Australia, nay the world, is in mourning this morning after comedian Steph Broadbridge has cancelled ‘Raygun The Musical’ after legal threats from Rachel Gunn.
Rachel Gunn, also known as "Raygun" came to prominence and notoriety after performing a now infamous kangaroo breakdance at the 2024 Paris Olympics. She received a score of zero in the competition against her three competitors and suffice to say, did not pass beyond the first round of the competition.
If you knew nothing about the 'sport' then her progress to the Olympics would have seemed dull and boring. Raygun had previously represented Australia at the World Breaking Championships three times previously; then won the No.1 world ranking in breakdancing after the Oceania Continental Championships. On the face of it, if this was any other sport, then this would have been a fait accompli. However, whatever the heck that thing was at the Olympics is baffling to all and sundry.
How she was ever allowed to represent Australia at all, seems to be a matter of unchecked hubris. As a lecturer at Macquarie University's Faculty of Arts, her thesis entitled "Deterritorializing Gender in Sydney's Breakdancing Scene: A B-Girl's Experience of B-Boying" seems to me to be the kind of academic 'research' that a university would let someone do, in exchange for many thousands of dollars, in the hope that they would go away afterwards. One of the vastly underspoken reasons of why there are so many utterly useless theses in academia, is that they exist almost entirely as make work projects in exchange for the university collecting fees (which they are kind of forced into). Daft PhDs exist because of daft causes.
Raygun is obviously back by old money, as evidenced by the fact that she went to private school, then university, and has now lawyered up to protect what is claimed as intellectual property. The legal claim from Raygun's lawyers which is being threatened, is that they wanted to make sure that Raygun's "brand is properly represented, and protected in all future endeavours." As I work in an accounting firm, which has seen many cases in both Family Law and with Taxation Law, the claim from Raygun's lawyers looks prima facie like it will attain its method of victory by legal exhaustion. That is, take someone to court and have them spend so much money that you can bully them into submission. This is a spite case.
When it comes to the now infamous kangaroo dance, the legal claim will be a one of whether or not the intellectual property can be owned. It is worth remembering that in Australia, there is no formal system of registration for copyright protection. Usually all that is enough to prove that someone was the originator of a thing that can be owned, is that the work be attached to a date stamp somehow; this already exists for Raygun, in that her 'work' was already performed in a public place that was recorded.
When it comes to Raygun's right to claim ownership of the work, it doesn't even require her to own the footage. The fact that this happened at the Olympics, means that the copyright over the footage is owned by the International Olympic Committee and it must be said that they are fierce when it comes to protecting their footage.
Raygun's legal claim, if it ever gets to court, will almost certainly rest upon Section 31 of the Copyright Act 1968:
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s31.html
Nature of copyright in original works
(1) For the purposes of this Act, unless the contrary intention appears, copyright, in relation to a work, is the exclusive right:
(a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, to do all or any of the following acts:
(i) to reproduce the work in a material form;
(ii) to publish the work;
(iii) to perform the work in public;
(iv) to communicate the work to the public;
(vi) to make an adaptation of the work;
- Section 31, Copyright Act 1968
Performing a dance, is a dramatic work. This means that Raygun has the exclusive right to to perform the work in public and to to make an adaptation of the work. As there doesn't need to be a copyright notice on it to be covered by the Act, copyright protection is free and automatic. As works which are under copyright are also protected in Australia, then the fact that this was performed in France, is irrelevant. This also satisfies the simple tests of this 'original work' being and recorded in 'material form'.
However, the defence in this case is actually also contained within the Copyright Act 1968. There are many fair dealing provisions and of course one of them is for the purpose of parody or satire.
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s41.html
Fair dealing for purpose of parody or satire
A fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work if it is for the purpose of parody or satire.
- Section 41A, Copyright Act 1968
I would expect that Steph Broadbridge, who is a comedian, would claim that ‘Raygun The Musical’ is obviously a parody or satire of what was a really really daft thing in the first place. For this claim to be successful, the respondent (Steph Broadbridge) in this case would need to prove that the proposed performance was sufficiently transformed enough to satisfy the court that this was actually parody or satire. They might have a problem with the name ‘Raygun The Musical’ as this might imply that Raygun, which sounds like it could be a trademarked name, might imply the endorsement of Raygun.
If Raygun had gone to the Olympics as a work of satire in the first place, then she would have been a national hero. Breakdancing at the Olympics is something which deserves to be made fun of. However, someone who has lived a life of privilege, and who went to the Olympics and did what she did, who then decides to sue a small time comedian who might make her look foolish, only serves to prove the reason of why there should have been parody or satire of what was a really really daft thing in the first place, to be right.
The proper course of action should have been to buy tickets to the show, seen it on opening night, taken the parody or satire as part of self-deprecation, and then let the whole thing die a quiet and natural death. ‘Raygun The Musical’ would have just fallen away because in principle, this is a passing fad. Ironically, Raygun herself has gained infamy twice; firstly for being bad at the Olympics and secondly for being unfun.
No comments:
Post a Comment