So You Think You Can Dance? TikTok and the Appropriation of Viral Choreography

By: Sofia Ellington

Since 2020, viral TikTok dances have helped promote some of the biggest hit songs in the music industry. Artists and record labels have made millions on increased streams of those hit songs. TikTok itself is valued at around 65 billion dollars. However, most dance creators on the platform retain no rights in their choreography, meaning that they do not profit directly off the licensing or use of their dances that help make both the music and TikTok popular. Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) artists are behind some of the most popular viral dances and are particularly affected by social media platforms that make it difficult to receive recognition and publicity for their work. However, the crux in extending protection to TikTok dances through a Western Intellectual Property (IP) regime is that videos are meant to go viral through large scale replicating and copying, not just through users merely viewing them. Registering those dances could restrict and change the nature of interactive sharing on the platform, which suggests that copyright may not currently be suited to the demands of modern social media platforms. Artists will want to look to alternative regimes, such as Indigenous IP, as inspiration for how to protect their dances while leaving non-commercial sharing unrestricted.

TikTok has an Accreditation Problem 

BIPOC artists are behind some of the most popular viral dances to songs such as “Savage” and “WAP,” but TikTok’s algorithm, which shows undated videos in an endless stream detached from chronology, makes it almost impossible to uncover the original choreographer. Due to this accreditation difficulty, many dances go viral once a famous, oftentimes White, creator on the app posts a video of themselves doing the dance. The publicity for the dance then focuses on the already famous creator instead of the choreographer who originally created the dance. 

It was not until months after rapper K Camp song’s “Lottery” inspired the viral dance “Renegade, ” that the original creator, 14 year-old Jalaiah Harmon, was correctly credited in an article by The New York Times. Originally, the dance was accredited to two White TikTok creators, Addison Rae and Charlie D’Amelio. Before the New York Times Article was published, Rae was invited on The Tonight Show to perform some of the dances that made her famous, including “Renegade.” She failed to shout out any of the original creators of the dances, leading to backlash. The hashtag “BlackTikTokStrike” trended in 2021 to draw attention to the centrality of Black artists to the platform as well as rampant appropriation and lack of credit. 

The Hegelian personhood theory of property ownership posits that our autonomy and personality is intrinsically tied to what we own and the outputs of our creative expression. Lack of protection for these BIPOC artists, whose work is appropriated and uncredited on TikTok, is harmful, not just to their bottom line, but to the sense of control over their autonomy and personhood. Even though the unfairness of her uncredited dance was not lost on Harmon, she told the New York Times that she has continued to choreograph because ultimately, “it makes me happy to dance.” 

Can Copyright Protect TikTok Dances?

Whether Copyright can protect viral dances is more complicated than a simple yes or no. Copyright protection is available for original works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium and fall into a list of non-exhaustive categories in the Copyright Act of 1976.

The fourth category includes choreographic works, which are defined by the Copyright Office as, “the composition and arrangement of a related series of dance movements and patterns organized into a coherent whole.” Most TikTok dances easily meet this definition, but copyright requires that choreographic works amount to more than social dance steps or simple routines, an additional hurdle for TikTok dances to clear. 

The prohibition on copyrighting social dances or simple routines is well settled and informed by the utilitarian goal of copyright in the Copyright Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states that Congress has the power to secure copyrights “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.” Copyright tries to balance creating incentives for creation without preventing the free flow of ideas. It would be antithetical to the goals of copyright to allow one person to lock up simple steps or the building blocks of dance and prevent future artists from using those ideas to progress expression of the art form. 

While most complex TikTok dances will rise above the level of a mere social dance and be eligible for protection by meeting the statutory elements of choreography, found in the United States Copyright Office’s Circular 52, copyright must balance incentivizing new work without chilling the ability of other creators to build upon that work if TikTok is to remain an interactive platform. TikTok relies not just on viewership, unlike past song and dance media platforms such as MTV, but on participation in the content which presupposes copying and replication. This built-in assumption is obvious through the apps tooling which permits a user to “Duet” or “Stitch” other creators’ videos to their own. 

Shayné Abram and Zhané Miller went viral in 2020 for their choreography to the Remix of Megan Thee Stallion’s song “Savage,” and are in the process of applying for copyright protection for their moves. Their concern is protecting themselves against commercial exploitation, not dance challenges on TikTok. If protecting against the commercial use, and not the social use, of dances is the goal, alternative IP regimes may offer inspiration for a system of protection without the potential downside of chilling creative expression.  

Indigenous IP 

The 2004 broadcast of the Grammys featured a performance by OutKast’s Andre “3000” singing “Hey Ya!” Outcast was joined onstage by dancers wearing Indigenous “symbols usually reserved for ceremonial purposes, like feathers and war paint.” Additionally, the introduction to the performance appropriated a sacred Navajo/Diné  “Beauty Way” prayer which is used for sacred ceremonies and considered improper for use in entertainment. The incident left many questioning if federal laws could effectively prevent offensive appropriations of non-tangible sacred property. 

Congress has passed statutes such as The Native American Graves Protection Act and the Indian Arts and Crafts Act to protect Indigenous tangible cultural property. However, Western IP laws are often too narrow to protect intangible Indigenous property, such as song and dance. Instead, those forms of property are a continual collaboration and conversation in the community, not the work of a single author— one of many reasons that they are ineligible for copyright. 

Many Indigenous nations have utilized their sovereignty to create tribal laws that reflect a wider conception of property ownership that protects sharing sacred customs among the tribe while prohibiting improper and exploitative uses. While these laws are not binding on courts outside of the reservations’ jurisdictions, using tribal laws outside of the tribal context can influence courts to respect alternative means of recognizing property. A wider conception of property that is recognized in Indigenous IP could be an inspiration for how the current copyright system can evolve to protect against commercial appropriation while still allowing for the social and communal sharing of dance. 

Toward a Better Platform 

For creators on TikTok, there are huge monetary and personal incentives for receiving credit for choreography. An increasing desire to gain copyright over these dances is important for BIPOC creators in order to reap the economic benefits of their labor. However, fear of enforcement for copying and sharing these dances could lead to a chilling of expression on the platforms that made them popular. Creating a space for communal sharing and participation in the expression of these dances makes TikTok a powerful platform. Social media companies should feel incentivized to create a more rigorous system for accrediting and certifying original creators to prevent copyright enforcement mechanisms from dampening participation and engagement. There is value in looking outside of the traditional IP system, whether to Indigenous IP or to alternative licensing schemes, to work together to create platforms that encourage community sharing but prevent the appropriation and exploitation of individual users’ content. 

Dancing Around the Issue: Washington Lawmakers Grapple with State Regulation of Adult Entertainment

By: Matt Williamson

When people think of Washington many things quickly come to mind: Apples, Planes, Rain, Grunge, Twilight; all understandable. Restrictive alcohol laws though? Not so much. 

Despite this, Washington maintains a near-total prohibition on any alcohol service in adult entertainment clubs–making it one of only a few states to do so

This year, a group of exotic entertainment advocates, working with state lawmakers, aimed to change this. The group helped introduce, and has lobbied for, the passage of SB 5614: A bill designed to reverse restrictions on alcohol service and allow strip clubs to apply for liquor licenses

While this might seem like a fairly humble goal, the policy change would represent a massive shift in the landscape of adult entertainment in Washington. Alongside the reversal of the alcohol restrictions, SB 5614 also contains a series of potentially hugely impactful provisions aimed at providing a safer, fairer, and more stable working environment for exotic dancers across the state. 

Why Alcohol Matters

To understand why the seemingly small change could mean so much to Washington-based dancers, one first has to understand the secondary effects this restriction creates.

Washington’s restriction on alcohol service in strip clubs stems not from statute, but administrative rules. The restrictions, enshrined in WAC 314-11-050, were established by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board, and prohibit the sale of alcohol in any establishment where certain types of activity take place. Because the restricting activities include stripping, a fairly essential element of strip clubs, the rule establishes a de facto exclusion on alcohol sales in strip clubs. 

What this creates is a major economic problem that club owners and management must combat. Without alcohol sales, these clubs are cut off from a huge source of revenue, and must turn to other means to extract money from patrons and staff alike

This is the landscape that has produced one of the most hated aspects of exotic dancing in Washington: Dancer fees. Rather than paying them, many clubs actually charge dancers a fee to perform, arguing that they will earn money through tips, and that the fees are required to be able to maintain the club’s business viability. Naturally, this contributes to the financial instability of the profession, as dancers often encounter shifts where they make little to no money, and are nonetheless forced to pay for the opportunity. 

It’s not just the economics either. Many dancers argue that the lack of alcohol sales in Washington clubs robs these establishments of the ability to create a social or entertaining environment and restricts them to a customer base exclusively seeking a sexual experience. Dancers have noted that Washington clubs have a distinctly sexually-focused vibe, as opposed to Oregon clubs, where alcohol is served and the environment tends to be more akin to a bar. 

Moreover, the added revenue from alcohol sales presents advocates with an opportunity to invest in protections for exotic dancers that have long been missing from the industry. SB 5416 includes provisions requiring better security in clubs, mandatory training for dancers including on financial security planning, and prohibitions on predatory club fees and penalties. 

Legislative Struggles

Despite significant support from groups like Strippers are Workers, which has championed the bill, it sadly seems as though SB 5416 is unlikely to pass the state legislature this year. 

However, advocates can take at least some solace in the nature of its demise: SB 5416 has not failed to receive enough votes at any of the crucial steps in the legislative process, but instead ran afoul of the greatest obstacle any piece of Washington legislation ever faces–the absurdly compacted legislative schedule.

Washington has a part-time legislature, which means that Legislators in the House and Senate only meet for between 3 and 4 months a year. When considered in light of the thousands of bills that are introduced every year, and the numerous procedural steps each must traverse, the massive scale of the scheduling problem quickly comes into focus. 

When SB 5416 passed the Senate in early March, it seemed to have serious momentum, receiving significant bipartisan support in that chamber and quickly being placed on the agenda of the House Committee on Labor & Workplace Standards. 

But sadly, things quickly seemed to fizzle as some notes of opposition arose in the House, and the crush of bills began to overwhelm policy committees. Now, as the cutoff for bills advancing out of House policy committees has passed, and the bill remains with the Regulated Substances & Gaming Committee, it seems all but doomed.

Conclusion

This seems an unworthy end for a bill that seeks to strike at the heart of a serious issue for thousands of working Washingtonians. Exotic dancers deserve so much better than the often predatory working environments they encounter in Washington clubs, and it is clear that repealing our state’s misguided alcohol restrictions could go a long way towards addressing the underlying causes of these conditions and providing dancers with the support and protection they need. Hopefully, advocates and their allies will get another shot at passing this legislation soon, and next time legislators will find the time to seriously consider and pass it.