PDA

View Full Version : The Right to Ban!



Gus
19th-June-2003, 08:15 PM
This little story was recently passed round on the dance circuit (names have been changed to protect the guilty

A friend has set up an independent freestyle in XXX, once a month. He lives there and was fed up with having to travel miles every time he wanted to dance on a Saturday, and YYYY consistently refuse to put on a freestyle, despite constant requests. So P has found a great venue and done his own, being careful not to clash with any YYYY freestyles, and so improving his chances of getting good numbers.

YYYY here have now banned him from all YYYY venues, as he is technically in competition. Rather insulting I think as just two days before his ban, he was paraded on stage at a YYYY venue having done quite well in the championships!

Now, I have experience with being banned. ZZZZ tried to ban me from their shops after I refused to take off my crash helmet. I made some enquiries and found out that it is only legally possible to ban someone by getting a magistrate to issue a banning order. It is possible to remove someone’s membership from a club, but only if that club abides by the clubs and associations act (like working men’s clubs etc), which YYYY do not. In fact YYYY don’t even have any proper club rules for members.

I have told P to issue a harassment notice against anyone refusing to admit him to YYYY. If they continue, then he could have them arrested as it is a criminal offence to harass someone. The penalty is up to 3 months in prison and up to a £10,000 fine. It gets better though, as the harassment notice can be issued not only against individuals, but also organisations!


Before I get accused of having a go at any dance organisation in particular, I would like to say that the banning part of this not my the focus of my interest. Its the point that it appears that you can’t ban someone. That concerns me greatly. to date I banned two dancers. One for being a groping leech and the other for being a homicidal airstepper. Neither cove should be let anywhere near a dancefloor, but if the story above is true in future I would not be able to bar them from my venue.:reallymad: can someone please tell me this can’t be right?? .... though if it is true ... maybe I should pay a visit to my local Ceroc Nantwich sometime....:wink:

Gadget
20th-June-2003, 08:27 AM
I was under the impression that there was no real 'Banning' law; as the runner of a venue, you reserve the right to refuse admission and eject someone if they are becoming a nusance or danger to your patrons.
Since most venues serve booze, I'm sure that there is another set of laws under the licencing act that would enable you to turn people away.
Health and Safety under european legislation could be another avenue; if you are responsable for the health and safety of your patrons, then I think you are within your rights to deny individuals who you deem a danger to your people.

Since Ceroc is a private 'Club' that you need membership to attend, removal of this membership could be justification enough to bar access to the night.

The only legal thing like 'banning' I can think of is a restraining order, but that's a bit over the top and has to be awarded by a judge.

... but i'm no lawyer...

Bill
20th-June-2003, 01:59 PM
I was under the impression that any shop /store/club could refuse permission on almost any grounds - or even refuse to say why !

If someone is excluded from a club on the basis of being a sleaze or groping then I suppose he could be told that if he returns and does it again the woman/women coudl take an action against him ofr sexual harrassment or possible assault - not sure of what the legal definition is.

Gadget's comments suggest soem other possibilites that are interesting.

Dance Demon
20th-June-2003, 03:32 PM
Under licensing laws (in Scotland)..the management reserve the right to refuse both admission and service, without giving a reason. Giving a reason is often a very dodgy practice, as in these Americanised days, people are only too ready to sue the pants off anyone who makes what they call a defamitory remark.
There are also lots of "no win no fee" lawyers out there, looking to make a fast buck. So really, the best policy is to repeat the "management reserve the right etc etc" and don't give a reason. Safe is best:wink:

nessie2611
20th-June-2003, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Gadget
I was under the impression that there was no real 'Banning' law; as the runner of a venue, you reserve the right to refuse admission and eject someone if they are becoming a nusance or danger to your patrons.
Since most venues serve booze, I'm sure that there is another set of laws under the licencing act that would enable you to turn people away.
Health and Safety under european legislation could be another avenue; if you are responsable for the health and safety of your patrons, then I think you are within your rights to deny individuals who you deem a danger to your people.

Since Ceroc is a private 'Club' that you need membership to attend, removal of this membership could be justification enough to bar access to the night.

The only legal thing like 'banning' I can think of is a restraining order, but that's a bit over the top and has to be awarded by a judge.

... but i'm no lawyer...

I have read with interest the comments about the right to ban and would hope to try and clear up a couple of points. I also have extra information to add as I was sent this by a very reliable source and have since received more information about the legal side. Read on
From a personal point of view, if someone is treating you differently, or descriminating against you in any way that affects your rights to free association, and freedom to participate, then this can be considered harrassment. The old Right of Admission thing is not legally valid. Not giving a reason to refuse admission is equal to giving an illegal reason, like race or religion.

The various acts passed regarding banning/excluding are as a result of football hooliganism, and most references found will refer to this. Generally it is the police who will apply for a banning notice on individuals.

Think of them like an order to prevent someone coming near you (a restraining order) You would have to apply through
the courts, and give a legal and valid reason, like that the person had endangered the safety of people, or had acted in a legally antisocial manner.

The only way to protect your right to refuse admission is to have a proper club membership (which Ceroc does not). You will have to publish all rules and regulations. Each new member must be given a membership contract, agreeing to abide by the club rules. Any person then breaching the rules would have to be suspended first, then have a hearing with the club committee etc. Ultimately they could then be stripped of membership. As membership is a requirement of entry, then you can exclude, as you are not legally obliged to accept any application. Plus you can have a nomination system for new members. This way you can slow down the application process. You are allowed a "signing in" system, where the signee is responsible for those they sign in. Blah blah blah....

Check out your local working mens club for all this stuff. The problem is that if you make membership so beaurocratic you wont get any members! Its either put up with everyones crap, or become a proper private members club. OR as a last alternative, you can make it a ticket only event - and accept no-one on the night. Admission by ticket only is legal. However although you
can obviously pretend to undesirables that you are sold out (other reasons for not selling a ticket would be illegal) you need to be careful they cant prove otherwise if they try to. Issuing tickets with individual names on is the best bet, and admit only the person named on the ticket.

From the point of view of promoting other peoples events. I think if you are an event holder, you have the right of veto on any advertising. However you cannot prevent word of mouth, thats a breach of civil liberties. You must also not do anything to derogate the competition, as this would be anti-competitive and can land you with a huge fine. Anything you say about anyone else, or any organisation, must be true (and provable, not just word of mouth) else you can be fined for libel or slander.

I hope that this clears up a few points.

In the case of Ceroc membership the only provision given when you sign up this that once you have become a member you are a member for life. When I signed up I was not handed a set of rules to follow as a member and therefore presumably could not break any.

As a franchisee, on the other hand, when you take on a franchise you are presented with a contract and a set of rules to abide by. Therefore if you break any of the rules you could in theory have your franchise revoked. This remains to be seen.

Sorry for the length of my post, but I hope this shines a bit more light on the subject.

My final thought is that the only way to succeed in a dance venue is to promote an enjoyable, hassle free night and ensure that none of the political infighting upsets the members.

:nice: Nessie

Dreadful Scathe
20th-June-2003, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by nessie2611
I also have extra information to add as I was sent this by a very reliable source and have since received more information about the legal side.

I assume what you say is the case in English law but what about Scottish law? Laws of this type usually differ by quite a degree between Scotland and England/Wales i.e defamation/slander, trespass etc..

nessie2611
20th-June-2003, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Gus
appears[/i] that you can’t ban someone. That concerns me greatly. to date I banned two dancers. One for being a groping leech and the other for being a homicidal airstepper. Neither cove should be let anywhere near a dancefloor, but if the story above is true in future I would not be able to bar them from my venue.:reallymad: can someone please tell me this can’t be right?? .... though if it is true ... maybe I should pay a visit to my local Ceroc Nantwich sometime....:wink:

Hi Gus

Don't panic:what: With the dancing community being as sociable as it is, I always find a quiet word in someones shell-like with the comment of "I wouldn't like to have to ask you to leave!" if they become awkward is usually sufficient. In the case of the leech you could argue that he was behaving in a manor that was offensive and ask him to stop. You do have to give people the benefit of the doubt with a simple word to give them the chance to redeem themselves. Believe it or not some of these types do not realise their behaviour is offensive :really:

With regards to air steps you usually display notices stating that air steps are not to be used, this could be seen as a rule and therefore the person could be breaking this rule. But a thought for you, as a club that teaches air steps and drops on workshops where are people meant to be able to dance them???:grin: You may want to give that some thought. It might be used as an argument some time.

Love Nessie

nessie2611
20th-June-2003, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by Dreadful Scathe
I assume what you say is the case in English law but what about Scottish law? Laws of this type usually differ by quite a degree between Scotland and England/Wales i.e defamation/slander, trespass etc..

I can only speak for English law but you may want to make some enquiries with regard to Scottish Law it may not be as different as you think.

We know the law has a nasty way of using loop holes to defend a case, so I presume this is one of those cases where you think you have it covered but legally you haven't.:what:

Let me know what you find out.

Nessie

Gadget
20th-June-2003, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by nessie2611
In the case of Ceroc membership the only provision given when you sign up this that once you have become a member you are a member for life. When I signed up I was not handed a set of rules to follow as a member and therefore presumably could not break any.
I thought that ignorance of the law was no excuse for breaking it? Just because you did not ask/were not told the rules, does not justify you breaking them.

As for the difference in Scots and English law, there may only be a slight difference in legal termanology, but the legal procedure in Scotland is not based on the letter of the law as English law is: It's based on the founding principle of the law.

...I'd love to stay and argue, but the sun is still shining and it's a friday evening... :waycool:

Gus
20th-June-2003, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by nessie2611
In the case of the leech you could argue that he was behaving in a manor that was offensive and ask him to stop. You do have to give people the benefit of the doubt with a simple word to give them the chance to redeem themselves. Believe it or not some of these types do not realise their behaviour is offensive :really:

Fair comment ... but waht I failed to mention is that both gentlemen had been warned twice before .... and if you knew what thel ech had actualy done .... well I think that you may not have shown the restraint I showed.



With regards to air steps you usually display notices stating that air steps are not to be used, this could be seen as a rule and therefore the person could be breaking this rule. But a thought for you, as a club that teaches air steps and drops on workshops where are people meant to be able to dance them???:grin


Urrrr ... I've never taught an airstep in my life.... and only one vsiting Masterclass instructor has to my knowledge. As far as drops go ... all drops ever taught at my clubs have always been heavily surrounded by saftey warnings ... just as the Scots who did my Drops workshop :wink:

Alfie
20th-June-2003, 06:45 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gadget
[B]I thought that ignorance of the law was no excuse for breaking it? Just because you did not ask/were not told the rules, does not justify you breaking them.


Fair comment :grin: but it is not ignorance when there are no set of rules to follow.

I always endeavour to be considerate to other people whenever I am anywhere not just dancing. I would never harass anyone or endanger anyones life through inconsiderate actions. This is just common decency not the rules.

To be bound by the rules of a club they have to be displayed and agreed to before they can become enforced. This protects the individual from people who would try to enforce there own set of rules as they feel fit.

With regard to the differences between English Law and Scottish Law I believe that most of the legislation that has been investigated is European concerning the human rights legislation, and last time I looked Scotland was part of Europe was it not? There fore refusing entry and not giving a valid reason is illegal and classed as an infringement of ones right to free association and freedom to participate. :wink:

Anyway this is getting very heavy

personally I blame GUS :grin:

Nessie

nessie2611
20th-June-2003, 06:48 PM
Alfie had not logged out BAD ALFIE:reallymad

The last post was from me

Nessie

Gadget
20th-June-2003, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by Alfie (Nessie indisguise)
To be bound by the rules of a club they have to be displayed and agreed to before they can become enforced. This protects the individual from people who would try to enforce there own set of rules as they feel fit.
I have been a member of several social clubs & societies and the rules of membership and conduct have never been presented before joining {that I can remember}. In some they were expected to be passed to you by the individual who nominated you to join, in most others there is a 'constitution' which is held by the 'comittee' and freely available to those that know about it or ask.
I think that in most clubs, membership entitles you to certain services and events that are run by that club. The trade is money for services; how you act and behave within that club is your own affair. Social ettiquite and public decency are normally enough. If the club has dress code or social rules that are outwith the normal, then (and only then) there a need for a seperate constiution outlining how members should behave.

Another point is that the reason for having a private, fee paying club is that it is no longer a public venue, but a private one; this means that certain laws which may involve discrimination in public can be legally violated.
Do the laws you site refer to clubs specifically? How about societies? Parties? For example the BNP - this is a society that promotes nationalism and activly encourages discrimination against minorities. The very existence of this party should therefore be aginst the laws quoted.


With regard to the differences between English Law and Scottish Law I believe that most of the legislation that has been investigated is European concerning the human rights legislation, and last time I looked Scotland was part of Europe was it not?
Yes, but only a little part ;) I'm a bit vague on this, but I think that you have to go through national courts before you can appeal to european courts?

...man, too heavy... :sorry

nessie2611
21st-June-2003, 12:13 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gadget
[B]I have been a member of several social clubs & societies and the rules of membership and conduct have never been presented before joining {that I can remember}. In some they were expected to be passed to you by the individual who nominated you to join, in most others there is a 'constitution' which is held by the 'comittee' and freely available to those that know about it or ask.
I think that in most clubs, membership entitles you to certain services and events that are run by that club. The trade is money for services; how you act and behave within that club is your own affair. Social ettiquite and public decency are normally enough. If the club has dress code or social rules that are outwith the normal, then (and only then) there a need for a seperate constiution outlining how members should behave.

__________________________________________________ __

As a member of a specific social club or society there are rules laid out that a club and society member must abide by. These club and societies are protected by their own legislation that they pay a registration to be a part of eg. affiliated etc. Ceroc is not a member of any of these. Or in fact any of the other modern jive related clubs that I know of.

Another point is that the reason for having a private, fee paying club is that it is no longer a public venue, but a private one; this means that certain laws which may involve discrimination in public can be legally violated.

I agree that modern jive clubs are in fact mainly for members, but most of them in fact let anyone in as a non member and do in fact charge extra for a non member to enter. In theory modern jive clubs are for members but when you turn up at a freestyle most of them don't even ask to see your membership card (in the case of Ceroc) and members don't have a membership card (in the case of Blitz) this surely makes an event open to the public!? And it is a civil right not to be discriminated against.


__________________________________________________ __
"Do the laws you site refer to clubs specifically? How about societies? Parties? For example the BNP - this is a society that promotes nationalism and activly encourages discrimination against minorities. The very existence of this party should therefore be aginst the laws quoted."
__________________________________________________ __


In respect of the BNP this is a political party and therefore have the right to freedom of speech and is protected by its own set of rules. The party still does not discriminate against any one individual personally and targets groups of minorities open for public debate.

Anyway back to the original point in hand, just because Ceroc, Blitz etc are large organisations, they are not allowed to invent rules as and when they see fit. This means they have to abide by an individuals personal rights.

I might add that this is the legal view and may or may not reflect my own personal opinion, I'll let you decide that for yourself.

On a lighter note, as long as we all behave ourselves there should be no need to worry about being banned from a venue. :grin:

Nessie :kiss:

Gus
21st-June-2003, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by nessie2611
[On a lighter note, as long as we all behave ourselves there should be no need to worry about being banned from a venue. :grin:


Urrrmm define behave? Would NOT-behaving include mentioning another club to someone or teaching dance on a different night in another area etc. etc.:wink: Heard of people banned for less!

jiveclone
21st-June-2003, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Alfie (Nessie)


Fair comment :grin: but it is not ignorance when there are no set of rules to follow.

...

To be bound by the rules of a club they have to be displayed and agreed to before they can become enforced. This protects the individual from people who would try to enforce there own set of rules as they feel fit.



There used to be some rules on the membership form (in rather small print, which would probably be rather difficult to read with the lighting levels typical in Ceroc venues), which you should have received a carbon copy of when you joined. Of which rule 1. "Company shall be entitled at any time to refuse you admision at any premises at which Ceroc dance classes or a Ceroc function of any nature is being held ('Ceroc Venue')."

There were various other rules, e.g. rule 4, was about non-disclosure of the confidential information taught in Ceroc dance classes.

However this was an old version of the form from 1994. The version of the form used in 1999 does not have any rules on it, presumably the form design was changed when numbered membership cards were introduced.

However, don't most (maybe all) Ceroc venues have a laminated card of rules on display on the entrance desk?

nessie2611
21st-June-2003, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by jiveclone
[B]

There used to be some rules on the membership form (in rather small print, which would probably be rather difficult to read with the lighting levels typical in Ceroc venues), which you should have received a carbon copy of when you joined. Of which rule 1. "Company shall be entitled at any time to refuse you admision at any premises at which Ceroc dance classes or a Ceroc function of any nature is being held ('Ceroc Venue')."

There were various other rules, e.g. rule 4, was about non-disclosure of the confidential information taught in Ceroc dance classes.

However this was an old version of the form from 1994. The version of the form used in 1999 does not have any rules on it, presumably the form design was changed when numbered membership cards were introduced.

However, don't most (maybe all) Ceroc venues have a laminated card of rules on display on the entrance desk?


In reply to your first point. Ceroc can have you removed from a venue if you are a danger to the other people or harassing someone by calling the police and having you removed because you are breaking the law. Or if they can legally prove why you shouldn't be allowed in.

When I joined in 1999, there were no rules on the joining application. And even if there were if someone wanted to push a point I doubt if they would be worth the paper they were printed on.

Also none of the venues from the Midlands upwards have any rules displayed on the front desk. Again even if they did legally they could be argued against.

The rule about non-disclosure of confidential information at a venue, I am unsure what confidential information is at a dance venue. The moves taught at any venue are the moves for modern jive and are not the property of any particular organisation the same as moves for any other dance form. The names of the moves are not protected by copyright, so anyone teaching dance can use them. Also people seem to forget that the dance we all do is Modern Jive not Ceroc or Blitz or Mojive or any other name. The names used are all Brand names the dance form is Modern Jive. Just the same as Nike, Reebok, Adidas etc are brands the product is trainers, hats etc

Taking this point to a sillier example : I could set up a club, tell the people they had to become a member to enter and then tell them that it is a rule of the club that all men must wear a pink bow tie and ladies wear red shoes. This is an extreme example but by law I could not enforce this if someone didn't want to.

At the end of the day this point has been taken to extremes and we rarely have to take these steps, and lets face it who would want to dance at any venue where the people are so uptight.

Just to set the cat amongst the pidgeons, I wish that the big organisations would take the rules set out for Franchisees as seriously as some of the so called rules for members they try to enforce. You can't have it both ways !!!:really:

Nessie

nessie2611
21st-June-2003, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Gus
Urrrmm define behave? Would NOT-behaving include mentioning another club to someone or teaching dance on a different night in another area etc. etc.:wink: Heard of people banned for less!

I get your point :wink: and I agree that these a not actions that should get you banned from a venue.

I just wish franchisees could be banned as easily as they seem to ban members perhaps then they would give it more thought. :D

By the way are you goint to Stockport tonight?

Nessie

bigdjiver
21st-June-2003, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by nessie2611
The moves taught at any venue are the moves for modern jive and are not the property of any particular organisation the same as moves for any other dance form. The names of the moves are not protected by copyright, so anyone teaching dance can use them. [/B]

What is your source for this information?

The cataloguing and design of teaching methods for the Ceroc classes, and the invention of “new” moves has taken many man (& woman) years of work. There is substantial intellectual property involved. I would be very surprised if there were no copyright issues involved. I think same holds true for Leroc, and other franchises. I do not know how extensively this has been tested in court in the past. Certainly many Modern Jive organisations have deliberately used different names from the Ceroc ones to avoid the issue.

Gus
21st-June-2003, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by bigdjiver
What is your source for this information?

The cataloguing and design of teaching methods for the Ceroc classes, and the invention of “new” moves has taken many man (& woman) years of work. There is substantial intellectual property involved. I would be very surprised if there were no copyright issues involved. I think same holds true for Leroc, and other franchises. I do not know how extensively this has been tested in court in the past.

If Ceroc-folklore is to be believed ... this whole issue WAS tested in law and Ceroc lost hands down. If the lore is true Ceroc tried to claim ownership of the moves and there may have been some debate about banning teachers form defecting and teaching the moves elsewhere. The rumours state that the case was thrown out as being unenforceable.

By the way ... who says Ceroc designed a lot of the moves?? Many of the current Ceroc syllabus is taken from RocknRoll, WCS, Lindy and even original Le Roc moves .... so who owns the moves. Sounds surprisingly like the Windows look and feel case where Apple tried to sue Microsoft only for it to become appraent that the original Windows was designed by someone else (ITT ?).

bigdjiver
21st-June-2003, 11:07 PM
Repeating rumours is always suspect, repeating them as legal fact is very suspect indeed.

As you point out Ceroc and Leroc and others since, have garned moves from all sorts of sources, and even those invented by employees cannot be guaranteed not to have been invented by someone else first. The prior knowledge may be public domain or someone else's copyright.

It is my lay opinion that the gathering together of these moves, documenting them, naming them, describing how they should be taught, and the format of these lessons is substantial work of intellect. This work has been documented, and should be subject to copyright. I think anyone who has made copies of the Ceroc manuals would be in breach of copyright.

Whether paying for the lessons then gives others the right to re-package and sell this information themselves is beyond my legal knowledge. I will seek more expert advice and report back.

I would hate to see Modern Jive sink into a legal brawl. I think it is up to the different franchises to compete on quality and price, for the benefit of all.

On the other hand I can see advantages in a central authority describing naming moves and setting teaching standards for what can be a dangerous pastime. Personally I do not think it undesirable if Leroc and Ceroc, and possibly Le Jive, should cross license such intellectual rights as they may have, and seek a small licence fee from other Modern Jive copy-cats.

For safety sake names of moves and signals should be uniform.

All of the above only my lay opinion.

Gus
22nd-June-2003, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by bigdjiver

It is my lay opinion that the gathering together of these moves, documenting them, naming them, describing how they should be taught, and the format of these lessons is substantial work of intellect. This work has been documented, and should be subject to copyright. I think anyone who has made copies of the Ceroc manuals would be in breach of copyright.



Urrrr .. I may be wrong but I beieve the aw of patents states that if something is in the public domain then it can't be patented. If you folowed what I think you are saying to its logical conclusion then I could document all the Salsa moves then ban any Salsa instructor from teaching MY moves:what:



On the other hand I can see advantages in a central authority describing naming moves and setting teaching standards for what can be a dangerous pastime. Personally I do not think it undesirable if Leroc and Ceroc, and possibly Le Jive, should cross license such intellectual rights as they may have, and seek a small licence fee from other Modern Jive copy-cats.


WHY???? Even martial arts dont do this .... there are many variations of Shotokan Katate (for example) ... why should one body deem themselves responsibe for TRUE moves ...... The whole beauty is that there is no such thing as AUTHENTIC Modern Jive ... and if you think Ceroc is the pure source, I was at more than a few teacher updates to see 'new' Ceroc moves that were simply copied from other instructors.

Please dont get me wrong, Ceroc has done a fantastic thing in establishing Modern Jive ... but it can't own it ... certainly not legaly and probaby not ethicaly .... though I do feel they have been hard done to by some organsiations that have shameslessly plagurised their work ..... the laws of libel prevent me from naming names:wink:

nessie2611
22nd-June-2003, 12:23 PM
The thread seems so have taken a turn towards who is the originator of Ceroc!

If you read any of the Ceroc literature you will find that the claim is Modern Jive was taken to France by the American GIs during 2nd world war. Then it was bought over to the UK by James Cronin.

Why then if this is the case is there any discussion at all about who invented Modern Jive? And who owns the right to sell it to the public? Surely Modern Jive is just a form of dance that has taken bits of many other forms of dance and is always going to grow as people get more adventurous with the moves.

If you check the copyright records you will find that Ceroc have not got copyright on the dance moves. I say again Ceroc is a brand name used to promote Modern Jive which we all enjoy.

If you are in it for the dancing then surely the more venues you can go to dance the better. It is up to the individual venue to promote customer relations and offer the best value for money. I doubt if this would have even had started in the first place if certain individuals had not been so greedy.

I do appreciate the time spent by dancers who come up with more complex dance moves and I do not take this away from them. But I am sure that they are not the ones taking the credit for them. You may ask yourselves why it is that only teachers are allowed the freedom to submit new moves and why Joe Public can't join in? And how often do you hear who put together a 'new' move when it is taught in class!!

Nessie :cheers:

DavidB
22nd-June-2003, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by bigdjiver
The cataloguing and design of teaching methods for the Ceroc classes, and the invention of “new” moves has taken many man (& woman) years of work. There is substantial intellectual property involved. I would be very surprised if there were no copyright issues involved. I think same holds true for Leroc, and other franchises. I do not know how extensively this has been tested in court in the past. Certainly many Modern Jive organisations have deliberately used different names from the Ceroc ones to avoid the issue. There is nothing unique about Ceroc teaching methods. Everything they do is fairly standard in all dance classes. The only thing different is what they decide not to teach.

There is nothing unique in Ceroc moves. Every single movement and lead I've seen has been done in a similar way on other swing or latin dance styles. Just stringing movements together in a different order would not in my opinion create anything new.

Documentation of moves is probably covered by copyright. But that would only cover duplication of the documentation, not the underlying move.

The names of the moves might be covered by law, if they are new. But anything that uses standard dancing or descriptive terms (eg hammerlock, sway, catapult, etc) could be used by anyone.

And obviously the name Ceroc is trademarked.

David

bigdjiver
22nd-June-2003, 02:29 PM
Apologies for wandering off-topic into can-of-worms territory.

"Scarborough fair" is ye olde english folk song, definitely public domain. Paul Simon has embellished it and his embellished version is allegedly copyright protected. The same thing has occurred with many other artists and folk tunes. Where exactly the boundaries lie is lawyers getting rich territory. It is possible to add creative work to public domain material and create intellectual property. There are arguments about native folk remedies which are now being hijacked and patent protected.

There is always a balance to be struck between freedom and order. I love the diversity and freedom of Modern Jive. I have personally experienced several near-miss injury situations because the lady has been taught a different move that goes with a particular Ceroc lead. Some of these ladies insisted that they had learned "Ceroc" at places where there has never been a Ceroc Venue.

The Japanese martial arts scene is an example of the sad chaos that can ensue. I had a relative who was a Black belt in one form of Judo, and a white belt (novice) in another. No easy answers.

Dreadful Scathe
22nd-June-2003, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by bigdjiver
Personally I do not think it undesirable if Leroc and Ceroc, and possibly Le Jive, should cross license such intellectual rights as they may have, and seek a small licence fee from other Modern Jive copy-cats.

You cant possibly 'licence' modern jive, you could only licence anything that your company/franchise/your teachers uniquely produced! And why are you suggesting ' possibly Le Jive ' ? are their intellectual rights less important :) are less able to come up with unique moves for some reason ? what about Blitz etc..?



For safety sake names of moves and signals should be uniform.


Thats ridiculous without a modern jive governing body to say what the names and signals are going to be - and there are already governing bodys, so which one do you suggest ?

:)

DavidB
22nd-June-2003, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by bigdjiver
It is my lay opinion that the gathering together of these moves, documenting them, naming them, describing how they should be taught, and the format of these lessons is substantial work of intellect. This work has been documented, and should be subject to copyright. I think anyone who has made copies of the Ceroc manuals would be in breach of copyright.Your documentation is almost certainly protected by copyright - but it doesn't give you copyright over the original moves.

As for trying to copyright a teaching method - what is so unique about the Ceroc method? Having a teacher at the front of a class showing people what to do? Showing people how to do the move to music? Dancing with different people?

How do you think every other style of dance is taught throughout the world? Telepathy??


Whether paying for the lessons then gives others the right to re-package and sell this information themselves is beyond my legal knowledge.In Ballroom, it is common for teachers to pay more for private lessons than non-teachers. You get taught not just what you need to know to do the move, but also what you need to teach it. Paying more is a professional courtesy, as you are potentially taking business away from the teacher. However I don't think any sort of legal requirement.
I personally think it is unethical to teach people, but then try to impose limitations on how the knowledge can be used.


On the other hand I can see advantages in a central authority describing naming moves and setting teaching standards for what can be a dangerous pastime.I'm not sure about naming moves, but I think that a 'qualification' for teaching jive will eventually become a requirement - whether it is from insurance companies providing the liability insurance, or from the venues.


Personally I do not think it undesirable if Leroc and Ceroc, and possibly Le Jive, should cross license such intellectual rights as they may have, and seek a small licence fee from other Modern Jive copy-cats. I would expect to pay if I used Ceroc documentation. But otherwise there is no intellectual property I would need to use to teach Modern Jive.


For safety sake names of moves and signals should be uniform.Modern Jive is not led verbally, so the names are pretty irrelevant (except to the teachers!).

Now signals are interesting. You might be able to argue that a signal for a move is covered by copyright, even if the actual move isn't. After all the signal really has nothing to do with the move, and signals seem to be unique to modern jive.

But of course if people were actually taught how to lead, then they wouldn't need signals.

David

nessie2611
22nd-June-2003, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by Dreadful Scathe
You cant possibly 'licence' modern jive, you could only licence anything that your company/franchise/your teachers uniquely produced! And why are you suggesting ' possibly Le Jive ' ? are their intellectual rights less important :) are less able to come up with unique moves for some reason ? what about Blitz etc..?



Thats ridiculous without a modern jive governing body to say what the names and signals are going to be - and there are already governing bodys, so which one do you suggest ?

:)

You could no more licence Modern Jive than the Waltz, Quick step etc. You don't even have to be qualified to teach dance you can set up a dance school under any name you want and teach people to dance.

With regard to signalling a set move, surely this is all part of the fun of Modern Jive, the fact that it is constantly evolving and people teach each other moves they prefer. And why on earth would you try and do a move that could be classed as dangerous with a partner you are not familiar with in the first place, surely this is just totally irresponsible and very unfair to your partner.

Like most forms of dance there are a number of different methods to learn to dance each one suits different people. I can do a basic waltz but I can't do a lot of twiddly stuff so I rely on a good lead from my partner and follow him!!! Is this not the same practice with Modern Jive, I thought it was!!! :D

If a partner can't follow your lead then you shouldn't try to force the move without a small amount of explanation and tuition first. This is where you get people getting dropped and injured. Which as a result just means the evening is interupted and you don't get as much dancing in. :tears:

Nessie

nessie2611
22nd-June-2003, 11:32 PM
Totally agree with your comment about being taught to lead.

In a male led dance this is vital, which is what I put in my last post but we must have crossed posts :kiss:

Nessie

Will
23rd-June-2003, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by nessie2611
The thread seems so have taken a turn towards who is the originator of Ceroc!

If you read any of the Ceroc literature you will find that the claim is Modern Jive was taken to France by the American GIs during 2nd world war. Then it was bought over to the UK by James Cronin.

Why then if this is the case is there any discussion at all about who invented Modern Jive?

You'll find that what we call Ceroc / Modern Jive in the UK is actually different to what was danced by the GI's in France. If you go to a Jive event in France as I have, you'll find that the rhythm / footwork is different. Someone once posted the technical differences - but it went way over my head. :sad: It would be truer to say that what was started in 1980 in the UK was an adapted version of what was going on in France.

Getting back to the "Right to Ban" issue, is it legal to ban Shania Twain and Shakira? (I do hope so)

spindr
23rd-June-2003, 12:49 PM
Really a FYI;

The first book on "Modern Jive" I bought was: `Andy Galloway. The Dance Manual. Lyndenhurst Ltd, 38 Ashley Road, London, N19 3AF, 1988.' This book is (was) a set of A4 stapled pages, with little photos and move descriptions underneath, and a nice light blue card cover with the original Ceroc logo (the one with the man kneeling).

As far as I can tell from the DTI website the Ceroc trademark was first registered in 1989 (applied for in 1988).

Most signals are just stylised preparations for the next step (except the really useless ones).

Neil.

P.S. If you want pretty links to all of this, then checkout my website http://www.afterfive.co.uk .
I also recommend http://www.howtojive.com.
P.P.S. As far as I remember from discussions on some of the juggling mailing lists, performances (sequences of moves) are covered by copyright.

bigdjiver
23rd-June-2003, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by spindr

checkout my website http://www.afterfive.co.uk .
I also recommend http://www.howtojive.com.

P.P.S. As far as I remember from discussions on some of the juggling mailing lists, performances (sequences of moves) are covered by copyright.

Congratulations and many thanks for the the website, and Gnu license.

I believe you are right about performances. It is a question of which shade of grey is more black than white in a judges eye, e.g. manspin followed by ladyspin ( No) Choreography to West Side Story (Yes). That whas why I the words "substantial" and "collection" are important. Most of "Harry Potter" is public domain words.

Will
23rd-June-2003, 02:18 PM
spindr,

just took a look at your website - An incredible piece of work!

How long did that lot take you to put together? It's a fascinating read. It's really invaluable that moves are recorded as I'm sure that many of the older ones get slowly forgotten as they go out of fashion.

Cheers

Will

P.S. Noticed you didn't have the "Ballroom Drop" in your list of moves :wink:

Gadget
23rd-June-2003, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by DavidB
There is nothing unique about Ceroc teaching methods. Everything they do is fairly standard in all dance classes. The only thing different is what they decide not to teach.
Admitidly I have not been to many other forms of dance class, but I was under the impression that the method* of teaching at least started out as an origional concept:

"Beginners" Demo:Intro:Move1: Move2: Move1+Move2: Move3: Move1+Move2+Move3: Move4: Move1+Move2+Move3+Move4: Move4+Move1:repeat all x2/3: Freestyle: "Intermediate" demo: ...class [workshop for beginners during class]:Freestyle:

Isn't this the bit that makes Ceroc "Ceroc"tm ?


As a small aside; how may moves does it take before they cease to become just moves strung together and become a routine? (and therefore copyright-able?)
Could some of the more complex 'moves' that are taught in Ceroc not be classed as micro-routines?

Andy McGregor
23rd-June-2003, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by Gadget
As a small aside; how may moves does it take before they cease to become just moves strung together and become a routine? (and therefore copyright-able?)

Is this true?

When I went on a 3 day course on Trademarks, Copyrights and Patents with some scary law firm I remember that Copyright was only applied to the written word or 2 dimensional works such as paintings or drawings. Dance moves are 4 dimensional - the 3 spatial dimensions plus the dimensions of time. Also, copyright applied up to 50 years after the death of the author and therefore required writing of the date and name of the person asserting that right. Maybe I remembered wrong
:confused:

I do remember that the item on which you asserted your copyright had to be original. Thererfore, if you could copyright a routine, you would have to prove that those moves had never been danced in that order before. With hundreds of thousands of people dancing modern jive every year every combination and permutation of moves must have been done at some time. A bit like the 'infinite number of monkeys' in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

I don't think you can claim a move as your own (unless you're Nigel, of course!). What Act of Parliament would you use? I don't think there is one. What you can assert your right to is your particular description of that move - if you write it down!

I'm sorry I've written this now - I'm in danger of blowing my cover as a cross-dressing lightweight comedy act. I therefore claim no copyright on this post as it was written by another person:wink:

DavidB
23rd-June-2003, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by Gadget
"Beginners" Demo:Intro:Move1: Move2: Move1+Move2: Move3: Move1+Move2+Move3: Move4:
Move1+Move2+Move3+Move4: Move4+Move1:repeat all x2/3:
Jazz & Salsa follow this exact format. So do West Coast Swing & Hustle. Ballroom classes are sometimes different - eg you may learn a move, then fit it into your existing repertoire. But Latin is usually taught like this.

Freestyle between and after classes is common throughout the world. The name "Freestyle" might be unique - everywhere else just calls it 'social dancing'.


Isn't this the bit that makes Ceroc "Ceroc"tm ?No - it is a lawyer and about £700 that makes it "Ceroc"tm.

I didn't know exactly what a trademark was, so I found this at the Institute Of Trade Mark Attorneys (http://www.itma.org.uk/trade-marks/1-what-is.htm):
A trade mark is virtually anything that is unique to your business - A word, logo, jingle, colour, smell, shape, gesture, sound, combination of letters, number, form of packaging, personal name or distinctive surname, or a foreign word


As a small aside; how may moves does it take before they cease to become just moves strung together and become a routine? I was thinking about this today. I would say that to be a choreographed routine it would have to be done to a particular piece of music, and have something in it that deliberately fit the music. Otherwise it is just a sequence of moves.


(and therefore copyright-able?)
Even if it is accepted as a choreographed routine, then Andy's comments would indicate that it is still not covered by copyright. (I know that if someone videos one of our routines, then they own the copyright to the video, not me.)


Could some of the more complex 'moves' that are taught in Ceroc not be classed as micro-routines?
I've had several discussions with experienced teachers who complain that many of the so-called 'new' advanced moves are nothing more than sequences of basic moves. I don't know what Ceroc's criteria are for allowing new moves. Just as importantly (as it is freely available) I don't know what Richard Jiveoholic's criteria are?


David

bigdjiver
24th-June-2003, 01:00 AM
FWIW I have been researching copyright provision. Copyright does cover dance. It also appears to me that I am probably right about the Ceroc / Leroc dance catalogues being substantive intellectual works, but, at least in American law, social and recreational dance is specifically excluded from legal protection. Harmonisation probably means it is the same in Europe. Routines with dramatic content designed to be performed in front of an audience can be protected. It is all rather academic and untested. Actual cases tend to be settled out of court, which usually means that the party willing and able to suffer the most financial pain wins.