|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 | ||||||||||
tmorgan1011 New user 25 Posts |
After reading all of the comments above I still have a couple of questions (and a comment).
First, by Helder Guimaires sending the booklet to WPR for review wasn't he by his actions. granting them the right to perform effects from the booklet? I have to believe that Craig and David would not have performed the effects if they had been specifically told "not to" by Mr. Guimaires. Since the "guys" didn't readily see the "Rights Reserved" notice, I don't think many other purchasers will as either. I can understand putting this "notice" into a booklet just in case you get a "bad" review but it got "Worker of the Week". Second, what about the rights of the creators of the original effects? To me, the method used to create an effect is far less important than the effect itself. Mr. Guimaires apparently has no problem creating "new methods" for effects originated by others. If he is not the originator of the effects, then how can he restrict others from performing them. Comment: Rather than worrying about performance rights, Creative Magicians should be more worried about all the bootlegs of their LATEST "Magic download videos", Magic DVD's and Magic book PDF's available for free from the internet torrent sites. It would be bad enough if only Magicans were illegally downloading these "Intellectual Properties" but they are available to ANYONE with a PC and internet access. |
|||||||||
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 769 Posts |
Quote:
I'd wisen you all up on the law and why Helder Guimaires doesn't have any law on his side to dictate to those who buy his product on how the consumer uses the product If you by "product" mean the physical items, so yes, the buyer can do whatever he want with it - burn it, decorate a christmas tree with the cards, whatever. That does not extend to the work that is documented though. Copyright and ownership can not be sold, given away or otherwise be transfered (except in cases where you are employed to create, then all the rights belong to the employer). Look it up! Hence, according to law, Helder has all the rights in the world to dictate the conditions in which his work is used. Quote:
but I'll leave you with a link to an essay written by someone who did take the time to look into all these things, and didn't just shoot his mouth off pretending to know what they are talking about. Yes, I have read that essay a number of times before, and have checked some of the more surprising claims and have found them to be wrong. The author has no clue about the subject, and the essay contain a large number of errors and misconceptions. It has no relevance in this discussion. For example, he talks a lot about keeping things "secret" as if that was important. Which it obviously isn't - copyright does not deal with "secrets", we all know that. Also, he provide no citations at all to his most mindboggling conclusions, making it into badly disguised opinions rather than comments on how the law actually works. Shoddy work. |
|||||||||
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 769 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-12-17 20:20, tmorgan1011 wrote: It was likely the distributer (Murphy's magic supplies) that sent the item for review. And the "guys" didn't miss it, they quoted the performance rights out loud right before they performed it. Quote:
Second, what about the rights of the creators of the original effects? Not quite. Copyright protect realized work, the actual choreography used to present the drama, but not the basic idea. If I make up an effect, for example: "The spectator pour ice water in a mug, while I write 'FIRE' on a piece of paper. The spectator place the mug onto the paper, and instantly the water begin to boil." - but have no idea how to realize it, then it's just an idea for an effect, but it is not actually an effect since it can't be performed. To create a "method" to present this fictional reality is what our art is all about - if we skip that part, than it is not within our artistic realm anymore, but within the realm of theater or mime. So the "method" is the most important part, in this context. In this particular case, it is even simpler. Even if we make use of the copyright legislation that most countries in the world subscribe to (copyright for life + 70 years), the Sympathetic Thirteen effect is in Public Domain. Nate Leipzig died in 1939, 72 years ago. But that doesn't matter, Helder's piece is significantly different from Leipzig's. Quote:
Mr. Guimaires apparently has no problem creating "new methods" for effects originated by others. Helder can not prevent anyone from performing the work of others. His rights only extend to his own work. Leipzig's "Sympathetic Thirteen" is described in Lewis Ganson's book "Dai Vernon's Tribute to Nate Leipzig", and you can perform it as much as you want, wherever you want. Since the piece is in Public Domain, even under the most strict definitions, you can even publish it as it is in a book of your own (as long as you don't copy Lewis Ganson's words). That does not go for Helder's piece though. Quote:
Rather than worrying about performance rights, Creative Magicians should be more worried about all the bootlegs of their LATEST "Magic download videos", Magic DVD's and Magic book PDF's available for free from the internet torrent sites. Why do you assume that no one is doing anything about that? I spend a few hours each week on removing my work from torrent sites and file storage sites, and I know many who do the same. |
|||||||||
tmorgan1011 New user 25 Posts |
Tom,
Thanks for responding and clearing up my questions. As long as there is a clear warning about any restrictions on performance rights before I decide whether to purchase an effect or not, I don't have any problem with a creator protecting their property. I am glad you and other creator's are fighting the torrent situation. I have talked to many Magicians who are reluctant to release their ideas due to digital theft. I recently spoke to Joshua Jay about this issue and has addressed this with the buyer's name watermarked on any downloaded videos. Magic Organizations such as the SAM and IBM should remind the members about ethics and honor as pertains to stealing intellectual property. More Magicians need to speak out on this issue and talk about whats being done to fight it. Wishing you a wonderful Holiday season! |
|||||||||
VernonOnCoins Inner circle NYC 1978 Posts |
All things considered, he should have given Craig and Dave a pass. No one would have been the wiser, he would have maintained his performance requirements, and he would have avoided all this nonsense
He should have given them a pass because ultimately... WHO CARES |
|||||||||
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 769 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-12-17 23:22, tmorgan1011 wrote: Yes, me as well. I had the idea of making a DVD on the subject of misdirection, but after learning how time-consuming it is to keep the pirating at bay, I've come to the realization that it would be a bad idea to do a project like that. As I've understood it, it is in most cases not the actual buyer of the material that upload it to the pirate sites. Usually, it tend to be a friend of the buyer who borrows the DVD, and the it is the friend who uploads it without the knowledge of the original buyer. Usually in order to get access to other pirated material. Less common, but not rare, is when a group of magicians pool their resources and buy a DVD together and makes copies for each other - and then someone of them share a copy with the "wrong" person.. |
|||||||||
Caliban Special user 727 Posts |
Quote:
This is the point on which we differ. It is totally understandable for a professional performer to want to retain the TV or other performance rights to their own material, but they can do that by choosing not to sell the material to other people in the first place. You can’t sell your car and still expect to be the only person who is allowed to use it on a Saturday night. In the world of magic publishing there is a very firmly established precedent that when you buy a magic book you are also buying the performance rights to the material. That principle is so firmly established that I think there must be an assumption that all performance rights are included unless any restrictions are made clear before purchase. Having said that, I’m finding it hard to see what the issue is in this particular case. I’ve read Helder’s copyright notice and he doesn’t withhold TV performance rights, he just requests that, if you are going to perform the material on TV, you contact him about it first. That seems a reasonable enough request to me. And I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a creator to say that magic is a performance art and that he’d prefer not to have crappy video demonstrations of his material online. Performance rights should be included but a demo is not a performance. |
|||||||||
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 769 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-12-18 17:28, Caliban wrote: The thing we differ on is whether this is good or bad - but our opinons does not change the fact. The "car" analogy is not a good analogy - but all right, let's use it. Even if you have bought a car, you are still not allowed to use it as you please. If you drive it, without a driver's license, ignoring all traffic signs, on the wrong side of the road, up on the sidewalk, driving it into and over people... well, you could try to convince the court you've been ripped off; "The car dealer should not have sold the car in the first place, if I wasn't allowed to drive it." You are also making the wrong assumption of confusing the physical book for the material it contains. A book does not come into existence by itself. Neither does the material it contains. I've recently released a book. I wrote it in a language that is not my own, and it took me several years to write it. I also made all the illustrations. Each illustration took about 1-2 hours to make, and there are about 500 of them. During the hours I had alotted to draw and illustrate, I could not work with anything else - instead, it took time away from earning a living. I chose to publish it through a publisher who is renown for his attention to details and his stylistic sense - and he also spent countless hours editing the material, asking me for clarifications wherever I had been vague in my writing etc. The publisher chose a printer that is renown for quality printing and high standard binding of a traditional kind. They also spent hours on getting it "right". Then the finished work was distributed through the largest distributor there is in our world - and they also spent hours on sending out information to dealers around the world. The dealers in turn bought the book with their own money, not knowing if it would sell well or not. They pay for shipping, storage, sales staff - all which has to be recuperated and turned into a small profit, so that their business can go on. The cost of the book is 55 US dollars, which for a book with high-quality binding in such limited printing is pretty cheap. Of those $55, about 60% goes to the dealer and the distributor. Of the remaining 40%, a large part goes to cover the printing cost, the publisher get his share and finally I'll get a small percentage - a fraction of the initial $55 USD. To complicate matters, the USD is very weak at the moment while my own country's currency is very strong. The currency exchange rate is about half of what it was when I began the writing, so I'm making a lot less than I had expected. Just to give a hint; had I been a professional illustrator, the price for the illustrations in the book would have been at least $50/each, according to Graphic Artists Guild Handbook: Pricing & Ethical Guidelines. That would mean that 10 people have to buy the book, just to cover what the standard fee is for one single illustration. There are about 500 illustrations. To cover the standard fee for those, about 5000 people would have to buy the book. But the whole first edition of my book is less than 2000... so, in effect, if the whole edition sells (which might take 2 years for a very good seller), I will eventually have gotten the standard fee for about 170 illustrations - while I've given away 300+ illustrations for free, which equals 3-4 months of unpaid full-time work (working 8 hours/day, 5 days/week)...of course, for me who is a full-time performer and only could draw in my spare time, it took longer time than that. ... and that leaves nothing for the actual writing, and since I've written the book in a language that is foreign to me, I've done the work as both author and translator. Had I been writing full-time (8 hours/day, 5 days/week), it would have meant several months of unpaid work. But as I did it in my spare time, it took a lot longer than that. And now, we are only talking about the process of documenting the work, writing and illustrating. We have not yet touched the main part, the creation and developement of the work that is being described. For example, it took me 9 years to create "Mr. Fogg", one single item in the book. I began working on that piece in 1992 and the final work was realized in 2001. "Benson Burner" took 2 years to create. "Gold Wielder" took 3 months to create. "The Quiz Show" in my latest book took me 4 years to create... View it from my perspective. Even if the whole edition of my book becomes sold out, I will still not get properly paid for the process of documenting the work - the majority of the illustrations will have been given away for free, and all the time spent on writing too. Sure, it can be argued that it's fair, since I'm neither a professional writer nor a professional author. But I am a professional magician. The work that is documented is what I use to make my living, and I've spent an awful amount of time creating and developing it - and the percentage I get from the whole edition does not even cover a fraction of the costs that have been involved. Is it then surprising that I get cranky over the suggestion that I do not have any rights to my work? That my rights instead are dictated by those who has got the amazing oppertunity of getting hold of the physical documentation to a price that doesn't even cover a proper payment for the writing and illustrations? A reasonable price for just the book itself, disregarding the material that is documented, would have been around $250-350 USD - and that would still only cover the work of producing the book, without a cent going to the creation and development of the documented pieces. That it only cost $55 is solely because of the generosity of my publisher and I, since we both have put in a lot of work for free. Well, in 2001 I began to wonder why my rights to my own creations were a lot less than the rights creators in related artistic fields have to their creations. Why can an illustrator have exclusive rights to something he scribbles on a napkin, while I have no rights at all to something that have taken me years to create? Why can a musician have full copyright to something he plonks on a piano while being drunk, while I have no copyright on something that I've worked hard and disciplined on? So I decided to look it up. Tried to find where in the copyright legislation it says that creations within my artistic field are exempt from copyright, because I wanted to check the wording, see how it was phrased, in the hope of finding a loophole that allowed me at least some rights to my own work. Wasn't easy at first, because the legal lingo is not especially inituitive. To my surprise, I could not find anything, no matter how hard I looked. In some independent texts by individual authors, there were some interpretations and assumptions about my field, but they were all based on misunderstandings of what my field consist of - mainly on the assumption that no evolution occur, that magic solely consist of unchanging traditional work with no known originators. None of those sources touched the subject of new creations within my field. Eventually, I began to suspect that everything I had been told about the lack of copyright was incorrect, and that all the assumptions I had was wrong, and that there are no legal foundations to our "tradition" to treat all published material as Public Domain. The more I read, the stronger that feeling became. Finally, in 2006, I had a long discussion with the lawyers at the Swedish Theatre Association, and found out that all my suspicions were correct. My rights to my work are equal to those any other creator has to their material. The only ones that have slightly less rights are U.S. magicians within the U.S. - or rather, they do have almost the same rights, but since the US copyright legislation is changing so much at the moment, it is simpler for a copyright transgressor to find loopholes. There's several good starting points for those who want to learn more. This is one. And yes, performance rights is a tricky subject in all fields. Just look at the rules regarding the choice of material for auditioning for a theatrical scholarship. We have it a lot easier. Quote:
In the world of magic publishing there is a very firmly established precedent that when you buy a magic book you are also buying the performance rights to the material. That principle is so firmly established that I think there must be an assumption that all performance rights are included unless any restrictions are made clear before purchase. It is not a precedent, but more like an unofficial tradition. Try to find a source that give specific details on this tradition, and you'll find that there are none. Also, compare with other artistic fields. You can buy a theatrical play like Waiting for Godot for less than 8 bucks on Amazon. There's not a single word that even mention anything about rights being reserved on Amazon's site. But if you decide to produce and perform the play, you'll soon find that you've made an error, and blaming Amazon at that point will not help much. |
|||||||||
Caliban Special user 727 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-12-19 04:13, TStone wrote: But whether you call it a precedent or an unofficial tradition, it IS firmly established and, I would say, provably so. From my own library I could produce hundreds of books, including your own Vortex, and show that in every case performance rights are granted to the purchaser. Magic books are, on the whole, instructional works that teach the purchaser how to do something (which scripts are not). I would say that the same clear precedent applies to all instructional books and that the existence of such a precedent would be easy to establish in court. When something comes to court then, unless there is a specific law that dictates one way or another, the decision will pretty much always go with the established precedent. Play scripts are different because the precedent is different. With plays, there is an equally firmly established precedent that performance rights are not included because the venue needs to buy a license to stage the work for public performance. Anyway, all magic products are advertised in some way to potential buyers. If a creator wants to reserve some performance rights, it is very easy for them to say so on the advert. A single sentence saying "TV/video rights are reserved by the author" would cover it, and then nobody can complain. P.S. I'm looking forward to the new book |
|||||||||
Andrew Zuber Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 3014 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-12-19 04:13, TStone wrote: This makes perfect sense to me - I guess my only issue is that in the case of the car, the purchaser should know ahead of time what he can and can not do with the car. The rules of the road are separate from the car dealership. They don't make those rules, they simply sell the vehicle. It's up to you to get insurance, have a valid license, and follow the law. However, when it comes to purchasing a product like Red Mirror, this information was not available prior to the purchase. There was no indication on the outside packaging that Helder didn't want the routines to be performed. It was only after buying it, opening it up and putting the disc in that you discovered that there were strings attached. That should have been disclosed. I still maintain my stance that he should have allowed the WPR clip to stand. As I said, it's WHY I purchased the Ontology Project. I'm a visual person, it's just how I am. I like to SEE something to know whether or not I'll like it. I do my best to use my imagination when reading a description of something, but you never know what might be left out, such as various subtle moves that make the routine possible. I bought this because I saw the performance - I'm not saying everyone should be required to post performance footage of their tricks in order to sell them, but what I AM saying is that I think in this case, Helder took a good thing and blindly followed his own rules without taking into account that it could potentially hurt sales and make him look bad. Maybe he doesn't care about the sales, and I'm sure he doesn't care what I think (I wouldn't if I were him,) but in my eyes he made the wrong decision and came out looking a little ridiculous because of it.
"I'm sorry - if you were right, I would agree with you." -Robin Williams, Awakenings
|
|||||||||
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 769 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-12-19 06:54, Caliban wrote: Then show me a source that detail this precedent/tradition, where it says that it trumps copyright. Preferably in explicit terms. If it is firmly established and provably so, there should be no shortage of documentation of this, right? Quote:
From my own library I could produce hundreds of books, including your own Vortex, and show that in every case performance rights are granted to the purchaser. I think that you are mistaken. Check the copyright page on those hundreds of books, and I believe that you'll find that my Vortex is quite unique in that it, in explicit terms, grant the owner of the physical book full performance rights (i.e. if the book is sold, the new owner will get the performance rights, while the original owner will lose them). Michael Weber's "Lifesavers" also outline what the performance rights are, and the same with Christian Chelman's "Hauntiques". Most other books do not even touch the subject, neither grant nor reserve any rights, leaving the buyer no other choice but to guess and assume. Quote:
Magic books are, on the whole, instructional works that teach the purchaser how to do something (which scripts are not). And if the magic book happens to be more a documentation of a creator's work, rather than a beginners course? Also, if the script includes stage directions (which is fairly common), that it's quite easy to argue that the theatre script also is instructional work. ...This doesn't matter though - it says nowhere that instructional works are exempt from copyright, because it isn't. It would be a very strange reversal of the whole thing if it did. In all other fields, it is easier to prove a copyright claim if the work is published than if it is unpublished. But you claim that: "You have copyright on your work, provided that you don't document it in such a realized and tangible form that someone else can duplicate it - because then your work instantly becomes Public Domain." Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. Quote:
I would say that the same clear precedent applies to all instructional books and that the existence of such a precedent would be easy to establish in court. Yes? These are examples that are even more clearly instructional books than magic books: Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4 - they detail the words that are used, exactly how to place the fingers on the instruments etc etc. Page up and page down with nothing but step-by-step descriptions. If you buy them, will you then assume that you have full performance rights without limitations to the material in these instructional books? |
|||||||||
Caliban Special user 727 Posts |
Hi Tom
Quote:
On 2011-12-19 13:15, TStone wrote: For me the proof is that the authors of those hundreds of other books where performance rights were not specifically granted never made any objections when magicians did perform their published material - and that has happened on many thousands of occasions over the last hundred or so years. I think that would be enough for the precedent to be established in court. Like most of this debate, though, it is all just opinions until someone tests it in court, which is very unlikely to happen. It would require an author to reserve performance rights without telling anyone before purchase and then to risk a huge amount of money suing a purchaser who did not respect the request. Magic is not a multi-million dollar business like the film or music industries, so realistically we have protect ourselves by ethics that the majority subscribe to rather than things like copyright law that need to be pursued through the courts. I don't claim that the precedent/tradition of performance rights being included trumps copyright. You absolutely have copyright of your own work, but copyright and performance rights are totally differemt things. If I performed a published play without permission, it would not be copyright law that I was in breach of. Quote:
In all other fields, it is easier to prove a copyright claim if the work is published than if it is unpublished. But you claim that: "You have copyright on your work, provided that you don't document it in such a realized and tangible form that someone else can duplicate it - because then your work instantly becomes Public Domain." Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. I've never claimed that - it's a quote from someone else. And I agree with you that whoever said it is wrong. Quote:
I would disagree with your premise that musical scores are the same as instructional books. They don't teach you how to play the piano or guitar, for instance, they just provide a written record of the work. Most magic book, on the other hand, do teach you how to do the moves and give step by step instructions. I would, personally, class musical scores as much closer to plays - and like plays there is an established legal precedent for paying royalties. I think that a magic book is actually closer to a recipe book but you may believe that a musical score is a more accurate comparison. Again, both these points of view are just opinions until a magic book author actually tests it in court. Quote:
If you buy them, will you then assume that you have full performance rights without limitations to the material in these instructional books? On that specific question, I'd say the answer is closer to yes than no, as musicians can pretty much perform the material anywhere - although royalties would have to be paid to the writer if actual recordings of the songs were sold. With the live performance of music (at least in the UK - I don't know about every other country) it is the VENUE that has to buy a PRS license, and the PRS then distributes money to songwriters - though not neccesarily the same song writers whose music was performed in that venue as there is no obligation for anyone to keep note of which songs were played. This system of royalties would be almost impossible to enforce for magic tricks because it's hard to think of many effects that can definitely be said to have one single inventor. Published magic tricks tend to build on the work of others, so if you invent a trick that uses an Elmsley Count, for instance, then Alex Elmsley's estate should be entitled to a percentage of any royalties. Interestingly, in some respects the established ethics in magic are stricter than those in the world of music. Most magicians go along with principle that you should buy a book if you want to perform a routine from it, but there is no rule amongst musicians that you should own an original copy of Lady Gaga's sheet music before you can perform Poker Face. Anyway, nice discussing this with you Tom. Like I've said a couple of times already, the situation with performance rights and magic books has never been tested in court, so it's all just opinions. There can be no definite right or wrong answer unless someone is brave (and rich) enough to test the specific status of published magic routines in court. So having given my own opinion, I'm leaving this thread before we start going round in circles. Good luck with the new book. Vortex was the best book I bought last year and I'm sure Maelstrom will be just as good. I look forward to reading it. |
|||||||||
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 769 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-12-19 16:18, Caliban wrote: Can't reply properly at the moment. I'm a week past deadline for my Genii column, and must think up something within the hour. But check the examples again, because they were chosen with care. They include "tabulatures", a form of musical notation indicating instrument fingering rather than musical pitches. Or in other words, they describe exactly how to move and put your fingers, step-by-step, teaching the songs on a level that even a beginner can follow. I'm fairly sure that those books falls under your definition of "instructional books" - and thereby (if following your logic) the songs are exempt from copyright and are considered to be in Public Domain and can be used freely in movies, stage productions and there is no need to care about PRS or ASCAP or anything like that. That is what follows from your opinion that "all instructional books" are without copyright. Quote:
but copyright and performance rights are totally differemt things. If I performed a published play without permission, it would not be copyright law that I was in breach of. Sorry, but those two things are the same. Copyright gives the creator the right to decide over his work, and giving permission when others want to duplicate the work in a performance is a part of that. Performance rights are not separate from copyright, it is at the heart of it. I advise you to read the page I linked to above, because you are unfortunately getting even the most basic facts wrong, and while your personal opinions might be emotionally important to you, they have no weight when it comes to what copyright actually is. |
|||||||||
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 769 Posts |
Quote:
I think that a magic book is actually closer to a recipe book That's not a valid comparison, because cooking does not fall under the heading "dramatic works". There is no fiction involved. Also, in recent years, cooking (when at an artistic and professional level) has begun to get a limited form of copyright around the world, and that area is still growing. |
|||||||||
tomsk192 Inner circle 3894 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-12-19 20:02, TStone wrote: I've been following this with interest, but with regards to a recipe book he is right. If you change a small detail in the recipe, even if the change has no chemical outcome, then the copyright remains unfringed. Sorry, old bean. Magic would, in a British law court at least, seem similar to a judge if put in the right way. Of course, what's hilarious about all this legal chit chat is it's mostly conjecture and therefore mostly b****ks. |
|||||||||
Caliban Special user 727 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-12-19 19:17, TStone wrote: Tom, again this seems to be based on the quote you attributed to me that someone else actually said - not me. I've never suggested that instructional books are exempt from copyright or that anything is public domain. My opinion is simply that, in the act of publishing an instructional book, the author is giving the purchaser permission to follow the instructions. I've read the link you provided and your argument seems to be based on your belief that the rules that apply to a published play or song should also apply to a magic trick. You put forward a credible argument for why that should be the case - but it doesn't mean that it actually IS the case in law. There are two significant differences. First, the established precedent, as already discussed: with a magic book there is a firm precedent/understanding that the author gives permission for the purchaser to perform the tricks, while with plays or songs there is a long established legal precedent that involves the payment of royalties. The second difference, and I think this is where you misunderstand the difference between copyright and performance rights, is that copyright of a published work covers the actual text. I accept your argument that, if you perform a play without permission you could be said to be in breach of copyright because you are reproducing that text in another form, but with a magic book I would only be breaching, say, John Bannon's copyright in performance if I did a public reading of the text of Impossibilia - not if I performed one of the tricks from it. The only time a published magic routine might legally be the same as a play would be if the author published his full performance script and the purchaser used it as written. And yes, you could sort of argue that me performing a routine from imposibilia is the equivalent of creating a derivative work based on Bannon's text - but that would need to be argued in court and I don't think it would stand up. Okay, I really am gone from this thread now - honest. |
|||||||||
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 769 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-12-20 04:12, Caliban wrote: Your opinion, as you stated it before, was that a creator could not dictate the conditions for how his creations are used. That any restrictions stated on the copyright page was moot, as our internal traditions carry more legal weight. That, in effect, means that your opinion is that the creator has no rights to his work - that once published, the work becomes exempt from copyright Quote:
I've read the link you provided and your argument seems to be based on your belief that the rules that apply to a published play or song should also apply to a magic trick. You put forward a credible argument for why that should be the case - but it doesn't mean that it actually IS the case in law. 20-25 years ago, the copyright legislation was different, to vague to include narrow artistic fields like conjuring. That has changed a lot in recent years, as you should know. Everything has changed! So, how can you fail to grasp the larger meaning of the case of Raphael vs. Klok? That case is one of the first where the most recent changes in the legislation was put to use - where a magic routine was evaluated as dramatic and choreographical work. That is huge! And as predicted, the changes in legislation gave desired result. Raphael could not have won this case, had it been 25 years ago. Today, there is no way that he could lose (with a properly prepared claim). Quote:
First, the established precedent, as already discussed: with a magic book there is a firm precedent/understanding that the author gives permission for the purchaser to perform the tricks, while with plays or songs there is a long established legal precedent that involves the payment of royalties. There are no legal precedents of the kind you say. There's only internal traditions and assumptions that are neither known nor recognized outside our realm. You can not find any source, within or outside magic, that details this "tradition". Quote:
The second difference, and I think this is where you misunderstand the difference between copyright and performance rights, is that copyright of a published work covers the actual text. You are still talking about copyright on litterature, which doesn't make much sense in this context, I'm afraid. We are on a forum for magicians, not a forum for writers. This is still about copyright on dramatic and choreographical work. |
|||||||||
kozmic kettle Regular user 123 Posts |
This is an interesting debate.
There are probably lots of other examples, but I'll offer one specific one. There is a website called Pub Tricks that sells downloads of magic tricks and moves, pretty much all of which are the original effects of others, filmed and sold as a tutorials without credit to, or permission from, the original creator. Their entire business, which by all accounts is very successful, is based on the belief that you can't copyright a magic trick and, therefore, as long as they film their own tutorials of other people's effects, they can sell any trick they like and there is nothing that the real creator can do about it. Here is the link to their copyright page, which sets out that position quite aggressively. http://www.pubtricks.com/copyright.php I know of many magicians who have had their original effects stolen by this site and sold without permission, but nobody has yet been able to do anything about it. So my question is, if Tom is right and it IS now possible to copyright a magic trick as dramatic work, how come sites like this are still running successfully, seemingly without hindrance, and creators have not been able to get their work removed? |
|||||||||
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 769 Posts |
I have had two items removed from PubTricks, so yes, someone has been able to do anything about it.
(Although, I see now that one of the items are back now, with a new title and new video. Annoying! ) |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The Wizard Product Review from World Magic Shop » » The Wizard Product Review 78: Holely, The Engima, Hero, Ontology Project (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.2 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 < |