Have you ever cut loose and kicked off your Sunday shoes at a club in New York City? Unless that establishment had a Cabaret License (only 118 out of more than 25,000 do), you were breaking the law. That’s right. According to New York City law:

The City licenses bars, clubs, taverns, and discos that allow dancing. A place that is open to the public and sells food or drinks must have a Cabaret License to allow customers to dance.

This law started in 1926 during Prohibition when city officials targeted African American jazz establishments. When it was first introduced, there were several other regulations that targeted other bastions of African American culture at the time, including banning saxophones and bands with more than three members. While these other parts of the law have been repealed or found to be unconstitutional, the ban on dancing still remains. With clubs already subjected to safety regulations like fire hazards and noise violations, the Cabaret License requirement seems to serve no purpose.

.@FrankieFatGold explains NYC’s Cabaret Law & why it needs to be repealed! Let’s dance in protest tomorrow → https://t.co/rt7zEh2Acz pic.twitter.com/1lnDQJTOiZ

— BOILER ROOM (@boilerroomtv) May 10, 2017

A petition on change.org has recently been gaining traction. The petitioners, the Dance Liberation Network, are aiming to get 5,000 signatures to present to the New York City Council, with the goal of getting the law repealed once and for all.

The Cabaret License requires proprietors to install security cameras, appear before the community board, and pay anywhere from $270 to $535. Once the license is acquired, club owners must follow the law or risk paying $1,000 per violation. Its intent is to keep patrons safe, but with other existing laws in place, this “no dancing” ban seems superfluous. Coupled with its inherently racist roots, the law is likely on its way out.

Or is it?

The law had a revival during Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s tenure, and was used to crack down on different bars and night clubs. But not without protests. In 2000, protesters participated in the “Million Mambo March” where they danced all the way from Tompkins Square Park to Washington Square Park in an effort to bring awareness to the law.

via GIPHY

In 2003 Mayor Michael Bloomberg attempted to change the Cabaret Laws to Nightlife Licences that had more logical applications. Rather than curbing dancing and saxophones (truly the Devil’s pastimes, let’s be real), the Nightlife Licences would aim to regulate noise and unruly crowds. Unfortunately, this measure was struck down.

In 2014 Brooklyn bar owner Andrew Muchmore filed a lawsuit after he was fined for having people dancing in his bar. Muchmore contends that these laws go against the First Amendment and the Fourteenth’s promise that no state shall, “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”  

Muchmore also felt that the ambiguity of what dancing really is can be confusing. Could he be fined if his patrons accidentally started tapping their toes to the jukebox? What about an accidental shake of the hips as you wait at the bar? Standing on a table proclaiming loyalty to La Vie Boheme? The legal definition of dancing is vague, and it is unfair for bar owners.

via GIPHY

Now the law is once again being challenged. By getting enough signatures, the Dance Liberation Network hopes that the New York City Council will once and for all overturn this law and let the people of New York City dance.

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hold Back Before You Cut Loose: A Look at NYC’s No Dancing Law appeared first on Law Street.

Art education can benefit students in different ways, including improving student performance across the whole curriculum. But art programs in schools are often the first to be cut, if budget cuts are necessary. As a result, many students are missing out on the benefits of art classes. So, is it important to provide art education in schools? Read on to learn about art programs’ benefits and the issues with funding them for public school students.

What is the current state of art education in American schools?

Art education in public schools usually includes any combination of dance, music, drama/theatre, and visual arts classes. It’s usually funded by the federal, state, and local governments, but not all schools provide their students with art education.

Budget Cuts

Following the recent recession, budgets cuts were consistent in schools across the U.S., with more than 95 percent of students attending schools with significantly reduced budgets. It’s estimated that since 2008, more than 80 percent of schools nationwide experienced cuts to their budgets. As a remedy in some instances, art programs were partially or completely eliminated from affected school districts. Dance and theatre classes in particular were cut drastically. During the 1999-2000 school year, 20 percent of schools offered dance and theatre classes, but in the 2009-10 school year, only 3 percent of schools allocated funds for dance classes, and only 4 percent taught theatre. The number of schools that offered music classes didn’t change significantly over the last decade, indicating no budget cuts in that subject area, with 94 percent of schools still offering music classes. But the number of schools offering visual arts programs dropped from 87 percent in 1999-2000 to 83 percent in 2009-10. In 2013, public schools in major cities, including Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Washington, DC, are still struggling with budget cuts, resulting in the continued elimination of art programs across affected school districts. Due to budget constraints, fewer schools offer art classes today than a decade ago.

Emphasis on Core Subjects

In addition to less money being spent on education because of the recession, various government policies, including the No Child Left Behind Act and the Common Core State Standards have placed greater emphasis on core subjects, such as math and reading. In doing so, they have sidelined arts education. In light of these policies, school districts began re-directing funds toward subjects that require standardized testing in order to increase the overall scores of their students.

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act was signed into law in 2002 by President George W. Bush. The act was then re-authorized to ensure better access to high-quality education for all children, regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, or class. As the emphasis was placed on core subjects, such as math and reading, funding for art programs decreased significantly, especially for those art classes that required studio materials. As a result, art education in some schools was completely eliminated, although children still sometimes had the option to take certain art classes after school with volunteer teachers. In some school districts, art classes were still offered, but only with a limited number of seats.

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) is a current state-wide initiative that emphasizes the development of skills needed for students to succeed in college and future careers. As of now, 46 states have CCSS and are working on implementation. Similar to No Child Left Behind, CCSS focuses on those subjects that require standardized testing, and doesn’t include art education in its core. As a result, many schools choose to allocate funds for math and English language classes, often at the expense of art education. However, the Common Core Standards references arts in the curriculum, by some estimations, 75 times. In this regard, some art educators and advocates believe that art education can be aligned with the Common Core standards. To promote integration of art classes, the new National Core Arts Standards were developed and released to the public in 2014 as a conceptual framework. In 2015, a model cornerstone assessment pilot project was launched “to demonstrate the type of standards-based evidence needed to show student achievement.” These assessments will continue in 2016.

Disparities in Accessing Art Education

Even though art programs were slashed nationwide, schools with higher concentrations of impoverished students or minority students suffered the most. According to 2008 data, African-American and Hispanic students were two times less likely to have access to art programs in their school districts in comparison to their white peers. Interestingly, the rates of African-American and Hispanic students who have received art education while in school have been declining since the beginning of 1990s. In 1992, 50.9 percent of African-American 18-24 year olds received art education in childhood, while in 2008, only 26.2 percent of the same demographic had access to art classes in schools. Similar numbers are true for Hispanic children: 47.2 percent had art education in 1992 and only 28.1 percent had the option in 2008. In comparison, there were no comparable rates of decline in art education for white 18-24 year olds.

Most of the schools that serve low-income students already have reduced budgets due to the recession and its aftermath. In addition, as many schools in poor neighborhoods are considered low-performing, they face an intense pressure to meet Common Core standards through math and English language tests. If a school fails these standards it may be placed into program improvement status. In this situation, art classes become even less of a priority, and may be significantly reduced or completely cut from the curriculum. Art programs in schools that have a large number of low-income students are also rarely restored. While more affluent school districts can rely on private funding to still provide art education for students, or parents can simply pay for after-school art classes, children in poor neighborhoods most likely don’t have those options. This scenario creates disparities in access to art education between communities.

What are the benefits of art education?

It’s evident that art classes are the first to be cut from the budget, the last to be restored, and often unavailable for low-income students. But why do we need art classes at all?

Improved Performance

First and foremost, art education improves the overall performance of students, including in the core academic subjects that are often emphasized by standardized testing requirements. Students who took four years of art classes scored 91 points higher on their SAT exams than those who took half a year or less. Multiple studies also confirmed that there is a correlation between art engagement and students’ other achievements. Students who regularly participated in art classes were four times more likely to be recognized for their achievements.

Higher Graduation Rates

Art education can help keep students in school. Schools with long-standing art programs have higher graduation rates. In many instances, art classes motivate students to stay in school, especially low-achieving students, by fostering closer ties with peers and creating community-oriented environments.

Inspiration and Creativity

Art can inspire students to create and express themselves in a variety of forms. It provides the spark that keeps children engaged and allows them to have fun while exploring the world through different art forms. Art education develops creativity and problem-solving skills, improves judgement, and shows children that there are multiple perspectives. Finally, it encourages inventiveness, helping foster innovative thinkers.

Child Development

Children in elementary schools can greatly benefit from art classes, as they are still growing physically and mentally. Visual arts classes are highly recommended for developing motor skills in young children. Every time a child holds a paintbrush or cuts with safety scissors, his motor and dexterity skills improve. The same is true for developing language skills. Young children can learn colors, shapes, and descriptive words while making simple art projects and discussing them with their peers and teacher. In fact, 33 percent of children are visual learners, meaning they absorb information from images. Art classes can help to improve visual-spatial skills and hand eye coordination.

Music education at a younger age is also very beneficial as it helps to connect both hemispheres of the brain, producing long-lasting improvements in communication and listening. In fact, children who play musical instruments just thirty minutes a week have more developed brains than their peers.

Art also makes children aware of different cultures, traditions, and customs, providing a foundation for understanding racial diversity, which is an important part of American society and history. All in all, art education has tremendous benefits for elementary school students, as it helps children to develop physical skills, brain functions, and ideas.

At-Risk Youth

Art classes are beneficial for students in many ways, but especially for children who are low-income and live in impoverished neighborhoods. Art programs can keep at-risk youth off the streets, and, consequently, away from correctional institutions. Not only can art programs provide incentives for these children to stay in school, but it can also improve their academic performance, including reading and math. At-risk students with a history of art involvement have higher college enrollment rates than their at-risk peers who didn’t pursue art education. They are three times more likely to earn Bachelor’s degrees than their peers. Students who didn’t take art classes are five times more likely to drop out of school before graduation. Art can help disadvantaged children to realize their full potential as it provides a safe harbor for those students who may lack a supportive environment at home.

How can we bring art programs back to schools?

It’s clear that art education is extremely important for children of all ages. As a result, many schools have begun to rely upon private funding or combinations of private and public funds when financing their art programs. Besides private donors, non-profit organizations have begun to play a leading role in funding art classes in local schools. For example, in 2013, the Eugene Education Foundation (EEF) allocated 30 percent of its grants to art education in schools. Those grants are funded by community members. EEF has also created an Artists in Residence program. This practice of bringing art experts into a classroom for a limited amount of time has proven to be very rewarding. For example, students at Awbrey Park Elementary in Oregon were able to experience Mexican arts and crafts for one month with an expert from Eugene Arte Latino. There are also many parent-teacher organizations that are fundraising for art education.

Charter schools can be also a leading force in art education. New York City has 210 charter schools, some of which have already implemented in-depth art curriculums. Ascend Learning is a network of seven charter schools in Brooklyn, modeled after elite private schools with famous paintings in the hallways to expose children to art.

On a larger scale, state initiatives can greatly improve art education in schools. California’s Core Reforms Engaging Arts to Educate (CREATE) is a large-scale project to bring arts back to the classroom, bridging the gap of budget cuts.

Conclusion

Art education is an important component of childhood development. It also can pave the way for a child’s academic and future success as a professional. While the picture is not that bleak across the nation, it does in some cases fall across racial lines. In this regard, non-profits, communities, teachers, private individuals, and states are already creating a wave of change, moving from perceiving art education as expendable costs toward an overall realization of its benefits. The recent development of National Core Arts Standards is a promising step, as alining art eduction with Common Core Standards can hopefully bring arts back to the classroom.

Resources

Primary

Common Core State Standards Initiative: What is the Common Core?

National Center for Educational Statistics: Arts Education in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: 1999-2000 and 2009-10

Additional

Americans For The Arts: Decline of Arts Education in Undeserved Populations

Americans For The Arts: Uneven Education Opportunities Nationwide

College Board for the National Coalition for Core Arts Standards: The Art and The Common Core

National Coalition for Core Arts Standards: Model Cornerstone Pilot Project 2014

Huffington Post: Is Federal Money The Best Way To Fund The Arts? Join The Debate

The Washington Post: Will Less Art and Music in the Classroom Really Help Students Soar Academically?

EugeneWeekly: Budget Cuts Affect Music, Arts

Think Progress: Public Schools Slash Arts Education And Turn To Private Funding

PBS Parents: The Importance of Art in Child Development

Artsz: 20 Reasons Why Art is Important for Children

US News: Extracurriculars Are Central to Learning

Seattle PI: Budget Cuts to Art Programs in Schools

The Hechinger Report: Do the Arts Go Hand in Hand With Common Core?

EdSource: Effort to Revive Arts Programs in Schools Gains Momentum

Art & Education Exchange: Where the Arts and Common Core Intersect

The AEP Wire: No Child Left Behind: A Study of its Impact on Art Education

The Notebook: NCLB: Taking a Toll on Arts and Music Education

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post School Art Programs: Should They Be Saved? appeared first on Law Street.

From a walk through a subway station to prime time television, dance is all around us. However, with so many people throwing their feet into the game, choreography copyrighting has become a bit of a confusing mess. There is a basic part of choreography that many people do not understand: the creator of the dance does not always own the copyright to the moves. In many cases, especially with tour productions and Broadway musicals, the copyright actually belongs to the producers of the show.

It gets complicated when there are more than one or two people who have created the work, as is the case with many dance teams. There have been cases where a choreographer has simply listed other dancers in order to credit them for an idea or two (which can be as simple as a turn or a hand movement), without realizing that listing them actually gives that person the right to reproduce that work elsewhere.

So, how exactly can you copyright choreography? First, one has to define choreography. It is not as simple as a few dance moves strung together. Instead, Martha Traylor, a legal commentator, has suggested that we define dance as the “planned movement, set into a time frame, for the benefit and enjoyment of the passive observer.” She also notes that this broad definition of dance would provide statutory copyright protection for “everything from circus productions and stage movements of actors to figure skating.”

It can get confusing, but there are a few ways to analyze the complicated world of choreography copyrighting.

The Copyright Act of 1976

When we talk about copyright, the first thing we must turn to is the Copyright Act of 1976, which lays out the ground rules for the many different things that we can copyright. The choreography rules fall under different sections, including those for dramas and pantomime.

The act gives exclusive rights to copyright owners, which include:

• The right to make copies, either digitally or physically, of the work.
• The right to sell these copies to the general public.
• The right to use the work in a different capacity (derivative works).
• The right to perform the work in public and collect money for the performance.

These rights belong exclusively to the copyright holder, but can be sold to others to use the choreography. This often happens in new adaptions of older works, like a modernized musical.

But who owns the work in the first place? That depends on how the choreographer was hired.

The “Owner” of the Choreography 

Most choreographers start out in a “work for hire” or freelance situation: they are brought in to choreograph something small for a theme park, a small-time music video, or a commercial. In this case, the employer owns the work that the choreographer creates. As the person hired is technically an employee of the entity, that piece of work now belongs to the company that did the hiring.

Some choreographers, especially those who are more well-known, will try to negotiate the rights to a particular piece of dance with varying levels of success.

One of the most beloved routines from the last hundred years has been the choreography in West Side Story. The moves are iconic to those in the know. However, it is also a work that many try to steal or emulate–and the copyright owners are watching. In a recent season of Dancing with the Stars, one of the pros tried to recreate the choreography. However, they couldn’t use any of the iconic moves. If they did so, it could have caused ABC some major problems. What resulted was a dance that reflected the style of the musical, but didn’t use the same routine.

One of the most well known court cases in choreography was the Martha Graham case, where a copyright controversy came up upon the death of beloved artist Martha Graham. She had established a dance school where she helped create over 50 pieces of work that were shown on the stage. However, she never established a copyright to the works between her and the school that she founded.

The case went to trial in 2002. The court used the work for hire law and established that “that 45 pieces were owned by the center and school, five belonged to those who had commissioned them, one belonged to the heir, 10 were in the public domain, and no one could prove ownership of nine works.” Her family lost out on potential profit because they couldn’t prove they were her design.

While this was a mistake made by a bigger artist, many small time choreographers have had similar problems.

More Than One Owner

Today, many shows, tours, or dance troupes will have more than one choreographer that helps to prepare the dances. Often, this includes a main choreographer and someone that assists them. In this case, there can be two or more owners of the copyright. However, it can only be considered a “joint work” if their work is combined and it is inseparable or interdependent on the other contributor’s work.

The U.S. Copyright Office considers joint copyright owners as equals–meaning that one person does not have more rights to the piece than the other person. In fact, unless the joint owners make a written agreement, each copyright owner has the right to commercially exploit the copyright. However, that does not mean that one person can just up and run with the piece–the other person needs to get an equal share of the profits, or the other half can buy them out if they think that will be more profitable.

Musical Copyright and Dance

While music is its own beast when it comes to copyright, there are also considerations you need to take with music and choreography. Think of the dances that we know best: the Macarena, the Single Ladies routine, the “Chorus Line” moves, and even the dancing from “Pitch Perfect”–they all are dependent on the music they accompany. All copyrighted popular music resides in the catalog of “performing rights organizations,” like the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP). Getting the rights to those songs often takes a long time and costs a lot of money.

Getting the music for a number is explained by Dance USA:

If a work was published in 1923 or later (that is, you are looking at a printed score and the copyright notice is dated 1923), it is protected by U.S. copyright law in this country. In addition, a large group of works, largely of Russian but also other origin, was restored to copyright in 1996 for the U.S. under GATT. The 20 year extension put into law in 1998 also has an impact on the works covered by this treaty.

If a work is a 20th or 21st century arrangement of an existing work, whether the underlying work is still protected by copyright or already in the public domain, you will need to clear performance rights.

Getting those rights will require a lot of knowledge from the choreographer: like what they are using it for, the size of the performance, and the cost of tickets.

Conclusion

Overall, getting the rights to a piece of work or even copyrighting your own work can be confusing. Choreography, like any other form of art, is protected and heavily regulated. The confusing web of laws surrounding the industry have led to problems for some, but at the end of the day, protects those who invest their time into creating the dances and musical numbers we all are able to enjoy on screen or on stage.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: The Copyright Act of 1976

U.S. Congress: Copyright Law Revision

Additional

Dance USA: Guide to Music Rights for Perplexed Choreographers

Digital Commons at LMU and LLS: Duet of Discord: Martha Graham and Her NonProfit Battle Over Work for Hire

AVOO: The Business of Choreography: The Relationship between Copyright and Dance

Campbell Law Review: Dance and the Choreographer’s Dilemma: A Legal and Cultural Perspective on Copyright Protection for Choreographic Works

Dance USA: Music Licensing 101: The Pretty to the Nitty-gritty

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal: Authorship, Ownership , and Control: Balancing the Economic and Artistic Issues Raised by the Martha Graham Copyright Case

Gallagher, Callahan, & Gartrell: Copyright Basics for Musicians

Kent Law: Copyright and Choreography: What Constitutes Fixation?

New England Law Review: Choreography, Pantomime and the Copyright Revision Act of 1976

New Leaf Legal: DWTS and “West Side Story” Copyright Issues: Explanation and Speculation

Copyright Crash Course: Who Owns That?

Quinnipiac: Dancing Around the Issues of Choreography and Copyright: Protecting Choreographers After Martha Graham School and Dance Foundation, INC. V. Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance, INC.

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who Owns a Dance? The Complexities of Copyrighting Choreography appeared first on Law Street.

From the time I understood the concept of “sports” I understood that the athletes who participated in such activities were loved and respected. They showed up on the fronts of my cereal boxes, on TV, and some even made the somewhat ungraceful transition into film.

As I grew older, entering high school and then college, I came to realize that student athletes were not only loved and respected, but given special treatment. They could miss class, skip tests, and all around give half the effort a normal student would have because they had to stay focused on whichever sport they happened to excel in.

I did not have a stereotypical “American” upbringing in which sports reigned supreme. My father taught music and my mother taught dance, and so I grew up with a healthy passion for the arts. My sister and I went to “rival” state schools, but since we didn’t choose those schools because of their football teams, that rivalry didn’t matter. I became a little bitter toward those athletes who had it all while art classes were cut, and dancers or drama students who had rehearsals late into the night were still expected to perform academically. To me, that didn’t seem fair. Besides, doing a triple pirouette en pointe takes way more skill than running down a football field right?

Obviously, the slightly biased opinions I held toward sports as a student are not completely factual. The various performance and visual arts require different skills than those of various sports, and so it is impossible to compare the talents of a soccer player to the talents of a ballerina. However, it is true that athlete favoritism exists in academic institutions.

Just this week, the University of North Carolina has come under fire for its preferential treatment of student athletes. UNC is a well-respected university, lauded for both its academic superiority as well as its exceptional sports programs. Recently, the school had defense attorney Kenneth Wainstein perform an internal investigation on some discrepancies in its former Afro and African-American Studies department. What did he find? For the last 18 years the department has been enrolling athletic students in freebie “paper” — or non-existent — classes to keep them on the field.

Eighteen years.

Obviously, these classes were only meant as grade boosters to maintain the athletes’ eligibility. For your viewing pleasure, here is the only required paper from one of those courses, which received an A- :

Whistleblower says UNC put athletes in classes that never met and required only one final paper. This one got an A-. pic.twitter.com/HShyr6ivGm

— Bryan Armen Graham (@BryanAGraham) March 26, 2014

 

The text says:

On the evening of December Rosa Parks decided that she was going to sit in the white people section on the bus in Montgomery, Alabama. During this time blacks had to give up there seats to whites when more whites got on the bus. Rosa parks refused to give up her seat. Her and the bus driver began to talk and the conversation went like this. “Let me have those front seats” said the driver. She didn’t get up and told the driver that she was tired of giving her seat to white people. “I’m going to have you arrested,” said the driver. “You may do that,” Rosa Parks responded. Two white policemen came in and Rosa Parks asked them “why do you all push us around?” The police officer replied and said “I don’t know, but the law is the law and you’re under arrest.

Gripping stuff.

After the truth behind the fake classes was revealed, UNC fired the faculty members responsible for starting and “teaching” those classes. The student newspaper, though, the Daily Tarheel, revealed that the fraud went much further, saying the report “found clear evidence that academic counselors from the football, men’s basketball and women’s basketball teams asked for players to be enrolled in bogus independent study classes in order for them to be eligible.” That answers the question of how no one in the last 18 years noticed that the classes weren’t actually meeting — the athletic chairs and faculty members already knew!

This scandal is just one example of athletic favoritism, which has existed since colleges first started athletic programs. Apparently, football is so important to some people that they will break school policies — and sometimes laws — to keep their athletes playing. It is just insane. In most schools, if a student who is involved in a non-athletic club or activity fails a semester, they give up that club or activity until their grades are better. Several on-campus organizations require a minimum GPA for membership. Athletics should be the same way. If an athlete cannot perform well in school, they should not be permitted to play. End of story.

—

Morgan McMurray (@mcflurrybatman) is a freelance copywriter and blogger based in Savannah, Georgia. She spends her time writing, reading, and attempting to dance gracefully. She has also been known to binge-watch Netflix while knitting scarves.

Featured image courtesy of [Hector Alejandro via Flickr]

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Athlete Favoritism 101: A+ For Everyone! appeared first on Law Street.