|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
The great Gumbini Inner circle 3062 Posts |
I believe the only material protected under law is when the seller applied for and received the proper copyrights and patents prior to selling the effect. In purchases there is a right to the buyer of "Implied Concent" and it is upheld in Higher Courts in the US. Basically if a seller is SELLING his effect he is very trstricted on his rights. Copyrights Patents etc are made to protect people from stealing the ideas and inventions of people. But once the inventor sells his idea or invention great power is given to the buyer. That is why you can not prosecute people for exposure of an effect they purchased. As much as we would like to.
Good magic to all, Eric |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Quote:
On Jun 4, 2016, 0pus wrote: Is it true you don't bit beer but only rent it?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
The great Gumbini Inner circle 3062 Posts |
Dana I know you are not an intellectual property attorney however you do represent your questions and posts on here very much like an attorney would. I would guess you have some legal background. I may be wrong but its just something I picked up on. Btw this either way is meant as a compliment.
Good magic to all, Eric |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
On Jun 4, 2016, Danny Kazam wrote: All is good. I am talking about ways that a creator can protect his rights. And, yes, that is best done through licensing and/or lease arrangements. |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Quote:
On Jun 5, 2016, Dannydoyle wrote: Buy not bit.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
danaruns Special user The City of Angels 808 Posts |
Quote:
On Jun 4, 2016, mastermindreader wrote: I think that's just as specious as Danny's argument, and also made for argument's sake. We're not talking about the equivalent of leasing a rare and valuable car. We're also not talking about movie scripts. Arguing this by analogy is difficult, at best. Here's what's relevant: If you sell a method, you have zero legal right to control its use. You cannot "license" a method. Method is knowledge, and you cannot license knowledge (except for patents, which do not apply to magic tricks). They buyer can do what he will with the knowledge, including performing it anywhere and everywhere he wants to, writing it in his own book (which bizarrely would be subject to copyright protection), and sharing it with the world. Any attempt to restrain that is void ab initio. You never even get to the issue of damages. Indeed, I think the attempt to restrain its use could be interference with economic advantage, restraint of trade and unfair competition (in California, it would be a violation of Business and Professions Code sec. 17200 et seq.). Very, very few magic tricks are copyrightable as artistic works. Patter normally does not rise to the level that renders it susceptible to copyright protection. Magicians can use the original patter of most tricks word for word and not violate copyright law. No matter how much the creator wants to retain control over his creative work, the law simply does not provide a remedy for all perceived wrongs, and the (unfortunate?) fact is that magic tricks (i.e. methods + patter) almost never rises to a protectable level. So, when you put your methods and patter out into the stream of commerce, you forfeit control.
"Dana Douglas is the greatest magician alive. Plus, I'm drunk." -- Foster Brooks
|
|||||||||
danaruns Special user The City of Angels 808 Posts |
Quote:
On Jun 4, 2016, The great Gumbini wrote: I'm a business law and labor law attorney. That gives me some overlap on this issue, even though I don't specialize in intellectual property law.
"Dana Douglas is the greatest magician alive. Plus, I'm drunk." -- Foster Brooks
|
|||||||||
Danny Kazam Inner circle 1516 Posts |
This is why I thought not all contract agreements are enforceable. Here is an example of some reasons for non-enforceable agreements.
Duress, lack of capacity, undue influence misrepresentation, non disclosure, unconscionability, public policy.
Keep your dreams alive. Understand to achieve anything requires faith and belief in yourself, vision, hard work, determination, and dedication. Remember all things are possible for those who believe.
|
|||||||||
The great Gumbini Inner circle 3062 Posts |
I thought you might be in the legal field. I picked up on that while reading your posts. Very nicely worded and well thought out. I agree with what you wrote above. I heard a wise Prof. Once say "If I can't tell you how to spend the money I gave you for my purchase...then it should be quite clear you have no say as to how I use my purchase.". If I'm not mistaken it is this view that governs our laws at least in California. But I must say its been many many years since I smelled the sweet aroma of a cracked open Law Book. Many years.
Good magic to all, Eric |
|||||||||
Brad Burt Inner circle 2675 Posts |
Personally I think it's nuts to limit the rights of a routine you are trying to sell to other magicians. I don't like it. That said, I have not the slightest problem with someone doing it if that's what they want to do. It's got to be totally up front. Buyer has to know that that is part of the deal.
There you go. Someone doesn't like the terms, they don't have to buy the item. It's not like there is a horrible paucity of magic material out there. If anything there is too much. The cognitive dissonance caused by what to buy, they whether to practice it or the other 100 things you bought and have not used yet.....well.... LOL The reason that it has to be so up front (the limitations if any) is that generally you aren't going to get to read the material included until you have paid your money. Ergo, it's bad faith on the part of the seller to not be open about what he/she expects. It's just a contract with stipulations. Don't like the stips? Don't buy.
Brad Burt
|
|||||||||
PhilJake New user 73 Posts |
Hello all and greetings,
I have a tr#ck for sale. Effect: The spectator sees you open the door of the magic conduit and enter the compartment that locks and unlocks without touching. You make the magic moves and then minutes later you egress somewhere else and the spectator does not know where you are. Includes: One 20## model F###. The included gimmick unlocks and starts it remotely. There are two versions so It might run on g#$ or d####l but I can't tell you until you buy it. You have to agree not to tell anyone the secret or show it on TV and I get to pick the color, b##e or r#d. It requires some practice but there are no sleights and no angle issues. No refunds once you know the secret. Performance rights are still a non-issue for me so sorry if I digress with an attempt at satire, but my point is that performance rights are only part of the problem since often, at least for me, we don't even know what we are buying. We are offered old effects with new names and no explanation of the met##d or g#####k or historical credit. Sadly I must admit that I have even made a purchase and then found the original in Tarbell or RRCM, or some other reference. I try to learn by copying the described handling and routine as closely as possible because I am at a level where I don't have enough experience to change the script or the method. Effects are hyped to the max and often the secret move or gimmick is beyond my current level or just plain unworkable silly obvious, imho. I understand the importance of respecting the secret, and product patents, and even the right of artists to protect their proprietary performance rights but consumers have a right to know what they are buying and yet we police ourselves to the point where we don't discuss secrets in public forums. Hence the silly t######p and s###l references. I am reminded of the product review by a person that felt cheated because the magic Rubik's cube did not solve itself when thrown in the air. Soon we will all be signing arbitration only agreements so sue away while you can, consumer rights are being trampled and we are all impacted and somewhat willing or unknowing participants. |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Keep taking and creators so creating. Then where will you be?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Danny Kazam Inner circle 1516 Posts |
Not all creator's are dubious, nor do all of them require buyers to sign agreements.
Keep your dreams alive. Understand to achieve anything requires faith and belief in yourself, vision, hard work, determination, and dedication. Remember all things are possible for those who believe.
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Nope not at all. Not all require it.
Obviously on some kernel it is an issue. They will simply stop putting stuff out there. If it is out there as a condition of purchase what exactly is the issue?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Danny Kazam Inner circle 1516 Posts |
The legality of it and if the agreement is actually enforceable. Consumer protection laws protect buyers from some sellers who may try to take advantage of them, even in signed agreements.
I recommend buyers seek legal advice before engaging in any agreement if they are not familiar with their rights.
Keep your dreams alive. Understand to achieve anything requires faith and belief in yourself, vision, hard work, determination, and dedication. Remember all things are possible for those who believe.
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
You seem to often chirp about buyers rights and specifically you just said something about dubious creators. I took that to mean that you think having an agreement PRIOR to sale is in some way dubious. If I am wrong I am sorry so could you clarify?
And do creators have rights in your eyes?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Danny Kazam Inner circle 1516 Posts |
"Chirp"? Perhaps it's because I am a buyer and have a valid interrest in knowing what my rights are. Is that wrong?
The more I know my rights, the more I can recognize dubious contracts, or agreements that could never be enforced for several reasons, some I listed earlier. Again, not looking to get into an arguement. Sellers have rights too, but as Dana explained, seller rights are limited. No need to rehash what she already said. I don't think there is anything wrong with having a lawyer look over the agreement before signing it.
Keep your dreams alive. Understand to achieve anything requires faith and belief in yourself, vision, hard work, determination, and dedication. Remember all things are possible for those who believe.
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Yes chirp. Mainly as you tend to correct those with law degrees on the subject of law regularly.
There is nothing wrong with knowing your rights. Thinking you know them is a different matter.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Danny Kazam Inner circle 1516 Posts |
I agree with everything Dana has said and have not corrected her once.
You don't agree with Dana's comments? She is an attorney.
Keep your dreams alive. Understand to achieve anything requires faith and belief in yourself, vision, hard work, determination, and dedication. Remember all things are possible for those who believe.
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Nice try. I never said a word about anything she ever said. But nice deflection.
I am ASKING you if you think creators have rights? I am ASKING you if you think it is "dubious" to have these things in an agreement before the sale and have them clearly spelled out and signed? If that was unclear I am sorry.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Sellers' attempts to limit rights (8 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 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 < |