Music and Dance: Beyond Copyright Text?

著作权成文法源于对文本的保护。自16世纪中叶以来，文具商对印刷书籍的垄断地位被打破，书商希望对印刷文字的传播施加控制，这导致了1710年安妮法令的颁布。这是一项“通过将印刷书籍的副本授予作者或副本的购买者来鼓励学习”的法案，并赋予作者或其受让人“印刷和重印此类书籍的自由”。面对在保护期结束时失去对最赚钱书籍的垄断，对文字控制的追求在1774年唐纳森诉贝克特（Donaldson v Becket）的“书商之战”（Battle of the Booksellers）中进一步表现出来。英国上议院（House of Lords）裁定，不存在永久的著作权普通法。因此出现了对书面文字的保护，其范围受到该法案的限制，反映了当时对财产的现行观念。正是从这些文本基础出发，法律努力寻找一种手段来保护实验、体验、表演驱动的音乐和舞蹈类型。《1988年版权设计和专利法》中包含的当代版权法将音乐和舞蹈列为其保护的作品类型之一。但法律的某些特征表明，这些创新、协作和基于绩效的创造力形式可能得不到充分保护，或者可能缺乏任何形式的保护，最明显的是，它们的极限不断受到数字和基于网络的技术的挑战。为了受到版权保护，法律要求作品属于该法案的特定类别，它被固定在某种媒介上，并且它是由一个或最多几个人创作的。这似乎会让保护诸如安东尼•布拉斯顿的萨克斯管即兴演奏、当代流行舞曲的混搭文化、数字音乐采样的输出，以及爱德华•洛克和拉拉拉拉人类舞步的芭蕾舞剧《阿姆贾德》等创作变得困难。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严格的，这就提出了一个问题，即法律是否为模仿、数字音乐采样和新舞蹈动作等形式留下了足够的空间，包括虚拟空间。由版权法、音乐创作、当代舞蹈、文化政策和文化经济学等领域的专家组成的跨学科团队将首次齐聚一堂，共同探讨这些问题。在这样做的过程中，他们将使用实证研究方法（问卷调查）和观察（通过拍摄和以其他方式记录体验作品的生产）来产生一个说明性的画面，在创造新的形式的音乐和舞蹈作品的实际做法。他们将考虑版权框架是否以及如何适用于表演，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方面的作用。

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.