|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
gaffed Inner circle So far I've managed to gimmick 1817 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-11-22 15:27, TStone wrote: OK, so let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. If I were by some crazy chance given the opportunity to perform some close up magic on Jay Leno and I decided to perform (just as an example) John Bannon's "Twisted Sisters" he could then come back and sue me for copyright infringement? Somehow I seriously doubt that. Then again, if anyone would know it would be John Bannon as he is, or at least was, a lawyer some years ago when I was making some gaffed cards for him for his "Strangers Gallery" when it first came out in his book. Hey.....is there a lawyer in the house?
"Half this game is ninety percent mental."
~Yogi Berra~ "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." ~St. Thomas Aquinas~ Twitter – "A means of proving how pathetic and lonely you are in 140 characters or less." ~Anonymous~ |
|||||||||
henri loik Regular user Near Chicago, Illinois 136 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-11-19 19:09, gaffed wrote: Sorry, I'm not really sure what Helder said. Did he say nobody could perform them but him? That's kind of what your post implies. |
|||||||||
henri loik Regular user Near Chicago, Illinois 136 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-11-16 12:52, Chessmann wrote: I agree!! That would be great! |
|||||||||
henri loik Regular user Near Chicago, Illinois 136 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-11-22 19:40, henri loik wrote: Oops. I just read what Helder actually said. Gaffed was overreacting. |
|||||||||
gaffed Inner circle So far I've managed to gimmick 1817 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-11-22 19:40, henri loik wrote: No, I never said that, nor did I ever imply it. I'd suggest you read my post(s) again while keeping in mind that he (Helder) had a fit because Craig and Dave had the audacity to REVIEW it without his permission and gave it a great review. If not for their respective reviews it's quite doubtful that most people would had ever been aware of his book! Think about it.
"Half this game is ninety percent mental."
~Yogi Berra~ "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." ~St. Thomas Aquinas~ Twitter – "A means of proving how pathetic and lonely you are in 140 characters or less." ~Anonymous~ |
|||||||||
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 769 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-11-22 19:17, gaffed wrote: You know about Google? Try to find something that will support your opinion, and then you don't have to guess or doubt. If he could sue? Yes, in most countries. Would he? No, very unlikely. But since you know Bannon - if you got the Leno gig, why not act professionally and courteously and ask him for explicit permission? |
|||||||||
NYCJoePitt Special user 558 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-11-22 18:59, Mike Rozek wrote: This makes perfect sense and should end 99% of the misunderstanding in this thread. WMS simply should have asked for permission before including a performance piece from ONTOLOGY. WMS did the correct thing in taking out the video. Helder does deserve to maintain creative control of his creations on the mediums he so chooses. |
|||||||||
GaryLee Loyal user 275 Posts |
The fact that Gaffed is right goes unnoticed. Wizard presented a review, not a youtube performance of it. Therefore, even if the restrictions could be legally binding, two things can happen that makes the restrictions no longer binding.
1- changing the performance to suit your style of presentation 2- giving a review on it is NOT breaching the agreement or performance license because it's a review. Also, it should be noted that Helder does give permission, all you have to do is ask implies that you have permission, you just have to let him(Helder) know. So, you don't need to obtain a license from him? How do I know after he gives me permission that he won't turn around and say he never gave me permission? And if all I have to do is ask and he'll say yes, what's the point in asking then? Wizard did the right thing, and Helder has a right to protect his material. Best way to do it is keep it to himself. |
|||||||||
JasonEngland V.I.P. Las Vegas, NV 1728 Posts |
I've read this entire thread and the faq on the Journal of Secrets page.
Anyone that reads that faq and doesn't understand what Helder was getting at by asking that the video review be taken down doesn't deserve the Ontology Project. If all you can see is a guy hurting his own sales you've completely missed his point. If all you can do is dissect Helder's legal protections or lack thereof then you've completely missed the point. Helder's stance isn't about legality, or business, or even protecting those particular effects. It's a statement of art and the wishes (although perhaps not the legally enforceable demands) of the artist. Tom Stone (a genuine artist if ever I've met one - and I've only recently met him) gets it. Do you? Jason
Eternal damnation awaits anyone who questions God's unconditional love. --Bill Hicks
|
|||||||||
illusioneer Special user NYC 751 Posts |
Well put, Mr. England.
One could not just walk into a book store, purchase a published play script, rehearse, then perform it for a paying audience for profit. Its legally binding that you cannot. There are regulations. Sure, you bought it. You do not OWN it. All Helder is asking is that you just throw him a line. Let him in the mix. Chances are - you'll be granted permission! Its really not as rash or abrasive as it seems.
Things are about to change........ LIGHTS!!!
|
|||||||||
Phil J. Elite user 467 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-11-26 03:54, illusioneer wrote: It does beg the question why didn't WPR, albeit belatedly, ask HG for permission to keep it in the review?
You were born original... Don't die a copy
|
|||||||||
Xcath1 Inner circle 3052 Posts |
I kind of wondered that myself
|
|||||||||
Scott Fridinger Special user Gloucester Pt, VA 893 Posts |
[quote]On 2011-11-22 15:27, TStone wrote:
Quote:
The base line in copyright is that you can't perform someone else's work without explicit permission. Problem is, Public Performance: http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html#performance The public performance right allows the copyright holder to control the public performance of certain copyrighted works. The scope of the performance right is limited to the following types of works: literary works, musical works, dramatic works, choreographic works, pantomimes, motion pictures, and audio visual works. The problem has always been, which of the above is a magic trick, which consists of a set of moves or devices to create an effect. The Supreme Court has already set the precedent that they are not considered dramatic works: http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDoc......L.htm/qx Trademark of Think-a-Drink was upheld, as well as patter, but the effect was not protected.
www.JustGreatMagic.com
Sleight of Hand, Sleight of Mind |
|||||||||
Scott Fridinger Special user Gloucester Pt, VA 893 Posts |
OK, so before anyone says anything, I know that the US Supreme Court may not directly apply to a magic shop in England posting a video by a magician in Europe, but I wanted to point out some info about copyright, performances and magic.
Yes performance rights are to be given, but a magic trick doesn't fall within the realm of copyright performance rights. Now, I completely understand and respect the creator's desire and I can respect just shooting him a message. I don't like copyright notices that are not visible when you purchase something. If you want to reserve rights, than sell it direct using more of a trade secret contract. I also understand most people won't be on TV, and shouldn't be putting stuff on YouTube. After reading the website linked above, they seem pretty easy going about it, however, you don't see that site before you buy something at a magic store.
www.JustGreatMagic.com
Sleight of Hand, Sleight of Mind |
|||||||||
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 769 Posts |
Magic routines falls under both Dramatic Works and Choreographic works (see the current definitions of those terms).
And a lot of things have changed since 1988, and a case from 1943 is not relevant. Computer programs were not protected either back then. The recent case Rafael vs. Hans Klok is a better example. Quote:
I don't like copyright notices that are not visible when you purchase something. If you want to reserve rights, than sell it direct using more of a trade secret contract. You are looking at it from the wrong direction. Helder did not choose to reserve the rights - the rights were already reserved from the start. That's what copyright means. Instead he chose to grant performance rights for all live performances - quite the opposite of what you say: Giving, not restricting. Why mess around with "Trade Secret" contracts on something that is already covered by copyright? Besides, I think that having it published negates that option. Also, the concept of performance rights is not really compatible with it either. |
|||||||||
Scott Fridinger Special user Gloucester Pt, VA 893 Posts |
Mr. Stone,
I looked up the Rafeal v. Klok case, and I can see how this was listed as a dramatic work if, "Hans Klok was sued for copyright infringement over a routine in which he fights with a stubborn butler, first apparently reaching through his body to grab a glass of water off a tray, then smacking off his head momentarily." I would contend that if the act was done with the same premise, a butler, glass of wayer, smaking the head off; all seem to fall within the realm of dramatic works. But in this case we are talking about Triumph with a gaffed deck. If I use the gaff deck, with a completely different performance there is no dramatic or choreographic work. A method to a magic trick is like a recipe, do it in this order and out comes the cookies. If I reprint your recipe in my book, I broke the law, if I make the cake for some friends or a local baking contest, ok then. Or would that be considered public performance? Look, this isn't a new conversation, and we could go back and forth, but the only way for any of us to truly know is to be involved with a court case. This is how I feel: 1. WPR should have not done the demo, they quoted the performance rights, and then turned around and did two tricks, I can see how that would upset the creator, it is almost like a slap in the face. 2. The tricks in question are not new, dramatic or choregraphed works. They are new recipes to make an apple pie, there are tons out there. I believe this stands for most works. 3. We should not steal acts from other people. John Lovick has a great confabulation, and he teaches his method, and asks you not use his patter, routine. I respect that (interestingly, he doesn't right his patter down anywhere (at least publicly) for instance his lecture notes (if the routine isn't written or recorded is there any copyright. 4. If all magic tricks were treated as dramatic works, then ever book that does no EXPLICITLY give performing permission is worthless, and the entire magic community has been in vilolation of copyright infringment for perfoming a trick from a book at some point in their life. So if you have a routine that is unique it may be considered a dramatic work. If you have another version of a trick that has been out for decades, you don't. But again, these are just my opinions, and I am glad we are able to have such a discussion from around the world.
www.JustGreatMagic.com
Sleight of Hand, Sleight of Mind |
|||||||||
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 769 Posts |
Quote:
A method to a magic trick is like a recipe, do it in this order and out comes the cookies. Do you actually suggest that Helder did nothing else than follow a mundane step-by-step procedure to create the five routines in this book? That's pretty insulting! Interesting that you, for comparison, searched out one of the few areas where the copyright situation (in some countries) still is in a legal limbo (to some degree). Do the same with music: -"Simply play these notes in this order, and out comes music - hence, no composer has any rights at all to their works!" Or theater: -"Just say these words in this order, and you have drama - therefore no playwright can have copyright on their works." Anything can be a "recipe" with your logic. 1: Yes, you are completely right. Blatantly disregarding the performance rights in a high-profile medium like that... what choice did that leave Helder? 2: Huh? Not new? So, who did create the works on the Ontology Project, if it wasn't Helder? Not drama? So, it is all real? No fiction involved? It is actually possible to do these feats without any deception involved? Not choreographed? So, the pieces does not require you to do a specific set of movements in a specific order? You can just wave your hands aimlessly and the effects will still happen? 3: Yes, agreed. A routine has to be realized to have copyright. An actual performance is enough to satisfy that requirement. A written script or recording is not necessary, but it is very useful. (The U.S. might have some weirdness that still lingers from the past, in this question.). 4: Yes, exactly. But I would definitely not use the word "worthless". I've learnt a lot about the art from works that I've never performed - and with that knowledge, I've created new pieces. Just like art students study sketches and paintings of others, not to copy, but to make new art. Also, copyright means that the creators have some control over their works, that they themselves can decide how their work is distributed. And many creators are not professional performers, and are just flattered when a lot of people perform their works. I.e. it is not always a violation to perform works from books. Simplest way to make sure is to ask. |
|||||||||
Scott Fridinger Special user Gloucester Pt, VA 893 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-11-28 16:36, TStone wrote: I would say we have done it to our selves. Do we not break down a trick into effect, method and patter(routine). The effects are (with previous references): Sympathetic Card (Scarne on Card Tricks has a single card version, and Dereck Dingle has a more closely linked version) Triumph (Vernon and many, many other magicians) Force of Thought (Charles Reynolds has released this deck previously) Card to Impossible Location (References Brother John, but this plot has been done by almost every magician in print that I can think of.) So to the second point, the tricks are NOT new. The effects have been done before, as is the same with almost every piece of magic. It is good that he created new methods/routines, if everyone tried to come up with new effects, there most likely would not be any. Back to the first point, step by step proceedure. I mean it as no insult at all. We call them methods, and by definistion a method is: 1. A means or manner of procedure, especially a regular and systematic way of accomplishing something: a simple method for making a pie crust; mediation as a method of solving disputes. See Usage Note at methodology. 2. Orderly arrangement of parts or steps to accomplish an end: random efforts that lack method. 3. The procedures and techniques characteristic of a particular discipline or field of knowledge: This field course gives an overview of archaeological method. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/method So I would say again, we have done it to ourselves. Musicians and playwrites don't use the term method when it comes to thier songs and scripts. I don't know this for sure, but I have heard that Ricky Jay wrote his act as an actual script to take this into account. Please correct me if I am wrong. And of course he has built his routine/patter, which we agree can be considered dramatic works. Unfortunately I have always seen that the law is based on definition, and as a whole magic, because of the way we have developed our language has put ourselves in a place where "how a trick is done" or method is a systematic approach. Unfortunately, there is so much magic released by so many people that the culture is not the same as it was even 20 years ago. Yes, computer software did not exist when copyright laws where created, and the laws had to be changed according. However, the art or craft of magic has been around for hundreds of years before today's copyright laws. Why didn't magicians of those days push harder to define thier art? Was it to keep secrets? Or is it a craft, where methods are simply methods? I have seen it called one or the other by many professionials in their works. And so you and I continue a conversation that isn't new and won't be answered here at the Café. I thank you for the debate, and I will leave you with that. All the best with your work, good luck with Maelstrom I look forward to reading it.
www.JustGreatMagic.com
Sleight of Hand, Sleight of Mind |
|||||||||
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 769 Posts |
Quote:
Back to the first point, step by step proceedure. I mean it as no insult at all. We call them methods, and by definistion a method is.... Yes, we call it "methods". But the outside world does not let their definitions be dictated by what we call things within our little realm. Methods, principles and procedures are covered by patent law. So, let's say you invent a new sleight-of-hand "method" for a new trick, and goes to the patent office to get it patented. They would not accept it for a patent, even though it is brand new and without precedents - because it would not qualify as a method according to their definitions. So, what is it then, if it isn't a method? Well, in essence, it is a structured sequence of human movements, which happens to be how choreography is defined - hence, the "method" is covered by copyright, not patent. Quote:
I thank you for the debate Likewise, I thank you! |
|||||||||
GaryLee Loyal user 275 Posts |
Quote: I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm surprised no one else has called you out. You are completely wrong on so many levels.
On 2011-11-27 21:48, TStone wrote: I won't even bother trying to explain to you what is legal copyright because I don't think you'll understand. All this talk about trade secret protection and copyrights. Trade secret protection? (lol) Do you people actually think you can register a trick for trade secret protection? (lol I read comments and laugh out freakin loud. 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, but you'll actually have to first understand what copyright actually is, and then understand what trade secret protection is actually all about. You'd have to actually do some research, but I suppose some magicians just like to think they know what they are talking about while the ones who know better just stay out. I'm not going to give a teaching lesson on copyrights, performance restrictions and other related stuff here, 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. http://www.scribd.com/doc/42685314/How-M......t-IP-Law |
|||||||||
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 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.08 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 < |