|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
Pop Haydn Inner circle Los Angeles 3691 Posts |
Quote:
On Nov 1, 2020, Dannydoyle wrote: I think that the actor who read Hamlet poorly did better than he would have writing his own lines--if he can't act Shakespeare's lines, his writing will probably not be any good either. Predictably not as good as Shakespeare. He still won't be able to act his own lines. Still, many actors from Olivier to Branagh have performed Hamlet with originality and conviction without changing a word. |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
I am not familiar with the David Copperfield French case but it seems that he copyrighted “Flying” as a play and when Shakespeare wrote his plays, copyright didn’t exist.
Are we confusing things which are and which are not copyrighted with things which are or and which are not technique or presentation?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Nikodemus Inner circle 1140 Posts |
"Trademark" is a completely different concept from copyright. A trademark is (in simple terms) a logo or sometimes a catchphrase.
https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting......opyright Copyright law may be different in the USA than here in the UK. In UK law (as far as I know), every artistic work is automatically protected by copyright law - there is no need to "register". There are limits to what you can reasonably claim to be your unique artistic creation. Wearing white shirt and black trousers would be nonsense if taken in isolation. But if you took a photo of Copperfied wearing a certain outfit, in a certain pose, with a certain background, these things together could conceivably be considered to create a distinct artistic impression. So he might have a case if the whole lot was replicated. Which I think is what the French guy did? But NOT against every magician who walks onto the stage in a white shirt and black trousers! And also he could not claim copyright over the act of "flying" or "levitating". It's also worth remembering that many lawyers send out warning letters because they know people will be intimidated. Very often they do NOT take further action if you rebuff their claims. (In the UK I am pretty sure you could complain to a lawyer's professional body if they threatened to bankrupt you even though they had no valid case. That would be considered an abuse of the legal process. Of course it happens in reality - but they would be foolish to put it in writing. Also it would be terrible publicity!) I am not 100% sure of this, but I believe Methods are not copyright (because they are not visible). They could in theory by patented - but it is prohibitively expensive. The best pragmatic protection for methods has traditionally been secrecy. Nowadays with information so easy shared (eg free YouTube tutorials), the best strategy seems to be to publish (ie sell) your material before someone else exposes it. |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
Best to copyright one's script me thinks.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » Confusion between Technique and Presentation (2 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.02 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 < |