The joke here is that dances are combinations of human movements in the same way that musical compositions are combinations of notes.
No one is trying to copyright "human movements" that's disengenous.
-
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.
Alfonso Ribeiro Sues Fortnite and NBA 2K Creators for Stealing Carlton Dance(Update: Backpack Kid sues Epic as well)
- Thread starter signal
- Start date
The joke here is that dances are combinations of human movements in the same way that musical compositions are combinations of notes.
No one is trying to copyright "human movements" that's disengenous.
It's a terrible comparison either way. A dance routine is made up of a collection of moves in the same way a musical composition is made up of a series of notes. You can't say no one is trying to copyright human movements when that's literally what's happening. Backpack kid tried to copyright the floss, an incredibly basic dance move.
I support this but cases need to be clear cut. He should also probably sue other games that make a profit off it (if it's in the base game and you don't pay for it.. it's a hard sell)
Like you see people claim "hey X invented that dance in fortnite" and then turns out nope they also stole it from someone lmao, it's comical.
Like you see people claim "hey X invented that dance in fortnite" and then turns out nope they also stole it from someone lmao, it's comical.
This isn't really the same thing as the Carlton dance, you can see the inspiration, but it's not the same dance. Carlton's movements are very specific and over the top. What Epic is doing is taking the entire dance frame by frame and even having the gall to call if the "Fresh" dance.
They're just begging for a lawsuit.
Or you could just not clearly rip off frame by frame things created and popularized by someone else and then charge money for it.
The thing is musical compositions can be a few seconds and not full operas. Some songs are less than 1 min and they are as much a musical composition than 20 minutes songs.
You really think that if Epic sold the first 15 seconds of "Strawberry fields" they wouldn't get sued to hell? Imagine people coming and saying "but duh is not a full composition and the Beatles stole the Stand by me chord progression anyway!"
Is dances moves didn't deserved copyright is because before multi-million big companies didn't sell them for money.
Sure, if we start to nickel and dime all those animations, plus you can compare frame data to see if it infringes!
Edit:beaten!
Guys, I'm pretty sure this wouldn't be a problem if Epic wasn't nickel and diming for those specific things taken fro pop culture!
if this actually goes through I think it would be a really telling lesson about unintended consequences for everyone in here cheering for it to happen
I've completely lost what point you're even trying to argue here. Why do you think something like the floss and Strawberry Fields are comparable in any way?
Absolutely. All the people coming in here to yell "Stop defending the corporations" don't realise that these corporations would be the ones who would benefit the most from something like this in the long term. It's not going to be the Backpack kids of the world filing copyrights for every little dance move they create, it's going to be the corporations doing that and making profit from it.
If a company directly ripped off all of Mario's running animations, jumps, and even his "woo hoos!" and it became the biggest game in the world ... I actually do think Nintendo would be well within their rights to sue.
The thing is, he mentions combining both dances to get the final one here in 2013. If he wins, there's nothing to stop either of those two going after him in turn.
bad consequence is already there: big corp making profit on something they did not create, and not even give credits to it.
people goes to long stretches to defend big game corps...
people goes to long stretches to defend big game corps...
Hey, someone invented the double jump game mechanic and then copied by everyone in thousands games.
Tell me one reason why the double jump is not/must not be trademarked.
How so? What makes it more complex? Because it's longer? Does that mean that something like Bohemian Rhapsody is more copyright-able than something like Smells Like Teen Spirit? Why is complexity even a factor here when it isn't in any other copyright-able medium?
Are you saying Alfonso deserves credit/compensation here, but Backpack kid doesn't?
Yes, and if Epic games had just vaguely copied one part of the Carlton dance maybe they could get away with this. But they are literally taking the entire dance wholesale and even calling it the "Fresh Emote". Gimme a break.
If I made a game called Uber Lario Brothers and copied every exact frame animation from Super Mario Bros and the game was making hundreds of millions of dollars, you bet your ass Nintendo would sue the crap out of me.
I'm pretty sure these animations were in a couple other video games too. We sure didn't hear anything from these people. But, yeah, Fortnite...
...How many new dances do you think there are? What is the actual horror scenario that you think will happen if dances are copyrightable?
It's not necessarily a binary chocie, all or nothing. If dances are copyrightable, but only if particularly unique -- the 'Carlton' is obviously highly unique and obviously the creation of Alfonso. How many cases of obvious uniqueness and attribution are as clear-cut as this?
Has any game added Julia Louis-Dreyfus' 'The Benes' yet?
New dance moves are created all the time, depending on your definition of 'new'. Dance is transformation, and people create new moves based on combinations of and variations of existing moves. The floss wasn't new when backpack kid popularised it, the Carlton wasn't an entirely new thing either. Calling it highly unique is stretching it a bit, it clearly has it's influences and the man himself has said as much. He took an existing dance move and modified it. Would he have been able to do that if the original move was copyrighted?
It's a nightmare because you can look back and find that most of these things aren't unique. And because you can break unique dances down into smaller unique dances that then throw the bigger ones into question...
Having worked in the music industry in Germany, let me tell you about the GEMA.
It's basically the music copyright owners mafia.
They own most musical rights, since for the longest time, to even print physical music mediums, you had to register your rights with them in Germany. They then basically get the money from the music performances in for you, the artist, as a form of stand-in rights owner.
Except that the way they distribute the money is NOT based on what music is actually performed in live venues or radios. They take SOME radio stations AVERAGE playlist, excluding every niche radio station like college radio stations, jazz radio etc., and base the fee distribution completely on this.
There's a lot more detail I can go into, but the final result is:
a) small performers and musicians get paid less than they should, especially if they are not considered "serious" music (=classical music) and don't get played in mainstream radio. Only huge earners have any weight or say on the distribution and fees.
b) GEMA automatically assumes public music performances include music that they own the rights to. This goes as far as trying as charging people for playing music for free in the streets, on the base that there is potential that they might play copyrighted material. Now, the way these fees are calculated are the absolute worst, but I haven't had coffee yet, so don't get me started. Basically, never try to set up any type of event with music in Germany, they'll eat your lunch.
So yeah, I can see copyrighting dance moves going down REEEEAAAAAL south. From actual fact and experience.
Does it stop people from whistling tunes under the shower? Nah.
Is it a horrible rip-off system which is an absolute pain in the ass to deal with, especially for smaller promoters and musicians. Yup.
You're literally trying to argue that we should do away with the current copyright law for choreography and allow people to copyright simple dance moves/routines, in turn being able to block other people from building dances off of those without paying them to use them.
You're advocating for the same thing as allowing an author to copyright words/sentences, instead of having to use those words and sentences to make a "book" which can be copyrighted.
That is not how the current copyright works and it shouldn't work that way. In the end you will end up hurting the very people you're "advocating" to get paid.
Also need I remind you, to sue for copyright you have to actually be the creator of the work. Milly and the others have already been shown NOT to be the original creators of their dance moves, so do you think it's ok for them to "get paid" simply because they took someone elses creation and made it popular?
Well maybe Epic can just end the "slippery slope" stuff by not freaking ripping off other people's dance moves frame by frame and then charging money for them to boot. It's already the most popular game on the planet, it's not like they need to be doing this.
The same argument applies for words or music.
I just don't see how entire dances are different. It's obvious here that Epic just took whatever they through they could get away with to make money off of. Why do we want to defend that?
Let's say many.
And many films have copied frame by frame the dolly zoom. Should we trademark that camera movement?
The point that i try to do is that those dances and many, many more are just artistic freedom that contributes to the ongoing forward momentum of artists, every artist.
But in today's world where everything is money, non of this matter to many posters right here.
Ok, let's trademark some dance moves, but can you imagine what could be the long form consequences in the medium?
Here's a new video from Nathan Barnett (who has one of his moves in Fortnite) and has went through trying to copyright his dances and his thoughts on the whole thing:
Basically agreeing that you can't copyright such simple dances, giving examples that the copyright office doesn't even allow things like The Macarena/Electric Slide to be copyrighted.
He does argue though that they should give credit to them (I agree with this).
Basically agreeing that you can't copyright such simple dances, giving examples that the copyright office doesn't even allow things like The Macarena/Electric Slide to be copyrighted.
He does argue though that they should give credit to them (I agree with this).
What about this? in dota 2, Zeus got a taunt which is obviously insipired by Mario jump even the sound effect is similar, do you think this could be sued by Nintendo?
This is not about artistic expression, this is about corporation with the biggest game on the planet that's stealing frame for frame someone else's work, with zero ambiguity, AND trying to charge money for it.
What about this? in dota 2, Zeus got a taunt which is obviously insipired by Mario jump even the sound effect is similar, do you think this could be sued by Nintendo?
Are they charging $4.99 for that and calling it the "Super Plumber Jump"? Is a central feature of the game that they're making hundreds of millions from?
It's called Heavenly Jump and was included as part of the 2015 Compendium, which you did need to buy. Similar to the Battle Pass in Fortnite.
And is it central, becoming iconic part of that game and a staple of its main popularity? Is it helping generate millions in revenue for the company?
If the answer to that is yes, then 100% absolutely, Nintendo has a basis to sue the crap out of them.
The Fortnite dances are becoming more and more a central part of the game's iconic appeal, but they are stealing that from other people, making money off it, and you have kids who think most of these dances were invented by Fortnite because they don't even give credit.
It was in the compendium 2015 ( a battle pass) and it was 10$ i think and the name is Heavenly Jump.
I mean, first of all I don't believe for a second that The Carlton is an iconic part of Fortnite. But yes, the 2015 compendium did generate millions in revenue for Valve.
I also don't get why the popularity thing matters at all. Either it's copyright infringement or it isn't, whether or not the game is popular shouldn't matter.
The dance moves are absolutely becoming an iconic part of Fortnite.
You have tons of kids who think these dances are invented by the Fornite developers. They're not even "inspired" by, they're directly ripped off frame by frame exactly.
Your argument keeps changing here. So if Epic got John from the dev team to put on a mocap suit an do the Carlton, and included that in their game, that would be ok then since it's not a frame by frame copy?
But it was one of many things and you didn't go to the store to pay 5 bucks exactly for that emote.
And yes dances are a huuuge part of fortnites appeal. Just look at the views they get from various dance videos on youtube or visit a school where kids do these dances all the time but that's more the floss than the carlton imho.
The fact they copied some of these dances exactly from the videos and not just made a character do similiar motions is a little suspect too. People give artists shit all the time for tracing other people's work.
If was something clearly different and not the literal same thing, yes they would probably have more leeway.
But don't take the same freaking dance frame by frame, and then even have the gall to call it the "Fresh Emote". It's blatant what they are doing. And if you're going to do allllllll that, then at least don't charge money for it, leave it in the game free of charge, but once you're appropriating work from someone else in a literal frame by frame sense and even acknowledging in the title you've basically stolen it, that's very lame.
People don't buy the battle pass for one individual move either, which is where alot of the dances in Fortnite come from.
So you don't actually have a problem with them using the dance, just that they didn't animate it themselves?
My biggest concern is how these people expect to prove that they were the first people to ever do that dance move, and that there is no evidence of anyone doing it before them. The milly rock, for example, is such a simple move that it seems likely that it has been captured on video by someone else before 2 milly popularised it.
And the backpack kid definitely doesn't have a case anymore since this video from 2011 has resurfaced and been popularised (don't now it's been posted in the thread already):
And the backpack kid definitely doesn't have a case anymore since this video from 2011 has resurfaced and been popularised (don't now it's been posted in the thread already):
If I were in Alfonso's shoes, I would have less of a problem if it was an interpretation of his dance. It being literally the same thing frame by frame is where it gets problematic sure. Calling it the "Fresh Emote" is another slap in the face too.
By this logic they could also do the "MJ Dance" and copy the beginning of the Billie Jean choreography and even take the "hee hee!" (can you copyright a noise?) and claim well that's all fair game for them to sell for $5 a pop and then claim "well MJ Dance stands for Moon Jockey dance, *wink wink* not Michael Jackson dance, and the moves being the same well you can't copyright that, etc. etc. etc..
IMO they're being very disingenuous with how they are exploiting other people's work here.
For me Backpack is more akin to a chord progression and Alfonso is a small tune. But you're right this is for a judge to decide.
And that's the can of worms opened when you sell dance moves.
If the Beatles examples is not good enough, what about Smoke on the water riff? Is simple too, does that mean Epic should be able to sell it without paying Ritchie Blackmore?
We never thought about copyright riff, but no one sold them before.
I can get behind the argument of them not motion capping a dance done by someone else, but thats a very different argument than what's been discussed in the thread thus far. I'm also pretty sure they could absolutely put the moon walk in under Moon Jockey and be completely fine.
You're missing my point completely. I asked you why the Carlton was 'more complex' and why it mattered. I never said Epic could get away with 'simple' stuff. You brought that up, I was asking why complexity mattered at all in this discussion. I don't think anything like this (dance move, music composition) can or should be defined based on complexity.
Just because they can do something on a technicality ("the dance move isn't long enough!") doesn't make it right.
It's blatantly obvious they are stealing things from other people, renaming them, claiming it for their own and making money off of it.
That's not even remotely true dude. Last BP had three dances and two of them were lame ones that no one uses. All the good dances are not in the BP.
Complexity in terms of what actually involves the moves, the Backpack is a repeated single movement with not variation, while Carlton is at least 2 moves with copying exactly the same changes between moves. But that's a personal opinion for what actually can be call a dance in the same way what's a composition and what's strumming a couple of chords together, after all and it's for the judge to decide.