Intellectual Property Rights and Dance Moves: An Indian Perspective

Granting Copyright

It is true that a work is considered copyrighted the moment it is created but a right to sue for infringement arises only when it is registered. For a dance move to be registered, it should be creative, original, unique, and consist of systematic dance steps. It should not consist of basic dance movements but have some level of uniqueness in order to prove the ownership.

Dance moves are considered choreographic works under Copyright Act of 1957 and are protected under Section 2(h) of the Act as “dramatic work” where any expressive form of art consisting of emotions, science arrangement, a story, creative steps, acting, and entertainment is given protection which is in form of writing, but does not include a cinematograph film.

Section 2(f) and Section 2(xxa) define cinematograph film as every recorded work with moving images/visuals, therefore, excluding dance steps from the ambit of “dramatic work”. The only way in which dance steps can be protected is by reducing them in writing by using dance notation. If dance steps are in a written form and not a part of a cinematograph film, it fulfils the essentials of “dramatic work” enumerated in Section 2(h) of the Act. On fulfilling the same, Section 14 of the Act makes the creator eligible to get certain exclusive rights such as, to issue copies of your creativity/work publicly, right to reproduce work, to perform work in public, right to sue for infringement and make an adaption of work.

Section 38 of the Act defines a performer’s right as whenever a performer engages or appears in any performance, he shall have a special right known as performer’s right in relation to such performance. Section 2(q) of the Act defines performance as any visual or acoustic presentation by one or more performers which thereby also includes dancers. Performer’s rights such as reproduction of sound or visual recording in any material, communication to the public, issuance of copies, selling or renting copies are exclusive to the said performer.

Choreographer Knight was the first commercial choreographer to protect his dance moves by registering his work as copyright.

In the case of Anupama Mohan v. State of Kerala[1], a Writ Petition was filed by Anupama Mohan (petitioner) in the High Court of Kerala against the State of Kerala (respondent) for circulating petitioner’s dance performance publicly and petitioner claimed copyright over the dance performance. The High Court of Kerala decreed in favour of the petitioner.

Other forms of Intellectual Property

Dance in itself encompasses various elements. Dance moves of a creator can be protected under the Copyright Act of 1957 if reduced in writing but it cannot be trademarked. However, the name and its representations are capable of being trademarked under the Trade Marks Act of 1999. The methods can be protected under the Patents Laws and the dance costumes can be protected under the Design Laws.

Exceptions

The law to some extent gives the creator the ability to protect his work but there are a few exceptions to the rights of the creator. If in case the work of the creator is used for “fair use”, the creator cannot seek remedy. Fair use means work that is used for private or personal use, including review, research, bona fide teaching, and reporting of current events.

In the case of Bikram’s Yoga Coll. Of India, L.P. v. Evolation Yoga, LLC [2], it was held that since yoga sequence is a form of systematic bodily movement, it is not covered under the Copyright Act of 1957.

In the case of Academy of General Education, Manipal and Anr. v. B. Manini Mallya[3], the Apex Court expounded that dance performance will not come under the ambit of “literary work” but will come under the ambit of “dramatic work”. The Court in instant case also held that since the Appellant is an educational institution and if the dance is performed by a teacher in course of instruction or in front of a non-paying audience, the order of injunction shall not apply.

Conclusion

From the above discussion, it can be concluded that dance moves of the creator can be protected as dramatic work under the Copyright Act of 1957 if reduced in writing. The name of the dance and its representations can be trademarked, the method can be patented and the costume designs can be protected under the Design Laws.

With increase in digitalisation, there is a need to widen the ambit of protection of the work of a dancer. In the United Kingdom and the United States, choreography can be protected through any medium including videotaping. Many of the dancers and choreographers are unaware of the protections available to their work therefore, there is also a need to spread awareness.

Author: This article is authored by Bhavya Verma, a penultimate law student from JEMTEC School of Law (Greater Noida), in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email vidushi@khuranaandkhurana.com or contact us at IIPRD.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

18 + 17 =

Archives

  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010