You're going to go up against Disney's IP lawyers? The gang that has more or less been responsible for completely rewriting the laws on Copyright and Trademark!

Your spongeballs are obviously much bigger than mine.

Myself I'd have been happy with the increased sales due to Blaine purportedly using an effect of mine on TV. Just ask the Slesinger family what it's like to take on the mouse.

I guess I was right then.

But seriously, you should be thankful. His supposed use of that effect, probably bought you a new house.

So what's next? Will we even be allowed to perform the effects we purchase?

The law and magic is one confussing issue for me, and most others probably!

I have seen some tricks in the past that have written 'television rights reserved', but I don't know how that would stand up in court.

Heres a interesting question:
David Blaine bought the TV rights to healed and sealed Soda for 5 years, and not long after it was released, MagicMakers came along and ripped it off on a DVD. Does that mean that someone could get around the law by using the MM version, which as far as I know has no rights withheld, and then do it on TV?

I have a hard time seeing magic that is sold and performed on TV an issue unless it was ALWAYS clearly labeled in all advertising that TV rights were restricted. I can definitely see a problem if a trick is exposed.

Magic that is sold, is sold to perform in public, not to play with at home. Too much magic sits on the shelf already. It IS different than music. Performing magic is not the same as using the latest CD in your TV act. At best, it would be like comparing it to sheet music. Since accomplished performers are generally not going to use the same patter that comes with a trick, even sheet music isn't a good analogy. In patent law often even a slight change can make a product different enough that it can escape the original patent. I have a hard time seeing this stick. Asking the inventor may be the honorable thing to do, but that has nothing to do the law. If someone was making a big deal over use of a Raven®, all that would be needed is just create a simular item and use it, and NOT credit Chuck. People may or may not like it but that hasn’t stopped many.

I think the big problem is the creators of magic need to clearly label anything that is NOT to be used on TV. Of course, they will lose sales, which is why, I imagine most don't. If it is on TV, the marketed item will probably sell much better than if not seen on TV. Lots of products PAY to be on TV shows. It is called product placement. It sounds like you want the best of both worlds. I would say label it restricted rights if you wish, and go after those that break such rights. If you don't label it such, especially with no court ruling, then it seems like whining. As for selling copies of a performance - come on! I can’t see that as a winner. Spend your money, and maybe this issue will be clear. The fact that it isn’t case law speaks volumes.

"I like your style, pick a fight first, then find out what the issue is. Why would I be bitter? That one didn't even hit the target."

Yeah, right. Chuck, I was actually about to buy some products from you today. I'm no big spender with Chazpro (nothing against your store/products, I just have gotten away from it for some reason, not sure why), but I probably have spent $500 with you folks over the years. I imagine I will put that PK order in elsewhere. I am not fond of your style on this thread.

Another thought that crossed my head is that surly the complaints work both ways. Was Blaine consulted on the use of his name in a lot of the Raven adverts?

Z is free to do so if they choose to. Feel free to fill in your own X, Y, and Z.

Since when is basic courtesy or even respect for the feelings of the FEW who invent part of conjuring? (hint, consider who's writing this) Do we have academic standards? How about spell checkers?


Much as I would like to see proper citations and performing rights agreements in our craft, for now I feel we'd be better working on the basics of interpersonal courtesy.

As far as I know, in America there are no legal obligations about citing sources for magical ideas and purchased material.

I don't think that Chuch is taking a bad stance on this at all. If he can prove that Blaine used his prop -- and knowing some of the people that work with Blaine, he could have used something else -- unlikely as that may be, it would have been nice to have at least gotten a credit for it.

IP law is really strange, though. If you own a piece of intellectual property, it is up to you to prove that the alleged violater did, in fact, violate the law. Also, if there is no valid protection for a piece of intellectual property, if the method of protection is invented after the violation occurs, it may not be applicable retroactively. Making a law after a violation has been committed is specifically prohibited in the Constitution of the United States. It's called ex post facto law.

Judges have not been kind to magicians in the past. When WAM sued Fox over the Spiker, the case was thrown out of court, because there were no damages at the time the suit had been placed. Fox refused to show the video until after the broadcast, so there was no way to determine in the courtroom whether Valentino had, in fact, revealed the method that Gurtler had used for his spiker.

It will be interesting to see if this ever gets to court.

David Blaine should give credit on his specials. It's the right thing to do. We must maintain proper ethics.

On the other side of the coin, you also see a lot of T-Shirts with logos blurred out on TV, or billboards masked. If you shoot a film or TV show and feature Coke cans or Dominos Pizza Boxes in the scene WITHOUT their permission, you can get into some serious trouble.

However, I do agree that magic is the LEAST legally protected of all the performing arts. As a result, we are going to see more and more rip-offs and exposures and breaches of copyrights until someone can figure out a simple law that can actually be applied.

Sure, you can sue someone if they use your trick on TV when you have reserved the rights, but do you have enough money to sue them, because if they have more they'll win. Do they have enough money to make it WORTH you suing them?

Tim, folks,

What means does one have to reserve the rights to using a gimmick on television?
Does this exist in America?

I believe we have something close to this regarding scripts though for props and gimmicks... no idea.

Puzzled,

Jon

I still fail to see what David did wrong. Just look at the credits after his specials and you see he gives credit.

Wow. Where did the other posts magically dissapear to?

None. Without a legally binding contract between the person who created the effect (or who retains all the rights), and the customer, you can only ask someone as a courtesy to not perform the effect on television.

And then that excludes anyone purchasing second hand. Or who builds their own version or buys a knock off, or modified version.

Sincerely,
Wayne Stevenson
The SpookClub

If we followed this logic then wouldn't musicians have to give credit to the makers of their instruments and sound equipment?
It looks to be a nasty can O' worms that's going to get opened here.

Ummmmmmm. When we complete our magical performaces for our spectators do we tell them who and where we learned it from?..... I hope not.

you misrepresent yourself. I thought you said this had nothing to do with the raven. Hello???
why lie?
to me-your lawsuit seems frivolous and you seem foolish.

And anyway, why would you put information regarding a lawsuit on an open forum?