In January 2000, the release of NSYNC’s hit song “Bye Bye Bye” and its music video became a defining moment in pop culture. Today, more than twenty-five years later, the choreography associated with the song is at the center of a copyright dispute. Choreographer Darrin Henson filed suit against Sony Music on March 27, 2026, alleging that Sony unlawfully licensed the famous routine for use in Deadpool & Wolverine, and later as a Fortnite emote.[1]
According to the complaint, Henson was originally commissioned to create the dance routine by NSYNC’s manager for use in the boy-band’s first live performance of the song, and ultimately in the now-legendary music video.[2] The video, which features band members suspended from puppet strings before breaking out into the routine, spent 25 consecutive days at No. 1 on MTV’s then-wildly popular Total Request Live countdown and earned the 21st spot on the list of Billboard’s 100 Greatest Music Videos of the 21st century.[3] No doubt, Henson’s place as an upper-echelon artist, particularly in the late -90’s /early 2000’s pop music scene, is well established, having choreographed music videos and concerts for the Backstreet Boys, New Kids on the Block, Britney Spears, and the Spice Girls.[4] And yet, Henson now faces a fight for the rights to his art.
Henson brought this action in a Georgia federal court against Sony Music for allegedly failing to procure his approval over the use of his work in Marvel’s Studio’s Deadpool & Wolverine and Epic Games’ Fortnite.[5] He further alleges that he is the rightful owner of the choreography and Sony lacked the authority to license it. At the same time, Sony maintains that it holds the copyright over the music video itself and accordingly, it has the right to manage and license the dance.[6]The lawsuit raises a deceptively simple question: if choreography is copyrightable and the music video in which it appears is also separately copyrightable, who controls subsequent uses of the dance? The dispute is therefore not simply about copying a video. It is about whether ownership of an audiovisual work automatically includes ownership of all of the distinct creative elements contained within it.
The Copyright Act expressly protects “pantomimes and choreographic works.”[7] Under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a), copyright subsists in original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression.[8] Choreography is therefore copyrightable if it is both original and fixed. The statute also makes clear, in § 102(b), that copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, or methods themselves.[9]
In the choreography context, the originality requirement is not sufficiently met by merely generic dance steps or broad movement ideas, but it does extend to a sufficiently original selection, coordination, and arrangement of movements.[10]As to the fixation requirement, the Copyright Office has explained that choreography must be recorded in a form that permits it to be performed in a consistent and uniform manner, such as video, dance notation, photographs, or detailed textual description.[11]
In light of this relevant copyright law, Henson’s claim appears designed to satisfy these requirements by focusing on his independent creation of the choreography in 1999 prior to its exploitation in the music video, and the fixation of his work in connection with NSYNC’s first live performance and later registration.[12] If Henson can establish originality and fixation, then the choreography may qualify as a standalone copyrighted work, even though it also appears inside a separately copyrighted music video. On that theory, Sony may own the music video, but not the choreography embedded within it.
A music video is itself a copyrightable audiovisual work under § 102(a).[13] The copyright would protect the video as a whole: its recorded images, editing, camera choices, sequencing, and overall audiovisual expression.[14] But ownership of the video does not necessarily confer ownership of every underlying work incorporated into it. Evidently, copyright law often treats component works as independently protectable. A film, for example, may contain music, artwork, or written material whose copyrights remain separately owned. That appears to be the theory driving Henson’s complaint. He argues that Sony’s ownership of the NSYNC music video does not automatically give Sony the right to extract, recreate, or separately license the choreography for new uses outside the original video.[15] Henson also asserts that Sony’s unlawful use hurts him commercially, dilutes the association of his dance moves with the song it was created for, and unfairly compensates Sony.[16]
If the choreography and the music video are both copyrightable in this case, the outcome of the lawsuit depends on what exactly is being used. If Sony owns the music video, it can exploit the video itself as an audiovisual work, subject to whatever rights it actually holds. That would ordinarily include distributing or publicly performing the video in its original form.[17] But if Henson owns the choreography as a separate work, Sony may not have the right to reproduce, adapt, publicly perform, or license that choreography apart from the video unless it also holds permission from Henson. But Henson claims he never gave such permission, nor did he sign a work-made-for-hire agreement with Sony in connection with his contributions to the music video, nor did he ever transfer ownership to any third party.[18] If those claims are true, then Section 106 gives Henson as the true copyright owner the exclusive rights to reproduce the work, prepare derivative works, distribute it, and, for choreographic works, publicly perform it.[19]
In practical terms, these intricacies in copyright law mean a party could have the right to show the original music video while lacking the right to restage the dance in a film, turn it into a video game emote, or otherwise detach it from the original audiovisual recording. Conversely, the choreographer may own the dance but not the music video recording in which it appears. That is why the ownership issue is central.
Henson claims Sony licensed more than the video; it licensed the choreography itself for new commercial uses in Deadpool & Wolverine and Fortnite.[20] Sony, by contrast, appears to maintain that its ownership of the video gave it authority to do so.[21] The likely outcome will turn on facts not yet resolved: whether Henson’s choreography was sufficiently original, whether it was fixed before or through the video, whether any contractual arrangement altered ownership, and whether the later uses copied the choreography itself rather than merely referencing the video. But the core legal principle is clear. Copyright in an audiovisual work does not automatically extinguish separate copyright in choreography contained within it.[22]
This case lays bare a larger question: does copyright law, despite its protestations of neutrality, in practice operate with an unspoken hierarchy of art forms, extending greater protection to some while leaving others to plead for recognition at the threshold? No one seriously disputes that a song embedded in a film remains an independent work, fully capable of generating and sustaining its own copyright. Why, then, should choreography incorporated into a music video be treated differently? As a matter of first principles, it should not. Yet the persistent hesitation of the entertainment industry, and even some courts adjudicating dance-related disputes, to acknowledge the choreographer’s exclusive rights suggests that dance is too often regarded as decorative accompaniment rather than authorship in its own right.[23] Whatever the ultimate outcome of Henson’s lawsuit, one might hope it achieves at least this much: a sharper legal consciousness of dance as an art form and of choreographers as authors entitled to the same respect the law so readily affords to others.
[1] Lauren Berg, “Bye Bye Bye” Choreographer Sues Sony For “Deadpool Dance,” Law360 https://www.law360.com/articles/2460521/bye-bye-bye-choreographer-sues-sony-for-deadpool-dance (last visited Apr. 19, 2026).
[2] Dylan Smith, Sony Music Faces Lawsuit Over NSYNC “Bye Bye Bye” Dance, Digital Music News (Apr. 2, 2026), https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2026/04/02/nsync-sony-music-deadpool-wolverine-lawsuit/.
[3] Bill Danahue, NSYNC “Bye Bye Bye” Dance Lawsuit: Creator Sues Sony Over “Deadpool,” Billboard (Apr. 2, 2026), https://www.billboard.com/pro/nsync-bye-bye-bye-choreographer-sues-sony-music-deadpool/.
[4] Berg, supra note 1.
[5] Id.
[6] Smith, supra note 2.
[7] 17 U.S. Code § 102(a) – Subject Matter of Copyright: In General, LII / Legal Information Institutehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 (last visited Apr. 19, 2026).
[8] Id.
[9] 17 U.S. Code § 102(b) – Subject Matter of Copyright: In General, LII / Legal Information Institutehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 (last visited Apr. 19, 2026).
[10] Copyright Registration of Choreography and Pantomime, Circular 52 Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices.
[11] Id.
[12] Berg, supra note 1.
[13] 17 U.S. Code § 102(a) – Subject matter of copyright, supra note 7.
[14] Id.; 17 U.S. Code § 101 – Definitions, LII / Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101 (last visited Apr. 20, 2026).
[15] Donahue, supra note 3.
[16] Berg, supra note 1.
[17] 17 U.S. Code § 106 – Exclusive Rights in Copyrighted Works, LII / Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106 (last visited Apr. 19, 2026).
[18] Smith, supra note 2.
[19] 17 U.S. Code § 106 – Exclusive rights in copyrighted works, supra note 17.
[20] Berg, supra note 1.
[21] Smith, supra note 2.
[22] 17 U.S. Code § 103(b) – Subject Matter of Copyright: Compilations and Derivative Works, LII / Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/103 (last visited Apr. 20, 2026); 17 U.S. Code § 101 – Definitions, supra note 14.
[23] Steven Vargas, What Copyright Protections Do Choreographers Have Over Their Work?, Dance Magazine (Jan. 26, 2021), https://dancemagazine.com/choreography-copyright/.