-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Alfonso Ribeiro Sues Fortnite and NBA 2K Creators for Stealing Carlton Dance(Update: Backpack Kid sues Epic as well)
- Thread starter signal
- Start date
No. The case is still pending. The copyright office just rejected an application.
I feel like that ultimately will be the end of it. Since I have no doubt getting that copyright claim was going to be the linchpin of the case.
Always seemed odd to me. Owning a particular dance. Seems like owning a walk, or a handshake.
Though I think the case will end the same way, the decision by the copyright office has no bearing on that. The courts give no weight to examiner's interpretation of law, only findings of fact, and even then only when a case is directly a result of an application. The copyright office makes decisions based on what the courts decide. Not the other way around.
Yeah why would you copyright music, it's just blowing into an instrument, you wouldn't copyright blowing air into a pipe.
His point isn't that ridiculous.
You can copyright chorreography, but there is a complexity issue there. As we've seen with them rejecting a copyright, one dance move might not be enough to be considered.
I get what you mean, but it's also odd that a large company can create and sell something based on the premise of someone else who popularized it, and monetize it in a way that the original individual never could without compensating or crediting them at all.
I think the law made sense a decade ago, when a dance was just a physical thing done by an individual. But I think in light of new marketplaces and technologies, which allow dances to be sold as products not unlike a movie or a piece of music, the law should probably be re-evaluated.
That's not in question here, because that's already the case. Epic is getting money for allowing players to do those dances in their game. The question now is whether it's ok for the people who actually popularized the dances to get nothing from Epic.
Fortnite has established a way to literally sell the dance. That's the difference now from it being in a movie or used as a reference in games previously. Like one would buy a song or a film you can buy Carlton's dance on Fortnite. The reason these dances have value and people want to buy them is precisely BECAUSE of the associations they have in pop culture. Being 2milly's dance or Alfonso's or Snoop Dogg's.
all that's being argued is that Epic should owe something to the people that give value to the content on the marketplace they created to sell dances.
Last edited:
The dances don't exist in a vacuum. They're there to be used in a game and their value is only relevant within the context of the game. Try to sell a gif of said dances...
Most digital content is limited in scope. When you buy a song on itunes you don't buy the song, you pay for a license to use it through itunes so long as it is available through itunes. If the marketplace disappears or itunes loses the permission to distribute the song, you lose access to the song and have no legal recourse to recoup what you paid.
That has no bearing on its value or what itunes in turn owes the content creators and I think the same should apply here. What matters is that it has demonstrable value and where the content derives that value
The case had shaky ground to begin with but I would think it had some merit but now, with this over, it's heavily to impact the other 2 lawsuits.
No, corporate ballwashing would be supporting the idea of legal ownership of dance moves, giving them the power to dictate human expression.
Yup. Look at The Verge/Vox Media just this week are using DMCA strikes to take down YouTube videos critical of their infamous "Verge PC build" video.
This would be a fine argument if Alfonso Ribeiro died in the 19th century and his heirs were suing now. Seeing as how he's still alive and someone is profiting off a work he invented and popularized within the last 30 years, the comparison is asinine.
But he did not do that, he admited at some point, that he took the moves from someone else. It was posted in the other thread, he took the inspiration for that dance from someone else and now wants money for that
He took inspiration from another source, which I think is fine. There isn't a creative work on earth that isn't guilty of that.
and even if he didn't, he's the one that popularized it. It's his dance in the eyes of pop culture.
and that's what Epic is selling. They aren't selling a dance he trademarked or coincidentally the same move they happened to come up with independently, they're selling a dance for money in their game that people want because it's Alfonso's "The Carlton" and THEY KNOW people want it because it's the Carlton.
Even if it's not necessarily copyright I don't think it has to be. Epic is clearly selling something so closely associated with his likeness based on people associating it with his likeness, without even crediting him for it.
That's the heart of the issue here. I don't think we need to argue who owns what in regards to dance because even in other media that's not 100% defined. The main issue is that Epic is selling these things based on the public associating them with real people without crediting or compensating those people. I think from a moral perspective they definitely owe something to those people as without them establishing the moves in the first place, they'd have no value, and I think the law should be changed to support and defend that.
because right now it's like they're not only making tons of money off of the likenesses of those people, but also slowly erasing the associations in pop culture between those people and their moves. Alfonso's "The Carlton" is slowly becoming another "fortnite dance" to an new generation of people and that seems unfair that the law allows that when it was initially sold based on the original association with Alfonso.
Last edited:
I don't agree, It's a slippery slope if the law would be changed to do that. He may have made it popular but there's a reason why dances like this are not copyrightable and Epic or any other company that has it in their game do not owe him or anyone else anything from it.
I'm not even using copyright anymore. I'm not arguing that premise even though I'd have no issue with these artists being able to due so.
I'm arguing based on likeness rights. I think this should fall under that and if it doesn't it should be expanded to encompass situations like these in the wake of new technologies.
Slippery slope arguments are bullshit and the current law's written could not have imagined a situation like this; where people can sell dances for a fixed price in a digital environment. The "reason why dances like this are not copyrightable" can't blindly be applied to circumstances that were not possible at the time the laws were written.
Last edited:
I know the OP wasn't updated yet, but are people still arguing that the dance moves should be copyrighted? Anyway, called it.
You can't call movement "likeness", they're not the same.
I thought that he didn't invent it. He claimed to steal it from the Dancing in the Dark video. If he were to win, then he's setting a precedent for Courtney Cox and Bruce Springsteen to sue him and win.
He did not claim to "steal" it from the Dancing in the Dark video. He said it was a mashup of Courtney Cox in that video and Eddie Murphy's stereotypical "white guy" dance from Delirious with his own embellishment. That's different than the Fortnite emote which is a frame-by-frame recreation of his performance of the dance on Dancing with the Stars. It is impossible to argue with a straight face that the Fortnite emote is not trying to be "The Carlton" dance which had not actually existed in any form before Ribeiro did it on Fresh Prince.
Retro! summed up my feelings on the matter a few posts up. I don't even necessarily think it should be a matter for the courts to settle, but the ethics of it absolutely disgust me. Epic is profiting off something they did not have any hand in creating and sharing none of the proceeds with the artists who invented the creative work in the first place. That's vile behavior in my opinion. And that holds even if you contend that Ribeiro didn't invent the dance; Epic isn't sharing that revenue with Courtney Cox, Bruce Springsteen, Eddie Murphy, NBC, Fresh Prince, Dancing with the Stars, or anyone else who could reasonably claim ownership. They stood on the backs of other people and said "how can this make money for us." I personally find that level of greed to be shameful.
They crafted the animations themselves based on stuff that's popular, let's not forget animators worked hard to make this stuff in the first place.
The problem with dances is once they enter the cultural lexicon, they are part just part of the zeitgeist. Its sort of like the difference between a corporate copyrighted slogan vs a catchphrase. Fortnite isn't the first time a dance as been in a game, or another commercial product that wasn't FPoBA, same for a lot of the dances here. there is too much precedent set on either dance creators litigating for copyright infrindgement and being shut down, or ignoring it altogether. The only thing unique about Fortnite is its made a lot of money and gained a lot of attention, and some peope feel entitled to some of that money. If fortnite had the same dances, but was a commercial flop, this thread doesn't exist, even though Epic still appropriated the dances for their game.
On the one hand, I don't think short dance moves should be able to be copyrighted.
On the other hand, I don't think said dance moves should be allowed to be sold.
I'm really conflicted on this whole matter.
On the other hand, I don't think said dance moves should be allowed to be sold.
I'm really conflicted on this whole matter.
I actually agree with both of your points. Buying dances and gestures for a video games strikes me as a huge waste of money, and if someone wanted to argue that because they are common forms of expression there shouldn't be a market for them, then I could get behind that.
There's nothing unique about it at all in that regard actually. This is fundamentally what drives copyright enforcement. You generally don't see big companies going after small guys selling fanart of their IP at conventions, you go after big companies making bank off your IP without giving you a cut, or others competing in your space.
That's why all the "slippery slope" arguments on here are such bullshit lol. People acting like this will be abused by big companies to oppress the little guy when that doesn't even happen now. It's always been about individuals protecting themselves from big companies and competition.
Yeah!
That's what's actually unique about this case. They found a way to actually SELL dance moves and make huge amounts of money doing so. Had they just put the dances in the game it'd be like every other video game appearance
but the difference is that they can sell them and make ALOT of money doing so. The monetization makes all the difference. This is probably the first time in history dance moves have been able to be commodified and sold in this way, and now that that precedent is set I think it's worth exploring what companies should owe to people who create dance going forward when selling it like this
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/t...e-battles-paused-supreme-court-ruling-1193167
The lawsuits are being put on temporary hold. Alfonso is the only one that is backing out since he can't get a copyright for his dance.
The lawsuits are being put on temporary hold. Alfonso is the only one that is backing out since he can't get a copyright for his dance.