Can fight choreography be copyrighted?
- Thread starter that1guyy
- Start date
A few moves? Yes. But this is a relatively interesting question -- how far can one get away with an exact copy of a physical performance (non-verbal) . . . I wonder.
Dance choreography can. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl119.html
Why not fight choreography?
From STUDY NO. 28 COPYRIGHT IN CHOREOGRAPHIC WORKS By BORGE VARMER October 1959
A dance created for theatrical performance may be comparable to a drama to be spoken and
acted, or a musical composition to be per* formed, as an art form by which thought or feeling
is conveyed to an audience,"
Herein lies an essential distinction between those relatively simple dances, such as the steps of
a ballroom or other social dance, devised primarily for the enjoyment of the dancers themselves..
and those more intricate dances, such as ballets, devised for execution by skilled performers for
the enjoyment of an audience. "Choreographic work" is commonly understood as referring to
the latter.
Why not fight choreography?
From STUDY NO. 28 COPYRIGHT IN CHOREOGRAPHIC WORKS By BORGE VARMER October 1959
A dance created for theatrical performance may be comparable to a drama to be spoken and
acted, or a musical composition to be per* formed, as an art form by which thought or feeling
is conveyed to an audience,"
Herein lies an essential distinction between those relatively simple dances, such as the steps of
a ballroom or other social dance, devised primarily for the enjoyment of the dancers themselves..
and those more intricate dances, such as ballets, devised for execution by skilled performers for
the enjoyment of an audience. "Choreographic work" is commonly understood as referring to
the latter.
Thanks for the feedback. I suppose copying a a full fight scene down exactly to the details is a little sketchy but I should be fine using a few moves and sequences.
I saw this cool scene someone did so I wondered:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TjU_niLiQo&feature=youtu.be
And there's also environmental type fight scenes where the people fighting interact with the environment. There's many movies that do this, but an example I love is Bourne, where they use objects around them as weapons, a book, a towel, a pen, a lamp, etc.
I saw this cool scene someone did so I wondered:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TjU_niLiQo&feature=youtu.be
And there's also environmental type fight scenes where the people fighting interact with the environment. There's many movies that do this, but an example I love is Bourne, where they use objects around them as weapons, a book, a towel, a pen, a lamp, etc.
^
Yes. Any type of choreography can be copyrighted. But chances are the original company won't hunt you down and sue you. However, just be weary of coming off as a rip off. I don't think it's impossible for you to come up with choreography that's just as riveting. The reason why those guys have such good fight scenes up are because: they can perform/sell the choreography well and it's shot nicely.
I've choreographed a few dance and fight scenes. I sure as hell wouldn't want someone copying my stuff. But broader concepts (using the environment around you) are perfectly fine to do. I guess copying in the beginning can be a way to learn the craft, but I think in the long run it's no way to go.
Yes. Any type of choreography can be copyrighted. But chances are the original company won't hunt you down and sue you. However, just be weary of coming off as a rip off. I don't think it's impossible for you to come up with choreography that's just as riveting. The reason why those guys have such good fight scenes up are because: they can perform/sell the choreography well and it's shot nicely.
I've choreographed a few dance and fight scenes. I sure as hell wouldn't want someone copying my stuff. But broader concepts (using the environment around you) are perfectly fine to do. I guess copying in the beginning can be a way to learn the craft, but I think in the long run it's no way to go.
just don't rip off the entire fight...
but using moves from it, is not a problem... ways of moving the body can't be copyrighted, trademarked and the likes...
an entire fight scene, is like a scene from a script, or a full dance from a music video... but noone can touch you if you use single words, single moves, single dance steps from them...
but using moves from it, is not a problem... ways of moving the body can't be copyrighted, trademarked and the likes...
an entire fight scene, is like a scene from a script, or a full dance from a music video... but noone can touch you if you use single words, single moves, single dance steps from them...
I would suggest seeking independent legal advice from an intellectual property lawyer. They may charge for a half-hour consultation, but it's worth it, though I'm biased.
If it's taking a few cool techniques from a movie fight scene you loved - Go for it - the top fight choreographers do it all the time -
When a choreographer pitches a fight scene he'll often shoot previes with stunt guys or fight guys, and use angles he likes to show the director what he has planned, often with moves and angles inspired, or lifted from other movies, the director will quote cool moves he has liked from other movies, it's part of the grammar.
(This was my bread and butter before pursuing the far less reliable career of a director)
Any particular performer, stunt or actor will bring a different physical element to a technique, a different camera angle or film speed will also change it.
I worked on three movies in a row a few years ago, where every director wanted the Brad Pitt jumping lunge from "Troy" - for his actor, we would laugh every-time we went to rehearse - it became an inside joke. If you watch action films from early 2000, you will know the move, everyone started using it (and still do.)
The other one is the Bruce Lee call forward, from the stance, turn you hand palm up up and encourage your opponent forward with a couple of finger movements.
After Bourne, EVERYONE wanted that style of close combat - watch the behind the scenes, it's really tough to make that style look cinematic.
I worked on the first Charlie's Angels film, and Cheung-Yan Yuen and McG were watching Cheung's old movies on set and choosing techniques to use.
For a woman, the Haywire, hook around the male opponents neck, take down - cannot recall how many times this has now been used now - I have used it in one of my films, it works and is cool, be inspired - try to think outside the box, but the truth is real fights are awe inspiringly dull, so we look to movies or dance, gymnastics.
If you want to plagiarize a great fight scene in its entirety, camera angles, set dressing and performances, then that is a different matter, artistic integrity and motivation would be called into question - but, it's worth remembering, these scenes, especially the great ones are bloody hard to do well - so good luck.
Pit.
When a choreographer pitches a fight scene he'll often shoot previes with stunt guys or fight guys, and use angles he likes to show the director what he has planned, often with moves and angles inspired, or lifted from other movies, the director will quote cool moves he has liked from other movies, it's part of the grammar.
(This was my bread and butter before pursuing the far less reliable career of a director)
Any particular performer, stunt or actor will bring a different physical element to a technique, a different camera angle or film speed will also change it.
I worked on three movies in a row a few years ago, where every director wanted the Brad Pitt jumping lunge from "Troy" - for his actor, we would laugh every-time we went to rehearse - it became an inside joke. If you watch action films from early 2000, you will know the move, everyone started using it (and still do.)
The other one is the Bruce Lee call forward, from the stance, turn you hand palm up up and encourage your opponent forward with a couple of finger movements.
After Bourne, EVERYONE wanted that style of close combat - watch the behind the scenes, it's really tough to make that style look cinematic.
I worked on the first Charlie's Angels film, and Cheung-Yan Yuen and McG were watching Cheung's old movies on set and choosing techniques to use.
For a woman, the Haywire, hook around the male opponents neck, take down - cannot recall how many times this has now been used now - I have used it in one of my films, it works and is cool, be inspired - try to think outside the box, but the truth is real fights are awe inspiringly dull, so we look to movies or dance, gymnastics.
If you want to plagiarize a great fight scene in its entirety, camera angles, set dressing and performances, then that is a different matter, artistic integrity and motivation would be called into question - but, it's worth remembering, these scenes, especially the great ones are bloody hard to do well - so good luck.
Pit.
I know this is a pretty old thread. Thank you for the thread it really helped me understanding it a bit more.
As always I'll preface my comments with the usual I'm not a professional at this by any stretch of the imagination, and I beg forgiveness from the professionals in advance.
I have been, especially since I began my career in the film aspect of the entertainment industry, a fan of commentaries and BTS. There is comparatively little out there for Sound-For-Picture folks like myself. Consequently I go through all of it. Although there are a few gems like Randy Thom discussing discussing "Forrest Gump" and the marvelous BTS with Ben Burtt on the "Wall E" DVD, with some fine vids on YouTube, I have been forced to search for those informative nuggets in the rest of the extra content.
One of my favorite films is "The Adventures Of Robin Hood," (1938), the movie that codified and set the standard for action/adventure films for years to come. Richard Behlmer, during his excellent commentary (worth a listen; it's nice insight into the workings of the studio system during Hollywood's golden age) relayed a number of things from stunt coordinator and sword-master Fred Cravens. The first was the difference between reality and entertainment. In cinematic fighting the duelers exaggerate their moves, which telegraphs their intent, contrary to actual sword fighting techniques. The second was that Basil Rathbone was the best film duelist Cravens had ever seen, and could have been a professional if he had chosen that career path. The same was said of Viggo Mortensen regarding both sword and horse in the "Lord Of The Rings" BTS.
This sort of stuff always sends me down the rabbit hole. What interested me - and the pros can correct me if I'm wrong - is that in the day of heavy swords and large shields the first blows were to check your opponents style and strength, then proceeded to a proscribed sequence of moves, to which there was an established counter. You then used a new sequence. The swordsman either found a sequence, his opponent did not know, used a unique variation in an existing pattern, or simply wore his opponent down in a test of endurance until his foe was vulnerable to a killing strike. New work (happily) arrived at this point and I was unable to follow the rabbit further.
We've all seen boxers do the same thing; they throw a few punches at the head and a couple at the body as tests, then move on to a sequence of punches. Pitchers use sequences in baseball; if they can accomplish what they want these sequences and their variations can fool the batter. ("Field of Dreams" - "...but watch out for in your ear."
) I learned similar things myself when I wrestled in junior high school; if he does this you do that.
I don't know if it applies to combat sports, but it seems to me that things are almost formalized in some way. The point of all this is that I don't believe you can cinematically copyright the formalized sequences, but rather that it is the interpretation that can be copyrighted. Aside from the films value in and of itself - cinematography, set design, etc. - it is the sequence of sequences, the unique approach to what is previously established. From my music background... You cannot copywrite a chord sequence or a scale or and interval. As an example, the interval of root note and the major fifth above it. Duuuuu Daaaaa. It is the variations - the interpretation - that can be copywritten. Imagine a stereotypical horn call (like from Robin Hood); Duuu Du Du Daaaaaa versus Du Daaaaa Du Daa Du Daa Du Daaaaaaaaaaa. It has even been argued, quite vociferously, even in courtrooms, that simply changing the key, even if it's the same pattern and tempo, is enough to avoid infringement. And even in the courts those issues are up to the interpretation of the lawyers, their experts and the jury.
As a musician I, like so many others, learned the basics and the "traditional" songs. I played literally hundreds of copy/cover songs in my career. When I got into the studio I would take all that - you are trying to make hit songs, right? - and would use currently popular things and put my own personal spin on it.
Th whole point of all this meandering drivel is that it's all about creating a unique interpretation of established norms. Take a section from this film, another from that one, etc. and create something of your own.
If you are copying just to learn that's great too, but is an entirely different issue.
I hope that this has helped.
I have been, especially since I began my career in the film aspect of the entertainment industry, a fan of commentaries and BTS. There is comparatively little out there for Sound-For-Picture folks like myself. Consequently I go through all of it. Although there are a few gems like Randy Thom discussing discussing "Forrest Gump" and the marvelous BTS with Ben Burtt on the "Wall E" DVD, with some fine vids on YouTube, I have been forced to search for those informative nuggets in the rest of the extra content.
One of my favorite films is "The Adventures Of Robin Hood," (1938), the movie that codified and set the standard for action/adventure films for years to come. Richard Behlmer, during his excellent commentary (worth a listen; it's nice insight into the workings of the studio system during Hollywood's golden age) relayed a number of things from stunt coordinator and sword-master Fred Cravens. The first was the difference between reality and entertainment. In cinematic fighting the duelers exaggerate their moves, which telegraphs their intent, contrary to actual sword fighting techniques. The second was that Basil Rathbone was the best film duelist Cravens had ever seen, and could have been a professional if he had chosen that career path. The same was said of Viggo Mortensen regarding both sword and horse in the "Lord Of The Rings" BTS.
This sort of stuff always sends me down the rabbit hole. What interested me - and the pros can correct me if I'm wrong - is that in the day of heavy swords and large shields the first blows were to check your opponents style and strength, then proceeded to a proscribed sequence of moves, to which there was an established counter. You then used a new sequence. The swordsman either found a sequence, his opponent did not know, used a unique variation in an existing pattern, or simply wore his opponent down in a test of endurance until his foe was vulnerable to a killing strike. New work (happily) arrived at this point and I was unable to follow the rabbit further.
We've all seen boxers do the same thing; they throw a few punches at the head and a couple at the body as tests, then move on to a sequence of punches. Pitchers use sequences in baseball; if they can accomplish what they want these sequences and their variations can fool the batter. ("Field of Dreams" - "...but watch out for in your ear."
) I learned similar things myself when I wrestled in junior high school; if he does this you do that.I don't know if it applies to combat sports, but it seems to me that things are almost formalized in some way. The point of all this is that I don't believe you can cinematically copyright the formalized sequences, but rather that it is the interpretation that can be copyrighted. Aside from the films value in and of itself - cinematography, set design, etc. - it is the sequence of sequences, the unique approach to what is previously established. From my music background... You cannot copywrite a chord sequence or a scale or and interval. As an example, the interval of root note and the major fifth above it. Duuuuu Daaaaa. It is the variations - the interpretation - that can be copywritten. Imagine a stereotypical horn call (like from Robin Hood); Duuu Du Du Daaaaaa versus Du Daaaaa Du Daa Du Daa Du Daaaaaaaaaaa. It has even been argued, quite vociferously, even in courtrooms, that simply changing the key, even if it's the same pattern and tempo, is enough to avoid infringement. And even in the courts those issues are up to the interpretation of the lawyers, their experts and the jury.
As a musician I, like so many others, learned the basics and the "traditional" songs. I played literally hundreds of copy/cover songs in my career. When I got into the studio I would take all that - you are trying to make hit songs, right? - and would use currently popular things and put my own personal spin on it.
Th whole point of all this meandering drivel is that it's all about creating a unique interpretation of established norms. Take a section from this film, another from that one, etc. and create something of your own.
If you are copying just to learn that's great too, but is an entirely different issue.
I hope that this has helped.
Last edited: