| Go to page 1 ~ 2 ~ 3 (Next) |
|
|
Wolf Fisher
New user
31 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 13, 2010 4:21pm
Hi, I always wonder and feel hassled when I read in an offer for a routine "performance for televison or cruise ships (f.ex.)strictly
prohibited" or "performance rights for xyz not included". THAT IS NOT ETHICAL- to make someone pay for something that cannot be used, and anyhow, it is illigal! (I am not talking about "secretly filming the act of someone and doing it" - talk about "buying a more or less new/elaborated classic routine with all bits of business" for a high price - and then, the dealer/inventor puts in restrinctions).
That means: I buy a car, but I may not drive it in Florida, only in California; or, worse: I buy the car, but I may not drive it at all. Or: I buy a book with recipes, but I may not cook the soup described. Or, I buy a suit, but I may not wear it. I buy a hamburger, but I may not eat it.
In other words: I buy something, but I may not use it. I feel that this is highly unethical! Yep, someone re-builds an original creation and sells it as "original" or under the original name - that is fraud. But a routine? With some changes (and every artist should adapt it to his/her personality anyhow- so there are automatically changes), it is legal(!!!) to do it anyhow! And that is exactly the sense of "PATENT" - a patented good has to be published to ensure variations.
YES, it is a "Gentleman´s Agreement" that I will never(and have never ever) steal any routine from annother magician, that I BUY the routine whatever it may cost. That´s for sure! But I feel betrayed if I have to pay a lot for something (especially a classic routine) that I may not use in full (WRONG!). In other words: when somebody who sells for a heavy price a prop/props and routine/text without or restricted performing rights- he is selling something useless. HE CAN BE SUED, if he complains! (at least in Europe...).
For that special routine, the purchaser is paying a much higher price than for the props and the "classic" routine alone - so he MUST have the rights to use it. If the seller doesn´t want anyone to use his routine- he simply MUST NOT SELL IT! If you buy something from a dealer and agree to restrinctions according to performance rights, they are none and trifling!
If someone legally buys whatever good, by law (in Europe!) he has automatically ALL RIGHTS to use it. Trying to keep him from using his purchase is ILLIGAL!
I just hope that this unethical and illigal attempt to betray the buyer
is vanishing. I always feel annoyed when I read it in offers. I am willing to pay a lot(!) for a good routine, but then I have to be able to use it. If not whished that the idea is used generally or in certain places: don´t sell it or calculate it in the price! Period.
P.S.: before you shoot at me: first action: READ CAREFULLY! EVERY WORD OF IT. Second action: THINK about it - with all brains-and think of both sides! UNDERSTAND IT! THEN you can put a sensible (!) response.
|
Jonathan Townsend
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
25254 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 13, 2010 5:01pm
Consider instead:
You buy a script for a play.
Does that give you the right to perform that play in the local theater?
On TV?
On a cruise ship?
Magic is a performing art. How about we avoid the already old discussion about your interpretation of a character or the set etc being different so you have the right to perform the play as and where you please. Ask your friends in the legitimate theater for more information about this stuff if you need.
Okay you buy a copy of the score to a piece of music.
Does that give you the right to perform that work for pay in public?
No?
So, what grants you the right to perform anyone else's work?
Correct, a license agreement.
Magic may be an Asperger's ridden child of the theatrical arts but it still needs to respect its parents lest it further disgrace itself. Okay yes I think it's "nice" that you can find that card you made me select and then you did stuff and then pulled it out of your bottmo - but please show a little respect and ... also wear pants.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
Tom Cutts
Staff
Oakland, Ca
4521 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 13, 2010 5:07pm
Like he said: It is not illegal. Purchasing a script to a play does not give you the right to go out and perform it. Purchasing sheet music does not give you the right to go out and perform it. The performance rights are a separate contract from attaining the dialog, music, how to.
Magicians are just beginning to realize this, though the nonprofessionals kick and scream about it. Magics great disadvantage is that there is no organization like music and live theater have which collects performance fees, distributes royalties, and protects performance rights.
|
entity
Inner circle
Canada
5055 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 13, 2010 5:09pm
Quote:
|
On 2010-07-13 16:21, Wolf Fisher wrote:
Hi, I always wonder and feel hassled when I read in an offer for a routine "performance for televison or cruise ships (f.ex.)strictly
prohibited" or "performance rights for xyz not included". THAT IS NOT ETHICAL- to make someone pay for something that cannot be used, and anyhow, it is illigal!
|
|
If you are aware of the conditions of sale BEFORE you buy, then it's fair. No one MAKES you buy an effect.
On the other hand, if the restricted conditions are not made known before the sale, I think that you have the right to use the material or get your money back.
- entity
email: tombaxter@cogeco.ca
|
Jonathan Townsend
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
25254 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 13, 2010 5:50pm
Okay you bought a car. You still need a driver's license and also to register the car.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
Jeff Corn
Inner circle
Las Vegas
1190 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 13, 2010 11:32pm
Aren't music and plays copywritten, though? Isn't that why there are so many versions of Shakespeare's work out these days? If the magic trick in question is a copywritten one act play, then I could understand no performance rights. If the magician in question didn't want the material to be performed, he should keep it to himself. What's the use of teaching something in full detail if you're only going to tell something "Well, that's how it works, but you're not allowed to EVER do it in public"? If you, as a magician, release something to the general public, then you should be at a point with it that you don't mind someone else using it. I understand telling people that you'd prefer that they don't use it during a show that they're also a part of, but that's about it.
Yes, that is my real name. Yes, I am a real person. No, you probably won't agree with me.
|
Jonathan Townsend
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
25254 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 13, 2010 11:40pm
Jeff, what sort of magician would release a trick to the general public? That would not only be exposure but likely stepping on the work of may others who use the principles involved in the methodology. IMHO some further exploration of what constitutes copyright and the protections granted to a performed work when written out as script/score would likely be of help.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
noble1
Special user
581 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 14, 2010 12:08am
When someone licenses a tv show like America's Got Talent, there's nothing new about talent shows, it's an elaborated classic, yet the buyers are not allowed to do that show in the UK or Sweden, or anywhere else. Those rights are assigned to those countries separately. When someone sells their creation and says, its not licensed for use in xyz, you have a choice not to buy it or agree to the terms. Whats the problem?
|
Tom Cutts
Staff
Oakland, Ca
4521 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 14, 2010 2:15am
Quote:
|
On 2010-07-13 23:32, Jeff Corn wrote:
What's the use of teaching something in full detail if you're only going to tell something "Well, that's how it works, but you're not allowed to EVER do it in public"?
|
|
Sheet Music! Tells you how, but doesn't grant you the right to perform it. How many times must it be said before it is understood?
Furthermore, just because the rights are not assigned with purchase, does not mean they can not be bought. The "EVER do it in public" line is an interesting distraction from the truth. People have and will continue to approach creators and secure the rights to perform the product of such creators.
|
Jeff Corn
Inner circle
Las Vegas
1190 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 14, 2010 3:33am
Jonathan, there's an ongoing discussion of Michael Ammar not having a protected store. Since he's a well known figure appearing on tv, his shopping cart is being found by the general public. Penguin Magic, Theory11, Denny and Lee's, and the Ambitious Card are all reputable dealers that are easily found by the general public. Are they all irresponsible? Really, the fact that out of everything I said, that's what you decided to debate is actually kind of sad. I was hoping for more, like Tom gave me.
Tom, of course people will continue to approach the creators. It's the ethical thing to do. The difference is in the copywritten aspect of my post, that you ignored. I've already said that if it's a copywritten performance piece, that you can't use it without permission. You didn't have to restate that for me. The problem is that these works generally don't have a copyright attached to them. If one of these pieces is put on the market, there's LEGALLY nothing wrong with me or anyone else performing it publicly without ever once talking to the creator. It's my legal and, in many people opinion, ethical right, since I've bought and paid for it. It's just like magicians putting "Not For Rental" on the back of their DVDs, IE: putting it there doesn't make it legally binding. Magic DVDs are sold with the understanding that if you're putting it on the market, you either want to make money by selling something that is essentially worthless to anyone else, or you want people to be able to learn from and use the material. It seems that your argument supports the guys ripping off their customers by claiming that it's their right to publish videos in a market intended to help others find new material, without letting people know that they can't use it. I'd see it as being more unethical to sell a product to people under the impression that they may be able to use it in their acts, while including a small line, that happens to have no real legal value to it, at the end telling them that they can't use what was just taught in exquisite detail to them.
Or do I still not understand?
Yes, that is my real name. Yes, I am a real person. No, you probably won't agree with me.
|
Jay Jennings
Regular user
Alaska (and beyond)
141 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 14, 2010 4:33am
If you are not able to see the "Don't perform this in a bus station" license agreement before the purchase, ask for a refund.
If they don't give you a refund then perform it in as many bus stations as you like because I don't believe you can put limits on a product after the sale. If you were able to purchase the product without agreeing to any license, then the license doesn't apply to you. That's my non-lawerly opinion.
Jay Jennings
Easily create video web pages -- instantly! http://InstantVideoWebPages.com
Free traffic using simple little articles. http://ArticleMarketingExplained.com
|
Jeff Corn
Inner circle
Las Vegas
1190 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 14, 2010 5:11am
Ding, ding, ding. We seem to have a winner.
Jay, you've nailed it.
Yes, that is my real name. Yes, I am a real person. No, you probably won't agree with me.
|
Jonathan Townsend
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
25254 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 14, 2010 6:19am
Quote:
|
On 2010-07-14 03:33, Jeff Corn wrote:
Jonathan, there's an ongoing discussion of Michael Ammar not having a protected store. Since he's a well known figure appearing on TV, his shopping cart is being found by the general public. Penguin Magic, Theory11, Denny and Lee's, and the Ambitious Card are all reputable dealers that are easily found by the general public. Are they all irresponsible? ...
Or do I still not understand?
|
|
Oh, you understand. But what is it you don't wish to accept?
Jay, go buy a copy of a play script and see what happens when you try and launch a showing at a venue without first obtaining rights.
As to hidden clauses and reservations on things making a product unsuitable to your needs - I fully agree and support your position about both wanting things made plain up front as well as remedy for those (few) occasions when they are not.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
Mr. Mystoffelees
Inner circle
I haven't changed anyone's opinion in
3359 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 14, 2010 9:34am
Agree with Jon and, I rather like the way it is. First, I love the freedom to be able to buy a libretto or complex piece of magic solely for the pleasure of studying and understanding the inner workings. Second, I would hate having to pay the extra cost for performing rights when I have no intention of doing so...
As I felt the soft, cool mud squish between my toes, I thought "Man, these are not very good shoes" Jack Handey
|
Tom Cutts
Staff
Oakland, Ca
4521 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 14, 2010 10:06am
Jeff,
First off the proper term is "copyrighted". Yours is a too often common mistake.
Second, I quoted the question YOU asked and answered it.
Third, every serious actor, director, producer, and musician knows that performance rights are separate from the "how to" texts. Magicians, it can be argued, have a tradition which ignores this, or are just plain ignorant of the fact that the same performance rights apply to them. Like I said, the real issue arises because magic does not have an organization which oversees the collecting of royalties, the distribution of royalties, and the protection of copyrights within magic.
So let's break it down. Who here doesn't know that music and plays are copyrighted and buying the script or sheet music does not grant you performance rights?
|
Micheal Leath
Special user
997 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 14, 2010 12:27pm
Quote:
|
On 2010-07-14 06:24, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Jay, go buy a copy of a play script and see what happens when you try and launch a showing at a venue without first obtaining rights.
|
|
That's a different issue. Plays are copywritten, magic tricks are not. If there is no agreement before the trick is sold, then there is no legal way to stop someone from performing it anywhere they want to. It's not illegal and I believe it's not unethical to do so. If you don't want someone performing it, then don't sell it.
|
Tom Cutts
Staff
Oakland, Ca
4521 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 14, 2010 1:08pm
What proof do you have that magic tricks are not copyrighted? Teller would certainly disagree with you.
|
Micheal Leath
Special user
997 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 14, 2010 1:38pm
Quote:
|
On 2010-07-14 13:08, Tom Cutts wrote:
What proof do you have that magic tricks are not copyrighted? Teller would certainly disagree with you.
|
|
Some might be, but most are not. Is that clear enough? If you don't want someone to preform it, then don't sell it. Does Teller have some effects of his that are copyrighted? Maybe so. He does not sell those effects though. So it is a separate issue than what is being talked about here. We are talking about effects that are legally bought and then the performer is told there are restrictions when and where he can perform it.
|
paynow
New user
22 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 14, 2010 2:32pm
This is directly from ASCAP's web site:
Quote:
|
12. Aren't musicians, entertainers and DJ's responsible for obtaining permission for music they perform?
Some people mistakenly assume that musicians and entertainers must obtain licenses to perform copyrighted music or that businesses where music is performed can shift their responsibility to musicians or entertainers. The law says all who participate in, or are responsible for, performances of music are legally responsible. Since it is the business owner who obtains the ultimate benefit from the performance, it is the business owner who obtains the license. Music license fees are one of the many costs of doing business.
|
|
|
Micheal Leath
Special user
997 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 14, 2010 2:43pm
Quote:
|
On 2010-07-14 14:32, paynow wrote:
This is directly from ASCAP's web site:
Quote:
|
12. Aren't musicians, entertainers and DJ's responsible for obtaining permission for music they perform?
Some people mistakenly assume that musicians and entertainers must obtain licenses to perform copyrighted music or that businesses where music is performed can shift their responsibility to musicians or entertainers. The law says all who participate in, or are responsible for, performances of music are legally responsible. Since it is the business owner who obtains the ultimate benefit from the performance, it is the business owner who obtains the license. Music license fees are one of the many costs of doing business.
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure exactly what point you are trying to make. Could you explain? Sorry if I'm a little slow.
|
paynow
New user
22 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 14, 2010 2:52pm
Quote:
|
On 2010-07-14 14:43, Micheal Leath wrote:
I'm not sure exactly what point you are trying to make. Could you explain? Sorry if I'm a little slow.
|
|
I'm a jazz musician. You don't have to acquire rights to perform music in nightclubs or bars. The owner does that. It seems from this page that there is an assumption it is up to the musician.
|
aradia
New user
45 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 14, 2010 3:08pm
Quote:
|
On 2010-07-13 16:21, Wolf Fisher wrote:
In other words: I buy something, but I may not use it. I feel that this is highly unethical! Yep, someone re-builds an original creation and sells it as "original" or under the original name - that is fraud. But a routine? With some changes (and every artist should adapt it to his/her personality anyhow- so there are automatically changes), it is legal(!!!) to do it anyhow! And that is exactly the sense of "PATENT" - a patented good has to be published to ensure variations.
|
|
It's fine to say that something is or is not ethical, but -- and here's the tricky part -- what universally applicable gauge can be used to determine whether something is or is not ethical? And that's ignoring the fact that ethical/unethical is not the same as legal/illegal.
Buying something and not being able to use it is a very good argument, imo, but only in specific circumstances. The purpose of a video DVD is to watch a video, so I believe that I ought to be able to watch that DVD however I choose (see also: history of CSS and DeCSS). A musical score or a play is not limited solely to performance, though. I believe mandarin mentioned this. I'm not a conductor, so performance rights for a symphony do nothing for me. But I am a composer, so being able to view a score and analyse the original composer's thought process is a great boon for my own musical development. A DVD that cannot be played (privately) is worthless. A score or script that cannot be performed in public, however, is not worthless.
It's a matter of copyright law, and unfortunately, as is so readily apparent by anyone who knows anything about copyright law, most people know very little about it. =/ And when it comes to magic... things start becoming very muddled. Methods cannot be copyrighted, though choreography can be copyrighted. What is sleight of hand? Is it a method, or choreography? A full routine, a la a play or musical score, would clearly be copyrighted were it to be fixed in a medium -- as some combination of a choreographic and/or dramatic work. But a "trick", a "method", removed from a full routine... is there copyright protection for such a thing? Under what provision? And where is the line drawn between a trick and a routine?
|
Tom Cutts
Staff
Oakland, Ca
4521 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 14, 2010 4:40pm
Michael,
Your exact statement was
Quote:
| Plays are copywritten, magic tricks are not.
|
|
with no qualifiers as to selling or otherwise.
But to the issue of selling, head back to plays and sheet music. Says all that need be said to the validity of selling the how to, but not the performance right.
Copyright exists for magic, it is just that the community of magic is ill prepared to enforce it. The best solution for protection is to treat the work as if it were an arrangement, play, or choreography. But it is clear how little "magicians" think of their work in such terms.
Anyhow, the music authorities are smart enough to know who to go after. The one with the money. So if you work a club or theater, the hosting venue is on the hook for paying royalties. If you hire yourself out to perform at people's houses for parties, then you would likely be on the hook if the party is a free party, like say the common birthday party.
|
Jonathan Townsend
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
25254 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 14, 2010 5:16pm
Tom, the magic (market) community is, by and large, not performers and as such not concerned with performance rights. Nor are they academics concerned with putting their discoveries and explorations into context of the work that's been done before so future students can learn "what's new" rather than be party to arguments over who invented the double lift - superman or batman?
Performing rights to routines are likely not so difficult to obtain. The tough part for most I've met in this community is having enough self respect to ask for what you want.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
Steve_Mollett
Inner circle
Eh, so I've made
2602 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 14, 2010 10:28pm
Houdini copyrighted the Water Torture Cell act as a 'one-act play' to prevent imitations. Clever.
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
- Albert Camus
|
Jeff Corn
Inner circle
Las Vegas
1190 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 14, 2010 11:38pm
It was. If everyone went through that process, this entire argument would be moot. Then again, he didn't also sell a DVD or a book that taught it in exquisite detail. That's why he was awesome and so far ahead of his time.
Yes, that is my real name. Yes, I am a real person. No, you probably won't agree with me.
|
Tom Cutts
Staff
Oakland, Ca
4521 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 15, 2010 12:00am
OK, I'll buy into the thinking of keeping your secrets, rather than selling them. THAT however is an entirely different discussion from the debate of magic having copyright.
Also if everyone thought of their performance as a play or choreography... where have I heard that before? 
|
Jonathan Townsend
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
25254 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 15, 2010 6:26am
No idea Tom, but magic has so many hams already - now we gotta deal with hamlets?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
Servante
Inner circle
1262 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 15, 2010 11:29am
The companies that publish plays and musicals also subscribe to clipping services and, these days, Internet services that monitor publicity about performances. If a community theatre announces "My Fair Lady," and the publisher has no record of royalties paid, the legal department goes into action.
Publicity for magic isn't quite so specific. They don't put out ads with a list of official titles...and, besides, there's no company that monitors the media for the magic community. It's mostly catch as catch can.
Now...with musicals, there is often a representative of ASCAP or BMI close by monitoring such things (again, clipping services, etc...not to mention a fair number of informants). Generally what happens in these cases is that the violator is sent a "cease and desist" letter, threatening a lawsuit if the performance isn't ended a few weeks into the future. Usually, the performance is over before the six week period ends.
I sincerely hope I haven't repeated something that's already been said.
|
David Alexander
Special user
627 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 15, 2010 11:41am
One of the reasons we don't see anything about "performance rights" in magic is the prohibitive cost of enforcing exclusivity. If I pay Magician-Creator X for the rights to his creation he has sold me something of value, the "rights" - either limited or exclusive - to something he created.
For those rights to have value he, not I, must enforce the exclusivity or limitation which gives the license or rights value, otherwise I have paid him money for nothing.
When I owned a small publishing company years ago I bought subsidiary rights from several large New York publishers. The contracts were specific in that they had the right to enter into the contract, that what they were licensing me to do (a trade paperback edition of a previously-published hardback book) would be exclusive to my company for a specific length of time; and that they would enforce that exclusivity by court action if necessary.
I haven’t heard of that happening in magic for a very good reason: the cost of enforcement would outstrip the value of the cost of the rights.
I'll take these "rights" discussions more seriously when someone brings a legal action.
|
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Performance rights - trifling, non-existing? Anti Hassle |
|
|
| Go to page 1 ~ 2 ~ 3 (Next) |
|
![[8]](/forums/images/digits/8.gif)
![[1]](/forums/images/digits/1.gif)
![[6]](/forums/images/digits/6.gif)
![[7]](/forums/images/digits/7.gif)
![[3]](/forums/images/digits/3.gif)
![[0]](/forums/images/digits/0.gif)