Intellectual Property

C. B. v. E. E. Inc. — Study Notes

C. B. v. E. E. Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23456 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)

Study notes for C. B. v. E. E. Inc.: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.

Choreography is copyrightable, and recording a performance without consent infringes on the choreographer's exclusive rights.
Professor Notes

In C. B. v. E. E. Inc., the court emphasizes the importance of originality and creativity within the realm of copyright law, particularly regarding choreographed performances. The case reinforces the idea that choreography can be protected under copyright, similar to other forms of artistic expression, provided it meets the threshold of originality. Professors may highlight how this case sets a precedent for how choreographers can assert their rights in the digital age, especially against unauthorized recordings and distributions of their work.

Moreover, the ruling illustrates the application of copyright principles to performance arts, underscoring the necessity for prior consent before utilizing someone else's creative work. This case serves as a critical examination of the tensions between artistic sharing in a digital environment and the legal protections for creators. Students should grasp that consent is central to the legitimate distribution of artistic performances, and the consequences of infringement can lead to significant legal ramifications, as seen in this case.

Cold Call Prep
  1. 1What is the significance of originality in the court's decision regarding C.B.'s choreography?
  2. 2Can choreography be considered a form of artistic expression protected under copyright law?
  3. 3How does unauthorized recording affect the distribution rights of performers?
  4. 4What precedents were cited by the court in determining the copyrightability of choreography?
  5. 5Discuss the implications of this case for digital media companies using artistic performances.
  6. 6In what ways could C.B. have better protected her work prior to the performance?
  7. 7What broader trends in copyright law regarding choreographic works does this case reflect?
Mnemonic Device

C.H.O.R.E.O.G.R.A.P.H.Y - Consent is needed for How Original and Rare Experiences Get Recorded And Protected Historically in your Yields.

Distinguish From
CaseDistinction
Matthews v. Henson (2012)Matthews involved only a minor alteration of a public domain dance routine, whereas C.B. involved an original and creative work performed in an exclusive setting.
MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. (2005)MGM dealt with the distribution of copyrighted films through a software platform, highlighting mere distribution where C.B. focused explicitly on the copyright of performance choreography against unauthorized recording.
Policy Arguments

For the Rule

Protecting choreographers' rights ensures that original artistic expressions are not exploited without consent, fostering a healthy creative environment and incentivizing artistic innovation.

Against the Rule

Concerns that overly broad copyright protection may stifle creativity by limiting the ability of artists to draw inspiration from existing works, potentially leading to a chilling effect on performance art.

Class Discussion Points
  • What are the implications for live performance artists in an increasingly digital landscape?
  • How should choreographers balance sharing their work for exposure while protecting their rights?
  • In what ways can legislation be adapted to better protect artists in the age of streaming and digital reproduction?
Exam Angle

This case may appear on exams in the context of copyright infringement and the protection of choreography as a form of artistic expression. It may ask students to analyze whether originality criteria apply and how consent factors into copyright control.

Ace Your Cold Calls with Briefly

Get AI-powered case briefs, study notes, and cold call prep for every case in your casebook.