talkmagic.co.uk

This is not a question of law it is a question of ethics. The mechanics of tricks with the possible exception of stage ellusions are not copywrited.

If you buy for instance a card effect which explains the routine and sleights and gives you patter ect. The only part you could not leagally reproduce and re-sell is the exact text from the document. You cannot copywrite the biddle steal ect.

So it is only personal ethics that stops any of us doing an ellusionist an producing dvds of well known effects under different names (i.e card warp = "voodo zone").

If you wanted to produce something of the nature you should research the creator of the effect (not just where you learned it from) and ask their permission. But also really you should only do that to release you new spin on the effect, and also offer to pay royalties.

Also consider for instance Penguin (*spits*) Magic, who are renounced in many circles with people refusing to do business with them for their low moral standing.

That is my take on the subject anyway.

Nikodemus wrote:I will just clarify one point where I didn't express myself properly. When I said people do things that are legally meaningless, I meant that they are not grounded in actual law. EG I might put a warning/disclaimer/credit on a product that makes no actual legal difference to anyone's rights or responsibilities. Or I might threaten to sue you even though legally I haven't got a leg to stand on. This kind of real-politik goes on all the time in many walks of life.

Agreed, my favourite is when shops advise you that a policy will not affect your statutory rights. oh yes, really. Thats why their called STATUTORY.

The Keymaster wrote:This is not a question of law it is a question of ethics. The mechanics of tricks with the possible exception of stage ellusions are not copywrited.

Actually its primarily a question of law and economics. These tell us what we are capable of doing, within the law. With that decided our choice is then limited by our own ethics. My take on this discussion, is not about what we should do, but about what we can do.

Its not that I dont take your point on board, its that until we have thrashed out the legal side theirs no point on taking an ethical standpoint.

By the way you can't copyright a stage illusion, except for the script and performance, thats covered by patent law.

The Keymaster wrote:If you buy for instance a card effect which explains the routine and sleights and gives you patter ect. The only part you could not leagally reproduce and re-sell is the exact text from the document. You cannot copywrite the biddle steal ect.

I agree that a move in itself is unlikely to be copyrightable. I also agree that the text in the document is protected by copyright, BUT so is work derived from the document, including performance of any routines described. I think this point is really important and is likely the area where magic producers could fall foul.

The Keymaster wrote:So it is only personal ethics that stops any of us doing an ellusionist an producing dvds of well known effects under different names (i.e card warp = "voodo zone").

Is it? Maybe, but I think it more likely that our interests simply lie elsewhere. For example creating our own work, and gaining respect within the magic community. On reflection, the second of these is probably the more important. Ego anyone....

The Keymaster wrote:If you wanted to produce something of the nature you should research the creator of the effect (not just where you learned it from) and ask their permission.

oh yes absolutely.

The Keymaster wrote:But also really you should only do that to release you new spin on the effect, and also offer to pay royalties.

Agree with the first part, you should endeavor to move the art forward.
The second part is really up to you unless you are legally bound to pay royalties. From your post I am guessing that this is your particular ethical standpoint and I commend your high ethical standards.

The Keymaster wrote:Also consider for instance Penguin (*spits*) Magic, who are renounced in many circles with people refusing to do business with them for their low moral standing.

I dont know of any accusation against penguin that has been proven. Please feel free to advise me otherwise, as I have only a passing acquaintance with the recent Sankey/Penguin story. It is however, always useful to remember that they are a business, and not the keepers of the magic flame.

Very eloquently put, PDJAMEZ.

Can I suggest that this thread should be reserved for factual discussion of the law?

I have a lot of sympathy with KeyMaster's feelings; but ethical debate should probably continue in another thread.

Nikodemus wrote:
Can I suggest that this thread should be reserved for factual discussion of the law?

I have a lot of sympathy with KeyMaster's feelings; but ethical debate should probably continue in another thread.

Nikodemus, If you want to create a new topic in order to truly capture the nature of the discussion I'm skoosh with that, but I don't think we can separate the legal side and the ethical side. As I stated previously one follows the other.

I emailed Jay Sankey about this a few days ago and from our discussion I now believe that this is almost entirely an ethical debate. The legal angle, although technically important is almost redundant due to the economics of close up magic.

I will provide a full run down on Jays opinion later today, when I get the time.

pdjamez wrote:I emailed Jay Sankey about this a few days ago and from our discussion I now believe that this is almost entirely an ethical debate. The legal angle, although technically important is almost redundant due to the economics of close up magic.

A little later than advertised. I did try and post this yesterday, but user error caused me to lose the whole post. I've only just got back the enthusiasm to return and try again.

Immediately after posting what turned out to be a long treatise on copyright I came to the conclusion that most of it may be of less importance than I originally thought. As I state above its not that the legals are unimportant, its that economics dictate the legal actions which can be taken. Within close up magic it is often the case that magic creators cannot afford to take legal action even when their rights have been infringed. When a community, in this case magic, remains unprotected by the law, best practise is created to support reasonable and fair treatment of its members. Rather than go down this particular path of reasoning all on my lonesome, I decided to confirm some of my thinking with a creator of products and get a feeling for their take on this.

For brevity sake I will not print the emails exchanged verbatim here, but quote what I feel is relevant in respect to the subject matter.

Jays take on copyright and the economics of magic was insightful.

Jay Sankey wrote:copyright issues are essentially legal/corporate issues which are squarely in the arena of MONEY, and as we all know, in magic there ain't a whole lotta dough.

Now although Jay had confirmed my theory, (without prompting I may add), I was surprised by his lack of interest in legal/corporate issues.
Although, his commitment to the creative side of the art is admirable and explains his prolific output.

Note that despite this comment, I am doubtful that Jay or any other producer would not act when faced with a blatant copyright infringement. Professional magicians make their living from performances, lectures and products. It is in their best interests to maintain control of their creative output. From a corporate standpoint, there is nothing like making an example to make a point.

So as I have said before, if the law does not adequately protect then the community will form its own rules and guidelines of behaviour of its members. I very much wanted to understand Jays take on this so I posed a specifically contensious question, inorder to get a subjective response. I asked him how he would feel if I created a DVD expanding on his paperclipped effect. For those who don't know Jays work, paperclipped is in many ways Jays signature effect. His response was measured and rather more objective than I expected.

Jay Sankey wrote:Another important factor is whether or not the original item/effect is still being marketed.

This struck me as being an important part of the equation. If the effects creator is actively marketing it then of course they don't want you to compete with them. As Jay pointed out in the case of paperclipped, even if you marketed a product where a new handling of the effect was presented as part of a collection, he would be unhappy. He explained, quite rightly, that as part of that handling you would need to reveal the method, of an effect he continues to successfully market.

Jay Sankey wrote: If however, someone has a handling of ... and they contacted me..., I'd probably say sure, go ahead (with appropriate crediting of course.)

Jay was quite clear however that if you had a handling of an effect which he did not market, then he would probably agree. As long as you contacted him, and gave him an appropriate credit.

Both of these requests seem entirely reasonable, and also give you the opportunity to check whether an effect is being marketed or not. On reflection, paperclipped was probably the wrong effect to pick out, but I knew he would be attached to it. Saying that his arguments are convincing and with respect to this discussion I feel they are very useful.

My thanks to Jay for his help. Now, are we in the position to answer the original question? I think we probably are. Over to you.....

From the lack of response to my previous post I can see that this thread is pretty much dead. Glad I put the effort in then...

I do however want to finish off with a quick comment regarding some activity on another thread. One of our members produced a teaser video, see thread http://www.talkmagic.co.uk/ftopic8322-0-0-asc-.php.

Now the video contains copyright material in the form of music from both Star Wars and Halo2. This was pointed out during the discussion, but I think an important point was missed. The chances of being approached by either microsoft or lucasfilm over this issue is small to none. That doesnt mean that I condone the activity, it is clearly illegal and should not be carried out. But three more significant problems arise from this activity.

Firstly, the copyright law is there for your protection as well as everyone else. If someone copies your performance or material, and your original performance is in breach of copyright elsewhere, your case may be a non starter; no matter how blatant the breach is against you.

Secondly, if you breach another magicians copyright their case is only strengthened by a blatant breach such as the use of such a soundtrack; no matter how weak the case is against you.

Thirdly, if you post a video on a third party site whether it be putfile or google, there are clear terms and conditions. These arent put in place for a giggle, please read them carefully as these may be acted upon.

Good luck, and hope at least some of my posts were useful. As always if you need any legal advice, go talk to your lawyer.

Hello, I've been reading this thread with interest. As the current UK law stands the following imaginary book is perfectly legal:

The Top 2 Greatest Card Stacks EVER!

Introduction
How the stacks were ranked
Chapter 1. Richard Osterlinds Breakthrough Card System
Chapter 2. Si Stebbins Card System
Chapter 3. 20 Original Card Stack Tricks

Conclusion

Price..... $10

You should also note that copyright does not protect ideas. It protects the way the idea is expressed in a piece of work, but it does not protect the idea itself.
patent.gov.uk

Chapter (1) tells the reader what Osterlinds stack is. He can't copyright an order of cards. Nor can he copyright the secret to understanding that order. Neither can he file for a patent.

An invention is not patentable if it is: a scientific theory or mathematical method... a scheme or method for performing a mental act
patent.gov.uk

The author cannot be accused of plagiarism because he has clearly stated his sources and the written presentation is his own.

The third chapter consists of 20 Tricks of the author's own invention.

Here's another...

The Leipzig Bottom Palm &The Hugard Top Palm Made Easy DVD

A 60 minute educational DVD showing the The Leipzig Bottom Palm and The Hugard Top Palm from all angles. Each technique shown at regular speed, slow and extreme-slomo! Comes complete with 10 original tricks.

Price..... $19.95

No copyright infringement here either and perfectly acceptable for you to produce.

Consider this:

1. Gordon Ramsey and I have a cook-off. Whoever cooks the finest 3-course dinner is the winner. At the end of the day, Gordon wins. Not only does he have better knowledge of recipes than me, he has his own secret ingrediants and techniques and has better control of the food and the kitchen.

Gordon produces a book revealing some of his secrets. These secrets are no longer secret he can ask his readers to keep them to themselves (so he sells more books) but they are under no obligation (moral or legal) to do so.

I read Gordon's book and write my own, based on his secrets. I properly credit the secrets to him and outline my ideas and use my communication skills to explain them. It is perfectly acceptable (legally and morally) for me to publish this book.

2. Kierkegaard publishes his ideas on the Absurd, so does Sartre, and Jaspers, Camus and Cioran. I read their books and write a book called The Philosophy of the Absurd the only new thing I bring to the world is a new explanation and clarification of old ideas. It is perfectly acceptable (legally and morally) for me to publish this book.

I know turn my attention to the Problem of Moral Luck and come up with a solution to it. I publish this solution in the philosophical journal Ethics. Gordon Ramsey reads my paper and outlines my argument (in which I offer my solution) and offers his own thoughts in his latest cookery book. It is perfectly acceptable (legally and morally,) if not a bit bizarre, for him to publish this book.

Gordon Ramsey can always expect to be hired as a chef and to have his writings published. However he cannot expect his secrets to remain secret if he publishes them. By publishing them he is offering them to the world, to disect, add to, discuss, reproduce. If he goes to the effort of writing a book or producing a DVD, then he can expect:

i. To be credited as the author of the work
ii. To own the copyright of that particular presentation of the ideas/secrets

If Gordon does not want to release his secrets, if he wants to keep hold of them in order to continue to produce culinary feats that others can not reproduce, then he will not publish his secrets.

Contrast this with the Philosophers. There is no reason in the world, why they wouldn't want everyone to learn about their discoveries, they wouldn't publish if they didn't want people to know their ideas and discoveries. Could you imagine a philosopher releasing a book or paper but adding please don't reveal my arguments to anyone else - I want to sell more copies of my work. If you write about my books in a review or study, do not expose my method.

Obviously, they want to be credited and paid for the work (although you don't get paid for publishing papers) but it's acceptable to have them on open sale and under open review.

Another thought

If tricks really were copyrighted then you wouldn't be able to perform them for profit without a license.

THIS ISN'T THE MAGIC STORE. GET OFF IF YOUR SOME SALESPERSON.

READ THE RULES!!!

what am I supposed to be selling?

Blade Master wrote:THIS ISN'T THE MAGIC STORE. GET OFF IF YOUR SOME SALESPERSON.

READ THE RULES!!! :evil:

Blade,

If you believe there has been a breach of forum rules, please advise one of the moderators. I would however advise you reread the thread, before you take this action.

copyright wrote:Hello, I've been reading this thread with interest. As the current UK law stands the following imaginary book is perfectly legal:

Hello and welcome to the forums. Can you add some more detail about yourself in your profile, we all like to know who were talking to...

copyright wrote:You should also note that copyright does not protect ideas. It protects the way the idea is expressed in a piece of work, but it does not protect the idea itself.
patent.gov.uk

True, see my previous posts for details.

copyright wrote:Chapter (1) tells the reader what Osterlinds stack is. He can't copyright an order of cards. Nor can he copyright the secret to understanding that order. Neither can he file for a patent.

An invention is not patentable if it is: a scientific theory or mathematical method... a scheme or method for performing a mental act

patent.gov.uk

Again true, see my previous posts. Although you have chosen the wrong exclusion for patentability. A written work would come under the creative act exclusion.

copyright wrote:The author cannot be accused of plagiarism because he has clearly stated his sources and the written presentation is his own.

Firstly I can accuse the author of plagiarism at anytime I choose, whether my accusation has merit or not. This is not me being pedantic, with respect to copyright in magic it is a critical point (the economic argument). Secondly, stating your sources is not a form of protection, it is common courtesy. Thirdly, writing your own presentation is no form of protection, see point one.

You may want to spend some time reading my previous posts. The discussion here is no longer about copyright law itself, that is fairly clear cut. I think we have moved on to its applicability to the wider magic community. The main discussion point is now this: if most magicians cant afford to defend their copyright works, then what is stopping us from infringing each others rights. It certainly isnt the law.

Although this is the natural path for this discussion, I have decided not to pursue it. I have no desire to start a religous war on ethics in magic. Thats probably why this thread came to a standstill as everyone could see where it was going.

copyright wrote:No copyright infringement here either and perfectly acceptable for you to produce.

This is only true if, it is an original work; or it is a derived work which is substantively different from the original. But of course the economic argument overrides this anyway.

Careful, the last time I used analogy on this forum it flew straight over one guys head and hit the wall behind him.

copyright wrote:Gordon produces a book revealing some of his secrets. These secrets are no longer secret he can ask his readers to keep them to themselves (so he sells more books) but they are under no obligation (moral or legal) to do so.

Whose moral code are we talking about here? ... Gordons ... Yours ... Mine ... the average citizen ...

copyright wrote:I read Gordon's book and write my own, based on his secrets. I properly credit the secrets to him and outline my ideas and use my communication skills to explain them. It is perfectly acceptable (legally and morally) for me to publish this book.

As you correctly identify in your previous statement, these are no longer secret as they exist in the public domain. As you state you are at liberty to comment on them, or even explain the concepts in your own words. As long as they are your own words.

EDIT: And you can prove it, and you can afford to defend your rights.

Your philosphy illustration is both entertaining and raises a serious point, although I am unsure that it was in your mind at the time. Academic writing is different from other forms of writing as it invites comment and the extension of ideas. Peer review is fundamental to the process of scientific discovery and acts as a protection mechanism for its community.

Could it be that the magic community uses peer review as a form of self regulation? We all know of instances where we don't buy from a particular vendor because we see them as "ripping off" creators.