It seems to me that choreographers should have some way of leaving instructions for how they want their works to be used after their death. Then none of this could be disputed. But then you would have trouble with new technology
And there, Star 18, you have hit the very nub of the question. Which instructions are essential to the work, and which are inevitably evanscent? I think back to my conversation with Danilova and her injuction that "If we do not PROGRESS, we RETROGRESS." Is "re-creating" Petipa's Odette even possible?
Is the fact that master choreographers like Balanchine often told dancers, "Here you do something that makes public applaud" a license to change embellishments from what might appear on tape? Does the fact that Suzanne Farrell never danced the same role the same way twice make it impossible to stage ballets created on her?
If you asked leading choreographers -- like Mark Morris or Twyla Tharp (I choose them since I see their work just down the street) -- how they would want their work staged in the future, would they insist on some "definitive" performance? (In both cases, I fell confident in saying, the answer is "NO!")
The simple fact is this: dance is the most fleeting and subjective of arts. Performances exist only in the moment and in our memories. To be sure, the law in the US, and many other countries, offers protection to choreography and music, largely as an instrument for channeling revenue to the creator and his or her family.
With nothing but love and respect for my warrior colleagues, I retreat to a conservative "Good night."