The whole video is excerpts from different media…dance, lyrics, etc.

This song is actually no different than the youtube mashups we have seen here.

She effectively just trolled every single copyright troll out there.

Love ya Beyonce!

… Because if they had you could likely find prior “art” for EVERY dance “move” out there. After all, mechanically, human beings only have so much range of motion, in a similar manner, to all other human beings. Also, why does it matter if its set to music or not? If the range of motion / movement was part of anything else couldn’t it be considered “prior art” as well? After all, if you “lifted it” and put it to music you were “stealing” it from someone else… right?

Quote:
When Donaldson v Beckett reached the House of Lords in 1774 Lord Camden was most strident in his rejection of the common law copyright, warning the Lords that should they vote in favour of common law copyright, effectively a perpetual copyright, “all our learning will be locked up in the hands of the Tonsons and the Lintots of the age”. Moreover he warned that booksellers would then set upon books whatever price they pleased “till the public became as much their slaves, as their own hackney compilers are”. He declared that “Knowledge and science are not things to be bound in such cobweb chains.”

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law

Funny how history keeps playing itself in circles, is like people never learn how to find a balance.

Put a ring on it?

Choreography is a public performance. Song and dance and speeches and plays are all treated the same way by copyright law.

Copyright infringement does not require damages. The basic philosophical understanding is that the creator retains rights in how his creation is used.

The idea of homage requires more discussion. Mel Brookes was particularly good at self-homage and referring to other Brookes movies, so in Robin Hood – Men in Tights, he had a black sherriff – which worked in Blazing Saddles.

If an image in Toy Story is reminiscent of, and pays tribute to a iconic scene in Raders of the Lost Ark, should the animators require to obtian permission from Spielberg? If the image is recognizable, it is significant. This issue comes up from time to time. Recently it was scrutinized in Australia in the Men at Work song having a flute effect known from a song owned by the Girl Guides.

Copyright Law does, however, need an overhaul.

she should thank beyonce, because if it wasn’t for we wouldn’t have known rosas

A large part of any branding lies in recognizable signature look, sound, and motion. Take Michael Jackson’s moonwalk, for example, any number of dance artists have danced that dance. But none of them would represent it as their own signature move, and none could sell a top music video passing that move off as their own choreography.

It matters that Beyonce isn’t a nobody kid doing the move on the street non-commercially. She is diluting the branding of another enterprise by using their signature moves without credit to make money for herself.

you are so ignorant you can see that that video is based on the dance by rosas. she has not only copied the motifs but also the costumes and the setting. she has based many of annes dances in the videos. how can you be so blind to this? the dance by anne is a classic and beyonce had no right to copy the dance. beyonce clearly is very unoriginal and will need to get herself a good lawyer.

the matter here is just to give credit to creator. In modern dance the copyright thing is still in development, as it is very complex to copyright a style or movement. It is like in that other video totally inspired in Bob Fosse’s choreography. Single Ladies was a copy of “Mexican Breakfast” created in the 50’s .
For sure Beyonce is not an intelligent person and doesn’t know what is out there, and her team is equally ignorant.