Copyright Extended to Performance

Discuss general aspects of Genii.
Guest

Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Guest » February 7th, 2003, 9:16 am

There is an interesting thread going on over at The Magic Cafe about copyright on published material such as books and magazines such as Genii. Tom Cutts, publisher of AM PM contends that copyright law for published magic material extends to the performance of that material so if you read about a trick in his magazine, he would expect you to contact the magician whose trick he published in order to attain the right to perform the trick in public.

Others contend that the publication of the effect is an implict grant of the right to perform the material, otherwise why publish it all.

I questioned whether Richard Kaufman feels this way or not, so I thought I would pose the question to Richard here.

Tricks and effects that are published in your magzine and books: am I allowed or prohibited from performing that material without express written consent of the original creator of the effect?

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5913
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Contact:

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Bill Mullins » February 7th, 2003, 11:26 am

Originally posted by BillMcCloskey:
[QB] Tom Cutts contends that copyright law for published magic material extends to the performance of that material [QB]
I doubt he would get lawyers to agree to that. Copyright of "performable" stuff includes
musical works, including any accompanying words;
dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
pantomimes and choreographic works.

Magic tricks have not historically fallen into any of those categories (but who knows what a smart, WELL PAID, lawyer can get a judge to agree to . . . )

Specifically excluded are any "idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work ".

Most tricks are instructions for processes or methods.

[QB]
otherwise why publish it all.[QB]
To establish authorship/paternity of a trick or routine would be one reason, for example. Alain Nu did a limited release video tape of his spoon bending routine for that purpose.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27054
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Richard Kaufman » February 7th, 2003, 11:42 am

It's not a questions of a well-paid laywer "getting" a judge to agree to anything.
There has not been a legal precedent that I know of for protecting most types of magic tricks, though there are some who believe that, should such a legal precedent eventually be set, it would go along the lines of something like dance, which is fully covered by copyright, both in the written form and the performance form. Both magic and dance consist of a series of choreographed, recordable, movements. You cannot perform any of, for example, Martha Graham's or Twyla Tharp's dances without obtaining legal consent (and it's tightly controlled).
At the moment, anything that has been placed on a video or published in print can be performed by anyone at any time. Silly stuff like "Performance Rights Reserved" that you see in some books or on some videos are, in my opinion, unenforceable because the law does not recognize them.
Unpublished items are a different matter, I believe.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Guest

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Guest » February 7th, 2003, 12:50 pm

Standard disclaimer that I'm not a lawyer, and this should in no way be taken as legal advice, only as educated commentary of a layperson (as far as law goes) applies...

The copyright on the published effect only covers that exact write-up of the effect; in fact, while it would be unethical, if enough significant changes were made in the wording of the description, even if the mechanics of the method and the appearance of the effect were left identical, it would be perfectly legal to republish another version of the effect description without permission, renumeration, etc.

A copyright on a performance of an effect is completely separate, and again only covers that exact performance of the effect. Change a significant part of the performance, but leave the effect the same, and it's legal. Again, however, it'd be highly unethical, IMHO.

I'd disagree with Richard on his view that magic doesn't qualify under the same protection as a dramatic performance, but in the end that's really for a court to decide.

I could see an argument that the writeup of the effect constitutes a script for the presentation, and thus would require rights to be obtained to perform it, but if you changed the presentation, you'd in theory be fine (unless somebody really wanted to push it and claim that changing the presentation was infringing on the copyright of the piece, which I actually could in a way see standing up in court).

That all said, unless explicitly stated otherwise, a fair case could be made that given past precedent in the magic field/art, permission to perform the effect is implicit in its publication.

Of course, if anybody here is a judge or a lawyer, please don't hesitate to weigh in with your more informed opinion.

--A

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5913
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Contact:

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Bill Mullins » February 7th, 2003, 2:23 pm

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
Unpublished items are a different matter, I believe.
Perhaps within the context of "trade secrets", as Bob Kohler is attempting to do with his new hold-out. And even then, his remedies can be likened to suing for breach of contract.

For example, if Kohler sells a license for the holdout to Richard Kaufman, and then Richard divulges the secret to me, Kohler probably has a real strong suit against Richard. Whether he can successfully sue me after that point is a more open question.

The recent article in Magic talked about the novelty of this form of keeping magic secrets. This is pretty similar (but not as well codified, with specific reference to statute) to what Harbin tried to do with the original disclosure of Zig-Zag. Since no one attempted to enforce the agreement in the courts, the Zig-Zag design lost trade secret status.

Alain Roy
Posts: 134
Joined: February 22nd, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Sun Prairie, WI
Contact:

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Alain Roy » February 7th, 2003, 3:46 pm

Mr. Kaufman--

Here is the germ of an idea for Genii: Maybe you can find a lawyer with the relevant expertise that can write some articles about copyright and patent issues and how they apply to magic. Perhaps one article, perhaps a series of articles.

-alain

Dave Egleston
Posts: 429
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Ceres, Ca.

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Dave Egleston » February 7th, 2003, 6:34 pm

Mr Roy suggested:
Maybe you can find a lawyer with the relevant expertise that can write some articles about copyright and patent issues and how they apply to magic. Perhaps one article, perhaps a series of articles.
If that happens, please have him write a paragraph at the bottom of the Table Of Contents - MORE THAN ENOUGH - Don't ruin the best magic magazine in the world by cluttering it up with those kind of people

Now for the Dicey part of my question --- Didn't Michael Weber try and pull something like this in his book LIFESAVERS and wasn't he roundly criticized for it?

Dave

Guest

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Guest » February 7th, 2003, 10:50 pm

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
...along the lines of something like dance, which is fully covered by copyright, both in the written form and the performance form. Both magic and dance consist of a series of choreographed, recordable, movements. You cannot perform any of, for example, Martha Graham's or Twyla Tharp's dances without obtaining legal consent (and it's tightly controlled).
Richard,

Given your post, do you think this has aided or hindered dance as a respected art in our society.

Bill,

Please quit spreading your misinformed impressions of what I have said. You are extremely inaccurate in your above contentions. I made no such all encompassing claim.

In fact, if I recall me statement was "Now, if you wish to perform any routine which appears in AM/PM in a way which you think might require permission from the author, I will do everything in my power to get you in touch with that author. I'm sure the rewards that interaction will bring you will far outweigh the difficulty of having to do so."

I humbley request that you recant your statement and save us both from the joys of exploring the possible libelous nature of your words.

Sincerely,

Tom Cutts

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5913
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Contact:

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Bill Mullins » February 7th, 2003, 11:06 pm

Tom -- If, by quoting Bill McCloskey, I have put you in a bad light, I'm sorry.

Bill Mullins

Guest

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Guest » February 8th, 2003, 2:45 am

Tom,

I certainly never meant to misrepresent what you said. That was my honest interpretation of your position. And I referenced the thread so that people could see it for themselves. Obviously I was paraphrasing what I thought your position was. People can go for themselves and check out the thread: http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/view ... 27&start=0 . If that is not your position, then I apologize.

I had asked you This is a purely informational question only, since I'm a bit confused by your posts. I have not read your magazine yet, but before I subscribe...are you saying that the performance rights to the material published in your AM PM are not granted? For example you list a trick called Vortex by Peter McCabe. Would I need to contact Peter to attain performance rights before I could perform this trick? Obviously this would be a huge barrier for me subscribing.

Your answer was:

(NOTE: I have just been informed that it is not acceptable practice to quote someone's work in another forum. Please go to the original thread to read Tom's responses in context.)

Which is what prompted my question. Certainly, if this is not your position, I stand corrected. I would refer everyone to the original thread so they can interpret for themselves your meaning. Your answer to my question, I interpreted as meaning that the performance rights are not granted but are retained by the writer, which would require me to obtain those rights. You've really got me confused now. Sorry to have mispresented you. I certainly didn't do it on purpose.

Guest

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Guest » February 8th, 2003, 4:54 am

One last point (sorry to obsess here). My INTERPRETATION of what you said was:

1. Performance rights are not implicitly granted with a published work of magic.
2. You publish a work of magic,
3. therefore performance rights are not implicitly granted in the work of magic you publish,
4. therefore, if I wish to perform any of the works you publish, you would expect me to contact the author of the work (otherwise how would I get those rights) to obtain the right to perform the work in question or I would be in violation of your interpretation of copyright law.

Even now, I am unclear how any of this is inconsistent with what I interpreted to be your stated position. But obviously Im missing something and being an idiot since you state that Im misrepresenting your position. That being the case, one final time, I apologize.

Guest

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Guest » February 8th, 2003, 7:29 am

Hmm... maybe I really am cracking up... but something smells around all these "Control Issues" people seem to have with "their ideas".

The dang Holdout B.S. has flarred tempers around the globe because some greed driven schmuck wants to have his cake and eat it too. Then I come in and find another individual informing us that we have to kiss booty with the authors of books and magazine articles before we have the "legal right" to use the material they put out in a public forum for building their name recognition and image.

Did I say something smells?

I grew up on a dairy farm and didn't smell anything this bad or rotten!

If you put something into a public forum the standard, the understood unwritten reality principle behind it all, has ALWAYS BEEN that it is there for the taking. YOU ARE "SHARING IT" with your peers.

If this greed based stupidity that seems to be breaking out all over our industry continues and the egomaniacs aren't told (possibly for the first time in their lives)NO F***ing Way! Then this kind of ABUSE is going to evolve and ultimately push away the would be supporters and hobbiest out of the picture. Magic will become a dead and lost art because we are allowing things to be carried to an extreme.

Weekly I get Emails from kids who are terrified to build an effect they found in a book or magazine they'd bought because of the up-roar and related persecution of people using/selilng "knock off" props. Originally and according to guys like Harbin, Stinemeyer, etc. if you own the book and you build it for yourself, there's not problem -- you have their blessings and the right to do it (and how many here have done the Zig Zag or other Harbin effects that don't own the book??? Insiders say he never gave anyone manufacturing rights. For that matter, Owens is the only source with the legal rights to the Thin Model Sawing...)

This whole "ethics" thing has been blown so far out of propertion that it has gotten rediculous and is creating a caste like system in magic that is more pronounced as well as damaging, then the auspices of former institutionally based influence around the craft e.g. based on this new thinking if I publish material and don't like you, I don't have to give you permission to use it... a handful of published performers will be able to control who does what and thus, control the careers and livlihood of most.

Sorry folks, that's wrong! It has been and will be abused at even a greater level if left unchecked and allowed to be "enforced" via those in the media element that exist in part, to protect our fellows of such scams and horse dung.

If you dont' want people doing your material DON'T PUBLISH IT! If you are going to put a leash on any of it, then use direct mail to key buyers and don't put it out on a general cattle call pitch. But don't take the public for being fools and these two issues prove to me (and numerous others that have been discussing it the past few days) that this is exactly what individuals with this narrow mindset are doing.

SCREW'M!

That's the general consensus I've seen posted... might be something to think about.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27054
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Richard Kaufman » February 8th, 2003, 7:42 am

First, since each individual owns the copyright on anything he or she writes, whether it is on a piece of paper, spoken, or written on a website or discussion board, that material may not be reproduced without that person's permission.
For example, sending copies of a response to a private e-mail to everyone to others is illegal. I own the copyright on my written material, and I am the only person who has the authority to reproduce it and give or sell it to others.
So, the short answer is, you cannot just copy someone else's posts from another discussion board and post them here. There is something called "Fair Use," which allows you to use brief excerpts. How brief is always a matter for dicussion.
As far as marketed tricks go, and there has been some dicussion of illusions by Steinmeyer and Harbin, these are routinely ripped off and there is no question that it is illegal. But, the owner must take steps to protect his creations, and that means bringing a lawsuit. If that doesn't happen, then, over time, the owner will lose his ownership of the idea (and if you go to court, the first thing the judge will ask you is why you didn't sue years ago when the violation first occured).
As far as magic printed in books, and specifically close-up magic, you're free to perform whatever you want, wherever you want. If the guy who claims to have created it sues you, please let me know. My frozen head will have been stored in a cryogenic tube alongside Walt Disney's for 200 years by then.
People can make whatever claims they want: unless they are legally enforcable, they are to be ignored.
Finally, Craig: calm down!
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

John LeBlanc
Posts: 903
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby John LeBlanc » February 8th, 2003, 8:00 am

The history of published magic, so far as I have witnessed, gives implicit performance permission to published trick methods.

Now, if a performer states he does not wish to relinquish the performance rights of a piece he is publishing, I believe I should honor that request. Like the entire issue with piracy, this is -- for me -- not a legal issue, but rather one of ethics.

How is it so many of us can be black-and-white clear on piracy, but discussions of performance of published material descends the murky waters of "it depends" or, worse, "legalities"?

John LeBlanc
Houston, TX

David Alexander
Posts: 1549
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Aurora IL

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby David Alexander » February 8th, 2003, 11:32 am

I read the "agreement" one must sign to LEASE, not buy, the Fitch Kolher Holdout. I found it amusing. The whole thing smacks of hype and clever marketing, all towards supporting the mystique of an over-priced toy for magicians. Doubtless there will be a few people who will spring for it, if only for bragging rights that they have something the other club guys don't have. (Gee, sorry, but I can't show it to you, I'm legally bound.")

I've seen this happen before. Some years ago a well-known performer called me, offering something he said would be produced in extremely limited numbers. It would be around $300 and only a few would be made...perhaps 20 or so as his craftsman was complaining it was "hard to make." I asked questions which were only vaguely answered, requested a video tape (which never came) and without further information, I let the matter drop.

Six or eight weeks later I received an advert from a dealer, offering the same thing at the same price the performer had offered me. A few weeks beyond that I called the performer, who had forgotten what he'd first told me. He bragged that the dealer had sold 50 right away and had standing orders for 30 more. He expected to sell 150 or so.

I got curious and made exactly two phone calls, found someone who'd bought it, someone I didn't know, and had a complete stranger give me all details on the item over the phone. I quickly determined that the cleverest thing about the item was the dealer's description...certainly not the first time that's happened in magic.

That said, it is only a matter of time before the design of the FK Holdout circulates since magicians, like other humans, just can't control themselves. They can keep a secret...it's just the two or three people they tell who can't. ;)

Aside from the fact that you cannot own the item in spite of paying a huge price for it, the insane cost of litigation renders the lease agreement moot. That, plus the need for solid evidence that the lease has been breached before a suit can be brought. Then there's the determination of damages. There is never a guarantee that plaintiffs will prevail in a full jury trial, and even then, with a judgment, there's no guarantee of collecting.

And who, in their right mind, pays a huge fee and willingly places themselves in a position to be sued for years to come?

Tannen has been selling a serviceable gravity holdout for years and Marcello Contento in Argentina has an "improved" model of the Jack Miller design that he sells for around $50.

In the end, it's a weight with various attachments on it that can be moved up and down inside your jacket sleeve. It can be a positive aid if the performer is willing to spend the time learning how to use the device (no small feat in itself), but at $1,800 the Fitch Kohler model is 36 times more expensive that Contento's without evidence that it is 36 times "better."

It will be interesting to see how quickly this is knocked off and available in a cheaper form.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27054
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Richard Kaufman » February 8th, 2003, 11:42 am

David, Marcelo Contento is from Massachusetts! BUT, there is someone from South America selling a holdout--I saw it on Joe Stevens' table at the Colubus Magi-Fest.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

David Alexander
Posts: 1549
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Aurora IL

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby David Alexander » February 8th, 2003, 11:47 am

Craig Browning wrote:
"For that matter, Owens is the only source with the legal rights to the Thin Model Sawing."

As I understand it, the Thin Model Sawing was developed in Turkey by Zati Zungar, a Turkish magician and govt official. There is an article on him in an old Genii that has at least one small picture of him performing the trick back in the mid to late 50s.

Zungar gave drawings and/or pics to Bob Fenton or Bob Towner (I can't recall which...but I think Towner) who brought them back to the US and gave them to John Daniel, Kirk Kirkham, and a third party I cannot immediately recall.

John was the first to build the prop, debuting it at the PCAM Convention at the Disneyland Hotel in 1958 or thereabouts. I was in the audience and the effect was electrifying.

John had added the Queen Anne legs that Zungar's model lacked, as well as several other design features. It was a gorgeous prop as well as a fantastic effect.

Later, Kirkham and a friend built one that worked a bit differently, but still on the Zungar design, keeping Daniel's addition of Queen Anne legs.

While Owen is able to sell their own design, improved over the years, the idea was given to several people who developed their own interpretations of Zungar's original idea.

Guest

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Guest » February 8th, 2003, 1:21 pm

Im not one to spread rumors but my sources tell me that new prisons are being built to hold magicians for violations of lease agreements and performing magic from a magic book without written permission.

My understanding is the Talk To The Dead people will be exempt from these new laws because they have received permission from past inventors.

It has not yet been determined exactly what to do with the escape artists.

Many professional magicians have openly stated that three meals a day will be better than one.

From what I hear serious offenders will be forced to watch masked magician reruns.

I suspect teaching other inmates the pass will earn you three cigs.

When you get here look me up, Im in cell block c for removing one of those little Do Not Remove tags from a pillow.

Tom Boleware

PS. You have my permission to read the above post.

Guest

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Guest » February 8th, 2003, 2:00 pm

David Alexander... you are right and shame on me, I forgot about the Turkey connection ( :o ) what makes this worse is I was Kirkham's right hand for quite a few years... that's where I got the story (a few dozen times) about him, John Daniel, etc. working on the 1st American version with Tijani and Jim Sommers... Sommers & Chuck built the thinner (and in my opinion "better") breakdown version over a nine month period after that... I'm not positive who did what where however but my mistake in crediting Owens was due to Carl's involvement.

Tom... you are really a sick puppy. However, I did call John Edward and he spoke to Sielbit for me... ;)

Richard... I'm slowly composing myself (and learning to laugh heartedly inside, at the fools who will undoubtedly volunteer to be raped, for reasons explained above.)

I really need to come up with my version of an Everylasting-gob-stopper to "Lease" to my fellow mage...

Guest

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Guest » February 8th, 2003, 2:56 pm

Wait, so you're telling me that if a creator wants to take assertive action towards making sure that his invention (that he and his co-creators have spent over ten years refining and perfecting) doesn't get ripped off, and isn't exposed or overexposed, suddenly he's being greedy? Maybe he just wants to actually do something about the common proclivity in the magic "world" to rip off anything and everything that's released, instead of just sitting at home bitching and moaning about it. And for that, I commend Bob.

How anybody who's had a creation or two or ten ripped off (and I know you've had at least a couple, Craig) can have a problem with Bob taking steps to make sure it doesn't happen to him, I don't understand.

opie
Posts: 501
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 10:43 am
Location: austin tx

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby opie » February 8th, 2003, 3:01 pm

Imagine that! A mentalist forgetting a Turkey connection....tsk tsk....opie

Guest

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Guest » February 8th, 2003, 3:15 pm

Another point I'd forgotten to bring up. If Bob were being greedy, doesn't it seem a bit counter-productive to put such a restrictive agreement on the effect that, combined with the high price, the vast majority of people who are just curious won't even consider buying it? If he were being greedy, he'd sell it without the restrictive agreement (a huge turnoff for the mere curious) and at a lower price, to encourage more sales. Doing something that will discourage casual sales seems a pretty backwards way to be greedy.

Steve V
Posts: 642
Joined: January 20th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Silver Springs, NV
Contact:

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Steve V » February 8th, 2003, 4:30 pm

I believe Kohler is trying to maintain the integrity of his hold out and he doesn't restrict the resale beyond the buyer agreeing to maintain the secret etc..

I read the thread concerning performance rights and Tom Cutts comments. I think he's being taken out of context. The way I read it the 'presentation', as in scripting or patter, is what he is talking about not the effect. If you see an effect done you can reproduce the effect if you want w/out a problem other than personal from the person you took it from. The presentation is another story. First off, a professional should not be doing the same presentation as another magician. To do so is no more proper that taking another persons play, presenting in with the same script, and claiming you can do so because it was done publicly and is fair game. I took Tom's statement about going through him to contact the creators to be pretty decent. For example, if you read a presentation by Wesley James and want to do it the same way Wesley does or did then as a courtesy you should contact Wesley and attempt to receive his permission to do so. If you cannot make that effort or Wes doesn't want you to do so then create your own presentation.

I may be wrong but it looks like Tom was getting a raw deal on what he said and that he's mearly showing respect to the creators of the presentations he publishes. For those thinking the publication of the presentation means it's okay to do it that is true in most cases. In others the presentation is given as an example of how an effect can be presented.
Steve V
Steve V

Bob Coyne
Posts: 717
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Charlies [sic]
Location: New York, NY

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Bob Coyne » February 8th, 2003, 5:02 pm

David, Marcelo Contento is from Massachusetts! BUT, there is someone from South America selling a holdout--I saw it on Joe Stevens' table at the Colubus Magi-Fest.
It's probably Michel Clavello, from Argentina I think. He gave a lecture at Michael Canick's shop in New York last year featuring the gravity holdout.

http://www.canick.com/michel.html

Guest

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Guest » February 8th, 2003, 5:17 pm

Originally posted by David Alexander:
I read the "agreement" one must sign to LEASE, not buy, the Fitch Kolher Holdout. I found it amusing. The whole thing smacks of hype and clever marketing, all towards supporting the mystique of an over-priced toy for magicians. Doubtless there will be a few people who will spring for it, if only for bragging rights that they have something the other club guys don't have. (Gee, sorry, but I can't show it to you, I'm legally bound.")

[...]
That said, it is only a matter of time before the design of the FK Holdout circulates since magicians, [...]
[...]

It will be interesting to see how quickly this is knocked off and available in a cheaper form.
It's always fun to be present at the birth of a new level of ignorance. Here's a few FACTS for you:

Currently, the initial run of 50 Fitch/Kohler holdouts sets - which I am personally building - is sold out. The second run is filling up fast and will soon be sold out as well. I have not yet committed to delivery dates for a third run.

At the LVMI in Las Vegas, Bobs Fitch and Kohler and myself allowed small groups of insiders (about 50 guys total over 3 days) to come to Kohler's room and examine the system. These magicians signed confidentiality agreements and were then shown virtually EVERYTHING about the system. I mean every part and piece, how they worked, etc. They were allowed to handle all the components and they were shown every step in adjusting and using the set. After that they were entertained with some simple demonstrations by none other than Mr. Kohler himself. Nothing is more rewarding than to hear a hotel room full of knowledgeable magicians gasp...

Of those 50 or so previewers the order rate is currently just under 70%!

The infamous lease is not the only thing protecting the Fitch/Kohler Professional Holdout System. Most of the components are new and have never been used in magic before; many are distinct inventions and ALL are being protected through the U.S. Patent process, as well as several other I.P. security methods available to those serious about protecting their intellectual property.

Finally, all of the customers that I have spoken with intend to keep their holdout ownership a secret. So even though you think you have all the answers, it is FAR more likely that magicians YOU know will be fooling you badly in the near future.

Enjoy.

Regards,
Thomas Wayne

Guest

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Guest » February 8th, 2003, 5:39 pm

As to the Kohler thing, I think it's a good thing thing that you are contractually obligated to keep the working secret. Secret, or what we used to call "tight", doesn't seem to mean much anymore. That really, really is too bad. However, and it's a big however, the idea of limiting the venues in which you can perform something you've paid hard cash for (i.e., no national television -- I mean, come on, isn't that what most magicians are trying to get?) is B.S. Big, big, B.S.

If I pay 2,000 bucks for something, well, I don't know about you, but in my book, I own it. Period. And I ought to be able to use it in any show I get. That's why I'll never buy one of these things from him. As Ricky Ricardo used to say to Lucy, "It's Just Tooo Ridiculous!"

As far as publishing goes, though, if I publish a trick, I'm voluntarily giving it up to be performed. I'd rather have people use what I've published to inform their own work, (i.e., put the techniques and/or principles/approaches to good use in original effects of their own, that's the real point of publishing) but I really can't complain (and don't) if they use them as written. When I was starting out, I did plenty of tricks verbatim. The idea is to move on from that to the next level, i.e., your own stuff.

But I do object to identity theft. Many years ago, a well known coin man (Gallo, Kaufman and Swiss will know who I mean) appropriated not only moves and approaches, but my entire performing persona. I mean the guy started dressing like me, acting like me, started smoking cigarettes, etc. It was ridiculous. The pisser is, it seems to have worked for him. Go figure.

J. P. Donleavy once said "Virtue is doing the right thing, in the face of many shoddy and juicy alternatives." Unfortunately, many people seem to believe that virtue is its own reward. I.e., that's all you get.

Arrgh.

Best,

Geoff

Guest

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Guest » February 8th, 2003, 7:06 pm

Originally posted by Steve V:
I believe Kohler is trying to maintain the integrity of his hold out and he doesn't restrict the resale beyond the buyer agreeing to maintain the secret etc..
Incorrect. You are not purchasing the holdout, you are essentially leasing it indefinitely. As such, as was reported in the MAGIC article, which featured an FAQ on the license agreement, you cannot sell it, give it, loan it, or otherwise transfer possession of it, temporarily or permanently, without explicit written permission. If you pass away, your family has the option to return it, or to request permission to sell/transfer it.

I don't have the URL offhand, but the entire agreement is online at Kohler's site, and you can check it out for all the details.

Steve V
Posts: 642
Joined: January 20th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Silver Springs, NV
Contact:

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Steve V » February 8th, 2003, 8:09 pm

Andy, go read what I said and what it states at Kohlers site. You can sell (transfer the lease) as long as the buyer agrees to the original lease agreement and you can sell it for what ever the market will allow. My statement was that you can sell it as long as the buyer agrees to the terms, which is true. I didn't go into all the verbage but the idea is correct.
Steve V
Steve V

Chris Aguilar
Posts: 2012
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Sacramento
Contact:

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Chris Aguilar » February 8th, 2003, 8:38 pm

Originally posted by Steve V:
My statement was that you can sell it as long as the buyer agrees to the terms, which is true. I didn't go into all the verbage but the idea is correct.
Steve V
Very True.

Here's a snippet with the exact verbiage for those interested.

Yes, you can sell (assign) your license to another magician (but magicians only) pursuant to certain conditions and with our approval. You can charge whatever the market will bear, but you MUST get the new magician licensee to sign an assignment and release agreement (available from us) and send us a notarized copy before releasing The Fitch Kohler Professional Holdout System to him/her. Its important for you to know that the original licensee (you) is still bound by the confidentiality agreement.

The Fitch-Kohler Professional Holdout System is a valuable commodity that you have paid for. Even though its a lease you own, it has value just like a common stock. You can even put it in your will or trust.

User avatar
Pete Biro
Posts: 7124
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Hollyweird
Contact:

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Pete Biro » February 8th, 2003, 9:43 pm

Look at tall the people that signed an agreement with Robert Harbin when he published his book, and look how many ripped off material from the book! Pathetic. :mad:
Stay tooned.

Guest

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Guest » February 8th, 2003, 11:06 pm

Steve and Wert, look at what it says in the part of the agreement Wert quoted above, as I've highlighted below:

Yes, you can sell (assign) your license to another magician (but magicians only) pursuant to certain conditions and with our approval.
As I said, you cannot transfer it or sell it only if the buyer agrees to the contract; you must have Kohler, etc.'s approval for the assignation (to use their term for it).

--A

Chris Aguilar
Posts: 2012
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Sacramento
Contact:

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Chris Aguilar » February 8th, 2003, 11:10 pm

Originally posted by Andy Leviss:
[QB]Steve and Wert, look at what it says in the part of the agreement Wert quoted above, as I've highlighted below:
Yes, you and Steve are essentially in agreement.

That's why I posted the exact verbiage from the contract.

Guest

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Guest » February 8th, 2003, 11:15 pm

Not quite. Just because the buyer is willing to sign the agreement doesn't mean that Kohler and Co. will agree to allow the transfer; Steve seems to clearly be saying that as long as the buyer is willing to sign it, they can buy it.

To quote from the FAQ printed in the MAGIC article, as written by Kohler's lawyer/partner Jeffrey Cowan:

The license is a binding contract and contains no right of assignment. On a case by case basis, we would consider requests to assign the license to someone else, but--as the agreement says--there's no guarantee we will do this.
Other details of the agreement are explained in that FAQ sidebar as well, including further details on the term of the license and what happens to it after the purchaser passes away. Check out the magazine for details, along with lots of other interesting info about both the holdout and Kohler in general (after reading the latest Genii, of course!).

Steve V
Posts: 642
Joined: January 20th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Silver Springs, NV
Contact:

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Steve V » February 8th, 2003, 11:18 pm

Don't go to the effort for me....I'm not buying one so I shant be selling one.
Steve V
Steve V

Chris Aguilar
Posts: 2012
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Sacramento
Contact:

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Chris Aguilar » February 9th, 2003, 1:11 am

Originally posted by Andy Leviss:
Check out the magazine for details, along with lots of other interesting info about both the holdout and Kohler in general (after reading the latest Genii, of course!).
Hey, here's an idea.

Rather than picking nits over interpetation of the contract, why not let everyone read it in it's entirety (and from it's primary source) and decide for themselves?

It's written in pretty clear language can be found at the following URL.

http://www.bobkohlermagic.com/products/holdout.html

And the confidentiality agreement is linked from here.

http://www.bobkohlermagic.com/products/ ... ement.html

Directly from Kohlers site. No interpetation needed. :)

Guest

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Guest » February 9th, 2003, 4:30 am

Well, that's a good start, but presumably there are questions that are left unclear by the agreement--that was the point of the FAQ in the MAGIC article. After reading the agreement, the gang at MAGIC had some questions that they still weren't clear on, so they asked Kohler, and they got the answers straight from the lawyer who wrote the agreement.

That's why I posted that clarification, written in "everyday language" as opposed to legalese, excerpted from the article.

But yes, it's important to read the agreement itself, rather than just relying on excerpts and summaries here.

Guest

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Guest » February 9th, 2003, 9:29 am

Originally posted by Steve V:
Andy, go read what I said and what it states at Kohlers site. You can sell (transfer the lease) as long as the buyer agrees to the original lease agreement and you can sell it for what ever the market will allow. My statement was that you can sell it as long as the buyer agrees to the terms, which is true. I didn't go into all the verbage but the idea is correct.
Steve V
Steve (and others) THANK YOU!

You have cleared up what was being misrepresented (?) in other debates on this issue elsewhere and what sparked my hot Irish blood into rampage around this issue.

It was presented to me in a PM two day or so ago, that you had to return the Hold Out to the originator and not get a single dime back, but he/they had the right to recondition it and resell it at the original or greater price... you, the original buyer, were SOL for your time and investment around said item e.g. Bob & Co. got to see income from the items time and again because you were obligated to send them back when you were through using them. I'm certain most agree that's pure B.S.!

Reselling an item that is somewhat "exclusive" under the same conditions as the orignal release, I have no problems with. But, based on Tom Wayne's statement above, that sense of "exclusivity" seems to be rather fleeting, given the anticipation of product sale (which tends to support my original statements on Greed... I believe something along that note was mentioned earlier on another product that was supposed to be of limited release.)

I have no problems we protecting secrets as well as "advantage" when it comes to certain technologies. I don't think promoting the thing via a widely distributed source sustains the exclusivity concept -- a direct mail "invitation" would probably prove better and has worked on other key items, like the Medium's chairs sold by Ronn Brashear.

Let's just say I'm willing to let the jury look at this issue a bit longer... I'm not as "against" the concept as I was originally. But I still believe it smells a bit.

Guest

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Guest » February 9th, 2003, 1:12 pm

Originally posted by Craig Browning:
[...] But, based on Tom Wayne's statement above, that sense of "exclusivity" seems to be rather fleeting, given the anticipation of product sale [...][/QB]
Don't worry Craig, we anticiapte selling perhaps 150 - 200 units at the most. Given that there are thousands upon tens of thousands of magicians in the world the chances are good you'll only be constantly fooled by one or two guys that you know.

Regards,
Thomas Wayne

Guest

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Guest » February 9th, 2003, 1:25 pm

Originally posted by Thomas Wayne:
Originally posted by Craig Browning:
[...] But, based on Tom Wayne's statement above, that sense of "exclusivity" seems to be rather fleeting, given the anticipation of product sale [...]
Don't worry Craig, we anticiapte selling perhaps 150 - 200 units at the most. Given that there are thousands upon tens of thousands of magicians in the world the chances are good you'll only be constantly fooled by one or two guys that you know.

Regards,
Thomas Wayne[/QB]
There was a time when only one or two of the guys I knew could fool me... now days, as my last five brain cells burn out, it's so much easier... but that's what happens when you raise kids instead of trying to salvage a career...

Long ago I drove poor Ed Marlo nuts doing a six card repeat. He knew I didn't do slights worth a darn but this was so clean and beautiful... it was also $2,000.00 version of the trick e.g. two Keplinger Holdouts :D

I've got to be careful now or I'll be tempted... I'm a mentalist, I don't need such a device... I really don't need this device... :rolleyes:

User avatar
Brad Jeffers
Posts: 1221
Joined: April 11th, 2008, 5:52 pm
Location: Savannah, GA

Re: Copyright Extended to Performance

Postby Brad Jeffers » February 9th, 2003, 1:26 pm

I have fond memories of my third grade teacher reading stories aloud to the class. Thinking back on it now, I realise that she was reading from the published works of others - and verbatium, no less! She added not one original word of her own to the presentation! And I am begining to suspect that she did not have written permission from the actual creators of these stories. I now wonder ... have any third grade teachers ever been sued for such behavior. I'll leave it up to the lawyer that Richard hires to write the article on copyright laws, to answer that question.


Return to “General”