|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next] | ||||||||||
Patrick Differ Inner circle 1540 Posts 
|
This is a complicated matter because, without legal recourse, we must police ourselves.
Either we police ourselves, or we disassociate ourselves from those that won't.
Will you walk into my parlour? said the Spider to the Fly,
Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy; The way into my parlour is up a winding stair, And I've a many curious things to show when you are there. Oh no, no, said the little Fly, to ask me is in vain, For who goes up your winding stair -can ne'er come down again. |
|||||||||
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24321 Posts
|
Sometimes the people who take it upon themselves to police us go overboard. For example, there is a magic dealer/producer/publisher, formerly of California, now in Idaho who very strongly policed the sale of Paul Fox items on eBay. He claimed that nobody could sell ANY Paul Fox items, because he owned the rights to them. It didn't matter to him that these were items that were made or printed by Danny Dew. There is no ethical or legal imperative to prohibit the sale of used merchandise.
He became a laughingstock in a way. Seems that while he was busy picking motes out of other people's eyes, he ignored the beam in his own eye. He owed a lot of people money for a manuscript they had subscribed to but never received. Tsk. Tsk.
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
|||||||||
Keith Raygor Special user Naples, FL 968 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2005-09-08 00:26, Bill Palmer wrote: Could you please give an example as I'm not sure I understand your point. |
|||||||||
|
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24321 Posts
|
There is an old adage in the publishing business. You can copyright ANYTHING. Whether the copyright is valid or not depends on other factors. Copyrights do not pass a "clearinghouse" the same way patents do. You fill out a form and submit the example. The copyright is registered. Later, if someone feels that your copyright is invalid for some reason or another, this can be decided either in court or by mutual agreement.
For example -- there are many songs that are in the public domain. If I write an arrangement of a public domain song and put it into a copyrighted work, then that arrangement is public domain. However, if some other composer/arranger points out that he previously published a version of the same song that was substantially the same as the one I had published, then my copyright would not be valid, even though I might not have been aware of his previous version. If the case came to trial, and I could prove that I did not have access to his version, then I would not be considered guilty of infringement, but I would have to remove the arrangement from future editions of the work. Let's say that I copyright the instructions to a trick. All that is actually copyrighted is the text and the graphics. The idea is not copyrighted. You cannot copyright or patent an idea. You can only copyright or patent physical manifestations of them. The problem that many magicians have is that they think the whole concept of a trick is covered by a copyright. One of the earliest examples of this is Burling Hull's "The Cards Mysterious." This was the original Svengali Deck. He copyrighted it in 1909. But he needed to patent it in order to protect it properly. So the copyright was basically invalid.
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
|||||||||
RancidClone New user 71 Posts
|
It's always nice to give credit, even if you can get past the lawyers with it you still will be known as what you do.
As for the Apple and Microsoft thing, Microsoft did in fact use without permission the GUI of apple and I'm glad they did because they certainly made a better operating system. Apple was licensed and used Xeroxs GUI (and mouse) and were able to create the macintosh. |
|||||||||
|
Ignore me... Loyal user 230 Posts
|
Er... Bill, I believe you are mistaken about a small point.
Quote:
On 2005-09-08 17:29, Bill Palmer wrote: It is my understanding that songs/tunes which are arranged in a new way would have copyright protection for the new arrangement. The copyright status for the original work remains the same; if the song/tune was originally public domain, it remains so, but the new arrangement is entirely the property of the arranger, at least until the arranger transfers the copyright or puts it into the public domain. Similarly, a tune/song which is copyrighted can be put to a new arrangement, with permission, and the new arrangement would be copyrighted by the new arranger, with the rights to the original composition remaining with the original creator. Beyond arrangements, one can also add new verses/choruses/etc., and have copyright upon the additions, without affecting the copyright status of the original. I know there are exceptions to the permissions needed in cases of parody (like the infamous Roy Orbison/2 Live Crew "Pretty Woman" case), and I'm unsure what happens if one writes new material based on copyrighted material without permission. I used to think that one retains copyright upon what is original, but I had some friends (DNA) who did a pirate dance remix of "Tom's Diner" that went on to become a big hit, and it turned out they weren't entitled to the money. Suzanne Vega was cool about it, though, and gave them a cut. This instance was in the UK, so I know the laws are different, but I don't have personal knowledge of such cases in the US. Cheers! |
|||||||||
|
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24321 Posts
|
You are right. That isn't what I meant to say at all. What I meant to say was exactly what you did. A new arrangement (arrangement N), if it is substantially different from other previous ones, would be possible to have a valid copyright for. However, if someone could show that a similar arrangement (arrangement O) had been copyrighted prior to this arrangement, then it would render the copyright of arrangement N invalid.
You have to really research songs carefully when you are in the music business. The classic case of the 1970's was the "My Sweet Lord"/"He's So Fine" case.
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
|||||||||
|
jimtron Inner circle 2042 Posts
|
Alex said:
Quote:
Publishing an idea that doesn't belong to you or using it for a paid performance is wrong. What do you mean by "belong to you?" Dover publishes a great many magic titles; do all of the effects in the books they publish belong to them? If not, to whom do they belong? Also, there have been recent DVDs, books and pamphlets discussed on the Caf� that reveal secrets by Annemann and others. Whom do Annemann's secrets belong to? Does OOTW belong to Paul Curry? Does he get a cut when someone puts a variation on the market? As far as paid performances, under what circumstances is it ok to perform someone else's effect? Never? If you purchase a book that has the effect? If you learn it from Secret Sessions? If you learn it via a library book? |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27356 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2005-09-09 02:36, jimtron wrote:...Whom (sic) do Annemann's secrets belong to? ...Does OOTW belong to Paul Curry? Good questions there. OOTW was published by Paul Curry so there is a sort of performing license granted with purchase of the write-up. As to whether that grant of license includes permission to publish derivative works from which one can reverse engineer the original, ... don't know. Basic IP issues in magic have fundamental relevance to merchants and publishers in magic. Most simply, why protect the rights of a person who has violated the rights of another and plainly stated their intent to continue doing so? Such is a basic ethical issue. In magic, the fundamental item of property is a secret. The consequences and applications of principles already discussed follow plainly.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
George Ledo Magic Café Columnist SF Bay Area 3054 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2005-09-09 02:36, jimtron wrote: Oh, geeeez... here we go again... Let's try it this way... You buy a magic book, any magic book. It has tricks in it. You can use the tricks; that's why the books were published in the first place. But you cannot, legally, copy any of those tricks as published (i.e., the wording and illustrations) and re-publish (copy and distribute) them as if they were your creation. In the real world outside of magic, it's perfectly acceptable and legal for a writer to quote somebody else's work briefly, as long as the quote is attributed to the original author. We see this all the time in history, science, and other subjects that build on previous works. For instance, "As Professor Threadbare said in his book 'Attila the Hun's Teacup Collection,'" and then the quote itself. No problem. If the quote is not attributed, however, it's considered plagiarism, because the new author is coming across as having created the original passage. Being accused of plagiarism, for serious and scholarly writers, is the kiss of death. Taking the original passage and re-writing it so it reads differently, but says substantially the same thing, is also considered plagiarism, for the same reason: the new writer is coming across as having created the original work. The new passage may pass the copyright laws, but the author won't be fooling anyone except himself. His peers will take care of the credibility issue. Obviously, there's some common sense to be had here. A comment like "Columbus discovered America in 1492" can probably only be said one way. So let's not split hairs. I think we're spending too much time talking about who the secrets belong to, instead of focusing on the proper way to use them. Because that's the whole point.
That's our departed buddy Burt, aka The Great Burtini, doing his famous Cups and Mice routine
www.georgefledo.net Latest column: "Sorry about the photos in my posts here" |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27356 Posts
|
I disagree George.
MY work comes from my personal aesthetic and artistic choices as regards props, effects, presentation and routining. That work IS my property. The basic decision to realize a vision and produce works that implement that distance vision is the fundamental unit of artistic work and SHOULD be respected. Others are welcome to build upon what has been put into print, though I would prefer they CITE rather than teach things that are in print and belong to living artists. I strongly suggest we take the SCIENCE OF/IN MAGIC and treat it as a community secret, not to be discussed outside of magicdom, a one-way flow of data from the larger scientific community. Likewise for all use of technology. I can thing of something worse than plagiarism that we accept in our little community. Something I equate with a fact of our larger society that we don't tolerate or condone. A practice has driven many talented and otherwise giving people to become embittered and private about their work. Till we are respectful of the IP in magic, we are missing a most basic tenet that holds our community together. Without that boundry of data we call shared or "public", we have no community.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
jimtron Inner circle 2042 Posts
|
What I said a few posts back was in response to alex's statement:
Quote:
Publishing an idea that doesn't belong to you or using it for a paid performance is wrong. Also: Quote:
OOTW was published by Paul Curry so there is a sort of performing license granted with purchase of the write-up. As to whether that grant of license includes permission to publish derivative works from which one can reverse engineer the original, ... don't know. Who owns the effect? When a magic store sells the manuscript, does anyone get royalties or the like? Where does the wholesaler of OOTW get the printed copies--do they make them up on their own, or purchase them from Curry's estate, or something else? What if you wanted to write a book that included the full secret of OOTW. What else should you do besides attribute the effect to Curry? Pay anyone? Ask permission of anyone? Who owns Annemann's effects? What permission/rights must be attained to reveal Annemann's secrets in a book or DVD? What if you want to build an effect from "Practical Mental Effects" and sell it in magic stores. Do you pay anyone? Get permission from anyone? What about Dover? Do they own the effects in the books they sell? Do they pay royalties for all of their books? Only the most recent ones? Quote:
Till we are respectful of the IP in magic, we are missing a most basic tenet that holds our community together. I think it's difficult sometimes to respect IP in magic, because there are many gray areas. Using my examples above, did Curry or Annemann or their estates benefit from the popularity of their effects? Thanks for your patience with all my questions!! |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27356 Posts
|
To start, your questions are valid and well worth discussing. Thanks for opening up some old jars in the cupboard of magicdom. It's probably time we decided about many of these issues. I've parsed out your post to identify some of the questions you asked.
Quote:
On 2005-09-09 12:15, jimtron wrote: The next one is something I can address directly with an opinion and a position. Quote:
I think it's difficult sometimes to respect IP in magic, because there are many gray areas. Here is an easy one. If you don't have permission from the inventor, don't do the trick. Here is an easy way to start: Say you like the ace assembly effect... go pick up a copy of Hofzinser's book and try out his version. From there, you can have some background from which to understand and appreciate the derivative works which abound. You like the copper and sliver coin transposition?... have a good read of Scot's Discoverie of Witchcraft and find out where things were as early as anyone has a written record. You like the cups and balls? Have a good read of Victor Farelli's history as offered in John Ramsay's Routine with Cups and Balls or Ottakar Fischer's Illustrated History of Magic. In both books you will find citation to an ancient Roman author whose travelogue includes mention of a very clever conjurer and you might be surprised at what has been done long ago, and how. Much of this stuff has fallen into a category which might be called community property IN MAGIC. That the material has leaked out into the hands of muggles is an indication of where this community currently stands on the issue of secrets, and likewise why magic garners such meager respect as an art and a craft. Just a little bit of thinking about a trick can get you down to whether there is a "gray" issue or not. If you have gotten a grant of license from the inventor or their assigned delegate, you have gotten permission to DO a trick. As to teaching or transmitting the secrets... that is another issue.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
jimtron Inner circle 2042 Posts
|
Quote:
Here is an easy one. If you don't have permission from the inventor, don't do the trick. How do you get permission from Scot, or Corinda, or Vernon, or Annemann, or Curry? Quote:
If you have gotten a grant of license from the inventor or their assigned delegate, you have gotten permission to DO a trick. As to teaching or transmitting the secrets... that is another issue. Where do you get a grant of license for OOTW? Triumph? Hindu thread? Who are the assigned delegates for these effects? As far as the other issue, transmitting the secrets: what if someone wants to put a DVD out with presentations of effects invented by Corinda. What would be the proper way to go about permissions/licensing etc.? |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27356 Posts
|
I believe we have some answers to your questions, though others are topics that merit discussion in our community.
The license to DO material that Vernon, Corinda, Anneman and Scot decided to put into print comes with the books containing the works. Teaching... I don't know. My feeling is that we need to discuss that question. The basic question comes down to "is it your secret to teach?". OOTW... when you purchase the Paul Curry product you get the performing license. Who has the ability to grant license after they are gone? Again a good question. In education, ordinarily one purchases a textbook. Perhaps a DVD could be considered an A/V presentation that accompanies the source material, and some licensing fees might also permit inclusion of the source material for the student. That seems very close to equitable IMHO. Have you asked Corinda or Curry for permission to teach their effects or offer a discussion on video? Again IMHO, much of the current hedging and finger-pointing can be avoided by simply asking the inventor of a thing. One way to start toward finding the inventor or delegate is to go from the copyright notice on the source work.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
jimtron Inner circle 2042 Posts
|
Quote:
The license to DO material that Vernon, Corinda, Anneman and Scot decided to put into print comes with the books containing the works. So if you buy 13 Steps, then you have a license to perform any/all of the effects from the book? |
|||||||||
|
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24321 Posts
|
The material in Scot is in the public domain. So is the material in Hocus Pocus Jr. So the original versions of the Gypsy Thread and other old tricks would not be covered by any kind of IP law.
If you purchase a manuscript of any of the other items, such as the Stars of Magic, which has Triumph and so forth, there is an implied permission to perform the effects. And you can improve them. If you decide to publish your improvements, you certainly should reference the originals. If you really wanted to do the right thing, you might want to contact, in the case of Triumph, the Vernon estate. They would be so surprised they would probably give you more than you asked for. One example of this is a little pamphlet put out by Fun, Inc. on the cups and balls. They have a reprint of the Cups and Balls routine from Stars of Magic, rewritten, done with permission of the Vernon estate. OOTW is a bit more complicated. Paul Curry sold this effect in several different forms. He passed away several years ago. It would probably suffice to reference the original trick as his. Regarding the Corinda material, he is still alive, so you would probably want to contact him.
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
|||||||||
Frank Tougas Inner circle Minneapolis, MN 1712 Posts
|
The fact that there are so many differing opinions on this makes it obvious that there is no one correct answer. As the question was originally posed can you publish someone elses material without crediting I think Mr. Palmer summed it up best with his one word post "DUH".
That isn't debateable, of course you should - for common courtesy if not for ethical reasons. Somehow the question got rearranged to performing rights. Here my particular stand has never changed. If something was published and sold to you, there is an implied right to perform. I've never understood these magicians who publish their stuff but expect you not to perform it. I will take out of context and plagarize my response to this idea from a wise man. "DUH". As to the teaching of magic. Here things get murky for me. Certainly you have no real right to take another's material and put out your own teaching DVD. Then again I see it done all the time and by some pretty big names - a quick look at L&L's catalog and other similar producers of magic DVD's will demonstrate this. If you are doing a live class in magic, use of others material is probably less onerous but certainly unnecessary as there is plenty of good public domain material to make up hundreds of magic classes. Perhaps if as part of the cost of the course you included the actual published manuscripts or tricks it would be okay - costly, but okay since the dealer and originator each get their piece of the pie. I have seen magic evolve from never giving credit and downright stealing of others material, props and concepts to a more civilized and professional tone where such things are at the least, discussed. I don't know if we will ever reach the point of other professions in this regard. Then again, maybe the unfortunate truth is, we already have. Frank Tougas
Frank Tougas The Twin Cities Most "Kid Experienced" Children's Performer :"Creating Positive Memories...One Smile at a Time"
|
|||||||||
|
SleepAllDaze New user 3 Posts
|
I didn't ask about if you should credit.I want to know if it is right to use someone elses trick on a dvd or book without asking there permission. Is that right to do?
|
|||||||||
|
Paul Sherman Inner circle Arlington, VA 1511 Posts
|
Obviously the answer is "it depends". It's equally obvious that you're interested in stirring the pot, not looking for answers.
"The finished card expert considers nothing too trivial that in any way contributes to his success..." Erdnase
some youtube videos |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Should you have permission before publishing someone elses trick? » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Sep 8, 2005 07:43 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|