Ed Marlo and copyright

[Richard Kaufman]

Thanks, Peter, that was interesting.

[Tom Stone]

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.

[Tom Stone]

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.

[Jonathan Townsend]

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. ;)

[Pete McCabe]

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.

[David Alexander]

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.

[Tom Stone]

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.

[Tom Stone]

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.

[David Alexander]

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.

[Ted M]

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.

[Ted M]

The idea of copyright was so that the creator could benefit from his creation.

It may be helpful to remember to distinguish the goal of copyright and the method employed to achieve that goal.

US Constitution Article I, Section 8: "Congress shall have power [...] To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"

Goal: Promote the progress of science and useful arts

Method: Give authors and inventors exclusive rights to their creations for a limited time (after which they enrich society as a whole)

Copyright benefits individuals along the way, but its goal is to benefit society.

[David Alexander]

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.

Ted,
Nice illustration and point taken on your second post.

[Tom Stone]

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.

And you are wrong!

Try to understand that the thing you call "effect" or "plot of an effect" does not exist on its own in a specific piece of work. It is always intimately intertwined with some kind of handling or choreography. They always go together, so closely that it is pointless to separate them into abstract entities like "effect" and "method" - except when discussing what part of the work you want an audience to percieve in a performance.

But we are not discussing performance related things. The topic is copyright on specific and realised works.

Since there is a synergy between the drama and the choreography, you can not change a significant part of the latter without simultaneously changing the former. And vice-versa. And if that doesn't happen, then you've likely made a copyright infringement.

[Tom Stone]

Tom,

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

Why should I? It does not become a tangible and realised piece of work until I have both in a tidy little package.

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?

If you mean Tommy Down's "Miser's Dream", so yes.
Or if you mean the Fitzkee'd abstraction of causing money to appear from the air, so no.

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 use the abstract idea of a woman compressed in an incongruously small cube. Fitzkee would claim it was the identical effect - I would not.

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 things I'd "like to see change" has already changed. Over here, a long time ago, and in the U.S quite recently. It's just a matter of solidifying the changes, and making people aware of it.

[Tom Stone]

It may be helpful to remember to distinguish the goal of copyright and the method employed to achieve that goal.

US Constitution Article I, Section 8: "Congress shall have power [...] To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"

First of all, magic is neither science nor "useful art". The latter, according to the sources I've found, does not refer to artistic endeavors, but rather to the work of artisans, people skilled in a manufacturing craft.
Second, that paper was written in 1787 and hardly relevant to my artistic work, on the other side of the world, 200+ years later. It's an old local national paper without any international value.
On the other hand - U.S. signed the "Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works" just 20 years ago (1989). Which is an international treaty on copyright. U.S. also signed on for the "Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)" in 1995, and the "World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (WIPO)" in 2002. All of which involves pretty huge and recent changes to U.S. copyright - and while some areas still are in flux, it is pretty clear that there is a movement towards being in compliance with the Berne treaty.

[Jonathan Townsend]

The still life analogy with painters is amusing. Folks like to forget that sombody has to get the table, bowl, acquire and then put the fruit into it and put that on the table etc in the first place. Next thing they know they are working at their easle when a flock of 'artists' decide to set up their easles, paint the same subject and get rightous about it, crowding eachother and claiming 'credit' for using five brushes and paint made by the latest chemical process.

There are academic and engineering traditions to follow for proffering improvements in craftsmanship.

Mona Lisa in Prada wearing mirrorshades.

[David Alexander]

Tom,

You refuse to understand and admit that Effect and Method are two separate things, only seeing them as "one tidy package."

That you can have one Effect that which looks much, if not completely, the same to a lay audience, while having many different methods for accomplishing the desired Effect. One is protectable and the other isnt at least the way the law is today. Apparently you would have that changed.

Since you claim that synergy between Effect and Method is vital I would point out that Method is secret and unseen by the audience. Let me describe a hypothetical for you as Im interested in your response.

Assume for a moment that Magician A performs an Effect that Magician B likes. Magician A is not selling his Effect and keeps the workings deeply secret. The method to Magician As Effect is unpublished and unknown to anyone but Magician A.

Magician B sits down and figures out how to perform most, if not all of Magician As Effect. He has no idea how Magician A accomplishes his Effect but he comes up with a good method that works for him. Magician B performs it and audiences think they are much the same Effectif any of them care.

Under what I understand your position to be, Magician A can claim that he owns the Effect which is synergistically tied to the Method. Magician B is using his own unique method, developed by him to accomplish said Effect. You would, as I understand it, claim that Magician B infringed on Magician As intellectual property because the Effect is the same. Magician A can only guess at how Magician B accomplishes the Effect because he has no direct knowledge of how B works his magic. A, like B, can only guess.

Under what you want does A have the right to make B disclose his method in open court to press his case of infringement?

[Dustin Stinett]

And wouldn't 'A' have to disclose his method to prove to the court that the method 'B' uses is actually the same?

[Joe Pecore]

Assume for a moment that Magician A performs an Effect that Magician B likes. Magician A is not selling his Effect and keeps the workings deeply secret. The method to Magician As Effect is unpublished and unknown to anyone but Magician A.

Magician A would have to write this up somehow so that it is in "fixed form", else there is nothing to copyright.

[Joe Pecore]

Assume for a moment that Magician A performs an Effect that Magician B likes. Magician A is not selling his Effect and keeps the workings deeply secret. The method to Magician As Effect is unpublished and unknown to anyone but Magician A.

Magician A would have to write this up somehow so that it is in "fixed form", else there is nothing to copyright.

I would assume that a video of the performance would be copyrighted, but that would seem to only include the effect (not the method).

[Tom Stone]

Tom,

You refuse to understand and admit that Effect and Method are two separate things, only seeing them as "one tidy package."

That separation is just a mental abstraction. The reality is that you can not have one part without the other. There is no realised piece of work that only have the "effect" but not the "method". Or just the "method" but no "effect".

That you can have one Effect that which looks much, if not completely, the same to a lay audience

Why would anyone bring in an uninformed layman into a copyright dispute? That would not happen within any other artistic field.

Let me describe a hypothetical for you as Im interested in your response.

Assume for a moment that Magician A performs an Effect that Magician B likes. Magician A is not selling his Effect and keeps the workings deeply secret. The method to Magician As Effect is unpublished and unknown to anyone but Magician A.

Magician B sits down and figures out how to perform most, if not all of Magician As Effect. He has no idea how Magician A accomplishes his Effect but he comes up with a good method that works for him. Magician B performs it and audiences think they are much the same Effectif any of them care.

Under what I understand your position to be, Magician A can claim that he owns the Effect which is synergistically tied to the Method. Magician B is using his own unique method, developed by him to accomplish said Effect. You would, as I understand it, claim that Magician B infringed on Magician As intellectual property because the Effect is the same. Magician A can only guess at how Magician B accomplishes the Effect because he has no direct knowledge of how B works his magic. A, like B, can only guess.

Under what you want does A have the right to make B disclose his method in open court to press his case of infringement?

First - since B obviously has admitted that he derived his piece from A, A would be in a strong position.
Second - If observers with a good knowledge of the field can't find any significant differences when viewing the two pieces, then it is a reasonable assumption that B's piece is a copyright infringement.

I'm discounting your hypothethical notion that the "effect" would be identical, when the "method" is different, because that is not very likely. A know his piece inside and out - and if he were clueless after watching a performance by B, then there would be, by necessity, a significant difference in the "effect", caused by the change of "method".

[David Alexander]

You support your conclusion to the hypothetical by changing the conditions based on your idea of Method affecting Effect. I'm discounting your hypothetical notion that the "effect" would be identical, when the 'method' is different, because that is not very likely. A know his piece inside and out - and if he were clueless after watching a performance by B, then there would be, by necessity, a significant difference in the 'effect', caused by the change of 'method'."

I did not say that A would be clueless only that he would be in the same position that B was in when he saw As performance: he would be guessing at the method. He might guess accurately and he might not..the point being that he would not "know" with certainty. Youve already put words in Dariel Fitzkees mouth. Please refrain from doing that to me.

There are plenty of effects in magic that use different methods to attain the same effect, something that your theory refuses to accept. The Open Prediction being one which started off as the Curry Card Problem a suggested Effect without a proffered solution.

Stewart James came along and created a number of methods calling the trick 51 Faces North. Karl Fulves published a small book with his take. Jon Rocherbaumer had an idea for the Effect and published it.

Before I read any of the solutions I had my own method which I believe to be original and unique to me. A friend of mine has his own method, also original and unique, which like mine fulfills all the requirements of the effect as described by Curry and James. Two different methods, exactly the same effect as perceived by the audiencemagicians or lay audiences.

We could also go into Curry's "Out of this World" for same or similar effect with a variety of methods. In your world, how different does it have to be to be a "different" Effect?

Further, magic websites occasionally have posts calling attention to odd little products that produce strange effects suggesting that there may be a trick in this which clever people follow up onmethods in search of an Effect.

In a court what you would be presenting would be an Argument from Authorityit is so because Tom Stone says its so with reagard to the Effect. The defendant would supply just as many authorities to counter your opinion. The jury, as the finders of fact, would determine whose opinion held the most weight.

[Pete McCabe]

There are plenty of effects in magic that use different methods to attain the same effect, something that your theory refuses to accept. The Open Prediction being one which started off as the Curry Card Problem a suggested Effect without a proffered solution.

Stewart James came along and created a number of methods calling the trick 51 Faces North.

James' "51 Faces North" does not produce the same effect as suggested by Paul Curry. Stewart's method changes the handling, the routining, and the resulting effect.

I hate to interrupt this thread, but I believe this one point illustrates what Tom Stone is arguing. When you change the method you change what the spectator sees. Thisthe actual specific thing the spectator seesis the thing you can copyright.

We tend to think of effects as being general, because we are familiar with many variations of them. But audiences think of your performance as a series of specifics. It's specific things that you can copyright.

[David Alexander]

I thought James expanded on the Curry idea making it workable. Isn't what James came up with derrivative from Curry's original idea?

[Tom Stone]

You support your conclusion to the hypothetical by changing the conditions based on your idea of Method affecting Effect.

...seemed to be fitting, since the hypothesis was based on your notion that "effect" and "method" are separate entities that are unrelated to each other.

There are plenty of effects in magic that use different methods to attain the same effect, something that your theory refuses to accept. The Open Prediction being one which started off as the Curry Card Problem a suggested Effect without a proffered solution.
(snip)
Before I read any of the solutions I had my own method which I believe to be original and unique to me. A friend of mine has his own method, also original and unique, which like mine fulfills all the requirements of the effect as described by Curry and James. Two different methods, exactly the same effect as perceived by the audiencemagicians or lay audiences.

I've got 8-9 different solutions to Curry's problem. Haven't made any research, so I can't say whether my solutions are unique or not - but so far, I have not seen anyone else having the same solutions.
If anyone would perform one of "my" solutions for me, I would most definitely recognize it, without asking for details of the handling, because each version have strenghts and weaknesses in different places that affect the presentation.
Still, I don't consider any of my solutions to merit publication under my name, because they do not represent a significant difference from any other version. At most, I might use them as fodder in a brainstorming session...

We could also go into Curry's "Out of this World" for same or similar effect with a variety of methods. In your world, how different does it have to be to be a "different" Effect?

John Kennedy's "Red and Black Trick" (from an issue of Genii), is a separate work in it's own right. As is Harry Lorayne's "Out of this Universe".

Then there are plenty of performing treatments of Paul Curry's piece of work, where the specific treatment might have a copyright that only extend to the treatment, but does not encompass the original work. Michael Weber has a couple of unique treatments of that kind.

In a court what you would be presenting would be an Argument from Authorityit is so because Tom Stone says its so with reagard to the Effect. The defendant would supply just as many authorities to counter your opinion. The jury, as the finders of fact, would determine whose opinion held the most weight.

Obviously, I would not rely on my word alone, if I brought an infringement to court. I would present the historical lineage of the piece, detailing all predecessors. Notebooks, drawings, photos and 3D-renderings from the evolution of the piece. Email correspondance. Documentation showing I have explicit written permission from other creators, in those cases where I've made derivative work from material not in Public Domain.
I would be well shod.

[Richard Kaufman]

You would also find that the judge would dismiss the case almost immediately, at least in the United States.

[Dustin Stinett]

The legal stuff aside, Im having a hard time wrapping my brain around the notion that an effect with a different method looks different.

Oil and Water is just one example where the overt handlingand therefore the effectcan be absolutely identical while the method is different.

There are numerous ace assemblies with the same procedural appearance and effect but the method differsin some cases radically so.

Bringing a loop of rope up to the fingertips to cut the rope in half appears the same, but there are different covert finger actionsthe methodto accomplish the effect.

Moreover, we all know (at least we should know), that while the effect might appear procedurally different in its minute details, the overall effect on the observer is identical.

Its like the story of Marlo doing a bunch of card tricks for a layman friend of a friend (Im paraphrasing): Afterward, the layman says to his friend, Hes really good; but why does he do the same trick over and over?

Dustin

[Tom Stone]

You would also find that the judge would dismiss the case almost immediately, at least in the United States.

How strange.
Is it common that copyright cases in general are dismissed?

[Dustin Stinett]

Heres a little curve ball for the discussion. In a DVD that I have reviewed (in an upcoming issue of Genii), the creator does a simple Marlo spectator cuts the aces procedureexactly as described in printbut creates a different effect because hes using a Lexicon (alphabet) deck. The effect is not new, and even his method has been explored in the past but (perhaps) not this exact use of methodology. But that being said, the procedure and therefore effectwhether its a Stewart James method, an Annemann method, or a Max Maven methodappear identical.

Since the effect Im talking about was popularized by Stewart James (though he never insisted that he created it), are Annemann, P.H. Lyons, Maven, and everyone else who has explored this effect in print guilty of something?

[Tom Stone]

There are numerous ace assemblies with the same procedural appearance and effect but the method differsin some cases radically so.

As an experiment, you can try to separate all Ace Assemblies you know into groups - where each group have versions with no discernable difference to an informed observer.

[Dustin Stinett]

With the utmost of respect; why would I use my time for such an exercise?

[Tom Stone]

With the utmost of respect; why would I use my time for such an exercise?

For no specific reason. Curiosity... exploration.. I don't know.

[David Alexander]

You would also find that the judge would dismiss the case almost immediately, at least in the United States.

How strange.
Is it common that copyright cases in general are dismissed?

No, just the silly ones without merit.

[Jonathan Townsend]

...
As an experiment, you can try to separate all Ace Assemblies you know into groups - where each group have versions with no discernable difference to an informed observer.

You want to divide the Power of Faith into denominations? ;)

And just what constitutes an informed observer? One who knows about some sleights or some gaffs? One that is attentive to what they see and not going to forgive tells as they watch and think about what you might be doing? One who knows the moves you should be using and at least ten better methods to get the effect done?

[Tom Stone]

You would also find that the judge would dismiss the case almost immediately, at least in the United States.

How strange.
Is it common that copyright cases in general are dismissed?

No, just the silly ones without merit.

Oh.. So it was an insult.

[Brad Henderson]

As an example of the identical effect with a new method:

Years ago I gutted Hamman"s Marx Brothers. All of the switches and displays were replaced except for one.

The effect is identical to the original, yet all the moves have changed.

How would this fare in your interpretation of copyright law, tom? I don't think many magicians would notice the differences unless they have actually worked on the trick themselves. A layperson would probably chalk any differences, if noted at all, to nothing more than how I happened to show the cards at any moment.

Further, as the impact of art is conveyed through the symbolic structures manipulated - wouldn't changing the symbols transform the feelingful response communicated to the audience and there for make it a new 'piece?'

In some ways, this is fitzkeeing, but I'm not talking about changing objects for the sake of changing objects, but the intentional decision to take advantage of the symbolic power of an object and injecting said power into a preexisting work (of another).

For example: doing someone else's spellbound routine but changing razor blades into rose petals? Doing someone's cards across routine but with tarot cards or money? Doing the 'web' but with butterflies.

These tricks would 'feel' different to the on looker by virtue of the symbolism of the objects used, and as art conveys a feelingful reponse would it then stand to reason that they are now different works? Or no?

The feeling generated in an audience by seeing a spider on their hand is very different from seeing a butterfly. If the audience feels different, does that make it different - even if we know it's just a different toy with double stick tape on the back?

[Richard Kaufman]

Tom, you don't seem to understand that US law considers magic tricks essentially without merit. Going before a judge to have an argument over the theft of a magic trick would probably anger the judge, who would want to know why you are wasting the court's time with something so inconsequential. I don't care what the laws are in your country, in the US they have nothing to do with protecting magic tricks.

[David Alexander]

You would also find that the judge would dismiss the case almost immediately, at least in the United States.

How strange.
Is it common that copyright cases in general are dismissed?

No, just the silly ones without merit.

Oh.. So it was an insult.

No. Not an insult at all. It was an observation of reality.

Try Googling "copyright infringement" and see what pops up. It's quite interesting. Who wins and who loses and why they prevail or don't is good reading.

[Brad Henderson]

What about collage? (Used extensively by the surrealists)

If I take someone's painting, cut it up and rearrange the pieces into a different work of art, would that be considered copyright violation? What if I made copies of my own rendition, which in effect is copying pieces of someone else's. What if I cut up their original work? A copy of their work?

Are there any parallels to this and say rearranging the moves in a card or coin manipulation routine? What if the moves in the source routine were traditional and not original, does that matter? Vice versa?

I attended an exhibit of surrealist imagery at the Pompidou in Paris. One of the common techniques was using content taken from other sources. Are the rules different for magic?

[Bill Mullins]

Are the rules different for magic?

Yes.