German Court: OK to Reprint Nazi-Era Newspapers

The state of Bavaria unsuccessfully tried to prevent a publication from reprinting Nazi newspapers by claiming it held the copyright to the papers. But the court held that the rights on editions published before 1939 have expired. Read the full article here.

Another Reason for Choreographers to Videotape Their Work

Many choreographers are understandably wary of videotaping their work because they don’t want someone to use the recording to steal their choreography. Especially for choreography that is new or otherwise not well known, the chances are high that someone who plagiarizes it will be able to present it at a venue without anyone in the audience realizing that the choreography is stolen. However, besides the fact that not videotaping choreography isn't always the best business move (is preventing plagiarism more important than building an audience by publicizing your work?), it's not wise from a legal standpoint either. Copyright law only protects choreography that has been captured on video (or written down using dance notation). That means that choreographers need to record their dances if they want to have legal recourse in the event that someone comes along and copies their choreography without permission.

In order for a work to be protected by copyright, it has to be fixed in a “tangible medium of expression.” Such media include paper, canvas, zeros and ones (in the case of software and digital recordings), film, fabric, stone, concrete, bottles and cans… and on and on and on. Choreography that exists only in the brains of the dancers who perform it has not been fixed, and therefore is not protected by copyright. The same goes for a song that a musician performs at an open-mike but never writes down or records.

To provide themselves with a remedy against unauthorized copying, choreographers need to videotape their work. There’s no need to share the recording with anyone (although registering the copyright with the Copyright Office at the Library of Congress by filling out a form and sending in a video is a good extra precaution, not to mention a prerequisite for suing someone for copyright infringement; the whole process, including video submission, can now be completed online: www.copyright.gov/eco/index.html).

Remember, no recording equals no copyright protection!

Non-Profit or For-Profit?

The New York Times has a good article about whether incorporating as a non-profit is always the best option for companies with a do-good mission. The non-profit model has benefits, such as exemption from taxation and tax-deductibility of donations. But often for-profit companies, whose activities are less scrutinized by state and federal governments and are not restricted to charitable purposes, do a better job of funding their social mission than non-profits.

The Economist's review of Dan Pallotta's Uncharitable: How Restraints on Nonprofits Undermine Their Potential provides another example of a for-profit company doing a better job at charitable fundraising (in this case, to benefit AIDS and breast cancer charities) than the charities themselves. The book discusses the disconnect in American thought between charitable aims and profit-making. There's no reason for the two to be mutually exclusive.