Interesting copyright problem

[AN]

I've just posted the following to IAC private, but as some here don't read
that here is a repost as I think it poses an interesting problem....what
do you think?


My wife recently filmed me marching past the camera so that I could then
use this marching image as the basis for rotoscoping a matchstick figure
which I wished to march across the screen.
The live action footage of me was then discarded, just leaving the matchstick
marching.

Now if I film, say a dancer, use the image to rotoscope a matchstick figure
dancing, then scrap the live action footage
just leaving the matchstick, is that a breach of the dancer's movement's?
Can a person's *movements* be subject to copyright, even if the person is
never seen again??????

Say, for arguements sake, one took Fred Astaire's dancing images and used
these as the basis for a matchstick dancer would that be infringement of
FA's movements, even if FA was never shown?

Albert.....still marching along.

[Dave Watterson]

Can a person's *movements* be subject to copyright, even if the person is
never seen again??????

For a long discussion of this in a fairly human readable style try:

http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/copyrigh.html

where Julie Van Camp (sic) discusses a copyright case involving a Balanchine
ballet. The references are all specific to the USA but might be a general
guideline.

By analogy with the field of music where use of a single phrase may be enough
to constitute a breach of copyright if that musical phrase is sufficiently
distinctive ... if you used a set of movements which were distinctive you
could be in trouble.
Theoretically.

The other view is that if you modify the original enough to "make it your
own" it becomes a fresh work of art. (e.g. Warhol's painting of Campbell's
soup can.)

My personal view (and I am no lawyer) is that if the actions were sufficiently
recognisable for a fan to say "that's Astaire's xxx sequence from 'Top Hat'"
you would be risking a breach. There might be some room for "fair usage"
if it were very brief.

In practice I doubt anyone would care what an amateur moviemaker did along
the lines Albert is suggesting.

Dave McTwistedBriefs

[AN]

"Dave Watterson" <big.dave@silly.net> wrote:

Can a person's *movements* be subject to copyright, even if the person
is
never seen again??????

For a long discussion of this in a fairly human readable style try:

http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/copyrigh.html

where Julie Van Camp (sic) discusses a copyright case involving a Balanchine
ballet. The references are all specific to the USA but might be a general
guideline.

Thanks Dave for that site and your summary of it...where would we all be
these days without the www? It's getting to be an essential of life.

That site is a lawyer's paradise. I wonder if a lawyer has ever sued another
for breach of copyright of his gobbledegook?

I was not considering 'matchsticking' Fred Astaire by the way, just using
him as an example......so now my own matchstick figure marching is fully
copyrighted, and I shall sue if I see another one marching about looking
like me!

Dave McTwistedBriefs
Wearing braces instead of a belt helps with this painful condition.

Albert...brace yourselves as I'm belting up now for a bit.