Music and Dance: Beyond Copyright Text?

成文法的起源是保护文本。自16世纪中叶以来，书商在印刷书籍方面的垄断地位消失后，书商希望对印刷文字的传播施加控制，这导致了1710年《安妮规约》的颁布。这是一项“鼓励学习的法案，将印刷书籍的复印件归于复印件的作者或购买者”，并赋予作者或其受让人“印刷和转印此类书籍和书籍的自由”。面对在保护期结束时失去对最有利可图的书籍的垄断，对书面文字的控制的追求在书商之战中进一步表现出来，1774年唐纳森诉贝克特案，上议院裁定不存在永久的版权普通法。因此，出现了对书面文字的保护，其范围受该法的约束，反映了当时的财产概念。正是在这些文本基础上，法律努力找到一种手段来保护实验性、体验性、表演性的音乐和舞蹈流派。当代版权法包含在1988年的版权设计和专利法中，将音乐和舞蹈列为其保护的作品类型之一。但该法律的某些特征表明，这些创新、合作和基于绩效的创造力形式可能要么保护不足，要么缺乏任何形式的保护，最明显的是，它们的限制不断受到数字和基于网络的技术的推动。为了受到著作权的保护，法律要求作品属于该法中的特定类别，以某种媒介固定，并由一个人或至多几个人创作。这似乎很难保护安东尼·布拉斯克斯顿(Anthony Brasxton)的萨克斯管即兴演奏、当代流行舞曲的混搭文化、数字音乐采样的成果、爱德华·洛克(Edouard Lock)和La Human Steps的芭蕾舞剧《Amjad》。当作品受到保护时，法律允许在创作新作品时进行一定数量的复制。然而，可以采取的限制往往是不透明和僵化的，这引发了一个问题，即该法律是否为恶搞、数字音乐采样和新的舞蹈动作等形式留出了足够的空间，包括虚拟空间。一个由版权法、音乐创作、当代舞蹈、文化政策和文化经济学领域的跨学科专家组成的团队将首次聚集在一起考虑这些问题。在这样做的过程中，他们将使用实证研究方法(问卷)和观察(通过拍摄和以其他方式记录体验作品的制作)来制作一幅新形式音乐和舞蹈作品创作的实际做法的说明性图景。他们将考虑版权框架是否以及如何与表演相对应，以及文化政策在更广泛的创意经济中促进、支持和利用音乐和舞蹈的作用。

Statutory copyright law has its origins in protecting text. The desire of booksellers to exert control over dissemination of the printed word in the wake of the demise of the Stationers' monopoly in printing books in place since the mid-16th century led to the enactment of the Statute of Anne in 1710. This was an Act 'for the encouragement of learning by vesting copies of the printed books in the authors or purchasers of the copies' and gave to the author or his assigns the 'Liberty of Printing and Reprinting such Book and Books'. In the face of losing the monopoly over the most lucrative of books at the end of the period of protection, the quest for control over the written word was further played out in the Battle of the Booksellers when, in 1774 Donaldson v Becket, the House of Lords ruled against the existence of a perpetual common law of copyright. Protection thus emerged for the written word, the extent of which was bounded by the Act, reflecting then current notions of property. It is from these textual foundations that the law has striven to find a means to protect the experimental, experiential, performance driven music and dance genres. Contemporary copyright law contained in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 lists music and dance among the types of work that it protects. But certain features of the law suggest that these innovative, collaborative and performance based forms of creativity may either be under-protected or may lack any form of protection, most notably as their limits are constantly pushed by digital and web-based technologies. In order to be protected by copyright the law requires that a work fall into a particular category in the Act, that it be fixed in some medium, and that it be created by one, or at the most, a few individuals. This would seem to make it difficult to protect such creations as the saxaphone improvisations of Anthony Brasxton, the mash-up culture of contemporary popular dance music, the outputs of digital musical sampling, and Edouard Lock, and La La La Human Steps' ballet, Amjad. When a work is protected, the law allows for a certain amount of copying when creating new works. The limits of what can be taken, however, tend to be opaque and rigid, raising the question as to whether the law leaves sufficient space, including virtual space, for such forms as parody, digital musical sampling and new dance moves. For the first time, an inter-disciplinary team of experts in the field of copyright law, musical composition, contemporary dance, cultural policy and cultural economics will come together to consider these questions. In so doing they will use empirical research methodology (questionnaires) and observation (through filming and otherwise recording the production of experiential works) to produce an illustrative picture of actual practices in the creation of new forms of musical and dance works. They will consider whether and how the copyright framework maps on to the performances and the role for cultural policy in the fostering, support and exploitation of music and dance within the wider creative economy.