The Genii Forum

Tom, that is - by inspection - simply not the case.

Jonathan Townsend wrote:Tom, that is - by inspection - simply not the case.

Lacking the resources to protect one's copyright properly, does not remove the copyright.

Tom, the United States legal system does not recognize (that I've heard) magic tricks as something that can be legally protected or owned.

Tom Stone wrote:

Bob Cunningham wrote:1) The idea/concept/trick can not be copyrighted.

You are in error on the last bit - tricks, as any other realised artistic expression, have the same protection as any other art.

It might be a good idea if that were so, but until a U.S. Judge rules that way in a U.S. Court, that is not true in America.

I think part of this disagreement depends on what we mean by a "trick".

Since, "Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts,
principles, discoveries, or devices" cannot be protected by copyright, I think that means that principles, moves and of a magic trick could not be protected by copyright.

However, the performance (which would include patter, character, music, etc) is protected by copyright.

Of course, I am not an attorney - let alone an attorney who specializes in copyright law - so my understanding could be wrong ;-)

Bob Cunningham wrote: 2) All works are copyrighted the moment they are created.

"Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-g ... tml#mywork

Don't ignore the "and fixed in a tangible form". You can invent a trick. You can perform a trick. Nothing about it is copyrighted until you either record a performance, or write down a description, or something similar.

A magic trick - it's procedure (choreography) and patter (spoken script) is usually a fixed item (rehearsed) by the time it's performed. I suspect any special apparatus involved would fall under its own design law protections.

In my own understanding of the matter, I've pretty much added magic to baseball and Major League Sports as "peculiar American institutions" as regards effective legal protections and exemptions.

Don't add magic to baseball since the courts have not made that decision.
The only thing protected is the EXPRESSION of the idea. So, written text is protected, a video is protected.

Bill Mullins wrote:It might be a good idea if that were so, but until a U.S. Judge rules that way in a U.S. Court, that is not true in America.

That reasoning is pretty backwards, isn't it?

The areas that are explicitly exempt from copyright are usually listed in each country's IP laws.

So provided that:
A. "Magic tricks" are not explicitly stated as exempt from copyright.
B. You firmly believe that a magic effect can be created by getting an idea, and that the same idea can be expressed by working out a handling for it.
C. You firmly believe that the creations by one creator can be very different from the creations of another creator.

Then the only reasonable stance is that magic tricks DO have the same copyright protection as any other art - until a court says otherwise. And that will never happen, because that would put other artistic fields in danger.

Tom, there may be protection in Sweden (has anyone sued over a trick and won?), but there is none in the United States.

Richard Kaufman wrote:Tom, there may be protection in Sweden (has anyone sued over a trick and won?), but there is none in the United States.

I think that was true when you started up your publishing business, but a lot of things have changed since then.
Back then (in U.S) you had to register your work to get copyright protection, and the areas in which you could get copyright were pretty limited.

Now, copyright is automatic and encompass much more. It is quite reasonable to assume that all realised artistic endeavors have a valid copyright, unless a court has stated that it is exempt from copyright.

Obviously, it differs from trick to trick. For example, while Roy Walton's "Collectors" probably is eligible for copyright, it can probably be argued that my own handling (titled "The Hoarders") is lacking enough originality for me to claim copyright for the piece.

Tom, let's not confuse the legal notion of having a right to make copies of a work with the ethical/artistic notion of having a right to copy what you like from what you see of someone else's artwork.

A few years ago Slate had an very informative article on plagiarism.

The author examines some cases where the issues would be much easier for most of us to articulate and comprehend than the issues surrounding a magic trick.

The bottom line is that what may be a clear violation of copyright to us, may not be so clear to a judge ;-)

http://www.slate.com/id/1785

Jonathan Townsend wrote:A magic trick - it's procedure (choreography) and patter (spoken script) is usually a fixed item (rehearsed) by the time it's performed.

If you rehearse a trick, you may have "fixed" it, but it is not in tangible form until it is recorded somehow -- script, video or audio recording, etc. And then, only that script or recording is protected. You could make an argument that if someone else performs it after you have made the fixed tangible work then their performance is an infringement, but to my knowledge no court has validated this theory.

Jonathan Townsend wrote:Tom, let's not confuse the legal notion of having a right to make copies of a work with the ethical/artistic notion of having a right to copy what you like from what you see of someone else's artwork.

No, I meant - if Roy Walton would take offense by my particular handling and decided to sue me for copyright infringement, I would not be able to put up a compelling defense. Fortunately, in this case, I've circumvented that by getting his explicit permission to publish a derivative work (p. 253, Vortex)

Tom Stone wrote: Then the only reasonable stance is that magic tricks DO have the same copyright protection as any other art - until a court says otherwise.

Since when did "reasonable" enter into any discussion of U.S. copyright law?

Bill Mullins wrote:And then, only that script or recording is protected.

You mean - only the graphical notation on sheet music is protected, but not the actual song? Music is graphics?

No, the 'work" has copyright, and so has its documentation.

Tom Stone wrote:I think that was true when you started up your publishing business, but a lot of things have changed since then. Back then (in U.S) you had to register your work to get copyright protection,

Richard started publishing in, what, the late 1970s??

Everything published in the US since 1977 is still under copyright regardless of whether or not it was registered. If it was published since 1964, it is under copyright if it had a proper copyright notice, whether or not it was registered. Registration isn't important in obtaining copyright, but it can be important in obtaining damages if you are infringed.

Now, copyright is automatic and encompass much more. It is quite reasonable to assume that all realised artistic endeavors have a valid copyright, unless a court has stated that it is exempt from copyright.

Again, Tom, "reasonable" and "the law" have very little overlap. Further, making important decisions based on what you "assume" the law to be is a good way to lose court cases.

Would you accept advice from a layman on the best way to structure a performance of a magic effect? Then why offer (or accept) lay advice on the law (including from me) -- the field is much more complicated, less subject to common sense, and the stakes are much higher.

Assume for the moment that what Tom Stone envisions is true -- that the U.S. legal system takes an expansive view of copyrights as applied to magic tricks.

So what?

Suppose I invent a trick, and then I perform it. I don't publish it, because I want to keep it as "mine", but I can establish my priority with a recording of it at a magic convention. Tom sees it, and starts performing it, and even publishes it as his own (I know that Tom wouldn't do these things, I'm just using him as an example).

What can I do?

The police won't arrest him.

Laypeople won't care and he'll still get bookings.

The magic community might shun him (and it might not -- there are plenty of examples of copyists enjoying stature within our small community).

I could hire a lawyer to sue him for damages, but how does it make sense for me to spend tens of thousands of dollars when my economic losses are much smaller than that? I won't be able to recover as much as it would cost me to win. And then there's a fair chance I could lose the case, and get nothing. I might get counter-sued, and end up spending even more to defend myself from that.

Copyright is not the solution to the problems of plagiarists and copyists within magic.

There is no legal principle that says a magic trick cannot be the subject of copyright. There is also no legal principle that says a magic trick can be the subject of copyright.

Copyright works like this: you create "something" -- if that "something" fits into one or more of the classes of works in which copyright can subsist, then if you take the other steps necessary (e.g., rendering the something in a tangible form), your "something" will be copyrighted.

Those classes are enumerated under U.S. law in 102(a):

(1) literary works;

(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;

(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;

(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;

(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;

(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;

(7) sound recordings; and

(8) architectural works.

Note that "magic trick" is not listed; however, depending on the trick, it could fit into one or more of these classes by virtue of being also, say, a literary work or an audiovisual work.

When Houdini filmed his water torture escape it allowed him to claim copyright infringement by other performers and stop them because the copyright in the Houdini film was infringed by a live performance in the same way that the play version of a movie would be infringed.

This subject always produces numerous posts, all usually with links to the wording of copyright laws in support of the poster's arguments, but the reality is this: it doesn't really matter what your argument is, or what the law says, or what the policy is or should be, if you don't have the money to fund a lawsuit, and if the money at risk is not substantial, the argument will never be heard.

The best way to protect magic tricks is not a lawsuit -- use what I call creative revenge. When Kenton Knepper and John Mahood ripped off my trick, "Tsunami," created an inferior version and priced it at a ridiculous price, I circulated for free the explanation and a withering review and a vastly superior trick.

The other remedy is to identify those who decide to take what is not theirs and cut them from the herd (as Bob Sheets likes to put it). Shun them.

If you are going to publish variations of somebody else's trick, ask their permission -- and always give them credit.
This may not be a legal requirement, but it sure is a moral one, and at the very least, the proper etiquette.

Bill Mullins wrote:Suppose I invent a trick, and then I perform it. I don't publish it, because I want to keep it as "mine", but I can establish my priority with a recording of it at a magic convention. Tom sees it, and starts performing it, and even publishes it as his own (I know that Tom wouldn't do these things, I'm just using him as an example).

What can I do?

The police won't arrest him.

Actually, since I'm Swedish, you would have a pretty good chance for justice. I would likely get arrested, or get relevant property siezed. And since this is an area that the Swedish government currently is interested in, it would probably not cost you very much either.

There were an infringement case regarding a circus act here a few months ago, and it involved police raids, arrests and newspaper headlines.

Then I commmend the Swedish legal system.

Or maybe I don't -- you going to jail doesn't seem like a just reponse to the scenario I mentioned. To me, the ideal solution would be a court in which you and I could each lay out our positions without enriching lawyers (no offense, Bob Farmer). Sort of a small claims copyright court.

Bob Farmer wrote:Copyright works like this: you create "something" -- if that "something" fits into one or more of the classes of works in which copyright can subsist, then if you take the other steps necessary (e.g., rendering the something in a tangible form), your "something" will be copyrighted.

Those classes are enumerated under U.S. law in 102(a):

(1) literary works;

(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;

(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;

(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;

(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;

(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;

(7) sound recordings; and

(8) architectural works.

So, assume I've come up with a new trick: I write "Fire" on a piece of paper, and when I put a cup of water on the paper, the water instantly begin to boil.

Now, since this doesn't already exist, it would be logical to call this a "new creation".
If it happens for real - the paper actually emit heat when written on, and the water actually begin to boil - then it is a scientific innovation and is (in most parts of the world) not eligible for copyright, but can be patented.

However, in this case, the paper doesn't emit heat and the water doesn't actually boil... what I present is just fiction. Or in other words, I show the dramatization of an imaginary scenario. Which happens to be the definition of what is called "Dramatic work" in point 3 above.

To accomplish this work of drama, I've created a sequence of structured movements that has to be done in a specific order, or the drama will fail. While doing seemingly natural and innocent movements, I need to obtain something 'extra' from my pocket and add it to the cup. This has to be done after, not before, the viewer has become convinced that the cup is ordinary, or the drama will fail. And I need to hold the 'extra' something in a specific way, or the drama will fail. The piece rely on 'structured human movements', which is a definition of "choreography" - point 4 above.

This "trick" is fiction - dramatic work of a choreographical nature, with no obvious predecessors, in a realised and tangible form. All the requirements for copyright has been met.

What of this can be refuted? Nothing!

Tom,

How about if you write fire on the paper and the paper catches fire? I think that's even more direct.

Pete McCabe wrote:Tom,

How about if you write fire on the paper and the paper catches fire? I think that's even more direct.

That's a good example of a derivative piece which is a work in it's own right - opposed to the 'Trick Brain' method of changing the props (like writing 'heat' on a plank to boil a glass of milk).

I like it. Gonna put on an ebook an the version where you write the word water on a scrap and drop it into an empty bowl and out pours water. Copyright 2010, JT. ;)

There's some new flashpaper that burns red / blue - all the better for this kind of thing. :D

Does ethics say I should credit Tom Stone for the inspiration?

I am not an attorney, but have had a copyright placed on a number of my published art works as well as writings.

I have consulted with attorneys who specialize in this kind of work, and, a little over a decade ago, was able to observe a (then) current update of copyright law.

At that time, the expert panel advised that ANY new representation of thought or expression, so long as it's written or printed, is automatically covered (here in the United Sates) under copyright protection.

I've subsequently, with important items, ALSO taken the step of going through the official United States copyright application procedure (which, I believe, is still under $50.00 US), by registering my copyright protected item with the United States Library of Congress.

The latter is not essential, I'm told, but will surely be of benefit should the need apply to prove ones claim to copyright. The aforementioned body of the United States government provides (upon the granting of official copyright status) documentation by return mail, providing the copyright holder with his or her official status as owner of said document, written expression or work of art.

I've only once had to employ this information, and that was when an eBay seller elected to use my long-ago registered copyright symbol from a product I called "MindSets" back in the mid-1990's. Said proof provided proof positive that I, and I alone, own the image in question. eBay, consequently, dropped the individuals advertising, and barred him (under his real name, anyway) from doing business on eBay again; this, after numerous "friendly" correspondences from me to said seller (also thoroughly documented), asking him to "do the right thing," and cease and desist from using the material (in this case, and image),which was beyond question owned by me.

Greg Edmonds
www.ArsPraestigium.com - The ART of Illusion

I think there is a difference in the understanding of what an Effect is and what a tangible, copyrightable presentation of the Effect can be.

Copyright law says you cannot protect ideas, only the expression of them. Think of Effect as the idea. Not protectable.

For example: The Four Ace trick. Created years ago now existing in myriad variations. The basic effect remains much the same with minor variations the four Aces still vanish from individual stacks of cards to appear in one stack. Same Effect, more or less, with many ways to accomplish iteach one protectable individuallythe Effect/Idea not protected.

Society benefits because creativity has not been stifledalthough how much Society has benefitted over a plethora of Four Ace tricks is debatable. ;-)

Tom Stone wrote: This "trick" is fiction - dramatic work of a choreographical nature, with no obvious predecessors, in a realised and tangible form. All the requirements for copyright has been met.

What of this can be refuted? Nothing!

Sue someone in court for violating your copyright as you've described it) on a trick, and win a judgement and I will agree with you (you don't even have to collect the judgment).

But even if you are right, so what? As Bob Farmer said above, there's not enough money involved in a trick for the legal processes to do any good, because it is so expensive to take advantage of them.

On the BBC web site today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-10725773

Thanks, Peter, that was interesting.

David Alexander wrote:Copyright law says you cannot protect ideas, only the expression of them. Think of Effect as the idea. Not protectable.

That require that you simplify and reduce the effect in question. Because if you reduce everything to a Fitzkee level of abstraction, then there is nothing at all in any field that can have copyright.

Someone defending a ripoff of Stefan Schutzer's "Self-folding Bill" said: "The idea of getting a bill to move with thread is old, so therefore Stefan has no rights to his effect." That's like saying "The latest bestselling novel is just ink on paper, therefore the novel is public domain."

We are so indoctrinated to split up works into method and effect (choreography and drama) that we often forget that they are a whole. The synergy between method and effect is what the work consist of. Change the method, and you'll see that the effect will change as well - provided you don't fall into the Fitzkee trap of reduction and abstraction.

For example, the specific effect in Don England's "Loosers Weepers" (p. 13, second edition of Gaffed to the Hilt) is different from Roy Walton's "Collectors". Anyone who is familiar with the field who see a performance of both, can discern clear differences. It's like the diffence between "Romeo and Juliet" and "West Side Story" - the basic plot is the same, but the specific plot is different.

Bill Mullins wrote:Sue someone in court for violating your copyright as you've described it) on a trick, and win a judgement and I will agree with you

I want to, and I'm backed up by lawyers at the swedish theater association who desire to handle a case of this nature - but people seem reluctant to infringe on my work.

The story seems to have some roots all the way back here and perhaps even further back.

Tom, I'd prefer we keep to the audience view of things in our discussion of artistic works - as we don't need the Borges level distraction of whether a duplicate of a classic work made in modern materials is due its own place in art and its own review as a modern work as well. For example as above with the ace assembly, this will save us the fuss about using sleights, gaffs, a fog of nanobots, camera trickery or mass hypnosis as method when the routine is likely just some "homage" to Hofzinser's Power of Faith routine anyway.

*now what I wanna know is who was the guy who put down the ace of spades, called it the "master ace" and then got copied by so many - a real dr x Seuss that one. ;)

Tom,

Version 2: You write "boil" on a piece of paper and drop that paper into a glass of water, and it boils.

This could probably accomplished reasonably straightforwardly by means of chemicals in the water and the paper, to create (some) heat and bubbles, which would pass for boiling water. Or maybe you could just write "boil" on a paper-thin piece of dry ice.

Tom Stone wrote:

David Alexander wrote:Copyright law says you cannot protect ideas, only the expression of them. Think of Effect as the idea. Not protectable.

That require that you simplify and reduce the effect in question. Because if you reduce everything to a Fitzkee level of abstraction, then there is nothing at all in any field that can have copyright.

Someone defending a ripoff of Stefan Schutzer's "Self-folding Bill" said: "The idea of getting a bill to move with thread is old, so therefore Stefan has no rights to his effect." That's like saying "The latest bestselling novel is just ink on paper, therefore the novel is public domain."

We are so indoctrinated to split up works into method and effect (choreography and drama) that we often forget that they are a whole. The synergy between method and effect is what the work consist of. Change the method, and you'll see that the effect will change as well - provided you don't fall into the Fitzkee trap of reduction and abstraction.

For example, the specific effect in Don England's "Loosers Weepers" (p. 13, second edition of Gaffed to the Hilt) is different from Roy Walton's "Collectors". Anyone who is familiar with the field who see a performance of both, can discern clear differences. It's like the difference between "Romeo and Juliet" and "West Side Story" - the basic plot is the same, but the specific plot is different.

Ah silly meI shall try again.

No. It is NOT like saying that a novel is just ink on paper. Youve missed the point and "Fitzkee'd" the Idea too far. Back up a bit.

Method and Effect are different and separate.

Effect is what the audience seeswhat they perceive happens. That seems to be the traditionally accepted definition of the word in magic. This is the Idea that cannot be protected as in my example of a Four Ace trick because there are many ways to create Effect.

Clearly, magic history shows there to be myriad ways to create the same Effect. What the lay audience sees is what is important, not the nuances spotted by informed magicians which may or may not be noticed by lay audiences.

Ive experienced this myself. Back when I was opening for Billy Eckstine he casually mentioned that hed worked with other magicians who had done that cigarette trick. At the time I was doing Fraksons Cigarette production which was unique, unlike anyone elses, but Billy, an old-time show business pro, saw no difference between what I did and what others had done. We produced lighted cigarettes in the air.

The individual presentation of Effect the words spoken and, possibly, the choreography of hands doing specific sleights at a specific time may be protected. (Im not clear on the sleight of hand part but the presentation itself can be protected.)

If you create a new way of doing an Effect, publish/sell it and I copy it verbatim and sell or give it away I am guilty of infringement of your creation, your copyright. The Idea/Effect is not protected, only your unique expression of that Effect is.
There have been a number of articles written over the years about plots and plotting. Georges Polti wrote The Thirty-Six Dramatic Situations that, he claimed, summarized the various dramatic situations so plots could be constructed. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirty ... Situations

Yes, Westside Story was Romeo and Juliet but Forbidden Planet was The Tempest. More or less the same plot ideas with different characters and details, a different Method of expressing/creating the same "Effect" or "Plot." Unique expression of Idea protectedBasic Idea (Plot/Effect) still unprotected for others to use in their own unique expressions.

What you have made is an assertion...your opinion of what constitutes copyright protection.

What you assert may or may not be true in the law but until you go to the trouble and expense of adjudicating it and have a judge and jury agree with you and a decision for you to survive the appeals process, all you have is opinion and assertion.

David Alexander wrote:No. It is NOT like saying that a novel is just ink on paper. Youve missed the point and "Fitzkee'd" the Idea too far. Back up a bit.

Method and Effect are different and separate.

Effect is what the audience seeswhat they perceive happens.

I know I "Fitzkee'd" (good word!) the idea too far. But when we separate the "effect" from the piece and talk about it in the context of what the audience will percieve, we are already doing a fair amount of "Fitzkee'ing" (and occationally, a lot of wishful thinking).

That seems to be the traditionally accepted definition of the word in magic. This is the Idea that cannot be protected as in my example of a Four Ace trick because there are many ways to create Effect.

Clearly, magic history shows there to be myriad ways to create the same Effect. What the lay audience sees is what is important, not the nuances spotted by informed magicians which may or may not be noticed by lay audiences.

That might be true - but what an uninformed lay person think is only relevant in performance, and has no bearing in the context of a copyright discussion.

At the time I was doing Fraksons Cigarette production which was unique, unlike anyone elses, but Billy, an old-time show business pro, saw no difference between what I did and what others had done. We produced lighted cigarettes in the air.

That's no different from any other field where the observer lack familiarity with the subject. For example, I (and probably many on this forum) lack knowledge about Indian music, so in my ears all music from India sound the same. Should we consider that to be a proof that no musical progress and innovation occur in India, and declare all Indian music to be public domain?

A layperson might not discern the difference between a standard Ace assembly and Daryl's "Jolly Jumping Jokers" - but you, I and most readers here would spot the difference instantly in a performance - even when the handling is flawless, and from the same vantage point and the same visual stimuli as the lay person. How is that possible? If the effect really was identical, we would not be able to spot the difference. But we can - because the specific effect, when we don't Fitzkee it, is different.

The individual presentation of Effect the words spoken and, possibly, the choreography of hands doing specific sleights at a specific time may be protected.

Exactly! :)

What you have made is an assertion...your opinion of what constitutes copyright protection.

What you assert may or may not be true in the law but until you go to the trouble and expense of adjudicating it and have a judge and jury agree with you and a decision for you to survive the appeals process, all you have is opinion and assertion.

Isn't that amusing? All statements by everyone on this topic are "opinions" and "assertions" - but for some reason, it seem extra important to label my statements as such. Why? Do it make your "opinions" and "assertions" more credible?

Copyright legislation is not a fixed entity - it changes and grows, albeit slowly. What was true about magic and copyright 20 years ago is not necessarily true today.

Pete McCabe wrote:Tom,

Version 2: You write "boil" on a piece of paper and drop that paper into a glass of water, and it boils.

This could probably accomplished reasonably straightforwardly by means of chemicals in the water and the paper, to create (some) heat and bubbles, which would pass for boiling water. Or maybe you could just write "boil" on a paper-thin piece of dry ice.

Your first version was better. And I'm guessing that you've never handled dry ice. ;)

Back to David's post again:

The Idea/Effect is not protected, only your unique expression of that Effect is.

If you "Fitzkee" Jim Steinmeyer's effect "Origami", you'll see that it is pretty much identical to a Fitzkee'd "Expanding Die" by DeKolta. But even a lay audience would be able to see the difference between the specific effects - so I don't see the purpose of Fitzkeeing anything at all, ever.

There are some people who believe that it is an unique expression to put Steinmeyer's Origami box on a thick wedge base, which, in some ways, constitutes a different method and a more free handling. But I don't think "The Effect is not protected" would work as a defense if it got tried in court.

Tom,

Part of your argument fails when you refuse to separate Method from Effect.

Ill try another illustration with questions that will allow you to clarify. I know more than a little about the Misers Dream. I do, mostly, what Frakson taught me but Im also familiar with a number of other methodsT. Nelson Downs for example. Pure sleight of hand with the use of one gimmick at the end.

You seem to be suggesting that if Downs copyrighted his presentation that he would own and control the Effect of the Misers Dream - pulling money out of the air - instead of just his Presentation? Anyone who wanted to do the Misers Dream would have to ask permission of Tommy Downs? Or pay him to do it?

To follow what seems to be your logic, had Thurston been able to copyright his card act would he own the Effect of producing fans of cards at his fingertips? Is that what youre saying?

In looking at the Origami illusion you reverse Fitzkee it way out into your imagination. I dont see anywhere that Origami has any relationship to De Koltas Expanding Die. The two are completely different Effects: DeKoltas is the production of a woman from a die that expands by itself; and Origami, is a squeezing effect combined with a penetration that has the performer folding the Origami box in on itself.

Both illusions use a female assistant and a boxes of different sizes, shapes, and colors.

While were all giving opinions and making assertions (and I never said otherwise), at the moment the ones I and others make, especially the ones given by the lawyers who post here which are the most informed, are talking about what is in the law while youre talking about what youd like to see change which still remains vague to me.

The idea of copyright was so that the creator could benefit from his creation. The fact that ideas, concepts, facts are left unprotected is to encourage creativity and the dissemination of information. This is something that has affected me directly. My biography of Gene Roddenberry had in its 600 pages an enormous amount of original information, facts and insights previously unknown and unpublished about Gene that I developed in two and a half years of research.

Within a short time after my books publication many of these facts that only appeared in my book began popping up all over the Internet without any credit to me, taken by people and used for their own purposes without so much as a thank you or a credit. There was nothing I could do about it because what was taken from my book were facts, not my expression of those facts. It would have been nice if I could have made some additional money from my original research, but thats the way the law was written and, in the overall, I agree with it.

Consider a bowl of fruit on a table for ten artists to paint.

Each artist paints a different painting of the same subject. Even if the artists all use identical canvases, paints and brushes, each painting will be distinct.

The paintings can be copyrighted. The bowl of fruit cannot.

The plot of a magic trick is that bowl of fruit. Your performance script is your own painting of it.

Plots (of stories, or magic tricks, or whatever) cannot be copyrighted. Specific stories can be. So your performance script can be copyrighted. But any other magician can still paint that same bowl of fruit.