Hey guys - does anybody know what these cards in the promo shot are? I like the occultic symbols added.

They are the symbols of the zodiac.

Yes I know but the cards themselves. Are they a commercially available deck?

Get a deck of cards, a zodiac chart, a sharpie marker & wha-la! Considering Jermay's DIY creations, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't make them himself.

I haven't had the chance to publicly perform "Cartomancy" since my purchase due to the fact that I didn't have a venue yet where the show would fit. In December I was asked to perform in a sort of multiple-performers-cabaret night (not sure what the correct English term would be) and I am considering a doing a reduced version of the act - I only have a 15 minutes slot.
Does anyone of you other buyers have any experience of doing a time-reduced version of "Cartomancy"? I am not sure if a 15 minute version can be achieved, that would do "Cartomancy" justice...

Thanks for your input!

Patrick

Hey,
I'm intrested in buying this stage piece but have read in this blog that we are not allowed to use this material in front of paying audience? Is that really true?

Quote from https://klearthoughtsmentalismhypnosis.w......ple-who/
"CARTOMANCY TAROT EXPANSION KIT (DIGITAL) – LUKE JERMAY
Copyright 2015 (C) Luke Jermay, All Rights Reserved.
All legal owners in possession of an original copy of this manuscript have the right to perform these effects, presentations and methods in non-recorded, non-broadcast, live first person, non-ticketed, nontheatrical performance settings only. They are not permitted to teach, sell, resell, lecture, manufacture, translate or otherwise use, demonstrate, display or perform the contents. The only authorised use is in the context of live, first person performance. All broadcast, narrowcast, internet, intranet, You Tube and any and all other uses are strictly withheld by the author and permission for all other uses by anyone other than the author must be obtained in writing first. Thank You. This copyright is the intellectual property of Michael Weber and is used here with his express permission."

I'm not a lawyer but based on my reading, those claimed limitations are highly unlikely to survive any test in court, at least in the U.S.

Michael Weber is a lawyer, and it says "this copyright is the intellectual property of Michael Weber and is used here with his express permission". Michael knows what he's talking about.

If Luke does plan on keeping people from making money with this, he may want to reconsider this on his website ...

"More than just a 'trick' Cartomancy is a full income generating professional show in three acts; complete with the exact word for word script Jermay uses night after night to astonish audiences worldwide."

Then again, when he wrote ... "a full income generating professional show in three acts" he could've just meant for himself.

I don't like this kind of advertising followed by this kind of legal disclaimer.

It appears that he send a mail to the buyers explaining that they can indeed perform the act.

Yes, he did.

Michael Weber is also a magician, and as such he is an expert in using people's assumptions against them.

Just because he's both a lawyer and a magician doesn't mean he can magically get copyright law to expand the categories of works for which performance rights are controlled by the copyright holder. The book in which magic tricks appear is a literary work, but the courts do not recognize the performance of the tricks as literary, dramatic or choreographic works, so they are not subject to control by the copyright holder of the book. You can't perform the book by reading it out loud in public without permission of the copyright holder, but you can certainly perform the tricks therein.

For scope of copyright's control over performance rights, see: http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html#performance

To put it in a nutshell: There are no restrictions when performing this show piece for a paying audience due to a mail Mr. Jermay has sent to all buyers? correct?
I really don't want to spend that much money if I only could use this in front of my family...which would be nice though

Best Wishes
Mysteryos

Why not just email them and ask?

Tim,

Your opinion is not correct and has not been supported by the courts in the US, Canada, France, Italy, Germany, UK to name a few. Here are some similar examples to research for yourself and think about:

To protect the underlying work of a dance, the creator does not need to perform the dance and film it, he can use choreographic notation and publish this document full of symbols which both describe the manner for performing the dance and operate to protect the underlying work and the expression of that work through physical dance (See the Balenchine cases and this article: http://lawstreetmedia.com/issues/enterta......graphy/) Later courts even found that unauthorized photographs of dancers performing his version of the Nutcracker were a violation of the underlying copyright in his choreography!

When a painter makes and sells a painting, he/she may sell the physical painting but retain many other rights related to the image. For example, the artist may retain the right of public display (that's right, you could agree to buy a painting that you could not legally hang in a public gallery or hotel lobby) Often an artist will specify the limits of the use of a work (look at online image services, there are many images you can download and use for free but many more which you can not use for commercial purposes without paying a fee)

Take a look at the long-established industry of Play Publication ( http://www.samuelfrench.com/faq ) Just because you buy the play, you are not also granted the right to perform the play in public, or for compensation. Those are additional rights which may be retained, licensed and controlled.

Copyright is a "bundle of rights" not just a single right. Each of the "threads" in this bundle may be stripped-out and retained, transferred, sold, licensed or distributed to different buyers. A perfect example of this is that many current magic effects allow you to perform the effect in your shows, but retain the television performance rights.

A careful reading of the copyright in discussion shows that the average buyer can do exactly what he would normally do - perform the effect in his private bookings. As soon as the use grows to something more public (ticketed seats in a public theater, television, internet, etc) it is clear that the artist must be contact for further discussion.

Ahem. Please follow the link and read the page about scope of copyright performance rights. Here's a bit from it:

Public Performance

The public performance right allows the copyright holder to control the public performance of certain copyrighted works. The scope of the performance right is limited to the following types of works:

literary works,
musical works,
dramatic works,
choreographic works,
pantomimes,
motion pictures, and
audio visual works.


The examples you supplied are explicitly protected categories in this list:

A dance is a choreographic work, which is a category in this list.
A painting is an audio/visual work, which is a category in this list.
A play is a dramatic work, which is a category in this list.

However, while many magicians fondly wish that magic tricks would be interpreted by the courts as belonging to one of the categories in this list, the courts have not done so.

This is why magic has resorted to socially-enforced protocols of crediting and asking permission -- because performance rights are NOT enforced by the law. All we really have available is social peer pressure. (Well, and lying about the law, as we see here.)

Unfortunately, when magicians bluff and threaten that they are backed by the law when they are actually not, they squander the good will that fuels the socially-enforced protocols that would otherwise be in play to support them. As Princess Leia said to Darth Vader: "The more you tighten your grip, Lord Vader, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

Tim,

This is not the place for deep discussions of the current state of copyright law, but perhaps we might both agree that copyright lawsuits are for people with big bank accounts (take a look at how much Teller paid in legal fees chasing the guy who tried to sell his versions of Teller's Shadows.)

US Courts have looked upon theatrical conjuring performances as dramatic/choreographic works in the same spirit as the protections for pantomimes ("the play need not have words to be protected")

Section 106 sub 5 is right out of the copyright code (as established in the US Constitution under Title 17) so the creator with some money set aside for protecting his or her dramatic creations would have not trouble getting good attorneys on the case. One mistake frequently made is that copyright is a good tool to protect the underlying secrets of a magic effect's method. Copyright is not the correct tool for this job, but we are talking about reservations of rights of authors for their dramatic works, not a book of moves and methods.


§ 106 . Exclusive rights in copyrighted works38

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Didn't Teller copyright a trick and sued the person who tried to sell it?

Yes. Newguy just mentioned that.

But he spent a fortune doing so. It was, if I am remembering correctly, copyrighted as a pantomime. It was also, again if I am remembering correctly, the only case where the court ruled in favor of the defendant.

...is 50% off now at Vanishing Inc.

I have two questions:
1) This act uses ordinary playing cards?
2) Can it be Tarot?