Wedding Attendees Worldwide Rejoice: Electric Slide Legal To Use Again

from the DMCA-abuse dept

Remember how the (disputed) creator of the annoying "Electric Slide" dance had been issuing DMCA takedown notices to anyone who put up videos of people doing a version of the dance? The EFF stepped in and sued the guy for abusing the DMCA. It appears that someone finally sat down the guy and explained to him how the law works and he's now agreed to not just back away from his DMCA threats, but also to "license" the dance for non-commercial use via a Creative Commons license. Of course, this is still somewhat problematic. Why should anyone need to license the dance from him? While it sounds nice that he's offering a CC license, doesn't that just reinforce the idea that he can actually tell people how they can dance?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Poster, May 22nd, 2007 @ 8:00pm

    This is why any sort of movement of the human body should not be allowed to be patented.

    And that includes the movements that result in idiotic BS like this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    dorpus, May 22nd, 2007 @ 8:26pm

    Theory and Reality

    There is a difference between what legal theory says and how it is practiced. In theory, doctors have the right to take anyone who signs the driver's license for organ donation and do as they please with the body. In practice, hospitals seek family permission (even though it is not required).

    A propagandist blog like this will quote legal theory out of context and confuse it with reality, arguing that doctors are abducting babies or whatever.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 22nd, 2007 @ 9:02pm

    Re: Theory and Reality

    Um, what does that have to do with this? Last time I checked taking organs and dancing were different things...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 22nd, 2007 @ 9:09pm

    Dorpus, please go away ! ! !

    "arguing that doctors are abducting babies or whatever"... now THAT would be a "propagandist blog". I searched all over TechDirt for a reference to what you are speaking of, and haven't found anything even closely related to it. But in the replies, I see plenty of times where a user named "Dorpus" mentions several random "propagandist" (thpugh, I think the correct term you mean is "conspiracy") ideas such as the ones you just mentioned.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 22nd, 2007 @ 9:59pm

    Dorpus is the resident troll - ignore him.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Charles Griswold, May 22nd, 2007 @ 10:35pm

    Re:

    Dorpus is the resident troll - ignore him.
    Heres's a poster I made in his honor.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    ReallyEvilCanine, May 22nd, 2007 @ 11:40pm

    License

    Why should anyone need to license the dance from him?


    Because the entire dance -- these particular moves in this particular order -- was a creative work, like a ballet only shorter. His copyright doesn't prevent people dancing any of the component steps, not even if they do it in the order he copyrighted. His copyright is for works featuring that set of moves termed "Electric Slide", a misnomer of the original dance, The Electric, ©1976.


    Choreography can be copyrighted. Paid performances must be licensed, subject to (the precious few) copyright limitations. As I understand it, he has no claim against any person or group spontaneously dancing the Electric, only against the commercial use of this dance. He might have something to say if one of Clear Channel's CW radio stations held an Electric Slide contest, but there's not much he can do when a bunch of good ol' boys and gals decide to start Sliding on a Friday night after a few rounds.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    ButnSkala, May 23rd, 2007 @ 1:34am

    Goal Celebration Patented

    I don't know wheter this is urban legend or not. It was much publicized in the Europe that Alan Shearer patented his goal celebration so no footballer could celebrate goals like he did. So I guess it is possible. It's not something I like that's certain.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    ReallyEvilCanine, May 23rd, 2007 @ 2:23am

    I don't know wheter this is urban legend or not... So I guess it is possible.
    Umm... no. Unless you can find some citation, that's bollox. I live in Yerp, I can't find a thing about this, and no one I know who follows footie has heard of anything so preposterous, and they're pretty rabid fans.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Cixelsid, May 23rd, 2007 @ 5:34am

    Just to let everybody know

    I'm patenting the "Electric Slide2: Eclectic Boogaloo"[1]. Its a magical fusion of soul, hip-hop and Morris Dancing.


    [1] That is the full trademarked name and not to be used by: (a) Haters.
    (b) Richard Silver.
    (c) Anyone who has some self respect.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    ehrichweiss, May 23rd, 2007 @ 6:14am

    Re: Theory and Reality

    "In practice, hospitals seek family permission (even though it is not required)."


    No, it IS required unless they would like to face a multi-million dollar malpractice suit. It only takes a family that is deeply religious and doesn't believe in organ donation, even if the victim did, to make it a reality. I know of many similar cases thanks to my wife having worked for a settlement group.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 23rd, 2007 @ 6:21pm

    Re: License

    there's not much he can do when a bunch of good ol' boys and gals decide to start Sliding on a Friday night after a few rounds.
    Hmmm, didn't you just get through saying "Choreography can be copyrighted"? So are you also saying then that copyrights don't apply on Friday nights or what? I call BS.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 23rd, 2007 @ 6:29pm

    Is a CC License a Cover?

    I wonder if I could claim copyright on the King James Bible but then just put a liberal license on it to avoid any legal challenges. It seems that the EFF would be fine with that approach.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Charles Griswold, May 23rd, 2007 @ 8:31pm

    Re: Is a CC License a Cover?

    I wonder if I could claim copyright on the King James Bible but then just put a liberal license on it to avoid any legal challenges. It seems that the EFF would be fine with that approach.
    No, you can't claim copyright on the King James Bible. Not unless you wrote it, anyway.

    But, since it's in the Public Domain, you could take the text, add stuff (study notes or whatever) and copyright the result. That would protect your (presumably) enhanced version, but not (of course) the original version.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 23rd, 2007 @ 9:04pm

    Re: Re: Is a CC License a Cover?

    No, you can't claim copyright on the King James Bible. Not unless you wrote it, anyway.
    Why not? It worked for the electric slide guy. And who's gonna sue me, the EFF? All they want is to see a CC license on it, or so it seems from this case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Charles Griswold, May 24th, 2007 @ 7:43pm

    Re: Re: Re: Is a CC License a Cover?

    Why not? It worked for the electric slide guy. And who's gonna sue me, the EFF? All they want is to see a CC license on it, or so it seems from this case.
    You can't copyright the King James Bible 1) because it's very much in the public domain and 2) because it was published in 1611, which means that unless you were born sometime in the sixteenth century, you didn't write it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This