talkmagic.co.uk

copyright wrote:Another thought

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

Discussed previously. Please forgive me for self quotation.

pdjamez wrote:Be very careful when performing other peoples routines though. If I pick up the instructions from the ID and publically perform them, I am technically in breach of copyright law. This is called a transformation; in other words if I take copyright material in one media and move it to another the original copyright owners rights still apply.

Did you now that when you perform your ID routine your in breach of copyright? Actually your not, thats why I used the term technically. It can clearly be argued that the instructions convey the right to perform the routine publically. This may not be so clear cut if I perform them on a DVD and sell it though.

This discussion is really getting nice... I am glad I started this thread. Basically, we are all in breach of copyright law

rcarlsen wrote:This discussion is really getting nice... I am glad I started this thread. ...

I particularly like the way you started it and then simply lurked for most of the posts.

EDIT: Actually, I take that back, you were last seen on page 5.

Well, yes And, I started the thread to see what others thought about it. Not because I had so much to contribute with

Can I ask, are you planning on releasing a routine or was it an intellectual exercise?

Some have asked me to publish some of my routines/tricks, so I was just checking how to deal with the mentioned topic.

From what I've seen of your performances I can see why.

Having seen the level of activity on the thread thus far, what are your thoughts on the subject now?

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

A moral code is a code of conduct. There is an accepted code of conduct that you do not reveal the secrets of magic, and whodiddit in The Mouse Trap. There is no code of conduct that states you cannot reveal the 'secrets' of a recipe book. No-one would accuse you of being morally wrong for revealing that Ramsey adds a pinch of baking soda to his mashed potato.

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.

Anything published invites review. All published work is judged by it's audience. No-one would publish a book, display a painting, release music etc. and not expect comment. All publications are invitations to react. If you didn't want people to react to your work you wouldn't reveal it to the public.

With regards to Peer Review

This is how a lot of copyright issues are managed. In the academic world, theft of ideas is rife. A famous television psychiatrist (who published an article on the dangers of plagiarism has recently been outed as guilty of plagiarism. A colleague of mine found an almost word-for-word copy of one of his papers printed as a chapter in someone else's book. A British university (I've forgotten which one) was recently outed as having copied and pasted another university's statement on plagiarism onto their website. It's all very embarassing for the guilty party, they are exposed and nothing is usually done about it, their credibility takes a dive.

pdjamez wrote:From what I've seen of your performances I can see why.
Having seen the level of activity on the thread thus far, what are your thoughts on the subject now?

Thanks for your nice words.
Now, about my thoughts, I am not sure. I can't say I exactly trust what is coming out here. There is alot of comments from ppl that believe they know what's correct, and others say the opposite. The easiest thing would probably be to contact ppl that already have published stuff, and ask how they solved the problem. I would guess that ppl like Joshua, Sankey and others already have delt with this issue...

rcarlsen wrote: I can't say I exactly trust what is coming out here.

I think I pretty much said this in my first post. It is an interesting topic for discussion, but you need to carry out your own research and take proper legal advice until your satisfied.

rcarlsen wrote:
The easiest thing would probably be to contact ppl that already have published stuff, and ask how they solved the problem.

Yeah, thats partly why I contacted sankey. But agreement on your first point means that despite this, your still going to need to contact someone yourself.

Glad its of interest anyway.

Time for me to "lurk" in again. So having recently looked into copyright laws I found and interesting thought. Apparently thoughts, ideas, techniques, or methods of achieving something cannot be copyrighted. These are instead called patins. Now how would you relate this to cards. Well lets take a flourish. A flourish is achieved by performing several different hand motions and actions. This is not a document, item, or a physical creation. It is a method of achieving something. So in turn, flourishes (at least) cannot be held by a copyright.

I believe the word you were looking for is patent, not patin

copyright wrote:A moral code is a code of conduct. There is an accepted code of conduct that you do not reveal the secrets of magic, and whodiddit in The Mouse Trap.

Moral Code equals code of conduct is arguable. They are certainly synonyms but I doubt equality in this context. Okay to move this along I will accept your assertion, although it does feel like your putting words in my mouth.

There is indeed a code of conduct with respect to the issues you describe. But it is your decision based on your own principles whether you select to follow that code or not. Different people will behave in different ways, based on their own moral framework. If we all acted in the same way we wouldn't be having this discussion.

copyright wrote:There is no code of conduct that states you cannot reveal the 'secrets' of a recipe book. No-one would accuse you of being morally wrong for revealing that Ramsey adds a pinch of baking soda to his mashed potato.

Can I point out to you that this is YOUR hypothetical situation? Having told me that its ridiculous, do you really expect me to defend it?

The point I was attempting to make is; if someone request something of me I have a simple choice to make. I can choose whether it is a moral obligation or not based on my own moral framework. Everyone else can make their own choice.

copyright wrote:Anything published invites review. All published work is judged by it's audience. No-one would publish a book, display a painting, release music etc. and not expect comment. All publications are invitations to react. If you didn't want people to react to your work you wouldn't reveal it to the public.

Ah, now you are putting words in my mouth (review). In your introduction post you stated that you worked in academia. As such you will be well aware that academic papers are not reviewed in the same way as the latest Madonna album.

A paper is submitted to a group of your peers for comment. After this it maybe published at which point others can validate your work, either through experimentation or theoretically, and they are free to build upon it.

In an attempt to bring this discussion back to a single point related to copyright, can I bring you back to the idea I was attempting to explore. From your own commentary, it simply occurred to me that the scientific publication process was very similar to that of the magic community. If you come up with a method or sleight or effect, you will first show your peers. If you decide to publish, in whatever form, the community will absorb this and begin to extend your ideas.

copyright wrote:With regards to Peer Review

This is how a lot of copyright issues are managed. In the academic world, theft of ideas is rife. A famous television psychiatrist (who published an article on the dangers of plagiarism has recently been outed as guilty of plagiarism. A colleague of mine found an almost word-for-word copy of one of his papers printed as a chapter in someone else's book. A British university (I've forgotten which one) was recently outed as having copied and pasted another university's statement on plagiarism onto their website. It's all very embarassing for the guilty party, they are exposed and nothing is usually done about it, their credibility takes a dive.

Only the famous television psychiatrist example involves peer review. All other cases mentioned are straight copyright infringements.
Or am I missing something?