|
|
tjaymagic New user 85 Posts |
From what I have seen on here so far is that there are two problems in magic. Both of which are connected as far as I am concerned.
The first is exposure, the second is the rights of the creator, now forgive me if I am wrong here but the patents offices of the UK and the US do not protect 'ideas' i.e hand sleights, card stacks, gimmicks etc. Now...here is a killer question, how come there isn't a company out there that PROTECTS magician's ideas, sleights, gimmicks out there, that runs a bit like a patent office BUT does look after the idea of a creator of magic. If this happened then the creator is protected, the magician who has created what he thinks is a new effect isn't because he has contacted this company to find out, and most importantly...if this kind of company exsited THEN the likes of the youtube exposers and the masked magician COULD have the full impact of the law and courts of the land as there would be a regularity body looking after magicians. If this meant I had to pay an extra premium of a trick becuase it has a 'top hat' mark (a bit like the kite mark for kiddies toys in the UK then so be it, as I am not only protecting myself, but I am also protecting the creator. So....the next burning question is...if there isn't a company like this....why not!
hey... ... what is this signature saying about me?!
|
jonnyboy Inner circle San Diego 1021 Posts |
Respectfully, it is because such a company would not have the benefits of the law behind it. It would only be voluntary among magicians, like the way it is now with the IBM and SAM and ethics codes. And without the law behind it, such a company has little chance of actually succeeding in ensuring compliance by flawed human beings.
|
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24314 Posts |
Jonnyboy hit the nail on the head. I'll put it into very basic terms. It would be outside the law. In other words, any attempt to use anything other than patent, trademark and copyright would be outside the law, i.e. illegal.
The IBM, SAM and Magic Circle have jurisdiction only over those who belong to the organizations. The only action they can take is to expel a member who violates the ethics clauses. So, if the violator is not a member, what does he or she care? BTW, this has been discussed to death. Use the search function in the upper right hand corner of the screen to find other references to ethics, intellectual property, etc. Here's just one that I posted three years ago. http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......um=171&4
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
tjaymagic New user 85 Posts |
I've just read your previous thread, which did answer those questions, so as it's a question of ethics rather than law it's little wonder that there is exposure etc.
hey... ... what is this signature saying about me?!
|
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24314 Posts |
It's a never-ending battle. The best defenses against exposure are originality and skill.
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
gaddy Inner circle Agent of Chaos 3528 Posts |
In the current era of "intellectual property" and copyright law I believe there is a new case to be made for magic and legal rights in the courts. Still, it's an expensive, time consuming and potentially fruitless endeavor.
*due to the editorial policies here, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
|
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24314 Posts |
How can magicians !@#$% about people stealing their material when they don't even bother to take the available legal steps?
For example, a friend of mine invented a very special magic prop that many illusionists use. He refused to patent it, because this would reveal how it works. Also, the patent would have put a limit on its lifetime. As long as he did not sell it to anyone, it was a trade secret, and therefore needed no protection. Then he sold it to a very famous illusionist and pretty soon, lots of people were using them. The inevitable knockoffs came. His only way of combating this was an appeal to ethics. However, he didn't have a legal leg to stand on. It was an unprotected device. Recently a company in China made a similar product -- uses a slightly different method (also does not work!!!) -- but they put the name he gave to his product on theirs and copied his artwork and video from his web site. Here's the rub. He NEVER trademarked the piece. It costs $320 to get a trademark. If he had trademarked it, he could stop any sales of the item in the US. Instead, he chose not to. I can't fathom this kind of mentality. Here's the thing. If automobile manufacturers are willing to patent their products, why shouldn't we be willing to do the same thing? The fact is that most of us are too lazy to pursue it. We expect the government to give us an intellectual property handout.
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
tjaymagic New user 85 Posts |
Hang on...if I use a different analogy here...
Say a drinks company comes out with a can of soda (pop for UK!) that had a 'secret' ingredient, then this would have to have some sort of trademark. That secret would be secret to the general public but not to whoever was making it. Therefore the same cam be said about marketing an effect. So the next question would be, but possibly opening another can of worms, 'why doesn't some-one re-educate magicians to look after thier intellectual property'. While I do realise that secrets are part of the magician's profession, at the end of the day a secret ingredient will be kept secret as would a method/gimmick to an effect. Or...am I thinking in far too simple terms?! Also, I personally would, if I had created an effect would get it trademarked for this reason, as I would assume the only people who would know the products method would be the magican, the magic dealer and the manufacturers... surely going the extra mile for something you have created should reap you the rewards you desrve. Or shall I be more bold and say, is it the method and presentation of the effect that the magician is worried about rather than trying to 'sell the product' or at the very least hold the intellectual rights?
hey... ... what is this signature saying about me?!
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts |
Anyone in magic can put out an item "inspired" by a trick they saw someone do - and be beyond reproach for it - and as long as they charge over ten dollars for it - can even sell it to laymen or openly in shops etc - even if a member of the magic circle.
IP? as in ipdaily right?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
jonnyboy Inner circle San Diego 1021 Posts |
You ask good questions. I happen to be an intellectual property attorney, practicing for 25 years now. Most laypeople mix up what can properly be protected respectively by patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets. Bill Palmer has always expressed a good knowledge of the differences. Basically: Patents are the strongest protection, and protect a device for 20 years from date of filing, but you have to give up the secret to do so. Copyrights protect the expression when fixed in a tangible medium, whether the expression is a performance, a book, a letter, whatever. A trademark protects the source of goods or services by protecting the name of those goods or services. And a trade secret protects a secret, but is only good as long as the secret remains secret.
As for suggesting a re-education of magicians, the problem with it is the expense. Patents cost thousands and thousands of dollars to obtain, and cost millions to bring a lawsuit (for which I am grateful:-)). This is why most magicians don't, or shouldn't bother trying to obtain a patent. Even when someone does get a patent, in this community, and tries to enforce it, like Yigal Mesika did, there is a lot of grief that the patent owner gets from the community. And, finally, the secret is exposed. However, I think in this day and age, for mass marketed items that can be readily engineered, and readily exposed on youtube or through bit torrents, that this concern has been lessened. Copyrights are very cheap (free!)and are created in the US as soon as you set your ideas into a tangible medium. Trademarks are not much more expensive, as Mr. Palmer states. For someone marketing their products, it is not a bad idea to get, to protect against knockoffs from being sold under the same name. However, the goods could still be sold (under a different name) without patent protection. As for a trade secret, tjay, a secret ingredient will NOT be kept secret, unless it is actually kept secret. And the only way to be assured of keeping something secret is to tell no one. But then you couldn't market your effects. (A trademark will not help to protect a secret, which is what I think you were assuming it would do in your post above). Mr. Palmer's point about magicians not availing themselves of protection is very valid. There is not much one can complain about legally, as a businessman, if you don't use the laws that are meant to protect your rights. To expect everyone to do the right thing is a utopian ideal, one that has not been followed and has therefore required men to create laws. In this instance, what most don't realize, is that patents are actually provided for in the US Constitution, which tells you how strongly the founders of the US felt about protecting intellectual property of its citizens. |
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts |
Or in much shorter form - what was posted above?
BTW the protection of American IP by our founding fathers is interesting if you also look back at just what was imported ...
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
jonnyboy Inner circle San Diego 1021 Posts |
I'm sorry, Jonathan, I'm not sure what your question meant as to "what was posted above?" Can you clarify?
|
gaddy Inner circle Agent of Chaos 3528 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-12-22 19:44, tjaymagic wrote: Your (rational) thoughts here and legalese (irrational) are at variance. Please adjust your brain.
*due to the editorial policies here, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
|
tjaymagic New user 85 Posts |
Jonnyboy and Bill Palmer,
you two have helped a lot in helping me out in understanding this, the reason why I ask these questions is twofold, one is that because I want to study and perform magic, I want to make sure what is correct and what isn't, I also can see why 'intellectual property' is important, i.e. the rights of the owner are protected, but when in magic I can also see the pitfalls too. Problem is, as Bill Palmer earlier stated it has been discussed to the death. I did go down this line and it was WHOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! Far too many posts!I know that I 'should' be searching via the searchbar, but I thought it best to start a new thread with a few ideas and see how it went from there. The other reason is that because of the WHOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! moment, I know it's more or less duplicated, but newbies such as I will more or less go to the newer posts first to find the answer. I feel that if I'm asking the question then hopefully someone out there in the ether is wanting the same information. Thanks again Bill and Jonny
hey... ... what is this signature saying about me?!
|
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24314 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-12-22 19:44, tjaymagic wrote: Coca-Cola® has done that for years. What I think you are not comprehending is that when you buy a Coke®, you are buying a product, but you aren't buying the "secret" of how that product is made or the secret of what makes it taste the way it does. Coca-Cola® has been reverse engineered, and to this day, nobody has ever actually cracked the secret -- even though it has changed at least four times since the original formula was released. For example, it no longer contains cocaine. When you buy a magic trick, you get the secret. You know how the thing works (if you read the instructions), and you get whatever performing rights are granted with the product, depending on the limitations set by the manufacturer. If the item is something that wears out, and you can make your own, you presumably are able to repair or duplicate it, but (understandably) not sell the duplicates. So, it's a different kind of "secret." Before the magician I mentioned sold his doodad to Copperfield, nobody but the originator knew how this thing worked. Then he sold it, unbagged the feline, and it got copied. The funny part is that the originator wanted all versions of this thing to be his intellectual property, even some that didn't actually work the way his worked. (I don't want to be any more specific than that, because it's a very sensitive point in some circles.) Still, there isn't a version of this gadget that works as well has his does, except a lower priced version that he also released that works on a different, but related, principle. And don't think that magicians never patent their work. For example, Johnny Gaughan and Jim Steinmeyer regularly patent things. They also patent improvements on their inventions. Flying is patented, Origami is patented, etc., etc., etc. And remember patent drawings only reveal what is necessary to get the patent. You could download the patent drawings for Origami and still not build a workable illusion from them. The problem with magicians and intellectual property is basically a matter of a lack of knowledge. If I had not grown up around a fellow who was directly involved in the publishing business, I would not know any of what I know about copyright. And I can tell you this: even for attorneys, just about the time you think you really know the law, there is a court case that settles things in a different direction, thereby upsetting the applecart.
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
tjaymagic New user 85 Posts |
I think I can 'see' the actual problem. Even though Coke and magicians have different secrets, I think there is a fundamental difference between the two too.
Coke is a big company and can hire lawyers etc to go through the law side of things. Therefore can keep thier secret well...err..secret. Magicians come up with thier own effects, these can use 'normal' items, which are unpatentable (unless it's the Buzzsaw/zigzag lady - (EDIT - zigzag wasn't patented!! - but could have been?) etc, the other difference, magicians work on thier own, or in a small group, so do not usually have a team of lawyers, unless they have hit it into TV, Las Vegas etc. So it's not really a question of the law, it's is sadly time/money/patience with the law. (I think!) Quote:
And I can tell you this: even for attorneys, just about the time you think you really know the law, there is a court case that settles things in a different direction, thereby upsetting the applecart. Anyone in the UK who has looked at the banks withdrawel charges lawsuit knows too well about this!! We in the UK thought they were illegal, apperently they weren't. Either that or the judge had shares in that particualr bank...(my personal view, May not be true!!!)
hey... ... what is this signature saying about me?!
|
Maartinrb New user UK 8 Posts |
I haven't used this forum for a long time so may be posting this in the wrong place and if so please forgive me. Pro-magic.com in the USA are making a lot of a "new" effect with a light bulb and it is called Dark Secret. It is a light bulb with a re-chargeable battery I believe and it is a great idea. The sad thing is that I put out two great light bulb effects at least 12 years ago and sold quite a few. One could be put into a normal light bulb holder and it would light up like a regular bulb. When it was taken out of the light socket the bulb would light up in your hand if you held a small magnet to trigger it. The bulb proved to be a little dangerous if one produced for the US was plugged into a European light circuit and we withdrew it temporarily in order to resolve the problem. The bulb had packed into it a transformer and rechargeable batteries and it was completely self-contained. The other bulb contained a radio receiver, rechargeable batteries and it would light up when the transmit button was triggered.
We sold quite a few of these and my electronics engineer died. I have a new electronics wizard and he has been working on these two models for the last six months and wrote to me deeply concerned to see that Dark Secret is more or less identical to my bulb/s and contains elements of both of my bulb effects. I have emailed pro-magic twice and left a telephone message to them. I have not had a reply. If they want to take an effect which has been made before I can't do anything about it but when my own bulb effect is back on the market it will be muxh cheaper and effective and I do not want anyone to think that I have ripped of Dark Secret which I consider to be very expensive. I thought of it and I made it and in essence it is mine. So there you are. Martin Breese |
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Magic and 'intellectual property' (0 Likes) |
[ 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 < |