ABSTRACT
The world of dance and law are highly complex, but still their intersection is underexplored. This research studies the intricate application of intellectual property law on dance, examining the rights of performers and artists in countries like India, USA and Japan. It further analyses case laws that have questioned the copyrights that are available to dancers. This research also studies two grey areas in this context: the lack of inclusion of classical dances in copyright protection and the increasing digital presence of dancers that raises questions upon the ownership of the dances. Finally, this research recommends changes that can be brought about in this sphere in order for it to grow.
KEYWORDS:Intellectual Property, Copyright, Dance, Choreography, Performers
INTRODUCTION
In the world of artistic expression, dance occupies an important position as a distinctive mode of communication. Much like music or literature, it enables individuals to express themselves without the use of language, using bodily movements to reflect ideas and emotions. Its ephemeral nature[1], the fact that it exists only in performance and is not a tangible object, presents both a challenge and admiration. Therefore, choreographers play a vital role as artists, influencing the way dance develops and connects with its audience. Consequently, choreography goes beyond merely arranging movements—it represents the creation of a meaningful artistic expression that adds to the broader cultural and creative fabric[2]. Owing to this importance, it is imperative to provide a sort of legal protection to choreographers. This legal protection is provided through intellectual property law.
Meaning of Intellectual Property
Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind, everything from works of art to inventions, computer programs to trademarks and other commercial signs.[3]
Why do we need IP? As a result, choreographers hold an essential place as creative artists, shaping the evolution of dance and its relationship with the audience. Thus, choreography is more than just organizing steps—it is a form of artistic expression that contributes significantly to the cultural and creative landscape.[4]
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A doctrinal research methodology has been applied, relying primarily on the study of statutory provisions, case laws, and scholarly writings. This research analyses national laws like the Indian Copyright Act of 1957 and compares it with the legal systems of Japan and the United States, with a particular emphasis on how each country acknowledges and safeguards choreographic works through their respective intellectual property, especially copyright, laws.
A number of case laws have been analysed to understand how courts have interpreted and applied intellectual property rights to dance performances and choreography.
Secondary sources including academic articles, books, and reports have been used to supplement statutory interpretation and to identify emerging trends.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The existing literature on the intersection of intellectual property and dance is limited and largely focused on copyright law, often ignoring other forms such as trademarks or design rights. Scholars like Susan Leigh Foster have noted the challenge of applying copyright law to dance due to its transient and performative nature[5]. In the U.S., legal writings explore how choreography qualifies for copyright under the 1976 Act, provided it is original and fixed in a tangible form.[6]
In India, the Copyright Act, 1957 includes choreographic works under “dramatic works” (Section 2(h))[7], but literature offering practical insights into how this applies to Indian classical dance is scarce. Much of Indian scholarship highlights the ambiguity around fixation requirements[8], particularly for orally transmitted dance forms.
There is also a notable gap in literature addressing emerging issues such as AI-generated choreography[9] or digital misuse of dance performances. Overall, the current body of work lacks comprehensive analysis and comparative perspectives, leaving space for further research into broader and evolving aspects of dance and IP law.
COPYRIGHTS IN INDIA
Ever heard of ownership of a particular movement. That is what copyright in dance is all about. Copyright or author’s right is a legal protection given to people who create original works like books, songs, paintings, films, or scientific research. It gives the creator the exclusive right to control how their work is used, shared, or reproduced.
In India, dance moves are considered as “choreographic works” and are protectable under Section 2(h) of the Copyright Act, 1957 as “dramatic work”. Section 2(h) of the Copyright Act says that:
“(h) “dramatic work” includes any piece of recitation, choreographic work or entertainment in dumb show, the scenic arrangement or acting, form of which is fixed in writing or otherwise but does not include a cinematograph film”[10]
The essence of this clause is that any choreography that has been reduced to writing can be counted as a dramatic work. Though the word ‘otherwise’ introduces ambiguity, it has been specifically mentioned that a cinematograph film will not be included in dramatic work.
A choreographic performance that has been recorded or written down, and is not included in a cinematograph film, meets the legal requirements to be considered a dramatic work. A question as to what all is part of the cinematograph film arises which can be answered through Section 2 (f) [11] of the copyrights act which states that:
“cinematograph film” means any work of visual recording and includes a sound recording accompanying such visual recording and “cinematograph” shall be construed as including any work produced by any process analogous to cinematography including video films”
IN THE JAPANESE AND AMERICAN CONTEXT
Japan
In Japan, choreography is legally recognised as a form of creative expression and is protected under the country’s copyright law. As per Article 10 of the Japanese Copyright Act, choreographic and pantomime works are eligible for copyright protection if they are original and fixed in some tangible form[12], such as written notation or video. Once protected, choreographers enjoy a wide range of rights. They can control how their work is performed in public, recorded, adapted, streamed online, or distributed. Beyond these economic rights, Japanese law also gives choreographers strong moral rights, allowing them to decide when and how their work is shared, how their name appears in connection with the work, and to prevent any changes that could distort their original vision. [13] Together, these legal safeguards ensure that dancers and choreographers in Japan not only gain recognition for their creativity but also maintain meaningful control over how their work is used and respected especially in today’s digital world, where performances can be shared instantly across platforms.
USA
In the United States, dance choreography is protected under federal law as “pantomime and choreographic works” as defined by the Copyright Act of 1976.[14] To qualify for copyright protection, choreography must be an original expression fixed in a tangible medium of expression, such as recorded video or documented in written form.[15] While copyright protection is automatic upon creation, registration with the U.S. Copyright Office is essential for gaining legal advantages, including the ability to sue for infringement, claim statutory damages, and recover attorney’s fees. The Copyright Office identifies key elements of copyrightable choreography, such as rhythmic movements in a defined spatial environment, coherent and expressive patterns, thematic expression through movement, and performances with musical or textual accompaniment.[16]
CASE LAWS RELATED TO COPYRIGHTS
- Academy of General Education, Manipal And Anr. V. B. Manini Mallya, 1982
This case centers around a dispute over the copyright of a reimagined form of the traditional Yakshagana dance drama, called Yaksha Ranga, developed by Dr. Kota Shivarama Karanth. Dr. Karanth, a renowned cultural figure and former director of the Academy, devised a unique choreographed style and composed several dramatic prasangas or pieces. Before his death, he executed a will transferring all copyrights and literary works to B. Malini Mallya, acknowledging her long-standing personal and scholarly support. When the appellants performed one of the copyrighted prasangas without permission, Mallya sued for copyright infringement. The Supreme Court addressed the distinction between literary and dramatic works under the Copyright Act, 1957. The core issue was whether the copyright bequeathed to the respondent through Dr. Karanth’s will, which referred primarily to “literary works,” also included his choreographed Yakshagana performances, which are dramatic in nature. The Court clarified that while dramatic works can contain literary elements such as dialogue and scripts, they are legally distinct from literary works. Dramatic works specifically encompass performances like choreography and theatrical expression, provided they are fixed in a tangible form. Although the High Court had ruled that dramatic works were a part of literary works and thus covered by the will, the Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the Copyright Act treats them as separate categories. Nevertheless, the Court found that the residuary clause in Dr. Karanth’s will was broad enough to include dramatic works, thereby upholding the respondent’s claim to copyright over the Yakshagana ballets.[17]
- Bikram’s Yoga Coll. Of India, L.P. v. Evolation Yoga, LLC, 2015
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed whether Bikram Choudhury’s sequence of twenty-six yoga postures and two breathing exercises promoted as the “Bikram Yoga Sequence”, was eligible for copyright protection. The court held that the Sequence, though described and illustrated in a copyrighted book, constituted an unprotectable idea, method, or system under Section 102(b) of the U.S. Copyright Act. Emphasizing the foundational principle of the idea/expression dichotomy, the court reasoned that copyright law protects only the expression of ideas, not the ideas, processes, or functional systems themselves. It further clarified that the Sequence could not be protected as a “compilation” or a “choreographic work,” since its arrangement was primarily functional and aimed at promoting health and fitness, not at expressing a creative or artistic vision. The court underscored that granting copyright protection to a method of physical movement or a healing system would exceed the constitutional scope of copyright and encroach upon the domain of patent law. This ruling affirms the essential balance between encouraging innovation and preserving public access to ideas, especially in contexts like yoga, where sequences are utilitarian and widely shared cultural practices.[18]
- Anupama Mohan v. State of Kerala, 2015
In Anupama Mohan v. State of Kerala, the petitioner, a dance teacher participating in the Kerala State School Kalolsavam, raised concerns over the unauthorized recording and distribution of performances at the festival. She contended that such recordings violated the performers’ rights protected under the Copyright Act, 1957, as the original choreographic and artistic expressions presented during the festival were being circulated without consent. The High Court of Kerala acknowledged the petitioner’s claim regarding copyright protection and observed that the performances of artists constitute original works deserving legal protection. The Court directed the second respondent, the Director of Higher Secondary Education, to consider regulating audio and video recordings of such events and to establish appropriate guidelines, thereby recognizing the need to balance public interest with the intellectual property rights of performing artists.[19]
- Horgan v. MacMillan, Inc., 1986
In Horgan v. Macmillan, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit examined a novel issue in copyright law: whether still photographs of a ballet performance can infringe on the copyright of the ballet’s choreography. The estate of famed choreographer George Balanchine, represented by Barbara Horgan, claimed that a published book containing text and numerous color photographs from the New York City Ballet’s production of The Nutcracker choreographed by Balanchine constituted copyright infringement. The district court had denied a preliminary injunction on the basis that choreography involves the flow of movement and therefore could not be captured or recreated from still images. However, the appellate court held that this was the wrong standard. It emphasized that the correct test for copyright infringement is not whether the work can be exactly reconstructed, but whether there is substantial similarity between the original work and the alleged infringing material. The court explained that even a series of photographs might capture choreographic elements like body positioning, staging, and gesture, which could communicate significant aspects of a dance to an ordinary observer. Therefore, it remanded the case for a fuller examination under the correct legal standard, highlighting the need for expert testimony and factual clarification on the extent of Balanchine’s original choreography and the rights held by his estate versus those of the ballet company and photographers. [20]
OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
Till now, the major focus has been on copyrights because a major chunk of the connection between dance and intellectual property is based on copyrights only but there are other intellectual property rights as well that can be claimed by performers/dancers.
Patents – An invention can be defined as a product or process that offers a new way of doing something, or a new technical solution to a problem.[21] To be eligible for patent protection, an invention must have practical utility and introduce something novel that is not already known in the relevant technical domain. However, simply being useful and new is not sufficient—the invention must also include an inventive step. This means it should not be something that a person with ordinary skills in that field could easily deduce or figure out.
Trademark – Dancers or dance institutions can register names, logos, or brands associated with their dance style or group as trademarks.[22]
Design – In limited cases, costume designs or stage setsused in dance performances—if they are new and original—may be registered under the Designs Act for protection against copying.
THE ABSENSE OF CLASSICAL DANCE IN THESE LAWS
One of the main parameters of fixing a copyright on a dance choreography is fixation in tangible form. This is difficult to find in classical art forms like Bharatanatyam and Kathak because these dances have been passed down orally or through lineage.[23]
While Indian classical dances, like Bharatanatyam, Kathak, and others, are considered cultural treasures and are protected in some ways through tradition and lineage, they are not explicitly covered under intellectual property laws like copyright or trademarks, at least not in the way that a novel or a painting might be. This creates challenges in protecting these art forms from unauthorized use or adaptation[24], particularly in the digital space.
But for modern dance, which often relies on improvisation and choreographic devices to interrogate broader questions, fixation poses pragmatic and theoretical concerns. It is unclear whether such pieces can be sufficiently “fixed” to register for copyright, and whether that fixation can capture what choreographers value most about their works.[25]
PROBLEM WITH DIGITALISATION
In India’s rapidly growing digital landscape, dance has become more visible than ever before. Performances are now widely shared across platforms like Instagram and Youtube. While this digital presence offers incredible exposure and opportunities, it also opens the door to serious concerns around ownership and control.[26] Dancers often find their work being reposted, edited, or copied by influencers or brands without any acknowledgment or permission. Original choreographies by independent artists are frequently used in reels or viral content with no way for the creators to claim their rights or receive recognition.[27]
The legal system, unfortunately, hasn’t kept pace. Indian copyright law requires choreographic work to be “fixed” in some tangible form to be protected, but most dancers don’t formally document their routines. And even when they do, enforcement in the digital space is a huge challenge. Questions like “Who owns a viral dance video the performer, the choreographer, the videographer, or the uploader?” remain unresolved in practice. The lack of clear legal frameworks and accessible tools for dancers makes it incredibly difficult to prevent misuse or monetisation of their work by third parties.
In a country bursting with creativity, dance deserves better protection. Legal reforms, greater awareness among artists, and more accountability from digital platforms are crucial. Otherwise, while the internet will keep dancing, the dancers themselves may lose control of their own art.
SUGGESTIONS
There is a noticeable lack of awareness among dancers and performers in India about their legal rights. Many are unsure whether their work can be protected, let alone how to claim that protection. This uncertainty is made worse by the ambiguity in copyright laws when it comes to dance. For some, dance is a legacy passed down through teaching; for others, it’s a creative expression they hope to commercialise. In both cases, understanding intellectual property rights is essential.
To bridge this gap, a few key steps are needed. First, educating dancers through workshops or legal awareness drives. Encouraging dancers to document their choreography whether through video, notation, or writing can also go a long way in helping them claim ownership. Government support to archive traditional dances would help preserve culture and ensure these forms are legally protected.
India also needs clearer laws that recognise a wider variety of choreographic works, including traditional forms that don’t fit into conventional legal boxes. Finally, drawing lessons from countries like the U.S. and Japan can help India develop stronger, more artist-friendly systems[28]. By taking these steps, we can make sure dancers get the credit and control they deserve in the digital age.
CONCLUSION
The intersection of dance and intellectual property law is a fascinating space where creativity meets legal protection, but it’s one that remains largely overlooked. As this research highlights, while copyright law does offer some protection to choreographers and performers, it often falls short, especially in culturally rich and diverse countries like India. In contrast, countries like the U.S. and Japan have more defined systems, but even they struggle to keep up with the evolving nature of dance.
One of the most striking gaps is the lack of legal visibility for classical dance forms. These art forms carry immense cultural value, yet because they are rarely written down or formally documented. As dance continues to blend with technology and adapt to new media, the need to rethink and expand what legally counts as choreography becomes very important.
But legal protection shouldn’t just be about commercial rights. It should also safeguard artistic expression, cultural heritage, and innovation. Moving forward, what’s needed is a well-rounded effort: helping dancers understand their rights, encouraging them to document their work where possible, and pushing for laws that reflect the realities of both traditional and modern dance. Only then can we ensure that dancers and choreographers regardless of style or platform receive the recognition, respect, and legal protection they truly deserve.
V. Dhamini, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.), Semester III
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar National Law University, Sonepat, Haryana
[1] Abby Frances Johnson, The Ephemerality of Dance (B.A. (Hons.) thesis, Edith Cowan Univ. Oct. 29, 2010).
[2] R. Bhuvaneswari, Copyrights Protection of Dance Choreography: Problems and Prospects, 6 Int’l J. for Multidisciplinary Rsch. 437 (Nov.–Dec. 2024).
[3] World Intellectual Prop. Org. (WIPO), What Is Intellectual Property? 1 (2020), available at https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_450_2020.pdf.
[4] WIPO, supra note 3.
[5] Susan Leigh Foster, Choreography and Narrative: Ballet’s Staging of Story and Desire (Indiana Univ. Press 1998).
[6] 17 U.S. Code § 102.
[7] The Copyright Act, No. 14 of 1957, India (1957).
[8] Bhuvaneswari, supra note 2.
[9] Kumkum Mishra, AI‑Generated Content & Copyright Law in India: Navigating the Legal Maze, Khurana & Khurana, Advocates & IP Att’ys (Apr. 5, 2025).
[10] The Copyright Act, No. 14 of 1957, § 2(h), India Code (1957).
[11] Copyright Act, § 2(f), supra note 10.
[12] Copyright Act (Law No. 48 of 1970) art. 10 (Japan)
[13] Copyright Act, arts. 18–23,26-27 supra note 13.
[14] 17 U.S. Code § 102 (a (4)).
[15] Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340, 111 S. Ct. 1282, 113 L. Ed. 2d 358 (1991)
[16] Copyright Registration of Choreography and Pantomime, United States Copyright Office, Circular 52 (October 2022).
[17] Academy of General Education, Manipal and Anr. v. B. Manini Mallya , AIR 2009 SC 1982.
[18] Bikram’s Yoga Coll. Of India, L.P. v. Evolation Yoga, LLC 803 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2015).
[19] Anupama Mohan v. State of Kerala, (2015) SCC OnLine Ker 39420.
[20] Horgan v. Macmillan, Inc., 789 F.2d 157, (2d Cir.1986).
[21] The Patents Act, 1970, No. 39 of 1970 (India).
[22] Trade Marks Act, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, India (1999).
[23] Rajyashree Ramesh, Can an Ancient Dance Form like Bharatanatyam Be Copyrighted?, Narthaki (Aug. 7, 2004), available at https://narthaki.com/info/articles/art118.html.
[24] Laurent Carrière, Choreography and Copyright: Some Comments on Choreographic Works as Newly Defined in the Canadian Copyright Act, ROBIC, Patent & Trademark Agents, Centre CDP Capital (2003).
[25] Dancing on Their Own: Alternatives to Copyright for the Choreographic Community, 138 Harv. L. Rev. 1429 (2025).
[26] Diwanshi Rohatgi & Keshav Madhav, Copyright in Choreography: Examining the Legal Landscape for Dance Moves in India, 6 Int’l J. L., Mgmt. & Humanities 669 (May–June 2024).
[27] Copyright for Choreography, Dance Informa Magazine (May 4, 2021), https://www.danceinforma.com/2021/05/04/what-you-need-to-know-about-copyright-for-choreography/.
[28] AI and the copyright dilemma: What India needs to do, (Nov. 20, 2024), https://www.governancenow.com/views/columns/ai-and-the-copyright-dilemma-what-india-needs-to-do.