Choreography copyright exists in a fascinating legal gray area where cultural ownership and legal protection often clash. When Alfonso Ribeiro attempted to claim rights to his iconic “Carlton Dance” from Fresh Prince of Bel-Air after Fortnite used it as a purchasable emote, his case was dismissed because the Copyright Office deemed the routine “too simple” – just three basic dance steps without sufficient originality. This ruling sparked crucial conversations about what makes dance protectable.

The landscape shifted dramatically when choreographer Kyle Hanagami sued Epic Games over a four-count hook from his registered routine appearing in Fortnite. When the Ninth Circuit reversed an initial dismissal in 2023, they delivered a game-changing perspective: “Reducing choreography to isolated poses is like reducing music to single notes.” This recognition that even short sequences could embody original expression opened new possibilities for dancers seeking protection.

We explore how this legal evolution continues with Kelly Heyer’s ongoing battle against Roblox for monetizing her viral “Apple Dance” without permission. With platforms earning substantial revenue from choreographic content, questions of fair compensation and proper licensing have never been more urgent. Meanwhile, international cases reveal how different jurisdictions approach dance protection – from China’s rejection of single-pose copyright to Brazil’s emphasis on proving tangible harm.

Through these stories, we distill five crucial principles governing choreography copyright: basic movements remain freely available to all; originality exists in arrangement rather than individual steps; even short sequences can qualify for protection if distinctive enough; evidence of harm matters as much as creativity; and courts continually seek balance between creator rights and cultural freedom. As dance moves from stages to avatars in the metaverse, these principles will shape how we value and protect movement in the digital age.

Ready to dive deeper into intellectual property’s fascinating frontiers? Subscribe to Intangiblia and join our exploration of the ideas that shape our creative landscape.

Playing Around INTA 2026: A Scenario Game for IP Lawyers – Intangiblia™

We’re in London at the INTA 2026 Annual Meeting, but we’re not doing a standard conference recap. We wanted to show how intellectual property work can be creative, inventive, and even fun, so we built THE INVENTIVE MINDSET GAME, a scenario game, and handed real IP lawyers a stack of tricky client prompts.Each prompt forces a choice: do you follow the client’s exact instructions, take an inventive counseling path, bring in an AI assist tool, or throw a curveball and plan for the worst-case scenario. From a smart home invention to a viral character and an influencer launching a skincare line, we dig into the practical decisions behind patent strategy, trademark protection, and copyright, including how to think about prior art, claim scope, brand control, and what “commercialization” actually demands.We also talk about the unglamorous but critical details that can make or break an IP strategy: picking the right trademark classes, avoiding coverage that doesn’t match the business, and sequencing filings when budgets are tight. If you’re a founder, creator, in-house counsel, or just curious about how IP law works in the real world, you’ll leave with clearer mental models and sharper questions to ask before you file anything.Subscribe for more stories and practical IP insights, share this with a friend building a brand, and leave a review if the game format helped you think differently about IP. What would you choose first: safe, inventive, AI-assisted, or curveball?Send us Fan MailCheck out "Protection for the Inventive Mind" – available now on Amazon in print and Kindle formats.The views and opinions expressed (by the host and guest(s)) in this podcast are strictly their own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the entities with which they may be affiliated. This podcast should in no way be construed as promoting or criticizing any particular government policy, institutional position, private interest or commercial entity. Any content provided is for informational and educational purposes only.

1. Playing Around INTA 2026: A Scenario Game for IP Lawyers 08:56
2. Sports As IP Strategy 15:15
3. The Afterlife of Innovation: Can IP Outlive the Business That Created It? 19:44
4. Case Study: Lindt’s Gold Bunny Trademark Saga 22:40
5. What Kind of Negotiator Are You, Really? 39:39