CopyrightLawSymposium145.
11.FREEDMAN(Robert),IsChoreographyCopyrightable?AStudyofthe
AmericanandEnglishLegalInterpretationof“Drama”(1963),2
DuquesneUniversityLawReview77.
12.GENNERICH(PatriciaSolan),OneMomentinTime:TheSecondCircuit
PondersChoreographicPhotographyasaCopyrightInfringement
(1987),53BrooklinLawReview379.
13.HENN(HarryG.),CopyrightLaw:APractitioner’sGuide,3rded.(New
York,PLI,1991),atno.5.2[4].
14.HILGARD(AdalineJ.),CanChoreographyandCopyrightWaltz
Together?(1994),27U.C.DavisLawReview757.
15.KIBBEE(Barbara),CopyrightProtectionforChoreography,[1976]2Arts&
TheLaw1.
16.KUNSTADT(RobertM.)etal.,AreSportMovesNextinIPLaw?—Sports
MovesCouldBeViewedasChoreography(1996.05.20)TheNationalLaw
JournalC-2.
17.LEVY(Brian),LegalProtectionsinImprovisationalTheatre(1985),9
Columbia-VLAJournalofLawandtheArts421.
18.LITMAN(Jessica),CopyrightinStageDirectionofaBroadwayMusical
(1988),7Columbia-VLAJournalofLawandtheArts309.
19.LU(Mei-Chen),DanceNotationBibliography,availableontheWebSite
oftheDanceNotationBureauattheURLaddress
http://www.dancenotation.org/library/bib/notation.html(updated2002-
09-18)andDanceCopyrightBibliography,availableontheWebSiteof
theDanceNotationBureauattheURLaddress
http://www.dancenotation.org/library/bib/copyright.html(rev.2001-07-
19;updated2002-09-18).
20.McMAHON(Colleen),ChoreographyandCopyright(1978),3Arts&The
Law1.
21.MEYER(BarbaraL.)TheCopyrightQuestion:SomeWordstotheWise
(April1961),DanceMagazine44.



22.MIRREL(LeonI.),LegalProtectionforChoreography(1952),27NewYork
UniversityLawReview792.
23.NIMMER(MelvilleB.)etal.,NimmeronCopyright(NewYork,Matthew
Bender,1989),atno.2.07.
24.NIMMER(MelvilleB.),Ledroitd’auteurauxÉtats-Unisfaceàla
ConventiondeBerne:lesimplicationscontenuesdansleursprojetsde
révisionrespectifs(1966),79LeDroitd’Auteur102,atpp.104-106.
25.ORDWAY(GaryD.),ChoreographyandCopyright(1967),15ASCAP
CopyrightLawSymposium172.
26.OVERTON(Thomas),UnravellingtheChoreographer’sCopyright
Dilemma(1982),49TennesseeLawReview594.
27.PEASLEE(Richard),ACreator’sPointofView(1975-76),6PerformingArts
Review448.
28.PERKINS(PatrickT.),“Hey!What’stheScore.”Copyrightinthe
OrchestrationsofBroadwayMusicals(1992),16Columbia-VLAJournalof
LawandtheArts475.
29.RINGER(Barbara)etal.,UnitedStatesofAmerica,inSTEWART(Stephen
M.)etal.,InternationalCopyrightandNeighbouringRights,2nded.
(London,Butterworths,1989),Ch.21,atno.21.08.
30.ROTH(JeffreyI.),CommonLawProtectionofChoreographyWorks
(1974),5PerformingArtsReview75.
31.ROTHENBERG(Stanley),LegalProtectionofLiterature,ArtandMusic
(NewYork,ClarkBoardman,1960),atnos.24,24d,148.
32.SINGER(BarbaraA.),InSearchofAdequateProtectionfor
ChoreographicWorks:LegislativeandJudicialAlternativesv.TheCustom
oftheDanceCommunity(1983-84),38UniversityofMiamiLawReview
287.
33.Studies[ontheCopyrightLawRevision]preparedfortheSubcommittee
onPatents,Trademarks,andCopyrightoftheCommitteeofthe
Judiciary—UnitedStatesSenate,86thCongress,2dSession(Washington,
U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice,1961),chapter28“Copyright
ChoreographicWorks”.


34.TAUBMAN(Jospeh),ChoreographyunderCopyrightRevision:TheSquare
PegintheRoundHoleUnpegged(1980),10PerformingArtsReview219.
35.TRAYLOR(MarthaM.),Choreography,PantomimeandtheCopyright
RevisionActof1976(1981),16NewEnglandLawReview227.
36.VANCAMP(Julie),CopyrightofChoreographicWorks,inEntertainment,
PublishingandtheArtsHandbook1994-95(NewYork,ClarkBoardman
Callaghan,1994),57-92.
37.VARMER(B.),CopyrightofChoreographicWorks,CopyrightOfficeStudy
No.21B(1959),reprintedin(1963),1StudiesonCopyright103.
38.WALLIS(LeslieErin),TheDifferentArt:ChoreographyandCopyright
(1986),33UCLALawReview1442.
39.WEINHARDT(AnneK.),CopyrightInfringementofChoreography:The
LegalAspectsofFixation(1987-88),13JournalofCorporationLaw839.
40.WILDER(Lucy),U.S.GovernmentGrantsFirstDanceCopyright(1952),19-
5DanceObserver69.
41.WOODS(RobertW.),Copyright&Contracts:Counsellingthe
Choreographer(1978),31OklahomaLawReview969.

§8.4France

1.ASLNE(Marieanne),Lachorégraphieetledroitd’auteuren
France/ChoreographyandAuthors’RightsinFrance(1994),162Revue
internationaledudroitd’auteur2.

2.ASLNE(M.),Lachorégraphieetledroitd’auteurenFrance(1994),162
Revueinternationaledudroitd’auteur3.
3.BERTRAND(André),LeDroitd’AuteuretlesDroitsVoisins(Paris,Masson,
1991),atnos.4.311&5.122.
4.BERTRAND(André),LeDroitd’AuteuretlesDroitsVoisins,2nded.(Paris,
Masson,1999),at§4.311.
5.BOUGEROL(Dominique),Analysejuridiquedelachorégraphie
(droitsd©auteuretdroitsvoisins);inActesdesPremièresrencntres
internationalesArts,SciencesetTechnologies(November2000,


UniversitédeLarochelle)alsoavailableattheURLaddress
http://www.univ-
lr.fr/recherche/mshs/axe2recherche/art_science/colloque/publica
tions/BOUGEROL.pdf.
6.CARREAU(Caroline),Mériteetdroitd’auteur(Paris,LGDJ,1981),atnos.
15,78,343,395.
7.CHARTIER(JacquesJ.F.),Lesdroitsdumusiciensursonoeuvre(Paris,
Dalloz,1923),atpp.235-238.
8.DESJEUX(Xavier),Lamiseenscènedethéâtreest-elleuneœuvrede
l’esprit?—Isatheatricalproductionanintellectualwork?(1973),75
Revueinternationaledudroitd’auteur42.
9.DUMAS-PARMENTIER(Simone-Marie),Lesoeuvreschorégraphiquesetle
droitd’auteur(Paris,UniversitédeParis,1953)UnpublishedthesisLL.D.).

10.EDELMAN(Bernard),Delanaturedesoeuvresd’artd’aprèsla
jurisprudence,D.1969chron.10.
11.LECHEVALIER(Philippe),Pouruneprotectiondesmisesenscènes
théâtralesparledroitd’auteur/Forprotectionofstageproductions
undercopyright(1990),146Revueinternationaledudroitd’auteur19.
12.MATTHYSENS(Jean),Lestatutdesmetteursenscèneauregarddu
droitfrançaisdelapropriétéintellectuelle(1987),100LeDroitd’Auteur
347.
13.MATTHYSENS(Jean),Metteursenscèneetdroitd’auteur/Producers
andcopyright(1956),10Revueinternationaledudroitd’auteur46.

14.PLAISANT(Robert),Exercicedudroitdesauteurs—œuvresprotégées,
inPropriétélittéraireetartistique—Juris-Classeurs(Paris,Éditions
techniques,1990),fasc.303,atnos.8and142.
§8.5Belgium
1.BERENBOOM(Alain),LeDroitd’Auteur(Bruxelles,Larcier,1984),atno.81.
2.POIRIER(Pierre),Ledroitd’auteur,inLesNouvelles—CorpusJurisBelgici:
DroitsIntellectuels(Bruxelles,Larcier,1936).


§8.6Australia
1.LAHORE(James),IntellectualPropertyinAustralia:CopyrightLaw
(Sydney,Butterworths,1988),atno.2.3.55.
2.RICKETSON(Stanley),TheLawofIntellectualProperty(Melbourne,Law
Book,1984),atnos.5.67-5.70.

§8.7Varia
§8.7.1Law

1.Actesdelaconférencepourlaprotectiondesœuvreslittéraireset
artistiquesréunieàParis(1896.09.09),atpp.114,148&166.
2.ActesdelaconférenceréunieàBerlindu14octobreau14novembre
1908,atpp.50-51,166,180,190&231.
3.Actesdela2meconférenceinternationalepourlaprotectiondes
œuvreslittérairesetartistiquesréunieàBernedu7au18septembre
1885;procès-verbaldelaDeuxièmeséance(1885.09.07),atpp.21,22&
43.
4.BUYDENS(Mireille),Laprotectiondelaquasi-création:information,
publicité,mode,photographiesdocumentairesetesthétiqueindustrielle
—droitbelge,droitallemand,droitfrançais(Bruxelles,Larcier,193),at
pp.135-149.
5.CHULOY(Anatole),NewTrytoCopyrighttoChoreography(February
1953),22DanceNews4.
6.Étudecomparativedudroitd’auteur:oeuvresprotégées(1978),12-3
Bulletindudroitd’auteur42,atpp.43-44.
7.Étudesgénérales—LaConventiondeBerneLarévisiondeParis,[1899]
12Droitd’Auteur13.
8.Étudesgénérales—LaConventiondeBerneréviséedu13novembre
1908,[1909]22Droitd’Auteur76,atp.78.
9.Étudesgénérales—Laprotectiondesœuvresphotographiques,[1895]8
Droitd’Auteur116,atp.117.


10.FREEDMAN(Robert),Choreography(February1953)22DanceNews4.
11.GINSBERG(PaulD.),ChoreographicInfringementofCopyrightbyStill
Photographs(1986-08-26),196N.Y.L.J.1.
12.LADAS(StephenP.),TheInternationalProtectionofLiteraryandArtistic
Property,2Vol.inHarvardStudiesonInternationalLawNo.3(NewYork,
Macmillan,1938),atpp.219-223.
13.POTU(Émile),LaConventiondeBernepourLaprotectiondesœuvres
littérairesetartistiquesréviséeàBerlinle13novembre1908etle
ProtocoleadditionneldeBernedu20mars1914(Paris,Rousseau,1914),
atnos.146,153,161,170-172,174.
14.RICKETSON(Sam),TheBerneConventionforthe
ProtectionofLiterary
andArtisticWorks:1886-1986(London,CentreforCommercialLaw
Studies,1987),atnos.6.19-6.22.
15.WILDER(Lucy),U.S.GovernmentGrantsFirstDanceCopyright(May
1952),DanceObserver69.
§8.7.2Artandtechnique
1.ABERKALNS(Sandra),TheArtofTranslatingandInterpreting
ChoreographicWorks,inTheArtofMovement:LookingatDance
PerformanceInsideandOut,(1998),Proceedingsof31stAnnual
CongressonResearchinDanceConference,pp.1-9.
2.ALBRIGHT(AnnCooper),Movingacrossdifference:danceanddisability,
inALBRIGHT(AnnCooper),ChoreographingDifference:thebodyand
identityincontemporarydance(NewEngland,WesleyanUniversityPress,
1997).
3.ARMELAGOS(Adina)etal.,TheIdentityCrisisinDance(1978),37Journal
ofAesthetics&ArtCriticism129.
4.BARTENIEFF(Irmgard)etal.,ThePotentialofMovementAnalysisasa
ResearchTool:APreliminaryAnalysis(1984),16-1DanceResearch
Journal,pp.3-26.
5.BENESH(Rudolf)etal.,AnIntroductiontoBeneshMovementNotation—
Dance(NewYork,DanceHorizons,1969).


6.BLUM(Odette),Dance:TheValueofRecordingDance,inTheStudyof
DanceandthePlaceofDanceinSociety(NewYork,SponPress,1986),
pp.37-43.
7.BLUM(Odette),TheValueofRecordingDance,inDance.TheStudyof
DanceandthePlaceofDanceinSociety,inProceedingsoftheVIII
CommonwealthandInternationalConferenceonSport,Physical
Education,Dance,RecreationandHealth(London,SponPress,1986),
pp.37-43.
8.BODMER(Sylvia),Laban:StudiesBasedonCrystalloidDanceForms
(London,UniversityofLondon,1979).
9.BOURGAT(Marcelle),Techniquedeladanse,8thed.(Paris,PUF,1986).
10.BROWN(Estelle)T.),CriticalAnalogiesBetweenRuskin’sPrinciplesofArt
andBalletDance(1975-76),6PerformingArtsReview268.
11.CALLMANN(Rudolph),BritishBallet(1972),3PerformingArtsReview323.
12.CÔTÉ-LAURENCE(Paulette),TheRoleofRhythminBalletTraining,2000),
1-2ResearchinDanceEducation,pp.173-191;alsoavailableattheURL
http://taylor-andfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?id•wmtadbmtn0welyx.
13.DURR(Dixie),Labanotation:LanguageorScript?(1981),1-3Journalfor
theAnthropologicalStudyofHumanMovement,pp.132-138.
14.FREIRE(IdaMara),InorOutofStep:thedifferentpersonintheworldof
dance(2001),2-1ResearchinDanceEducation,pp.73-78;also
availableattheURL
http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?id?342knjn821d5j30.
15.GORSKY(Alexander),TwoEssaysonStepanovDanceNotation(New
York,Cord,1978).
16.HODES(Stuart),DancePreservationandtheOralHistoryParadigm,in
DanceReconstructed–Conferenceproceedings(NewBrunswick,NJ:
RutgersUniversity,1992),pp.97-108.
17.HUTCHISON(Ann),Labanotation:TheSystemofAnalysingandRecording
Movement,3rded.(NewYork,TheatreArtsBooks,1977).


18.HUTCHISON-GUEST(Ann),DanceNotation:Theprocessofrecording
movementonpaper(NewYork,DanceHorizons,1984).
19.KERNER(Mary),BarefoottoBalanchine—HowtoWatchDance(New
York,Doubleday,1991).
20.KOEGLER(Horst),TheConciseOxfordDictionaryofBallet,2nded.
(London,OxfordUniversityPress,1982).
21.LABAN(Rudolf),Laban’sPrinciplesofDanceandMovementNotation
(Boston,Play’s,1975).
22.MARGOLIS(Joseph),TheAutographicNatureoftheDance(1981),39
JournalofAesthetics&ArtCriticism419.
23.METTLER(Barbara),ModernDance:ArtorShowBusiness(1952),19-5
DanceObserver68.
24.RISNER(Doug),MakingDance,MakingSense:epistemologyand
choreography(2000),1-2ResearchinDanceEducation,pp.155-172:
alsoavailableattheURL
http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?id?yx70tdkvrjq0eux.
25.ROWE(Katharine),ChoreographyandCopyright[March1987]Dance
Magazine.
26.SPARSHOTT(Francis),OfftheGround:FirstStepstoaPhilosophical
ConsiderationoftheDance(Princeton,PrincetonUniversityPress,1988).
27.TOPAZ(Muriel),ed.,TheNotationIssue(1988),1-1Choreographyand
Dance.
28.VANZILE(Judy),WhatisDance?ImplicationsforDanceNotation(1985-
1986),18-1DanceResearchJournal,pp.125-133.
29.
30.WILLIAMS(Drid),TheCredibilityofMovement-Writing(1996),9-2Journal
forAnthropologicalStudyofHumanMovement,pp.73-89.

§9.0ComparativeLegislation
§9.1ComparativeLegislation-UnitedKingdom
§9.1.1CopyrightAct,1911,section35(1):


“Dramaticwork”includesanypieceforrecitation,choreographic
workorentertainmentindumbshow,thescenicarrangementor
actingformofwhichisfixedinwritingorotherwise,andany
cinematographproductionwherethearrangementoractingformor
thecombinationofincidentsrepresentedgivetheworkanoriginal
character;”[Ourunderlinings.]

§9.1.2CopyrightAct,1956,section48(1):
“dramaticwork”includesachoreographicworkorentertainmentin
dumbshowifreducedtowritingintheforminwhichtheworkor
entertainmentistobepresented,butdoesnotincludea
cinematographfilm,asdistinctfromascenarioorscriptfora
cinematographfilm;”[Ourunderlinings.]

§9.1.3CopyrightAct,1988,section3(1):
“dramaticwork”includesaworkofdanceormime;”

§9.2ComparativeLegislation-UnitedStatesofAmerica
§9.2.1CopyrightAct,1976,section102(a)(4):
“(a)Copyrightsubsists,inaccordancewiththistitle,inoriginalworksof
authorshipfixedinanytangiblemediumofexpression,nowknownor
laterdeveloped,fromwhichtheycanbeperceived,reproducedor
otherwisecommunicated,eitherdirectlyorwiththeaidofamacine
ordevice.Worksofauthorshipincludethefollowingcategories:(…)
(4)pantomimesandchoreographicworks;(…)”

§9.3ComparativeLegislation-France
§9.3.1CopyrightAct,1957,Section3:
“Sontconsidérésnotammentcommedesœuvresdel
espritausens
delaprésenteloi:(…)lesœuvresdramatiquesoudramatico-
musicales;lesœuvreschorégraphiques,lesnumérosettoursde
cirquesetlespantomimesdontdontlamiseenœuvresestfixéepar
écritouautrement(…).”

§9.3.2Codedelapropriétéintellectuelle,1992,section112-2:
“Sontconsidérésnotammentcommedesœuvresdel
espritausens
duprésentcode:(…)
3°Lesœuvresdramatiquesoudramatico-musicales;
4°Lesœuvreschorégraphiques,lesnumérosettoursdecirques,les
pantomimes,dontlamiseenœuvresestfixéeparécritouautrement
(…).”


§9.4ComparativeLegislation-Australia
§9.4.1CopyrightAct,1968,Section10:
“”dramaticwork”includes-
(a)achoreographicshoworotherdumbshowifdescribedinwriting
intheforminwhichtheshowistobepresented(…)”.

§9.5ComparativeLegislation-Germany
§9.5.1CopyrightAct,1965,Section2(1):
“Theliterary,scientificandartisticworksprotectedhereunderinclude,
inparticular:(…)
3.worksofpantomme,includingchoreographicworks(…)”

§9.6ComparativeLegislation-India
§9.6.1CopyrightAct,1957,Section2(h):
“Dramaticwork”includesanypieceforrecitation,choreographic
workorentertainmentindumbshow,thescenicarrangementor
actingformofwhichisfixedinwritingorotherwisebutdoesnot
includeacinematographfilm;”[Ourunderlinings.]

§9.7ComparativeLegislation-SouthAfrica
§9.7.1CopyrightAct,1978,Section1:
“dramaticwork”includesachoreographicworkorentertainmentin
dumbshow,ifreducedtothematerialforminwhichtheworkor
entertainmentistobepresented,butdoesnotincludea
cinematographfilm,asdistinctfromascenarioorscriptfora
cinematographfilm;”[Ourunderlinings.]

§10.0Varia
§10.1DebatesoftheHouseofCommons
§10.1.1DebatesHouseofCommons,1987(1987.06.26)
SheilaFinestoneM.P.,atp.7689.


Iwillnowdealwithchoreography.Underthecurrent1924CopyrightAct,
choreographicworkscomewithinthecategoryofdramaticworks.Asaresult,worksof
choreographymustdevelopaplotorsequenceofaction.
GlassHouses,aworkbyTorontochoreographerCristopherHouse,orMarcelMarceau’s
workinmimeareexamplesofworknotconstructedaroundadramaticplot.
Groupsappearingbeforethesubcommitteein1985askedthattherebeanentirely
separatecategoryofprotectedsubjectmatterlabelled“choreographicworks”
incorporatedinthenewlegislation.“Choreographicworks”isdefinedinBillC-60as:
“Anyworkofchoreography,whetherornotithasastoryline”.WhileIacceptthis
definition,IwouldhavepreferredthatsuggestedbyEliseOrensteinoftheCanadian
AssociationofProfessionalDanceOrganizations,whichis“anarrangementoran
organizedthoughtintimeandspacewhichuseshumanbodiesasdesignunits”.
§10.1.2DebatesHouseofCommons,1987(1987.06.26)
LynnMcDonaldM.P.,atpp.7691-7692.

Anotherareainwhichtherehasbeenimprovementiswithrespecttochoreography.
Therewillnowbeprotectionforthefirsttimeinachoreographer’sownname.There
willbeaseparatecategoryforchoreography.Itwillnotbeconsideredjustasatype
ofdramaticwork.Thelimitationoftreatingchoreographysimplyasoneothertypeof
literaryworkisthat,ofcourse,forsomemoderndancethereisnostoryline.Theyare
notliteraryworks.Theexpressionisthatdanceisanarrangementintimeandspace
usinghumanbodiesasdesignunits.Thisisatechnicalexpressionforwhatweare
tryingtogetat.Perhapsitistherightexpression.Nevertheless,theideaisthatthere
oughttobeprotectionforthesemoreabstractformsofchoreographyaswellasfor
themoretraditionaltypewhichtellsastory.WehaveexcellentdancersinCanada
andexcellentchoreographers.Thatisanartformthathasreallythrivedinrecent
decades.Soitisquiteproperthatweseeimprovedrecognitionofthisartinournew
copyrightlegislation.
§10.2Illustrations
§10.2.1Pasdebourrée
The“pasdebourrée”whichisaseriesofswift,travellingstepsdonesurles
pointes(dancingonthetoes)soquicklythatseparationbetweenthe
dancer’slegsisnotdiscernibleisillustratedasfollows:



inBOURGAT(Marcelle),Techniquedeladanse,8thed.(Paris,PUF,1986),at
pp.65-66;alsoinGORSKY(Alexander),TwoEssaysonStepanovDance
Notation(NewYork,Cord,1978),atp.54:

§10.2.2Glissade
The“glissade”whichisatravellingstepexecutedbyglidingtheworkingfoot
fromthefifthpositiontoanopenposition,theotherfootclosingtoit,is
illustratedasfollows:



inBOURGAT(Marcelle),Techniquedeladanse,8thed.(Paris,PUF,1986),atp.
79;

inGORSKY(Alexander),TwoEssaysonStepanovDanceNotation(NewYork,
Cord,1978),atp.53;
(a)Theconventionalanalysisofanartform.
(b)Objectiveobservation—recordsofstudents’execution,
revealingfaults.
(c)Theprofessionalversions.

inBENESH(Rudolf)etal.,AnIntroductiontoBeneshMovementNotation—
Dance(NewYork,DanceHorizons,1969),atp.53.
§10.2.3Labanotation



AboveillustrationsextractedfromHUTCHISON(Ann),Labanotation:The
SystemofAnalysingandRecordingMovement,3rded.(NewYork,Theatre
ArtsBooks,1977),atpp.124-125,133.



AboveillustrationextractedfromLABAN(Rudolf),Laban’sPrinciplesofDance
andMovementNotation(Boston,Play’s,1975),atpp.53-54.

10.2.4ActionStrokeDanceNotation

“AmorecompletenotationofaCharlestonstepappearsbelow.Itadds
generalfacinganddirectionsymbols,indicationsofhoppingoncounts3,5,6
and7,kickpreparationsoncounts2and4,armmovements,andbending
andstraighteningatthewaist.”

IverCooper
sActionStrokeDanceNotationisdescribedonlineat
http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Stage/2806/.Thewebsite,thenotation
system,thedescriptionofthenotation,andthereproduced
description/illustrationoftheCharlestonstepareCopyright1997IverP.
Cooper.NoassertionofcopyrightismadeintheCharlestonstepitself.





ROBIC,ungrouped
avocatsetd
agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelle
danstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesde
commerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsd
origine;droitsd
auteur,
propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdel
artisteinterprète;informatique,
logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentions
végétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu
ailleursdanslemonde.Lamaîtrisedes
intangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince
1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:
patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionand
anti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distribution
andbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationand
arbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.Ideaslivehere.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL
INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHE
WORLD



LAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENT
CARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRE
LAURENTCARRIÈRE