Qwen 3 Explained TikTok Drama Like a Court Case

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 23-1234
Jane Doe, Petitioner v. Internet Social Media Corporation, et al.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.

I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner Jane Doe, a professional dancer and TikTok content creator, alleges that her choreographic work, the “Electric Slinky”—a 15-second sequence involving a “robotic undulation” followed by a “reverse moonwalk with a dab”—was unlawfully appropriated by respondent John Doe (a pseudonymous influencer known as “ViralKing88”). The Electric Slinky, uploaded to TikTok on March 1, 2023, accrued 2.1 million views and 300,000 derivative videos before ViralKing88 posted an identical routine on March 5, 2023, which amassed 50 million views and a lucrative sponsorship deal with a athleticwear brand.

Jane Doe sued Internet Social Media Corp. (TikTok’s parent company) and ViralKing88 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, asserting claims for (1) copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501, (2) violation of her right of publicity under California Civil Code § 3344, and (3) unjust enrichment. The district court dismissed the copyright claim, holding that the Electric Slinky lacked the “modicum of creativity” required for protection under Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. , 499 U.S. 340 (1991). The Ninth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that social media dances occupy a “gray area” of copyright law unworthy of judicial intervention absent congressional action.

This Court granted certiorari to resolve whether a short-form choreographic work disseminated via social media qualifies for federal copyright protection and whether the First Amendment shields transformative online mimicry.

II. ISSUE
Whether the Electric Slinky constitutes a “choreographic work” protectable under 17 U.S.C. § 101’s definition, which excludes “social dance steps and routines.”
Whether TikTok’s algorithmic promotion of derivative content implicates the Copyright Clause’s promotion of “the Progress of Science and useful Arts.”
III. ARGUMENTS
A. Petitioner’s Contentions
Jane Doe contends that the Electric Slinky represents a “fixed, original work of authorship” under § 102(a)(4), requiring only “the slightest creative spark.” She analogizes her routine to the “Charleston” dance, which this Court recognized as protectable in Dancing Zuccarelli v. Gingerbread Entm’t , 212 U.S. 571 (1909) (a precedential footnote omitted from modern reporters). TikTok’s failure to takedown ViralKing88’s video, she argues, incentivizes “platform-enabled theft” and undermines creators’ livelihoods.

B. Respondents’ Contentions
Respondents assert that the Electric Slinky is a “social dance” categorically excluded from copyright under § 101. ViralKing88 likens his performance to “fair use parody” under Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. , 510 U.S. 569 (1994), claiming his version added “layers of ironic self-deprecation” via a clown wig worn during the dab. TikTok argues that regulating user-generated content would chill expression and destabilize the “participatory culture” central to First Amendment values.

C. Amici Briefs
Over 40 amici curiae filed briefs. The Motion Picture Association warned of a “Pandora’s box of litigation over twerking,” while the American Choreographers’ Alliance urged recognition of “micro-choreography as the art form of the digital age.” A brief authored by Harvard’s Cyberlaw Clinic quipped that “the Electric Slinky may lack the narrative complexity of Swan Lake , but so did the Twist” (Twist v. Chubby Checker , 1st Cir. 1962) (invented precedent).

IV. RULING AND OPINION
A. Majority Opinion
We hold that the Electric Slinky falls outside the scope of copyright protection under § 101’s explicit exclusion of “social dance steps and routines.” While we acknowledge petitioner’s creativity, Congress’s decision to carve out such works reflects a policy judgment that “commonplace physical gestures lacks the solemnity of literary or musical expression” (Alice H. White v. YouTube , 9th Cir. 2021) (invented).

The First Amendment further counsels against enjoining TikTok’s algorithmic curation of “transformative” content, even where economic harm ensues. However, we remand the right of publicity claim for further proceedings consistent with Haelan Labs., Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc. , 242 F.2d 269 (2d Cir. 1957), as California law may afford Jane Doe redress for the commercial appropriation of her persona.

B. Dissent
Justice Sotomayor dissented, arguing that the majority’s “rigid formalism” ignores “how art evolves in the digital era.” She contended that the Electric Slinky’s “synthesis of mechanical and improvisational elements” satisfies Feist’s creativity threshold and accused the Court of “leaving dancers in the lurch while rappers and filmmakers thrive.”

V. CONCLUSION
The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

FOOTNOTES
1. Contrary to amicus suggestions, we decline to adopt the “TikTok Test” proposed in 17 U.S.C. § 101(fnord), a satirical subsection inserted into a draft bill by Representative B. Lynch (D-MA) in 2022.
2. We express no opinion on whether the Electric Slinky might qualify as a “useful article” under § 101, as petitioner abandoned this theory below.
3. The dissent’s comparison to Martha Graham—a titan of modern dance—is inapt. The Electric Slinky, while spirited, lacks “the emotional depth of Lamentation or the political resonance of Appalachian Spring .”

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
23-1234 — JANE DOE V. INTERNET SOCIAL MEDIA CORP.
Sotomayor, J., dissenting.
… (omitted for brevity)