What are the advantages and disadvantages of copyrighting choreography?
Given that K-pop borrows from multiple cultures, countries, and dance traditions, can anything truly be considered “original”?
And if so, can foreign artists actually sue Korean artists for choreography infringement?
Before we begin: I am not a lawyer. This is based on my experience copyrighting creative work, working in the entertainment industry, and researching how copyright law is actually applied. As with most legal questions, the devil is in the details. Consider this a starting point, not legal advice.
That said—are you ready to be a lawyer?
THE CHOREOGRAPHY COPYRIGHT CONVERSATION DIDN’T START WITH NEWJEANS
Despite what many gossip sites have claimed, the move toward formally protecting choreography did not originate with NewJeans. Like any other groups or artists, the routines they use containe components that were directly lifted from others. In fact, many of the ones they accused ILLIT of copying from them were copied from someone else.
That being said, the discussion has been ongoing since at least 2023. Lia Kim, one of the most popular choreographers in Kpop, herself mentioned choreography copyright concerns in interviews last year, and more recently, she and other choreographers reportedly convened to discuss next steps as a group.
This is not a sudden reaction to one group or one controversy. It’s a long-brewing issue tied to how dance labor is valued, credited, and protected in an industry that increasingly monetizes performance clips as aggressively as music.
SO—CAN K-POP COPYRIGHT CHOREOGRAPHY?
The short answer is yes and no.
You can copyright an entire choreographic work—a full routine or performance—provided it meets the legal requirements for originality and fixation. You cannot copyright individual dance steps, isolated gestures, or very short phrases of movement.
A simple example:
If I choreographed a five-minute routine—say, Thriller—I could copyright that five-minute choreography as a complete work. I cannot copyright the individual steps inside it.
That iconic zombie walk? Not copyrightable.
That shoulder roll? No.
That arm snap? Also no.
The law protects the routine as a whole, not the individual building blocks that dancers everywhere rely on.
WHY INDIVIDUAL MOVES CAN’T BE COPYRIGHTED
1. Idea vs. Expression
Copyright law protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself.
If you create a dance about the battle between good and evil, that idea is free for anyone to use. What can be protected is how you express it—but that expression has to be specific, detailed, and embodied in the choreography itself.
Even visual concepts don’t automatically qualify. Dressing half your dancers in black and half in white, adding wings, or staging a symbolic confrontation still falls under concept rather than protected expression unless the choreography itself is fixed and original as a full work.
Another choreographer could stage a similar concept using a waltz, different spatial patterns, or alternate timing without infringing on anything.
2. The Merger Doctrine
The merger doctrine applies when an idea can only be expressed in a limited number of ways. In those cases, copyright protection does not apply because granting it would prevent others from expressing the same idea at all.
A well-known example outside dance is the case of songwriters Sean Hall and Nathan Butler sued Taylor Swift over the lyrics:
“Players gonna play, play, play
Haters gonna hate, hate, hate”
The court dismissed the case because the underlying idea—people behaving predictably—has very few natural linguistic expressions. Copyright law does not allow ownership over those expressions.
Dance operates the same way. Many movements exist because the human body can only move in so many ways.
3. Utilitarian Function
Many dance movements serve practical functions: balance, momentum, conditioning, or transitions between formations. Copyright does not protect movements that are primarily functional.
If a dance requires hip movement, no one can prevent others from shaking their hips. That motion exists in acting, fitness routines, social dancing, and countless styles across cultures.
Take BTS’s “FIRE” choreography—specifically the famous sequence around the 3:33 mark. As a complete phrase, it’s striking and memorable. But when broken down:
- The footwork appears across multiple street styles.
- The arm positioning echoes martial arts forms such as karate kata and taekwondo poomsae.
- The head isolation is standard in hip-hop and street dance.
- The originality lies in the arrangement, not the components.
4. Originality Requirement
For copyright protection to apply, a work must show a minimal degree of creativity.
Ask yourself: how would you prove that you were the first person on earth to fold forward, stand upright, and raise one hand?
You can’t—because that movement is universal.
Even if another routine shares a signature hand gesture, similarity alone is not infringement unless the surrounding choreography—the timing, transitions, spatial use, and sequencing—are substantially similar as a whole.
5. Public Domain
Many dance steps exist in the public domain due to widespread historical use. Ballet positions, hip-hop grooves, traditional folk steps, and social dance movements cannot be privately owned.
That’s why copyright applies to choreographic works—a structured series of movements arranged in a creative, fixed way—not to the vocabulary itself.
QUICK QUIZ: WHAT CAN K-POP CHOREOGRAPHERS COPYRIGHT?
If you answered:
Original choreography
A complete routine
Correct. Next.
WHAT CANNOT BE COPYRIGHTED?
- Individual steps or short phrases
- Common movements within a genre
- Functional or utilitarian motions
LIMITATIONS OF OWNERSHIP
Even if you own choreography, that ownership has limits.
Fair Use
Portions of choreography may be used for criticism, commentary, teaching, or research. A dance instructor recreating a routine on YouTube to analyze flaws or technique generally falls under fair use.
Inspiration vs. Copying
Being inspired by a routine is not infringement. Even copying a brief segment may not qualify if it is transformed or represents an insubstantial portion of the whole.
If a three-minute routine contains a three-second phrase that is modified and placed in a different context, courts are unlikely to view that as infringement.
WHAT IF A FOREIGN ARTIST SUES A KOREAN ARTIST?
Welcome to international copyright law.
The Berne Convention
South Korea is a signatory to the Berne Convention, which means it recognizes foreign copyrights the same way it recognizes domestic ones. An American choreographer receives the same protections in Korea as a Korean choreographer—and vice versa.
This cuts both ways.
If a Korean choreographer starts aggressively suing others, they also open themselves up to scrutiny from original creators abroad.
Be careful what you wish for.
Jurisdiction and Venue
A foreign plaintiff must establish that a Korean court has jurisdiction. This usually requires showing that:
- The alleged infringement occurred in South Korea
- Or the Korean artist has substantial ties to the jurisdiction
Proof of Ownership
The plaintiff must prove:
- Ownership of a valid copyright
- That the defendant had access to the work
- That the two works are substantially similar in protected expression
- This is harder than most people think—especially in dance.
POSSIBLE OUTCOMES
- Settlement: The most common resolution
- Court ruling: Potential damages or injunction
- Appeals: Prolonged litigation
- Internet backlash: Not a legal penalty, but often the most damaging
FINAL THOUGHT
Copyrighting choreography is possible, but far narrower than many online discussions suggest. Dance, by nature, is communal, referential, and physically constrained. The law recognizes that.
Anyone rushing to claim ownership should understand exactly what can—and cannot—be protected, because once the door to litigation opens, it rarely stays one-sided.
Chew carefully before you bite.
