Can Copyright Protect Viral Dance Choreography?

Introduction

Viral dance steps can generate substantial commercial value when used in advertisements, branded videos, live events, social-media campaigns, and entertainment productions. The legal issue is whether a choreographer may stop commercial copying and recover remedies when the copied movement sequence was created without permission.

Under Philippine law, protection depends primarily on whether the dance material qualifies as an original intellectual creation and whether the alleged copying involves a legally protected expression rather than a general idea, trend, style, or isolated movement. The choreographer should also preserve evidence of authorship, creation, publication, copying, and commercial use.

What Philippine Law Protects

The principal statute is the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, as amended by R.A. No. 10372. It protects original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain from the moment of creation. Musical compositions are expressly included among protected works under Section 172, and the protection does not depend on prior registration or publication.

The Supreme Court has confirmed that copyright protection arises upon creation and that registration is not a condition for the existence or enforceability of copyright. ( “Cosac, Inc. v. Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Inc.,” G.R. No. 222537, 2023 )

Dance choreography is not expressly identified in the supplied statutory text in the same manner as musical compositions. However, a sufficiently original choreographic sequence may be analyzed as an artistic work if it contains protectable creative expression. Protection is therefore stronger when the work consists of a deliberately arranged sequence of movements, formations, transitions, timing, and expressive elements, rather than a single ordinary gesture or a generally popular dance trend.

Expression Must Be Distinguished From an Idea or Trend

Copyright protects the author’s expression, not an abstract idea, dance style, genre, mood, or general concept. A choreographer ordinarily cannot claim exclusive ownership over a basic movement such as a hand gesture, a turn, a jump, or a commonly used body isolation considered separately.

The more substantial the copied combination of movements, order, transitions, formations, and expressive execution, the stronger the basis for alleging infringement. The legal analysis should focus on the protected choreography as a whole and on whether the allegedly copied portion is a substantial part of the original work.

This distinction is consistent with the Supreme Court’s explanation that intellectual-property protection serves public welfare and does not grant creators rights beyond those recognized by law. ( “Cosac, Inc. v. Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Inc.,” G.R. No. 222537, 2023 )

What Rights Does a Choreographer Have?

Under Section 177 of the Intellectual Property Code, copyright or economic rights include the exclusive right to carry out, authorize, or prevent specified acts. These include reproduction, adaptation or transformation, public display, public performance, and communication to the public.

For digital dance choreography, the most relevant rights may include:

• Reproduction: recording or copying the choreography in a video or other fixed format;
• Adaptation or transformation: modifying the sequence while retaining a substantial and recognizable portion of the original;
• Public performance: performing the choreography at events, programs, advertisements, or commercial presentations; and
• Communication to the public: making the copied choreography available through online platforms, social-media posts, streaming, or other digital channels.

The Supreme Court has stated that these economic rights are exclusive and that using copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright owner or assignee, in a manner that violates those rights, may constitute infringement. ( “Cosac, Inc. v. Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Inc.,” G.R. No. 222537, 2023 )

The same principle applies to commercial digital content. A business that incorporates protected choreography into a promotional video may need permission even if the video is distributed without a separate charge, because the use may be part of the business’s advertising, branding, or commercial communication.

When Does Online Use Become Public Performance?

Uploading a dance video may implicate more than one economic right. A recorded performance may involve reproduction, while making the video available to online viewers may involve communication to the public. Live use at a commercial event may involve public performance.

The Supreme Court has held that public performance includes the communication of copyrighted music to customers in commercial establishments, even when the music is received through a broadcast or another device. ( “Icebergs Food Concepts, Inc., et al. v. Filipino Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers, Inc.,” G.R. No. 256091, 2023 )

Although that decision concerned music, its explanation is relevant when analyzing whether a commercial establishment or online operator is causing protected material to be performed or communicated to members of the public. The specific right involved still depends on the facts, including how the choreography was recorded, performed, distributed, and used.

Commercial Copying Without Permission

A choreographer may have a potential copyright claim when another person or business:

• copies a substantial portion of the choreographic sequence;
• records or reproduces the sequence in a commercial video;
• uses the choreography in advertising, product promotion, or branded content;
• performs the sequence at a paid event or commercial venue; or
• uploads or distributes the copied performance to promote a product, service, or business.

The claimant must still establish ownership or authority to sue, originality, the existence of the protected work, unauthorized use, and the connection between the allegedly copied material and the original choreography. A viral status by itself does not prove copyright ownership, although widespread online publication may help establish chronology and access.

Does Lack of Knowledge Excuse the User?

The Supreme Court has described copyright infringement as a strict-liability offense and has ruled that criminal copyright infringement does not require proof of mens rea or culpa. Good faith or lack of knowledge is therefore not automatically a defense to the infringement itself.

However, liability still requires proof of an infringing act involving protected subject matter. A person cannot be liable for infringing copyright in a work or portion that is not legally protected, such as an unprotectable general idea or an isolated commonplace movement.

In ( “ABS-CBN Corporation v. Gozon, et al.,” G.R. No. 195956, 2015 ), the Supreme Court also recognized that fair use remains a valid exception, even though good faith or lack of knowledge does not by itself defeat infringement.

Possible Fair Use Issues

Commercial use generally presents a weaker fair-use position than criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, research, or other socially beneficial uses. A business that copies choreography to attract customers, sell products, or strengthen a brand may have difficulty relying on fair use.

The purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount copied, and the effect on the potential market should be examined together. Copying the most recognizable portion of a choreography for a competing commercial campaign may weigh against fair use, particularly when the use substitutes for a license or exploits the creator’s audience appeal.

In a dispute involving music played in commercial establishments, the Supreme Court held that commercial customer entertainment was not protected by fair use. ( “Icebergs Food Concepts, Inc., et al. v. Filipino Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers, Inc.,” G.R. No. 256091, 2023 )

Evidence a Choreographer Should Preserve

The choreographer should preserve evidence before sending a demand or filing a case. Digital evidence can disappear quickly when videos are deleted, accounts are changed, or platform links are removed.

• dated drafts, rehearsal videos, choreography notes, and project files;
• original recordings with metadata and file-creation information;
• contracts, invoices, messages, and collaboration records identifying the creator;
• the earliest upload or publication of the choreography;
• screenshots, downloaded copies, URLs, account information, and dates of the allegedly infringing content; and
• evidence of commercial use, including advertisements, product placements, event materials, sales campaigns, and sponsored posts.

Where possible, the creator should obtain authenticated or otherwise properly preserved copies of online material. Testimony from dancers, videographers, producers, clients, or persons present during the creation and rehearsal process may also help establish authorship and copying.

Registration, Contracts, and Ownership

Copyright protection generally arises from creation, so the absence of registration does not necessarily defeat a claim. Nevertheless, documentary records and voluntary registration or deposit, where available, may help establish chronology and ownership.

Contracts are equally important. A choreographer should specify whether the work is commissioned, whether ownership is retained or assigned, what uses are permitted, whether adaptations are allowed, and whether online, advertising, live-event, and merchandise uses require separate approval.

Where several choreographers, dancers, directors, or production companies contributed, the agreement should identify each contribution and the parties’ respective rights. A person who merely performed the dance may not automatically own the choreography, while a choreographer may not own independently created music, lyrics, costumes, or audiovisual footage incorporated into the presentation.

Available Responses to Unauthorized Commercial Use

A rights holder may first document the infringement and send a demand for removal, attribution, licensing, or compensation. The demand should identify the work, explain the alleged copying, state the rights asserted, preserve relevant evidence, and avoid admitting facts that have not been verified.

Depending on the facts, available remedies under the Intellectual Property Code may include civil relief, damages, injunction, seizure or destruction of infringing materials, and criminal remedies. The appropriate remedy depends on the nature of the infringement, the available evidence, the identity of the user, and whether the conduct was commercial or repeated.

A platform complaint may be useful for stopping continued dissemination, but platform removal does not by itself resolve ownership, damages, licensing, or liability issues. A separate legal demand or proceeding may still be necessary.

Common Situations

Brand advertisement. A company uses a recognizable sequence from a choreographer’s viral video in a product advertisement without permission. This presents a stronger infringement issue if the company copied the sequence, used it to promote sales, and had access to the original video.

Influencer campaign. An influencer performs a dance associated with a viral trend while promoting a product. The outcome depends on whether the copied material is an original choreographic sequence or merely a general trend consisting of common movements. The commercial nature of the post may also affect fair-use analysis.

Entertainment production. A program or event reproduces the choreography as part of a performance. Permission should be obtained for the choreography, music, recording, and any other separately protected material used in the production.

Short social-media clip. A brief clip is not automatically exempt because it is short. The relevant questions include how much of the protected expression was taken, whether the copied part is qualitatively important, and whether the use is commercial or otherwise covered by an exception.

Practical Protection Measures

Choreographers should retain original project files, maintain dated creation records, use written collaboration agreements, and state licensing terms clearly. They should distinguish permission to perform from permission to record, upload, advertise, edit, sublicense, or use the choreography in merchandise.

For viral releases, the creator should identify the official version, publish a clear ownership or licensing notice, monitor commercial uses, and preserve evidence of unauthorized exploitation. Early legal review is advisable before agreeing to a buyout, assignment, influencer campaign, or production contract.

Conclusion

Philippine copyright law can potentially protect an original digital dance choreography when the work embodies protectable creative expression. The strongest claim usually involves a recognizable and sufficiently detailed sequence that another party reproduced, performed, adapted, or communicated to the public for commercial purposes without authorization.

A general dance trend, style, or isolated movement is less likely to receive exclusive protection. Choreographers should therefore document the complete work, clarify ownership by contract, preserve proof of copying and commercial use, and seek appropriate relief promptly when unauthorized exploitation occurs.

About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices

 Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines.  You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines.  You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.