|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 | ||||||||||
jkmagic New user 79 Posts |
Hi All,
I recently acquired a Gaughan model but have a question on same. Can anyone who owns a Gaughan model please send me a PM |
|||||||||
jeffmagicandmore New user 5 Posts |
In response to the claim that Steinmeyer renewed his patent, I submit to you the following:
This is where the Design Patent is located under Patent Number # D345,595. This is the link to the Patent and Trademark Office: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parse......D345,595 It was issued March 29, 1994 Design patents are for 14 years. This expired March 29, 2008. The following legal site is quoted to you can verify this. You might want to note that All PATENTS ONCE EXPIRED BECOME PUBLIC DOMAIN (INCLUDING ORIGAMI) Sorry for that bad news. There are no exceptions to the magic community. Can a patent be renewed? http://www.bpmlegal.com/patqa.html#2a No, it cannot be renewed. Nor can one pick up the rights to an expired patent. Once a patent expires, the invention is in the public domain. Any Magic idea that anyone has is a trade secret until itis shown to the public. Unless it is patented before it is shown to the public then you freely give it up to public domain. It is no longer novel or unique and is known. Just because magic has a secret does not protect it. The sale of an illusion to anyone public or notis just like any other product unless patented. A patent is made up of claims. Go read John Gaughans flying illusion patent where you find only parts of the actual illusion are his patent. The prop itself contains elements of FOY and others. The reason Steinmeyer did not get a full patent is because the illusion does not pass the claims test. He could only get artistic design protected.. He did not create the mirror or the use or the base wedge design which was used on many illusions prior. Or the legs or a folding box. Even is he had a full patent it would also be expired. Why do magicians believe Steinmeyer should have something no one else in the world gets exclusive protection for life. My big complaint is that magicians don't understand that we can improve and creat better things based on old ideas. Look at the zig zag. How many variations have there been. If Harbin had been exclusive with that idea, how many other great ideas and improvements would not be with us today? |
|||||||||
Aaron Smith Magic Inner circle Portland, OR 1447 Posts |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but were you not building Origami illusions way before March 29, 2008?
|
|||||||||
Craig Dickens Veteran user 376 Posts |
I saw Jim today and asked him. Origami is still protected under a design patent. Not the one you are referencing.
e-mail at:magicaldickens@aol.com
website: www.dickensmagic.com |
|||||||||
Chezaday Inner circle Naperville, IL 1673 Posts |
Interesting ... I can understand why the illusion designers get so fed up with the magic community.
The lack of respect given to their work is very sad. Steve |
|||||||||
mvmagic Inner circle Has written 1322 Posts |
Indeed, Origami design patent was filed in 2008. Date of patent is May 26th 2009 and its 14 years from that. Number D593178. So Jeff, maybe you should check the facts.
Sent from my Typewriter
|
|||||||||
AllAboutMagic Veteran user California 333 Posts |
I, too, find this very interesting. Way too many people ripping off other people
|
|||||||||
Matt Adams Special user Harvest, AL 827 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-12-11 05:45, mvmagic wrote: Nicely done. I suppose it's now case-closed. Well, that or "case open" when Steinmeyer finds out that Jeff has been ripping him off for years. Sorry...I couldn't resist. Haha.
Website: www.MattAdamsMinistries.com
Instagram: @mattadamsministries Facebook: www.facebook.com/mattadamsministries |
|||||||||
MagicErik Loyal user Sneek, Netherlands 284 Posts |
Allthough it is ethically wrong to steal someone's magic creation, and with that maybe some of his income, the legal part of it is a whole different story. Apple makes the iPad, and yet there are a lot of different companies making some sort of tablet. Apple is in constant battle over patents with Samsung and other manufacturers over what is theirs and what is public. The thing is that if I want to I am legally allowed to make my own brand of tablets, as long as I don't make them the same way as Apple or Samsung. The same aplies with cars, televisions, mobile phones.... Therefore, in the field of legallity and patents, this also applies to illusions. Legally I am allowed to build whatever illusion I want, as long as I make it in my interpretation of it. If that is the right way to go, ethically, that is a whole different story. That is why it is then called a ripoff; you are ripping someone else of his income because that person isn't the only performer or builder anymore. I find it very disturbing that most think that once you did something it is theirs. When do all those professionals get their head out of the sand and start using their brains again? Years ago I was thinking that in a few years the professionals would have found something to protect magic creations in some sort of ethical way, but so far it failed misserably. Fact and truth is that unless a whole illusion design is patented, there is no one on this planet that can make you stop using your own build 'ripoff'. If I manufacture my Origami illusion different than Gaughan or Wellington then there is nothing those two can legally do to stop me. They might also have copyrights of how the illusion looks, but as long as mine is slightly different there is nothing any judge could do. This is the Apple-Samsung situation by law. Really, I cannot say it enough, illusions are not protected and are all in public domain unless someone patented the design and building details. What magicians have to deal with is the 'ripoff' thing, the ethical thing to not steal from someone who is making money with the prop which you want as well. What you can buy are ethical rights; money that you pay to the original creator, for the time and money he spent in designing and making it. But really; by law you don't actually have to. There are some acts under copyright, like the rose act of Teller. You can register a play, musical, show, act... Otherwise you could be performing 'The Phantom of the Opera' with the music and everything that Andrew Lloyd Webber came up with. However you can make your own version of The Phantom, and youtube is filled with schoolperformances of some sort of Phantom. Legally it is their own version and there is nothing Webber can do to stop anyone from using the phantom idea for a musical. As long as it's different. You can make your own car, without paying to Ford, Mercedes, Peugeot or any other car manufacturer. As long as you don't make it exactly like one of their models.... This really means that you are allowed to make your own creation of anything that Steinmeyer or Gaughan created. The problem is as in Jurassic Park: the fact that you 'could' doesn't mean that you 'should'....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PLvdmifDSk In my opinion it is not right to steal from anyone, so you should not steal any illusion that you see performed by David Copperfield. The fact that you know how it's done, and have the tools to make it, that by itself does not give you the (ethical) right to build that illusion and put it in your show. Besides I think it is completely insane to not only steal the prop but also the music, the staging, the choreography..... Where is the fun in that for yourself? But the reality is that even if you are David Copperfield, unless you have patent- or copyrightpapers that you can wave with, everyone is allowed to build what you made... And even with patents, as long as you stay away from whatever is patented you can call yourself Samsung and stick out your tongue to Apple. That is the reality that we live in. I really hoped that by now we would have been over the 'denial' phase, like the alcoholic or drug addict who keeps saying that he does not have a problem... Accepting is the next step.... I hoped that by now we would have seen a change from bashing people around to putting the heads together and find some sort of way to deal with the ethical side. In another topic I read that someone thinks he owns the right to an appearance of someone from a shadow on a cloth.... There is someone even stating that he owns the rights to how you hold a cloth. If you hold it just like he does you have to pay.... What the...? Really this is not the way to go. Even if you are a professional builder and have to pay bills with what you earn from selling illusions, there is still some line that you should not cross. At this moment it appears that the pro's are killing their own business. If I were an illusionist outside the US I would really start to think if it is worth all the problems and bashing and time and extra money if I go the right way instead my own way. At this moment it is fairly difficult to go the right way. People like Gaughan are difficult to get in touch with. Daniel Summers and Bill Smith are easy to contact, but I have heard quite a few stories of how people very easily get caught in a web of paying extra for performance rights for television in Europe, and even more for television performances in Asia.... That if they made a change after they received the illusion, they got an official notice that now they have to pay extra because the changes should have been made by the official builder... Hmmmm. I really think that we should move from the denial to acceptance that legally an illusion is basically not protected, and how we can deal with the ethical part. If I walk into a clothing store and some employee throws me out because I am not already wearing their brand then I would never walk in there again. If I build my own illusion and then get completely mentally distroyed by the professionals on this forum, then I would turn around and walk away from them. If I was an illusionist from Ghana and would proudly show my own creations here then no doubt I would be the subject of great laughter from all the professionals who clearly have much better equipment. But with that if I was that illusionist from Ghana I would never again take anyone of them seriously. I would go my own way, and with that get no etchical guidance at all. To be honest I do not have the answer for this problem, but what we are doing right now, the bashing and slashing and the denial of the real problem, is by far a good way to go. I am almost to the point where I think 'just go ahead and build whatever you please because you will not get any help or guidance from the professionals that have the ethical rights of what you are also performing'.... Stop the complaining please, stop pointing the finger and deal with the real problem please. Deal with the ethical part some way or the other or else really just stop the bashing of others who have the same passion of performing magic arts. Help them to go upwards on the spiral and don't kick them lower and lower, please. It's amazing how a group of people with the same interest can be so individual and agressive to others in that group. You don't find that in any other group, only magicians. And maybe that is because we created a flow in which it is best to stay individual instead of working as a group to achieve new heights and come up with new ideas that make our passion of magic arts more interesting and get more people to our shows as a whole... Ahwell... I guess I am used to troubleshooting and dealing with problems in a team instead of shouting all the time that I have the only right to type the word banana or am the only one entitled to wear a blue shirt.... Every time again it's a talk about ethical rights in magic while ethics itself is hard to find among most here.... I feel a bit dissapointed in all those professionals who are still in the same mindset as they were 10 years ago..... Now I also wonder how Steinmeyer could get patents again on something that was already patented...? (Once again I must make it clear that In my opinion no magician should copy and with that steal income from another magician. That's not the right way to go.... But the way we deal with it now isn't exactly the right way to go either....) |
|||||||||
RVH Magic Special user 877 Posts |
Steinmeyer first design patent was for the origami box in closed position and he has now a patent on the open box version - Very smart move on his part.
|
|||||||||
john wills Special user 939 Posts |
Magic Erik,
If someone looks on your website, he sees a text about a special table, from a recent book of Jim Steinmeyer. Did he agree with your publishing, or is it a show of with the feathers of a really great inventor? |
|||||||||
MagicErik Loyal user Sneek, Netherlands 284 Posts |
That's a joke right John Wills??? You must be joking... Whatever you are implying is not at hand here.... And what is the reason you did not ask about this via mail or pm but went for the bashing right here on this site? Should I really reply to your answer now? Like with the mentioning of the first sentence on that page: "It was not that long ago that the American illusion designer Jim Steinmeyer came with some new techniques in the world of illusion equipment." And that I bought the book with the plans directly from Steinmeyer. And that there is no copied text from his book, just some very few lines that I made up myself. And that I am not selling any of these tables but use his and other ideas as an example, complete with the love song for Steinmeyer... Dammmmmmm. I am all about paying for what you want so don't treat me like a criminal now. If you want an optical slot table you will not get one from me, I will guide anyone to Bill Smith. Completely as it should. I mention that it is Steinmeyer who invented the wedge and slot. Not showing off with his feathers, but showing his feathers and basically directing anyone right into his arms... The 3D renderings are mine, I made them myself so these are not owned by Steinmeyer. If Steinmeyer himself has a problem with that he knows where to find me and does not need your help I think.... I bought more than one time directly from him so I am in his system so to speak.
Maybe, John Wills, you could talk more about the subject(s) of this topic instead of once again bashing on someone who says something that you don't want to hear... If you have a problem with me or my website: contact me via mail or pm, and tell me what it is. I am professional enough to listen and perhaps follow up on your ideas. But don't you now imply that I am not an ethical person. That is wrong dude.... Any reaction in private please.... EVI |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Grand illusion » » I want Origami illusion (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 |
[ 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 < |