Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

Dance Copyright Enforced by DMCA 402

Posted by Zonk from the seventh-layer-of-awesome dept.
goombah99 writes "The "creator" of the Dance move known as the electric slide has filed a DMCA based takedown notice for videos he deems to infringe and because they show "bad dancing". He is also seeking compensation from the use of the dance move at a wedding celebration shown on the Ellen Degeneres Show. Next up, the Funky Chicken, the moonwalk, and the Hustle? More seriously, does the DMCA have any limit on its scope?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dance Copyright Enforced by DMCA More

Dance Copyright Enforced by DMCA

Comments Filter:

  • This guys is lucky. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Whiney Mac Fanboy ( 963289 ) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Sunday February 04, 2007 @10:35PM (#17885660) Homepage Journal
    Richard Silver is lucky that noone's managed to copyright crap web pages. His page (with animated email gif & quicktime plugin required) does not leave a font, colour, alignment, highlighting, style or indentation untouched.

    My eyeballs feel.... violated.

    • Re:This guys is lucky. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Dutch Gun ( 899105 ) on Sunday February 04, 2007 @10:42PM (#17885724)
      "I don't want future generations having to learn it wrong and then relearn it as I am being faced with now because of certain sites and (people) that have been teaching it incorrectly and without my permission."

      I'll just file that under "taking yourself waaaay to seriously."

      • Re:This guys is lucky. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SQLGuru ( 980662 ) on Sunday February 04, 2007 @11:20PM (#17886040) Homepage Journal
        So, if they aren't doing the Electric Slide correctly, maybe they aren't violating his rights. Maybe they are doing some *OTHER* dance that isn't copyrighted......and doing it right.

        So there.

        Layne

        • Re:This guys is lucky. (Score:5, Funny)

          by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @12:01AM (#17886310) Journal
          You sound like Vanilla Ice defending the difference between the beat to his song "Ice Ice Baby" and Queen's "Under Pressure"

          /For those who don't know, the difference is something like one note in the bassline

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by networkBoy ( 774728 )
            Yeah, but in this case:

            Richard Silver, who filed the copyright for the Electric Slide in 2004 [...] "I realize that this incorrect version of my choreography has been around for some 27 years," Silver wrote
            Is there not some redress to the public in the case of an author asserting (C) so long after creating (and obviously publishing) a work?
            -nB
            • Not so much, copyright is automatic when a work is created, and it is definitely applicable to choreography as specific as the Electric Slide.

              OTOH, the damages he might conceivably collect will be less than if he had been actively asserting his rights all this time. "Innocent" infringement incurs only actual damages, while "willful" infringement opens one up to serious punitive damages.

              I'd be curious to see where the lines are drawn for derivative works WRT choreography. Typically dance IP issues only

        • Re:This guys is lucky. (Score:5, Funny)

          by Linker3000 ( 626634 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @07:45AM (#17888362) Journal
          In other news, Darl McBride has been studying footage of Linus Torvalds, other notable Linux developers and senior executives of IBM, Novell and other major corporates after noticing that their gait when walking shows a definite delay of several tens of milliseconds in the uplift of the left foot upon taking a normal walking stride.

          Darl Explained that as part of his 'Image for SCO' policy, instigated in late 2002, he sent all his senior executives on a special course to teach them how to 'enter a room with purpose and drive', and they were taught to modify their walking pattern in a way that exaggerated their 'business swagger' when entering a room.

          This so-called 'Darl McStride' was apparently developed by a team of leading psychologists and physiotherapists at a cost of several thousand dollars and, says Mr Mcbride, is the intellectual property of SCO.

          "We are not totally insensitive to the accidental use of our intellectual property by those involved in road accidents, recovering from surgery or having naturally-occurring limb deformities that cause them to imitate our Business Swagger, but I take exception to profit-making organisations using it for their own gain when entering a room, and if they wish to do so they should licence the concept on a commercial basis". It has been rumoured that Rowan Atkinson, the comic actor behind such characters as the bumbling "Mr Bean" is already engaged in licensing discussions with SCO. John Cleese was unavailable for comment.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by bmo ( 77928 )
      "My eyeballs feel.... violated."

      I say we sue him.

      --
      BMO
    • Richard Silver is lucky that noone's managed to copyright crap web pages. His page (with animated email gif & quicktime plugin required) does not leave a font, colour, alignment, highlighting, style or indentation untouched.

      Don't be so critical... it clearly had to do the hustle to get the page up.

      DMCA take down notice in 3, 2...

  • From now on... (Score:4, Funny)

    by pete6677 ( 681676 ) on Sunday February 04, 2007 @10:36PM (#17885678)
    No more copyrighted music at weddings without a license. I'm sure somebody owns the copyright on "Here comes the Bride". You can license it for your wedding at the low low price of $1995.

  • Another Misleading Article Title (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Babbster ( 107076 ) <aaronbabb@NOspaM.gmail.com> on Sunday February 04, 2007 @10:39PM (#17885698) Homepage
    1) The DMCA is not an organization, it is a law. Laws get enforced. They don't go around doing the enforcing.
    2) The claim has yet to be upheld (enforced) by any court or other governmental body.
    3) Even if the letter is acted upon and the video is removed, that still doesn't indicate whether or not the DMCA is being properly applied (if not, then the DMCA can't be demonized in this situation). All it means is that someone decided removing the video was the easiest way to handle a potential problem.

    • Re:Another Misleading Article Title (Score:5, Informative)

      by PapayaSF ( 721268 ) on Sunday February 04, 2007 @10:45PM (#17885756) Journal

      True, but apparently you can copyright choreography [copyright.gov]:

      Choreography and pantomimes are also copyrightable dramatic works. Choreography is the composition and arrangement of dance movements and patterns usually intended to be accompanied by music. As distinct from choreography, pantomime is the art of imitating or acting out situations, characters, or other events. To be protected by copyright, pantomimes and choreography need not tell a story or be presented before an audience. Each work, however, must be fixed in a tangible medium of expression from which the work can be performed.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by robotsrule ( 805458 ) *
        Yes that's true. On that topic, wasn't there some lawyers a few years back that were trying to copyright special signature moves by basketball players? I guess it never went anywhere since I never saw any stories of litigation, but I guess they would have played the choreography angle. What a mess.

      • Re:Another Misleading Article Title (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Babbster ( 107076 ) <aaronbabb@NOspaM.gmail.com> on Sunday February 04, 2007 @10:53PM (#17885828) Homepage
        I understand that, but the implication of the title is that this particular case is a "done deal," as if showing a dance for a few seconds in a video has been legally established as copyright infringement covered by the DMCA. It also implies that somehow the DMCA itself is at fault, which isn't the case. The DMCA didn't make dance steps copyrightable, any more than it made videos of said dances potential copyright infringement. All the DMCA provides in this particular case is a mechanism for the copyright holder to enforce his or her copyright - that isn't a bad thing, though obviously, and IMO in this case, it can be used badly.

        • Re:Another Misleading Article Title (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Arker ( 91948 ) on Sunday February 04, 2007 @11:44PM (#17886216) Homepage
          Actually this is a problem with the DMCA qua DMCA. Anyone can *claim* to own a copyright on any crazy thing, and send a DMCA notice, and effectively reverse the burden of proof for the price of 30 seconds typing.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by crankyspice ( 63953 )

            Actually this is a problem with the DMCA qua DMCA. Anyone can *claim* to own a copyright on any crazy thing, and send a DMCA notice, and effectively reverse the burden of proof for the price of 30 seconds typing.

            The DMCA doesn't shift any burdens of proof. If a DMCA notice takes a piece of content down, the person who posted the content can counter-notify and the ISP, to retain their safe harbor, must reinstate access to the content. The entity making the DMCA notification in the first place must then

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Alsee ( 515537 )
        Copyright infringement over choreography?!!?
        Bring it on! [imdb.com]

        -

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by cfulmer ( 3166 )
        Aha! You can claim it, under the current Copyright Act. However, this guy claims that he invented the electric slide in 1976. But, the current version of copyright law that we have didn't become effective until 1978. His claim of copyright would have come under the 1909 act, which contains no such reference. There are other problems related to the 1909 act as well. If I recall correctly, publication was necessary for protection.

        Even under the 1976 act, it has problems. For example, the fixation requ

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by eric76 ( 679787 )
      The DMCA is about copyrights. You cannot issue a takedown notice for material for which you do not own the copyright.

      I have never seen anything that would make me believe that creating a dance move gives you some kind of copyright over that dance move.

      My understanding is that your DMCA takedown notice requires that you swear under penalties of purjury that you won the copyright in question.

      So what's the penalty for purjury?

      • Re:Another Misleading Article Title (Score:4, Informative)

        by omeomi ( 675045 ) on Sunday February 04, 2007 @11:35PM (#17886162) Homepage
        My understanding is that your DMCA takedown notice requires that you swear under penalties of purjury that you won the copyright in question.

        So what's the penalty for purjury?

        It's not really purjury. Since you're not required to register a work (in the US) in order to have a copyright over it, there is room for some gray area. While it's probably not going to be upheld in court, it would be difficult to prove that he's actually lying when he says he has a copyright on the dance move...he could very well believe that he does. Unless you can show that not only did somebody else do it first, but that he had some prior knowledge that it was done before him...

  • D in DMCA (Score:5, Funny)

    by dotslashdot ( 694478 ) on Sunday February 04, 2007 @10:41PM (#17885708)
    Maybe this guy thought the DMCA was the Dance Millenium Copyright Act and wanted send the dance dance people to sing sing.

  • Dibs on .. (Score:4, Funny)

    by zoid.com ( 311775 ) on Sunday February 04, 2007 @10:42PM (#17885726) Homepage Journal
    the Pogo!

  • I'm going to copyright other motions! (Score:5, Funny)

    by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Sunday February 04, 2007 @10:43PM (#17885738) Homepage
    How about stretching and yawning at the same time! I'll make billions!!!

  • Somebody had to say it... (Score:4, Funny)

    by StikyPad ( 445176 ) on Sunday February 04, 2007 @10:43PM (#17885742) Homepage
    That's just copywrong.

  • YouTube Revenue Share Will Really Make This Bad! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by robotsrule ( 805458 ) * on Sunday February 04, 2007 @10:44PM (#17885752) Homepage
    When YouTube/Google turn on their revenue sharing plan for video makers, this is going to get ugly. One of the tenets for "fair use" is whether or not the use of the copyrighted material was whether the intent was of a commercial nature or not. Once revenue sharing starts, millions of legally "naive" video uploaders are suddenly going to find themselves thrown into the nasty side of the fair use litmus test. Watch how the DMCA takedowns and litigation filings skyrocket once money is involved (as it always does).

    • One of the tenets for "fair use" is whether or not the use of the copyrighted material was whether the intent was of a commercial nature or not. Once revenue sharing starts, millions of legally "naive" video uploaders are suddenly going to find themselves thrown into the nasty side of the fair use litmus test.

      The irony of course is that copyright, a mechanism intended to create a market for creative and intellectual works, effectively discourages participation in that market. The alternative of noncomm

  • The Robot (Score:5, Funny)

    by caller9 ( 764851 ) on Sunday February 04, 2007 @10:46PM (#17885762)
    Should it be patented or copyrighted?
    • Actually you're right on target. Dance moves are a method (albeit arguably a means to their own, not some other end) and as such more suitable for patent than copyright.

      What ought to torpedo this copyright troll is this: independent invention is a complete defense in copyright law. If the alleged infringers can make a plausible argument that they're not doing this guy's dance, but some other dance that happens to resemble it but comes from another source (the dancers' own invention; tradition; or anyone oth

  • Thriller... (Score:4, Funny)

    by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Sunday February 04, 2007 @10:49PM (#17885790)
    I guess that mean we must stop moonwalking all over the place or be sued by Michael Jackson.

  • This is awesome (Score:5, Insightful)

    by greg_barton ( 5551 ) * <greg_barton&yahoo,com> on Sunday February 04, 2007 @10:51PM (#17885806) Homepage Journal
    The more the law is used like this, the more it will be seen as absurd. When the DMCA is used to stomp on uses of technology the wider public can't understand it. When it's used to stop you from being filmed dancing a certain way in public it's understandable by everyone.

  • Minister of Funny Walks (Score:5, Funny)

    by Esion Modnar ( 632431 ) on Sunday February 04, 2007 @10:51PM (#17885814)
    Unavailable for comment.
  • There are something like 2+ million weddings per year in the US. Imagine if every couple-to-be sent a letter to him, asking for permission to tape people doing the dance. Put in something like, "If you do not respond to this request within 30 days, you hereby grant us a royalty-free license to record and distribute representations of the dance in any form, good or bad, electronic or otherwise."

    Let's see him and his lawyers try to answer 6000 letters a day.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by belmolis ( 702863 )

      This trick wouldn't work. He has no obligation or need to respond. If he owns the copyright, unless and until he issues you a license, you're out of luck.

    • Hmm.... Maybe I should start sending "By not hiring me, you are granting me royalty free license to copy and distribute your show" resumes to the producers of BattleStar Galactica, Doctor Who, and a few choice others. It's win-win.

  • Maybe I can copyright the missionary position..... (Score:4, Funny)

    by ip_freely_2000 ( 577249 ) on Sunday February 04, 2007 @10:55PM (#17885852)
    ...but since this is the internet, I'd probably make more money if I copyright the 'Dirty Sanchez', 'Standing up in a shower doing it from behind' and 'Two midgets, a trapeze and the running start'.

  • Nothing to see here... (Score:5, Informative)

    by spiritraveller ( 641174 ) on Sunday February 04, 2007 @10:56PM (#17885856)
    The summary for this story is just weird. The DMCA is just the method of enforcement, because the performance is being displayed online.

    Choreography is just one of the items that are protected by copyright, which is listed in 17 USC 102:

    (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:

    (1) literary works;
    (2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
    (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
    (4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
    (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
    (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
    (7) sound recordings; and
    (8) architectural works.

    This statute was last revised in 1990. The DMCA did not add anything to it. I don't know how long choreography has been protected by copyright, but I would gamble that it's been at least fifty years or so.
    • The question is, are the dance moves encrypted? I thought DMCA was about circumventing digital copyright protection mechanisms, and I don't know how you can even add a copy protect bit to the "electric slide" unless you plug the poor sucker into the wall.

      • [...] and I don't know how you can even add a copy protect bit to the "electric slide" unless you plug the poor sucker into the wall.

        Ummmm... perform it with an erection? ;)

  • Read the bloody article FFS! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Robber Baron ( 112304 ) on Sunday February 04, 2007 @11:00PM (#17885884) Homepage
    He's not trying to stop people from doing the Electric Slide, he's trying to stop people from doing it incorrectly! He's mroe than willing to share the correct steps with everyone!

    Of course trying to drill the correct steps into the thick booze-addled skulls of all the way-behind-the-curve morons that show up at people's weddings and make asses of themselves may be just a much a fool's errand as...well...getting Slashdot idiots to read articles!

    • Re:Read the bloody article FFS! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by belmolis ( 702863 ) <billposer@@@alum...mit...edu> on Sunday February 04, 2007 @11:04PM (#17885916) Homepage

      If people are not doing the correct steps, they are not violating his copyright. He may have a trademark case, since the owner of a trademark can compel people not to use his trademark incorrectly, but if his complaint is inaccuracy he has no copyright case.

    • Anyway, no one is doing it incorrectly, they're just doing a different dance that *looks like* the electric slide, so he should just shut the fuck up.
    • He wants people to do The Electric Slide "correctly" aka his way, because if they don't do his copyrighted dance then he can't sue companies like Oprah, Ellen, Movies, local communities doing a dance to pay him royalty fees. This is about money. Make no mistake about it. And he is hard up for it too. He is out to claim that any line dancing done to the song "The Electric Slide" is HIS line dance. I say B.S.
    • so cant they just claim they are not doign the electric slide since they are not doing it correctly (ie they are doing something different)

      he just show himself in the foot.

  • A quick youtube search (Score:3, Funny)

    by CaffeineAddict2001 ( 518485 ) on Sunday February 04, 2007 @11:00PM (#17885886)
    makes me wish the electric slide was suddenly turned into the electric water slide.

  • It's? (Score:2, Funny)

    by momerath2003 ( 606823 ) *
    I'm tagging this with "apostrophe." Slashdot editors, gb2hs.
  • Wouldn't that mean that it was public domain for 26 years?
    Wouldn't it also mean that all of those people who were "doing it wrong" weren't really doing *his* dance, but another one that's strikingly similiar?

    Does he really have a floor to dance on? I can't imagine that he does. If so, then I'm going to copyright the "coreography" of copywriting bad dances 26 years after the fact. Then I can send a C&D to him and tell him he can't copyright his crappy dance.
    Note: Terms used, such as "crappy dance" a
    • BTW - If "Ice Ice Baby" can be considered to have different music from "Under Pressure" because of 1 minor change to the tempo, then 1 different (or incorrect) step for the "Electric Slide" makes it a completely different dance.

  • Misinformed (Score:2, Interesting)

    by eiscir ( 968749 )
    Long before the DMCA, copyright subsisted in choreography (and thus dance moves) both at a statutory and common law level. I don't have my IP text with me to give cites, but if someone could help out I'd appreciate it.
  • If they didn't do it correctly, then wouldn't that mean they DID NOT do the electric slide and at worse just made themselves look like an ass by doing it wrong? I don't think this guy has a leg to stand on here.

    In case he does, how much does that guy who whacks people in the back of the knees charge anyway? I have some business for him. Break a leg indeed!
  • Hopefully it'll put an end to the Macarena.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday February 04, 2007 @11:09PM (#17885954)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Moonwalk, eh? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 )
    Next up, the Funky Chicken, the moonwalk, and the Hustle?

    Michael Jackson has patented the melting nose.
         
    • Michael Jackson has patented the melting nose.

      Actually he was denied on the basis of prior art. The Phantom of the Opera predates his claim and Lon Chaney never copyrighted it so his new style of nose falls under public domain. Same holds true if he decides to add a hump.

  • And another thing... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JumperCable ( 673155 ) on Sunday February 04, 2007 @11:15PM (#17886002)
    Has anyone else noticed that he is using that clip of copyrighted characters on his website doing line dancing. How much do you want to bet he doesn't have permission from the copyright holders to show that. Also, the music he has on line, the video he has on-line and THE VIDEO HE IS SELLING all contain the song The Electric Slide which he is NOT the copyright holder for.

    One quick call to the RIAA and he is done for. Fight fire with Fire.

    The only sad part is that I find myself defending line-dancing of any kind.
  • What was the original intention of copyright laws? Wasn't it to prevent people from gaining from other people's works?

  • Ultimate Irony (Score:3, Insightful)

    by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Sunday February 04, 2007 @11:19PM (#17886030) Journal

    The ultimate irony would be if the videographer claimed copyright, the way so many wedding photographers do, and went after him for having a copy of the video. I haven't heard much about it lately, but apparently it is *really* difficult to find a wedding photographer who will simply take his fee and turn over the digital files and/or negatives. I once scanned my parent's wedding photo, and it occured to me that if I were to actually try and legally comply with copyright, I would have to locate the photographer in another state. He took the picture 50 years ago. He's probably dead. I'd have to find his heirs. Needless to say, I "pirated" my parent's wedding picture. Come and get me!

    Now, I'm not war3z kiddie. I'm actually in favor of intellectual property as a concept (legal mumbo-jumbo about it not being property? feh!). Howeve, when it fails the "common sense" test in such an obvious way, you have to employ something called "judgement". Hopefully, that's what the judge will do, and pencil whip this silliness right ouf of court.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gmack ( 197796 )

      Doesn't that qualify as a "work for hire?

      Works Made for Hire. -- (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by the

  • If the choreography for the dance is copyrighted and they are doing it "wrong", then they aren't actually copying the copyrighted material, so copyright infringement can't apply.
  • As most people are shithouse dancers, especially when they've had a skinful at a wedding, just claim a personal performance/recording thereof as a parody: fair use, right?

  • Prior Enforcement (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dangerz ( 540904 )
    Has he enforced his copyright before? I'm doubting it. Don't people have to show proof that they've done their best making sure noone violates their copyright in order to be able to keep it?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by ocelotbob ( 173602 )
      No. Copyright can be selectively enforced; no need to show due diligence. However, this copyright may be bogus for other reasons, especially considering that pre-1978 choreography copyrights are a lot more stringent, and Mr. Silver probably didn't do most of the steps needed.
  • God bless you, Mr. Schultz, for your tireless counter-proliferation efforts! I long suspected that you, like Einstein and the atomic bomb, forever regretted the evil you loosed upon an unsuspecting world.

    With a little help from the US legal system, we may yet destroy the menace to society that is the Electric Slide.

    -Isaac

  • If only (Score:2, Funny)

    by bsytko ( 851179 )
    If only they did this with the Macarena.

  • Finally a reason to revisit the question of DMCA (Score:3)

    by Ace905 ( 163071 ) on Sunday February 04, 2007 @11:45PM (#17886224) Homepage
    This is awesome, it looks like the 'inventor' of the electric slide is actually serious but no matter ; we need something this ridiculous for the courts to go, "oh wait, maybe that was retarded of us to pass that ridiculous legislation in the first place". My only complaint about the whole thing is that the case itself, as the article points out - is on shaky ground solely because the videos may fall under fair-use rights.

    The problem is that you can copyright a dance (any damned dance) in the first place. I'm going to go copyright 20 different punches, kicks and acrobatic moves then get paid by every single kung-fu movie producer in the world. This is totally ridiculous.

    The best quote from the article, " I don't want future generations having to learn it wrong and then relearn it as I am being faced with now ". Seriously? This guy's got to be a complete idiot. Like this would ever be a scenario:

    "Hi there guy that invented the electric slide. Wow, I'd love to take dance lessons from you"
    "Great, let's get started - I'm going to show you the electric slide"
    "Ohhh, I don't need to learn that one - I already know how to do it"
    "show me"......... "you're doing it wrong"
    "Oh MY GOD! WRONG? NOW I HAVE TO LEARN IT ALL OVER AGAIN!"

    moron.

    ---
    The Electric Slide Performed Correctly [douginadress.com]

  • Electric Slide Video as posted by inventor (Score:4, Informative)

    by Ace905 ( 163071 ) on Sunday February 04, 2007 @11:48PM (#17886240) Homepage
    If anybody is wondering, the quote unquote correct way to perform The Electric Slide is available here [douginadress.com].

  • Get a meme going then slap down the people expressing the meme. Eventually you'll piss off enough people to get the DMCA gutted.

  • He Doesn't Own It! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mattwolf7 ( 633112 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @12:57AM (#17886684)
    From his Tripod website

    "Longchamps, owners of Beefsteak Charlie's, opened a disco called Vamps on Broadway between 70th and 71st in the fall of 1975 and had an advertisement running in "BackStage" for bartenders and waiters. I needed a job at the time and applied for a position. When they say my resume and found that I was a professional dancer they asked me to give the opening night party. They hired a professional party giver, who did Neil Sedaka's Birthday, to give the Saturday Night Party and one of the girls from the Longchamps office gave the Sunday Night 'Black' Party with Leontine Price and Wilt Chamberland. My party was the only party that made money for the staff as well as the restaurant and when the clientel started dropping off a few months later they asked me to give another party only they wanted me to create a new dance and premier the dance at this party. I created "The Electric Slide" as the song had just come out and had a great beat and as I had already created "The Electric Weeble", it seemed the obvious next step. After only a few weeks of teaching the dance, I tore the cartilege in my right knee while demonstrating some of the variations of the dance and was operated on through Workmen's Compensation and was laid up for over a year. It wasn't until 6 or 8 years later that I realized how far the dance had gone and that my worst fears had come true. Every night I would tell the patrons - this dance has 3 threes, 2 twos, a One and a Hop, but I'm sure that someone is going to forget a step and try to square this dance off into 4/4 timing - It is not supposed to start on ONE every time. That is what makes this dance unique - but someone did square it off and want it to start on the downbeat and incorrectly told someone who told someone and all of a sudden - everyone is doing the dance, but they are not doing it correctly. I have spent MANY YEARS trying to correct this and until recently had given up on ever getting it right. - BUT then came the internet and now I am working to correct this wrong."

    Ric Silver was injured that night, and was put on NY Workers Comp WC Case 0763-6911 6/17/76, and in the documentation listed on his website it clearly says he was an employee of VAMPS, meaning that he created it because he was asked by his boss. Therefore he doesn't own the dance moves http://ric06379.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/site builderpictures/ll.jpg [tripod.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Compulawyer ( 318018 )
      It's not that simple. His employer only owns it if he assigned it to his employer or if it is a work made for hire [copyright.gov] under the Copyright Act of 1976. Among other things, the Act requires a written agreement that the work is made for hire. The documents posted there do not include enough information to determine.

  • Interesting ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Compulawyer ( 318018 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @01:00AM (#17886702)
    ... that someone complaining of copyright violations has a webpage [the-electr...edance.com] that depicts 4 cartoon characters dancing to music - and one of those characters is pretty clearly Spiderman. Last I had heard, Spiderman is copyrighted by Marvel Characters, Inc. (Marvel Comics). I wonder if Mr. Ric Silver got a license from Marvel to use the Spiderman character? Someone who cares about enforcing copyrights in his work must surely respect copyrights owned by others and not use copyrighted works of others without permission. I looked but could not find any licensing information on this page or his personal homepage [tripod.com]. I even used the search engine on the the-electricslidedance.com webpage to search for the word "license" but unfortunately got no results returned.

    Also, his webpage (and personal homepage [tripod.com] each play a sound recording of a song I believe is called (warning: iTunes link)"Electric Boogie" by Marcia Griffiths [apple.com]. I can't help but wonder if Mr. Silver has a license from ASCAP, BMI, or whichever entity may be responsible for enforcing the copyright for this sound recording.

    As long as I am pointing out these types of things, on Mr. Silver's homepage [tripod.com] is a graphical representation of a copyright symbol (the "circle-c" symbol) that looks remarkably similar to the one on the webpage of the U.S. Copyright Office.

    In a line in the song "Electric Boogie" the singer says, "Oooooh .. shocking!" Are these facts shocking? Not to me. But very interesting. At least in my humble opinion.

  • It is most definately a copyrightable work (Score:4, Informative)

    by westonweb ( 1059988 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @01:15AM (#17886800)
    The Electric Slide is made up of 1 unit of choreagraphy known as a phrase. Mostly these "phrases" are meant to match a specific phrase structure of a particular set of music. In general a phrase is 32 beats of music. The electric slide is a 32 beat phrase with an extra 4 beat rhythm break. Through the process of doing the dance the dancer starts facing one wall. At the end of the phrase the choreagrapher incorporated a 90 degree turn. So that by the time you have completed the phrase 4 times you will end up facing the same wall that you started in. Rinse and Repeat till the song ends. It is the dancing equivalent of a for loop.

    Whoever choreagraphed this little peace of nostalgic heaven did a brilliant job. The dance is so easy that any grandma can do it in only a few minutes. She feels as if she is dancing just as well as the rest of the cool and hip people on the dance floor. She is getting exorcise. The younger set gets a lot of chances to be creative within the dances structure, yet still be part of a group.

    In the late 70's and mid 80's a concurrence of events in American pop-culture created an environement that made this dance popular. The late 70's marked the end of the "hustle-era" and the mid 80's marked the "urban-cowboy" era. Line dancing was not extremely popular with the hustle dancing set but was just catching on when "Disco" was collectively pronounced dead by the American zeitgest. About the same time John Travolta again made a splash with his movie Urban Cowboy and a new dancing fad was born. Two-stepping and Line-dancing at the local "honky-tonk" was all the rage. The easiest of all the dances to learn was the Electric Slide. Soon after this confluence of events every budding dance teacher across the country rushed to put out content on the new hot medium of the day... Video Tape. I still see the dance prominently displayed on DVD's in the dollar bin at Half Priced Books all the time. The Electric Slide was in the right place at the right time to become the most popular line dance in history.

    In my mind there is no question that the choreagraphy is indeed something worthy of being copyrighted. On the other hand it is quite debatable whether or not it has any real value. I don't know copyright law. But I can say that if I was faced with the decision of paying a liscence fee to the choreagrapher, I will just make up my own 32 beat phrase with a 1 quarter turn at the end and call it The Erotic Bump instead. It isn't that hard to do. For an overview of where line dancing is today view this link.... http://www.ucwdc.org/competition/linedances.shtm [ucwdc.org] where you will find that not one of the choreagraphers is paid for their efforts. In the meantime Im going to go out to the salsa club and do the Macarena

  • I'm torn. (Score:4, Funny)

    by RyuuzakiTetsuya ( 195424 ) <taiki@co x . net> on Monday February 05, 2007 @01:24AM (#17886864)
    What's he's doing isn't *clearly* right or wrong.

    Wrong: He's getting litigious for no good reason.

    Right: He's trying to stop people from doing The Electric Slide.

Slashdot Top Deals

You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.

Close