The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » F.U.2 by Lloyd Barnes (166 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..6..9..12..15..16~17~18
Martin Pulman
View Profile
Inner circle
London
2973 Posts

Profile of Martin Pulman
Quote:
On Aug 16, 2019, TStone wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 16, 2019, Martin Pulman wrote:
Can you post the link you watched without sound so I can try and understand what you are talking about? Thanks in advance.

The first trailer I found had the sound replaced with music, so I assumed all trailers were like that. You made me aware that other videos had the spoken parts intact, so I found one of those.

I can't find the trailer with only music. Can you post the link? Thanks in advance.
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
757 Posts

Profile of TStone
Can't find it again. Just turn off the sound if you are curious.
Martin Pulman
View Profile
Inner circle
London
2973 Posts

Profile of Martin Pulman
Quote:
On Aug 16, 2019, TStone wrote:
Can't find it again. Just turn off the sound if you are curious.


Odd.
kissdadookie
View Profile
Inner circle
3818 Posts

Profile of kissdadookie
Quote:
On Aug 15, 2019, TStone wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 15, 2019, The Mysterious One wrote:
I also referred to a UK copyright fact sheet (URL: https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyr......ight_law ) after googling performers and UK copyright. This site lays it out plainly and is not a word salad. Using my Analyst background, your posts, and this site, your argument is correct; Harrison couldn't possibly claim copyright based on several facets. The act has to be original.

I suggest you read that again.
Especially §2, §3ii, §4 and §7.

The work is evaluated as a whole. The whole idea of breaking the work down into discreet units, and then evaluate each unit as if that was the contested work, is nonsense.

Quote:
§7 Restricted acts

It is an offence to perform any of the following acts without the consent of the owner:

Copy the work.
Rent, lend or issue copies of the work to the public.
Perform, broadcast or show the work in public.
Adapt the work.

The author of a work, or a director of a film may also have certain moral rights:

The right to be identified as the author.
Right to object to derogatory treatment.

Not only is FU and FU2 adaptions of Harrison's work, Ellusionist have also spent extraordinary amount of energy on trying to convince everyone that Harrison isn't the author of his own work.


Your interpretation of the language is comically wrong.

What's most hilarious here is that you are citing sections of the law out of context and clearly misinterpreting them. Likely on purpose. That fact sheet is in reference to the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. In the legislation it clearly defines what each type of category for work is. Literary, dramatic and musical works are clearly defined and implied that copyright applies to the specific finished product. It does not apply to the protection of the idea behind the work. Adaptations means adaptation to a different medium, not the adaptation of ideas. Artistic works are also clearly defined and the FU2 situation does not apply there either in the claims being made against it. Moral rights are in regards to authorship of works that are defined in the Act for which the FU2 situation claims does not apply and is not infringing.

Word salad for you: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents

Let's for arguments sake stick with the UK Copyright Service site: https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/uk_law_summary

"The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, is the current UK copyright law. It gives the creators of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works the right to control the ways in which their material may be used. The rights cover: Broadcast and public performance, copying, adapting, issuing, renting and lending copies to the public. In many cases, the creator will also have the right to be identified as the author and to object to distortions of his work.

Copyright arises when an individual or organisation creates a work, and applies to a work if it is regarded as original, and exhibits a degree of labour, skill or judgement.

Interpretation is related to the independent creation rather than the idea behind the creation. For example, your idea for a book would not itself be protected, but the actual content of a book you write would be. In other words, someone else is still entitled to write their own book around the same idea, provided they do not directly copy or adapt yours to do so.

Names, titles, short phrases and colours are not generally considered unique or substantial enough to be covered, but a creation, such as a logo, that combines these elements may be.


Normally the individual or collective who authored the work will exclusively own the rights. However, if a work is produced as part of employment then normally the work belongs to the person/company who hired the individual. For freelance or commissioned work, rights will usually belong to the author of the work, unless there is an agreement to the contrary, (i.e. in a contract for service).

Only the owner, or his exclusive licensee can bring proceedings in the courts against an infringement.

The full text for the 1988 Copyright Designs and Patent Act can be found at the OSPI (HMSO) website."

Ideas there are explicitly not protected. Also note how short phrases are explicitly not protected (you can however protect it using trade dress and trademark, but that is to protect the phrase for very specific usage as it pertains to the recognition of a business, service, product, etc.).

Quote:
On Aug 16, 2019, TStone wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 16, 2019, Mark_Chandaue wrote:
This list of magical patents would suggest that Guy Hollingsworth does indeed know what he is talking about.

https://themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopi......forum=37

There are no magic routines on that list of patents.
Especially if you remove all US patents from before 1988, since they are a part of a system that no longer exist.

Look at this patent (05409420) of a levitating magician. Would a magician perform that, or is it simply a toy with a magic theme? There's no routine mentioned, only the prop is described, and while a basic handling is hinted at, that is not what the claims are about.
Image


The claim that a magic routine could be patented is nonsense.


Because that's method which one needs to use the patents system to protect. It's also the only system one can use to protect a idea and to be more specific, we are talking about use patents in that case but there is a distinct specificity for what is protectable by a patent. A magic routine as in the scripting and presentation falls in the realm of copyright law. Copyright law however protects the work in the sense of the completed form as a whole and is in itself very specific about what it is protecting, what it doesn't protect is the idea or the plot.

Quote:
On Aug 15, 2019, TStone wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 15, 2019, The Mysterious One wrote:
Let's hear from a lawyer! Tom, an interesting read is this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7722521.stm . The BBC interviews Guy Hollingsworth, who is an intellectual rights lawyer and magician (of course).

That is a crap article that doesn't say anything useful. It conflates copyright with "secrets" - a pointless and irrelevant concept.
The article doesn't seem to understand what patents is either:
Quote:
Some go further and set out to patent their tricks. But in order to do this the trick has to be relatively detailed.

No, they don't. No one patents their tricks, because artistic work isn't covered by patent law. If Hollingworth actually believes he can patent one of his card tricks, he is a lousy intellectual rights lawyer. Which I find unlikely, more likely is that Clive Coleman, the BBC journalist, have no idea what he is writing about... which becomes evident in the second sentence above; why would it matter if the trick is detailed? Only someone with a poor grasp of magic would think that mattered. Hollingworth is likely misquoted all over the piece, and the end of the article is barely coherent.
The piece is from 2008. There have been relevant courtcases since then whose outcome refutes the claims in the article.


That's actually a good article and a good broad view summary of how copyrights work. You simply don't want to acknowledge it because it goes against your personal ideologies. What the heck does a personal ideology have to do with the law though? You did claim to me that the UK copyright law makes it very clear that FU2 infringes on Harrison's routine. Clearly you are very poor at interpreting the law which is written in very plain and easy to follow English. However, you're Swedish so perhaps English isn't your first language so that's fair, but you have written plenty of material in English so it's very hard to swallow that you were completely inapt at following along to the law as it is written in plain English.

Quote:
On Aug 16, 2019, TStone wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 15, 2019, The Mysterious One wrote:
"A scripted presentation of a trick however, would amount to a "literary work" in which copyright exists and unscrupulous competitors could be sued for breach of it."

So, this is not true?


It is a weird phrasing. What does "a scripted presentation of a trick" mean? The phrase makes no sense. It sounds like an attempt to divide the work down into random artificial units, and then evaluate each unit on its own as if that was the whole of the work. You don't do that in any other artistic field. The work is the work, and should be evaluated as such.

Simple example: Stewart James's "Further than that".
Yes, technically, you could separate the spoken script from the trick itself, and evaluate it on its own as a piece of litterature - as if it was a poem, or short theatre script. But why? What would be the point of doing a silly thing like that? Why try to pass one artistic work off as if it was a different kind of artistic work?
Is the spoken script, on its own, still Stewart James's "Further than that"? Nope.
Is what remains of the trick, once the spoken script is removed, still Stewart James's "Further than that"? Nope.
Is the trick, if you take away the initial stack, so that random cards comes up during the trick, still Stewart James's "Further than that" - even if you keep the spoken words intact? Nope.
You evaluate the work as a whole, otherwise it isn't the work you are evaluating.
You can't remove all the C notes from a tune and claim those would represent the tune as a whole.

When you evaluate the work as a whole, with all its ingredients in place...
Is Stewart James's "Further than that" still Stewart James's "Further than that", if the very end is changed from displaying the remaining cards of the same suit to displaying a royal straight flush in the same suit? Yes. It is a trivial change.
Is The Lords of the Ring still The Lords of the Ring if you rename all the characters and change the climatic scene from a mountain to a valley? Yes. It is a trivial change.
Is it an infringement of Tolkien's rights to suddenly and randomly shout "Gandalf!" during a theater performance? Nope.
Is Stewart James's "Further than that" still Stewart James's "Further than that", if you change the selection process, let's say from a 10-20 force to a riffle force? Yes.

Quote:
And what court cases refute the claims in the article? I am curious.


All of them.

Let's take the two most known ones: Teller vs Dogge and Van Herck vs. Klok.

According to the claims in the article, neither Teller nor Van Herck could win, since none of the work relied of this odd artificial "scripted presentation of a trick" construct. Both pieces in question were silent routines.
In order to win, the routines would have to be evaluated as artistic work in their own right. And the work would need to be evaluated as a whole.
If considered artistic work, the outcome would be easy to predict; a win for both.
It would also be predictable that the court would phrase their ruling in weird ways, since they don't know our field and would likely make flawed assumptions about the field.

Both Teller and Van Herck won, just as they should have. The rulings are almost unreadable due to all the irrelevant caveats, ifs and buts, but the outcomes were still in our favor... and according to the article, that should not be possible.


Actually, if you bothered to read the order by the judge, it is explained explicitly why Teller won that case and why it was copyright infringement. I've explained it in depth a few pages back if that post is still on here and did not get removed. The judge literally stated that this is a case of copyright infringement because what is perceived between the two effects is practically 1:1 in regards to the specificity of the choreography being replicated by Dogge. The judge even explicitly stated that the methodology being different is irrelevant in the case because the claim was copyright infringement rather than stealing of methodology. I even linked to the judgement order a few pages back when I explained the case in depth. When you file a complaint through the court, you are specifying what claims you are making. You can't in the middle of a case diverge from those claims and claim something completely different just because it fits your argument better. If you wished to do that, you would actually have to file a new complaint with those new claims.

But hey, what do I know, just word salad amiright. Let's not let facts and details get in our way. :: shrugs ::
kissdadookie
View Profile
Inner circle
3818 Posts

Profile of kissdadookie
Now in regards to why copyright, patents, trademarks, etc. requires the works to be protected in such a specific way is multi-faceted.

One, it is with such specificity for which one is able to demonstrate how the work is a unique creation to them and not one of independent creation.

Second, to protect something you need to have rules in place to follow and enforce, otherwise there's really no rationale as to why one thing got protection and another thing did not.

Third, it's funny how in this thread there has been claims made about how the copyright laws are not protective enough.

Why is it that point number 3 is so comical? It's because in the countries we are discussing, the problem with the system is that it is often the case that it is over protective since in the countries in question, they are very litigious. In other words, in these countries (the UK and the US as well as Europe overall) they have a bias towards the owners/authors typically and it is often the case that it stifles creativity as it makes things like making a parody or satire contestable. This is why fair use is such a trending topic, it is because we are being overly litigious and restricting fair use unfairly. Reading this thread one would not be at fault for mistakenly believing that the US and the UK are not litigious and does not protect the creators/authors because we have incredibly poor criticisms of copyright here literally based on assumptions based on people's own ideologies whilst ignoring the actual legislation in place (I would go as far as to say that the other folks commenting on how I don't know what I'm talking about most likely did not bother to read up on copyright law, even though I've provided numerous references in this thread).

Let's put it this way, specificity is the key here. It's even key outside of the law and looking at this from a ethical perspective. It clearly can not be agreed upon what the tricks are for Harrison's routine. One can ignore my summary of what the routine is and you will still find various different perceived effects. Why is that? Is it because the routine itself is confusing? Is it because the plot is confusing? No, the reason is that the plot itself, what the trick is, when looked at and explained strictly by what the trick is, what is perceived as being the trick, it ends up being a well used plot in magic. So that requires some massaging and finessing of what the trick is so that one could give it specificity in order to claim that it is unique to Harrison's. So even when we talk about this subject outside of the law, purely from an ethical point of view, it is still a necessity to be able to identify the specificity. We have a problem here then, when actually describing the two effects in a very specific manner, we actually do end up with two very different effects with what is in common being the FU phrasing before the reveal. However, this is not a unique enough aspect of the routines to make the theft claim valid and thus the reason why we have various different versions of the effect summary having been posted in this thread, it's an effort to feed whatever narrative one is trying to use. This is why this is a dumb controversy. In actuality, in the real world, the audience would undoubtedly perceive the two as being dramatically different from each other because the presentations between the two are night and day different. The audience will also ultimately perceive both as being a the magician found my card type trick for which that is not specific enough to warrant a claim of theft. Thus this argument and distinction between actual law and facts vs. "magician morals and ethics." This is also why the audience's perception is paramount here. If the audience perceives two different routines with completely different presentations and the actual effect being "this magician knew my card and it was printed in fine print on the joker card" vs "this magician knew my card and had it inside two sealed envelopes which was inside of a book that I was holding the entire time," the two are very very very different from each other. The only ones which argue completely away from that have been folks trying to back the claim that a theft occurred.
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
757 Posts

Profile of TStone
...word salad deluxe...

Maybe you should ask your "work buddies" at your "law firm" for their input?
kissdadookie
View Profile
Inner circle
3818 Posts

Profile of kissdadookie
Quote:
On Aug 20, 2019, TStone wrote:
...word salad deluxe...

Maybe you should ask your "work buddies" at your "law firm" for their input?


Of course it's word salad deluxe for you. Clearly you don't read or incapable of reading. Oh well.

I mean, you basically stated that Guy Hollingworth was talking nonsense (paraphrasing you). So does it really matter who is trying to explain this to you? You don't accept it when it's a stranger and you clearly don't accept it when it's a well known, published magician, whom also happens to be a IP attorney (Guy Hollingworth). Pointless talking to you so bye Felicia.
RNK
View Profile
Inner circle
4614 Posts

Profile of RNK
Sounds like it's over.
Thank goodness!!

Smile
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » F.U.2 by Lloyd Barnes (166 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..6..9..12..15..16~17~18
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2019 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.32 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL