Dance, AI, and the Law: The Conversation Gets Louder
The Royal Ballet and Opera’s RBO/SHIFT festival signals that the creative establishment is taking the AI question seriously. The IP questions it raises are ones we’ve been tracking closely.
For SHIFT 2026
In a previous piece, we explored why choreography sits in one of the trickiest corners of intellectual property law: individual steps are uncopyrightable, fixation requirements are ambiguous, and community norms have historically done more work than formal legal frameworks. We came away from a conversation at Belgian House x SXSW convinced that the basics i.e. document your creative process, establish provenance early, matter more than ever.
The Royal Ballet and Opera just made the same argument at considerably larger scale.
What RBO/SHIFT Was
The inaugural RBO/SHIFT festival ran 4–7 June at the Linbury Theatre, Covent Garden. Curated by Associate Director Netia Jones, it was built around a deceptively simple dual question: what can AI offer creatives, and what can creatives offer the world in the age of AI?
The programme was ambitious. The Alexander Whitley Dance Company presented Mirror; two dancers performing alongside a generative AI system in a philosophical exploration of human movement. AI innovator Harry Yeff (Reeps100) worked with soprano Patricia Auchterlonie to push the boundaries of the human voice. Legendary experimentalist George E. Lewis performed with SoVo, an AI pianist. A dedicated SHIFT EXCHANGE day convened leading AI thinkers around ethics and best practice. The festival closed with PLAY SHIFT which was an open day for families with creative coding and live installations.
It was, by any measure, a serious institutional commitment to a conversation the arts world can no longer defer.
Why It Matters for IP
The festival didn’t set out to be a legal seminar. But the IP questions it surfaced are live and largely unresolved.
Get CertifyIP Team’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Who owns AI-generated movement? Under current US Copyright Office guidance, only human-performed work qualifies as choreography. AI-generated movement cannot attract copyright protection on its own it requires a human choreographer to set it on human bodies, making creative choices, before it enters protectable territory. Courts have not yet had to rule definitively on where that line falls.
Can choreographic footage be used to train AI models? This is the broader training data question applied to dance and it remains unsettled. Unlike text or images, dance footage is relatively scarce and often deeply personal to the companies and choreographers who hold it. The same provenance documentation that protects a choreographer’s copyright claim is also what establishes whether their work was taken without consent.
What happens to community norms under AI pressure? The self-policing attribution culture that grew up around TikTok viral dances worked because humans could identify copying when they saw it. AI-generated movement that draws on a choreographer’s style without reproducing their exact sequences may be harder to challenge legally or socially.
The Establishment Leaning In
What struck us most about RBO/SHIFT is what it represents institutionally. The Royal Opera House is not a startup or a think tank. It is one of the world’s great performing arts institutions, with a direct stake in the cultural value of live performance and human creativity. Its decision to host this conversation openly, with an ethics day built into the schedule sends a signal.
As we noted after the Belgian House event: the law is likely to remain a step behind. The Harvard Law Review recently argued that copyright has never really worked for choreography, and that the community has been right to build its own parallel system of norms. AI doesn’t invalidate that argument but it does raise the stakes considerably.
The creative industries need rigorous public debate, and they need institutions willing to host it. On that count, the Royal Ballet and Opera has done something worth acknowledging.
What Comes Next
We’ll be watching how RBO/SHIFT develops as an annual festival, and how the IP questions it raises are addressed (or not) in the months ahead. In the meantime, our position remains the same as it was after Belgian House: document early, document thoroughly, and don’t wait for the law to catch up.
If you missed our earlier piece on choreography, IP, and the TikTok moment, you can read it here.
What are your thoughts on AI and creative IP? We’d love to hear from you in the comments
