|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
ebinary New user 53 Posts |
I recently read a 1941 newspaper clipping where Richard Himber and Hubert Brill decided to expose a number of classic magic tricks, in order to spur innovation. No mention of them getting sued.
Interesting question... if a performance can be copyrighted, would the exposure of said effect be covered by that copyright? It is obviously be a novel addition and would not necessarily appeal to the same audience. Quote:
I can't follow your reasoning - why would I want to research everything that have been published in the whole art, if I'm just looking for a predecessor to a specific piece? I dunno - is a three card monte substantially similar to the cups and balls? Or nutshells, or thimbles, or a chip-and-coin monte. Depending on how broad the scope is interpreted, seems like you might have a lot to research. |
|||||||||
RLFrame Elite user 447 Posts |
"I can't follow your reasoning - why would I want to research everything that have been published in the whole art, if I'm just looking for a predecessor to a specific piece?"
Because in my example, Bumbledini fully credited the predecessors to his work and that wasn't good enough for you. You called it "shoddy research" because he did not know of obscure work by Mark Salunga 30 years before. "I mean, if I'm researching predecessors for an Okitobox routine, it would hardly be productive to sift though everything that has been written on illusions, thimble manipulation and dove magic, right?" First of all, the example given was of a card stack /trick deck not an Okito box routine. How much literature do you think there is on card stacks and trick decks that would have to be sorted through? Years. And secondly, the literature is not conveniently sorted into tidy categories. Is there an Okito box routine in the 1984 issue of MUM? Gotta look to be 'comprehensive.' "Could you link to a few of those examples?" Here are a couple of pertinent ones. I would just as sonn avoid avoid a couple of other ones that have not come to light. Try figure out proper crediting on just one card move. http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......&forum=2 http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......forum=15 http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/searc......=5277521 The one on Mike Hutton was most to the point. Bob Cassidy's book says he came up with his version in the late 1970's. I am sure Mr. Hutton is a fine fellow but, in the hundreds of thousands of posts in this board, his name only appears a handful of times outside of that thread. I had never heard of him and there is no way to know if his video was even widely available. |
|||||||||
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 769 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-12-17 16:10, RLFrame wrote: You did say "But with widespread circulation, people start complaining that Wooster did not credit Miracle Moe and Mark Salunga" To me, 'people' seem to be plural in this context - not just one single person. The word 'complaining' seem to indicate that the group above are voicing some kind of critique. And the critique seems to be about some kind of duplication, otherwise, why would a group of people complain? Had it been a truely obscure work, there would have been just a very small number of people who would have noticed it, and it is more reasonable that they would have informed about it in a kind manner, instead of complaining, since they are aware that the source is obscure That's how I read it. Perhaps you meant something else? Well, if several people are complaining and there is a duplication of some sort, then, obviously, the research has failed. Failed research = the opposite of good research. No problems so far - mistakes and errors can happen. It's just a matter of fixing it when it happens. But here is what I disaproves of: Wooster refuses to take responsibility for his mistake, and blames it on Bumbledini - which is a clear sign that Wooster is a deplorable character. How Bumbledini react to the news that he also have erred in his crediting is unknown from your description - but from your question "Who is right?" it seems as if they both are casting blame on each other. Well - none of them are right. Quote:
First of all, the example given was of a card stack /trick deck not an Okito box routine. How much literature do you think there is on card stacks and trick decks that would have to be sorted through? Years. Possibly - fortunately, a whole bunch of people have already spent years to sift through that material, and are happy to share their knowledge. And there is still no need to go through everything that have been published in all areas. Quote:
And secondly, the literature is not conveniently sorted into tidy categories. Is there an Okito box routine in the 1984 issue of MUM? Gotta look to be 'comprehensive.' If there was a piece like that in MUM 1984, it will be found. I still don't see a problem. Quote:
"Could you link to a few of those examples?" 1: Proper crediting on ATFUS? It's well known that it is based on an Elmsley move. It took me 20 seconds to flip to p. 208 in Giobbi's "Card College Vol 1" and find the reference. Yet another 20 seconds to flip to p. 116 in Minch's Elmsley book Vol. 2. It would be a clear sign of shoddy research to miss this one. 2: I do not know Shalosh's piece (The link to it seems to be broken), but I remember that he got a bad review in Genii a few years ago, due to crediting problems. Can't say anything, really. 3: Yes, to refer to the Tenkai pinch as the Goshman pinch is shoddy research. No one should miss this one. Also, but this is more obscure, The Bobo switch is described in More Magic (1890), long before Bobo was born. I would guess it would take 1-2 days to find that out. "The Mullholland Slide Vanish" and "The Click Pass" would probably take even longer to find out - perhaps 5-6 days? |
|||||||||
RLFrame Elite user 447 Posts |
"Proper crediting on ATFUS? It's well known that it is based on an Elmsley move. It took me 20 seconds to flip to p. 208 in Giobbi's "Card College Vol 1" and find the reference. Yet another 20 seconds to flip to p. 116 in Minch's Elmsley book Vol. 2. It would be a clear sign of shoddy research to miss this one."
Apparently Richard Kaufman disagrees with you. The point of some of those threads is that there is disagreement about whether something is the same or close and would need to be credited or not. Here is a quote from Daryl: "I do the best I can on my own (assuming that I remember where I learned something), but I suppose that if I really wanted to give “exact” credits, I would hire someone like Jon Racherbaumer of Max Maven to do the research. " And Mr. Lorayne "I'd been in magic for twenty years or so before I wrote CLOSE-UP CARD MAGIC, and still screwed up with some credits. (Which is one of the reasons I wrote LORAYNE: THE CLASSIC COLLECTION - among other things, to include the credits I didn't know about back in 1962 - and I'm sure I STILL OMITTED SOME!)" Both quotes from the Magic Café. Both of these folks have a lot more resources and a lot more knowledge of the art than I do. |
|||||||||
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 769 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-12-18 13:01, RLFrame wrote: Well, as I see it - one does the best attempt one can manage, and then one will get it right in more than 90% of the cases. And when, or if, a mistake happens, you learn from it and adjust. But I can't agree on the idea that crediting is soo impossible that you shouldn't even try - because in most cases, it is not very difficult at all. That's my experience, anyway. |
|||||||||
RLFrame Elite user 447 Posts |
"Well, as I see it - one does the best attempt one can manage, and then one will get it right in more than 90% of the cases. And when, or if, a mistake happens, you learn from it and adjust."
I agree with that. And had you said that from the outset, there would have been no disagreement. "But I can't agree on the idea that crediting is soo impossible that you shouldn't even try..." And I never said that. I will copy and paste it exactly, "You're not going to be able to do anywhere near comprehensive research of the literature on these in three days or three years." The key words are 'comprehensive research of the literature' or as Daryl put it "'exact' credits." Of course, hiring Jon Racherbaumer or Max Maven to do the research might cut done on that time. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
It helps to not rush items into print until they've proved themselves particularly useful in ones performances. Finding ones personal best practices and refining ones routines can take many years of performances where on is especially attentive to audience feedback.
Similarly - knowing that what one writes or puts on video will be very quickly put on the internet for all and sundry to treat as fodder or amusement... what's the rush? IMHO the real questions have to do with what necessitated the invention and how the invention serves in ones performances. IMHO just because you fart using the left cheek on the count of four while doing a Ghost Count does not necessarily mean you are well advised to make a video teaching Alex Elmsley's count or that anyone else will get the same benefits from your olfactory addition to the sleight.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
maharajademagia Regular user 127 Posts |
I personally find that the some magicians want to be remembered as greats in history by the number of "inventions" they claim to make. This whole ethics question is strange, I mean how can you invent a move for loading a ball in the "Cups and Balls" and then try and sell it at yours. This is similar to say Michael Jackson holding the mike in a peculiar way and then trying to stop other's from holding it in that manner or at least expecting him for his permission before doing it. Or in an extended version even mention before singing, "I will hold the mike like Michael did as I have the permission for it".
It must be painful for an inventor to see that his trick is being made and sold from China at a much lower cost, where he does not get a dime. I would put a personal case. I bought "The Floating Table" from Losander and made him sign it for me. It cost $1500. But then you see a more expensive version of his being sold for $250 on a Chinese website you feel cheated as a buyer. Losander is making money, and so is the Chinese web site. And god knows who is making more. But the fellow magician who did not by the table from Losander can buy 5 more tricks than me and would book before me. So is that ethical? Who would control that? Another question to be asked is Losander paying part of his earnings to the inventor of the basic principle the "Floating Table" works on. He definitely did not invent that. And did the inventor of the principle pay to the guy who invented the flush bob cock for his invention? Furthermore, there is a guy you buys the Floating Table from a Copy Cat Magic Co. and ignores that Losander invented it. Is he to be blamed or this Copy Cat Magic Co.? That’s what should be controlled. And lastly, by having the legal version of Floating Table do I still have to take a permission from Losander if I want to perform it on TV. (Which means I pay for it twice). Your thoughts are welcome on this real case. So I think that the question here should not be, is it ethical but is it legal, as law is based on ethics. Anything legal is ethical and anything illegal is unethical. (For the records, I have nothing against Mr. Losander who I consider a great magician and inventor and a great human being. I am mentioning his invention as I possess it. Obviously I could not have mentioned Laser Illusions as I don’t have it and neither have the money to buy it.) |
|||||||||
sthielman Regular user North Carolina 129 Posts |
Thanks for your thoughts Maharajademagia. I would respectfully point out that in this day and age, it is not really true that what is legal is ethical. There are lots of things that are not ethical, but are legal. Like betraying a friend, for example. The other points you raise are good ones, though. There's a lot of extremism in the magic ethics debates.
|
|||||||||
edh Inner circle 4698 Posts |
If you wanted to perform it on T.V then perhaps you should've gone with the Chinese modeld. At least you wouldn't have to worry about performance rights.
Magic is a vanishing art.
|
|||||||||
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 769 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-12-20 04:36, maharajademagia wrote: Yes, he does pay a yearly fee to the Tommy Wonder Estate, as the workings are a derivative from a piece of Tommy Wonder - which in turn was derivated from a piece from Niel Foster mixed with choreographical ideas from Al Schneider. Losander is beyond reproach in this matter, as he is respecting their contract even after the other part has deceased - something that is more ethical than the average magic world. Quote:
And lastly, by having the legal version of Floating Table do I still have to take a permission from Losander if I want to perform it on TV. (Which means I pay for it twice). Your thoughts are welcome on this real case. Well, to me, it isn't so surprising if one can get something cheaper from a fence than from a store. And a fake Rolex is cheaper than the real thing. Quote:
So I think that the question here should not be, is it ethical but is it legal, as law is based on ethics. Anything legal is ethical and anything illegal is unethical. Not really. The copyright laws are evolving and changing each year - but ethics are more or less the same. And the laws are slightly different from country to country, especially the US copyright laws that still are largely incompatible with the rest of the world (even though it is slowly changing to the better). So, it is more close to the truth to say that some transgressions between some countries can't be identified as legal or illegal by the current laws, rather than to assume that it is legal. Because the situation can change tomorrow, or next week... |
|||||||||
maharajademagia Regular user 127 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-12-21 13:31, TStone wrote: Tstone, thanks for this information. My respect for Losander has increased more than ever. I am happy I bought the original. The legal aspect of the doubts still remain to be answered. Will wait for some more expert opinion. Posted: Dec 21, 2009 5:12pm A second thought, and why would he not pay Joe Karson who invented the basic principle "Floating Table" works on, and pay Tommy Wonder Estate etc. For their contribution in developing the idea of Floating Table? |
|||||||||
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 769 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-12-21 17:12, maharajademagia wrote: Sorry, I don't know why I wrote Niel Foster - I meant Joe Karson. The reason is that Joe Karson's original is in public domain, while Tommy Wonder's significant improvements are not. Joe Karson patented the Zombie ball around 1946, and patents in US gives IP-protection for 14-20 years (I believe, depending on the nature of the patent). So the Zombie ball fell into public domain around 1980. Remaining is the choreographical copyright - but in US there were no copyright for choreography before The Federal Copyright Law of 1976 (which went into effect on January 1 of 1978), and besides, the Wonder/Losander system allows a lot of moves that are impossible with Karson's original, and therefore it is clearly beyond the threshold of originality that is required. Links: Joe Karson's patent (click "images" ) http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/copyrigh.html |
|||||||||
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24312 Posts |
Tom:
Are you a licensed, practicing IP attorney?
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
|||||||||
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 769 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-12-21 19:20, Bill Palmer wrote: No, I'm an amateur like most of the others who are commenting on these topics here, but I've read a lot and spent considerable time attempting to make sense of it all. Does that make my postings less valid than the others who are commenting? You know quite a bit about things like this, Bill. I'm always willing to learn more, so feel free to point out if there are any clear errors. For the most part, the topic isn't too complicated... until one brings it up on an international level, or discuss the matters from an US perspective where this topic is a mess. For example, I have automatic copyright on my creations, as a swedish citizen. But what happens if I become an american citizen, where copyright (seemingly) still have to be registred? Do I lose the copyright on the pieces that I created as a swedish citizen? Logically, my automatic copyright should have an equal status as an US registred copyright, so should I assume that there are functions in place that can convert my rights into the US equivalents? These things are impossible to figure out from the texts I've read so far. |
|||||||||
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24312 Posts |
I'm just asking this to put what you are saying into a viable perspective.
I'm not a licensed, practicing IP attorney, either. However, I do own 1/3 of all of my father's material, plus copyrights on my own items. Some of these were issued under the pre 1974 system, others later. The amount of material my father wrote was immense. In fact, you can find translations of some of it in Sweden! Understanding of copyright law was and is one of the things that keeps a roof over my head. I've seen how it works on a practical level. As I understand it, American copyright law will allow everything you have written as a Swedish citizen to remain in copyright. This would fall under various parts of the Bern Accord and the Uruguay Round. The main thing that would have been problematic for material that was published before that time was a clause in the copyright law of the US that stated that anything that was written in English, but not published in the United States automatically passed into the public domain. This is no longer a valid law. But it was the reason that nobody was able to prosecute Al Mann for knocking off the Harbin book. Now the Harbin book is fully protected until the copyright dies a natural death. Almost all IP cases are decided by a judge, and they are settled strictly on the basis of whose attorney makes the best argument. I know of a case in Germany in which Harold Voit had an illusion that was totally original. It involved an instant release of an assistant from nine metal rings that were arranged along a wooden pole. A fellow who lived close by figured it out, copied it and marketed it. He added a tenth ring. Harold tried to get him to quit selling it. Harold owned a patent on it. The case seems fairly cut and dried. The judge settled in favor of the copyist, stating that the tenth ring changed the method. This was a blatant lie. This may have been the same judge who declared that the Shell Game was not a con, because it was possible for the spectator to guess which shell the pea was under. This kind of judgment takes place in Europe, the US, and everywhere else that has IP law. Sometimes the judgments do work out, though. Nevertheless, I have seen what happens when people try their own cases, assuming that the facts as they see them are so obvious that the judge can't possibly miss them. The problem with the ethics of figuring out a trick from the performance video is that there seems to me to be two components to this. One is the idea that the video would be so badly made that the method becomes evident, even to the point of figuring out the gimmick. The other is that once someone has gone to the trouble of doing this, there is no way that he can simply state that it was unintentional, accidental or spontaneous. If you don't plan to perform it, it is an intellectual exercise. If you do plan to perform it, though, it is no longer an intellectual exercise. It becomes theft. So, if you want to perform it with a clear conscience, pay up. Regarding the "Bumbledini rope trick" -- if Bumbledini never wrote it up, then Jaky Taky has every right to market it. Unless someone can prove that he learned it from Bumbledini. This kind of thing happens quite frequently. I have invented a number of moves that I learned later had been done by someone else, but not written up -- just taught to their students. Regarding the trick deck -- again, things like this are fairly much the bane of contemporary magic. Marlo had sheafs of unpublished notes that he used to refer to when someone came up with a new move. The one time that he got beat for sure was the Ghost Count. He figured he had invented every card move or every improvement that had ever been done. He missed on this one, though. There are a lot of convolutions in American IP law. If an item is a matter of print, graphics, photography or scripting, it can be copyrighted. If it's a matter of a mechanical device or a "system" it must be patented. If it's a matter of something that represents a company, it can be trademarked. Copyrights have a long life. Patents, not very long. Trademarks are renewable indefinitely as long as they are in use. This may be how Disney managed to keep the copyright on Mickey Mouse from expiring -- he is a trademark. Also, they had very high-priced attorneys (and nice places for judges to visit with their families! ) Dance routines were not copyrightable until a system of notation for movement was invented by Rudolf Laban in the 1920's. Manipulation acts could be choreographed and copyrighted using the same system. Nobody in this country has taken the time to figure out how to do it and how to apply it. But the main thing is that in this country, the laws are almost too specific. Copyright covers exactly what is written. If someone performs a trick to different scripting, then the copyright of the original does not apply. Relative to all of these -- I'll add to the confusion. I think all of us are familiar with integrated circuits -- those tiny "chips" that make our cell phones and computers work. Any idea how they are legally protected? The obvious answer would be patent. Which would mean that the interface chip that is found in every computer keyboard in the world would be in the public domain. IBM and TI are the co-owners of the protection. It's a copyright. So it will be covered for a few more years before passing into the public domain. Why is it copyrighted? It's a photograph. That's the only way they could apply the microscopic layers of silicon the proper way.
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
|||||||||
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 769 Posts |
Thanks Bill! Very interesting!
Quote:
As I understand it, American copyright law will allow everything you have written as a Swedish citizen to remain in copyright. Yes, the text as litterature. So I guess that goes for the work itself too? I.e. the works for which the text is the documentation? There still seem to be some uncertainty regarding copyright for performance arts in some texts, but not in others. And some parts, especially the moral rights, seem to be reserved for visual arts but not performance art. But I guess that might change eventually. Oh, I've also figured out the thing with registration! Copyright IS automatic in US now - but there is the extra option of registring the work, to get an even better protection. Quote:
I know of a case in Germany in which Harold Voit had an illusion that was totally original. Do you know approximately which year this was? There's been some changes in Germany as well. One of the things that are easily missed is that it isn't enough to point out a transgression - you have to define exactly what the transgression consists of, in terms that will make legal sense. Because they can't try things that have not been brought into the trial. And even then, the court consists of people that are unpredictable... Yes, it is never clear-cut. And it doesn't become easier that we use several words in magic that are like poison words when spoken in a court (words like "secret", "method", "principle" etc. ) Quote:
Dance routines were not copyrightable until a system of notation for movement was invented by Rudolf Laban in the 1920's. Manipulation acts could be choreographed and copyrighted using the same system. Nobody in this country has taken the time to figure out how to do it and how to apply it. It doesn't have to be Labanotation - a recording works just as well (at least here). BTW, I suspect that Juan Tamariz' minisymbolic notation system have something to do with this topic. Links for the mildly curious (with the usual reservation for errors and flaws): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Conve......_of_1988 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat......ing_arts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_arts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act |
|||||||||
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24312 Posts |
In the case of video recordings, there is also the possibility that the copyright is shared by the person who instigated the recording. This is one area that may not have been cleared up. For example, if there is a recording of a broadcast of a magic show, the person who put the show together may have his name on the work. So, if you are performing, and it is recorded, make sure that ANY release you have does not relinquish your rights to the performance.
Be careful quoting Wikipedia. It is not considered authoritative, because anyone can make contributions to it, and they can claim certification they don't have. Also, the founder of Wikipedia has issues with two things, intellectual property and telling the truth. In 2006, when I password protected the Cups and Balls Museum web site, I did so after getting into a big tiff with the founder. He had placed a link to my web site right below an exposure of the cups and balls and the shell game. I don't like exposure. Also, at that time, I had a rather restrictive bandwidth limit. A link from Wikipedia would have closed me down in a week. I removed the link. He put it back. I asked him to remove it. He refused. He said that my web site was "a public resource." I stated, "Like Hell it is. It's copyrighted. I pay for the hosting. I do all the photography myself. I write all the text. It's not intended for the public." But he refused. So, after reading his rules, I realized that he would not permit links to password protected sites. That put an end to it. A couple of months ago, I went back to Wikipedia and looked up the cups and balls entry. There was a note from him that stated that my web site was not linked because I objected to the exposure on that page. The man states "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet has free access to the sum of all human knowledge." — Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia There are some parts of the sum of all human knowledge that do not belong on various web sites. Personal information, for example. I know that most of my personal information is on the internet somewhere, but I don't believe that people who have no good intent should have free access to it. You can see from these links that all, with the exception of the one about the Berne convention have reservations as to the accuracy thereof. Actually, there are parts of the Berne convention article that are either not completely true or that are one-sided. For example, the situation with the American publishers stealing English works is definitely one-sided. The same thing occurred in England. In fact, the Cremer books on magic were stolen from Dick and Fitzgerald. And that's not an isolated example. If economic relations between the US and China had not been reestablished and the Chernobyl disaster had not taken place, the US would never have signed the Berne accord. Seeing this from inside the publishing industry, I have a different perspective about what was occurring at this time. The US government did not want American money going to iron curtain countries. Much of the political aspect of the Berne accord was to equalize the relations between the US and the former Soviet Union. Although the fall of the Soviet Union was not complete until 1991, Chernobyl accellerated the process that began in 1985 when Gorbachev took the reins of the government. The requirement for all English language books to be published in the US, if there was to be a valid copyright on them (pre Berne accord) was taken care of by having "publishers of record" in the US. Abbott's published Supreme's material, for the most part. Tannen's published Harry Stanley's material. Many major publishing houses had offices in the US, Canada and England, although the books themselves were actually printed in, say, Japan and bound in, say, Korea. All of this charade became unneccessary after the Berne accord, and when the restoration of copyright act was passed with the Uruguay round, a lot of publishers found themselves paying royalties to former Soviet citizens. Fortunately for the publishers, there was a limit of three years' back royalties. There are still a number of countries that are not signatories to the international copyright agreements, India and China being the two largest.
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
|||||||||
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 769 Posts |
Quote:
Be careful quoting Wikipedia. Yes I know - that's why I put the disclaimer before the links. Still, for a non-english guy like me, it is practical as I can move from swedish terms to the english counterparts, and find what these things are called over there - and once I've found the proper terms, I can research other sources. But I agree - seing how inaccurate they are within areas where I possess knowledge, isn't doing much to improve my confidence in the areas where I lack knowledge. And then there's the ethical part as well... |
|||||||||
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24312 Posts |
BINGO!
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » If you figure out a trick should you pay for it? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.15 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 < |