Picture comes from, and is linked to, the Library of Congress Martha Graham collection Library of Congress collection Ismene Brown’s 1996 interview with Ron Protas Martha Graham’s will Who owns a dance? Graham Company Reviews

A bitter dispute over the ownership of Martha Graham’s ballets will be fought out in a court case starting in New York on the 22nd of April. The Martha Graham School and Center is contesting the rights to her work against Ron Protas, Graham’s late-life confidante. At first sight, the issue seems straightforward. In her will, Martha Graham appeared to leave her ballets to Protas. The court will have to decide whether she had any right to do so.

This case is as much about personalities as about law. The New York Times has described Protas, a controversial figure, as “the most reviled man in dance”. What did Graham see in him? In 1970 Protas, then in his twenties, had dropped out of Columbia Law School and decided instead to be a show-business photographer. He started to hang around Graham’s studios. Martha Graham, hostile to him at first, relented over time and allowed him to get close to her. She was in her 70s, drinking heavily, and suffering from arthritis. Protas sought to make himself indispensable. He moved into her home as full-time nurse and secretary. Graham began to tell her friends: “I need him: there is nothing more to be said.” There was a mutual neediness: Protas’s mother had recently died and he came to regard Graham as a surrogate.

As Protas’s influence grew, he began to meddle in the Martha Graham Company’s artistic decisions. This was despite the fact that he had neither training nor ability as a dancer. "I was a nobody”, Protas says, “but Martha chose me, and that is all that matters." Long-time colleagues were alienated. Many, such as Bertram Ross and Mary Hinkson, were elbowed out. In her biography of Graham, Agnes de Mille vividly describes what happened: “There was much suffering. The severing of ties always involves bloodletting, and in this case blood flowed bountifully, and with it hatred. What happened was evil, or so her associates thought”.

Several years ago Protas spoke about these events in an extraordinary interview with Ismene Brown of the Telegraph. He dismissed de Mille as ‘jealous’, ‘boring’ and suggested that she ‘probably had a lesbian crush on Martha’. He went on: “The others were avaricious and couldn’t wait for Graham to die.”

Martha Graham and Erich Hawkins
in Appalachian Spring
first premiered in 1944
Picture comes from, and is linked to,
the Library of Congress Martha Graham collection

After Graham’s death, her will left Protas in control of her legacy. According to a former executive director of the company, Todd Dillinger, he would abuse dancers and tell senior principals, “Martha showed me everything. I know I’m right.” At the time, Protas’s ownership of Graham’s works was unquestioned. He registered the trademarks ‘Martha Graham’ and ‘Martha Graham Technique’, stating in an affidavit that he owned these marks. He went further. He set up the ‘Martha Graham Trust’, to hold and license all of the intellectual property that Protas claimed to have inherited. He named himself as its sole trustee and beneficiary.

In the 1990s the dance company ran into deep debt. It had to sell its headquarters in New York. It performed less and less. Sponsors, alienated by Protas, threatened to withdraw funding. In an atmosphere of deepening crisis, Protas was leaned on to resign as artistic director and to yield to a successor, Janet Eilber, herself a former Graham principal. In return, Protas would have a salary, an office, a role as artistic adviser and the right to license the Graham repertoire to other companies. But he reneged on the deal, saying he disagreed with Eilber’s proposed strategy. Two years ago, the board decided it had enough. It removed Protas as artistic director. He retaliated, forbidding the Graham Center to teach the Graham technique and would not license the ballets to the company.

At this point questions began to be asked about Protas’s right to ownership of the Graham repertoire. The state of New York decided that the public interest was at stake. Its attorney general argued that Protas had violated his fiduciary responsibilities to the Graham Center, and that the centre was the true owner of the rights.

In a preliminary court case last year, it emerged that what Graham had actually left to Protas was ‘any rights’ she might have. However Graham seems not to have copyrighted many of her most important works. In American law, notation is a crucial condition of copyright. Graham had resisted notating her ballets on the grounds that they were unfinished and alterable for different dancers.

The US federal judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum ruled that the Martha Graham Center and School could continue to use Graham’s name and to teach her technique. She found Ron Protas “not to be a credible witness” and decided that he had misled the federal Patent and Trademark Office.

The court case had moments of high farce. Here is how the website www.danceinsider.com reported the cross examination of Ron Protas by Dale Cendali, the attorney acting for the Graham Center.

"Ever work for a dance company before" he became the Graham Center's executive director in 1992, she asked.

"No," answered Protas.

"You don't consider yourself a dancer?"

"No."

"What classes have you had, if any?"

"I had Ms. Graham instruct me, in her home."

After comparing this testimony with Mr. Protas's deposition, Cendali continued, "I take it you've never performed in a Martha Graham work?

"No," affirmed Protas.

At this point, the colloquy took on a Clintonesque, "It depends what is is" turn, as the attorney asked Protas, "Can you yourself perform the Martha Graham technique?"

"What do you mean, perform?" Protas asked. "I was taught the essence and spirit of her work."

"So you can't perform it?" she pressed him a little later.

"No."

In this month’s court case, Judge Cedarbaum will rule whether Protas can prevent the Graham Company from performing its founder’s ballets. The judgement is important for choreographers everywhere. It will address the issue of whether choreographers have sole ownership of their work, and if the institutions for which the works were created also have a valid claim.

A possible outcome of the case is that Graham may have owned nothing. She may have created many of her works while she was an employee of the Martha Graham Center. Her early works from the 1920s may be out of copyright in any case.

There are more wide-ranging issues. Many dancers take part in the creative process of making a ballet. Do they have a moral claim on part ownership? Janet Eilber, the former Graham dancer, to whom Protas refused to yield as artistic director, seems to suggest as much. "Protas has certain aspects of the flame," she says, "certain tangible pieces of paper, but there are also the artists who have been Martha's creative collaborators. Ron can't make that claim." By this she means that the ballets live on in the muscle memories of the Graham dancers who performed them.

Martha Graham’s work has not been performed for several years. The dangers are obvious. The longer ballets are out of circulation, the harder it is to recreate them. Much depends on Judge Cedarbaum’s eventual decision. A good outcome would allow the choreographer a fair reward in his or her lifetime. It would also assert the rights of the dancers who contribute to the creative process, and of the institutions that make the work possible.

The website Dance Insider will feature daily coverage of the court case, which begins on 22nd April.