Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Discuss the latest feature articles in Genii.
User avatar
Steve Bryant
Posts: 1947
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Ballantine
Location: Bloomington IN
Contact:

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Steve Bryant » March 1st, 2007, 4:09 pm

Threats of lawsuits can go both ways, as Chuck Leach found when he tried to bleed David Blaine over a similar sell-something-then-claim-rights issue. Geez. Hauntiques is a disappointment on so many levels, but mostly for lowering my opinion of someone I once held in esteem.

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Tom Stone » March 1st, 2007, 6:06 pm

David Alexander wrote:
Claim it long enough, and loud enough - and it will become the truth. That's all it takes.

Actually, no, not when you run into someone who wont be bullied or [censored].
Heh.. You suggest that it is wrong of an creator to decide how his work should be handled - and seem to say that his wishes are unimportant since he can't enforce them anyway - and you put yourself in the role of the bullied one? ;-)

Was the Copyright laws already set in stone since before the rise of mankind?
No - it is just a simple document that are changed and amended now and then, attempting to reflect the real world. Ink on paper, nothing more.

It came into being because some people claimed long enough and loud enough that it was needed.
And it has changed several times since it first was written.
Do you think that the addition of Choreographic Works in 78 was done out of pure human interest, and selfless devotion by the lawmakers? Not very likely.. I'm pretty sure that it was added because some people claimed that it was needed long enough and loud enough.

It doesn't matter how it is now, because the current state is wrong. In all fields it is taken for granted that a creator has the right to decide what to do with his creations - except within magic. And magic is neither included nor expressly excluded in any of the laws.. meaning that the laws are flawed, incomplete and will be adjusted eventually. Why should we treat a law that doesn't even admit our existence like it was complete?
Until then.. The choreography law is written loose, to allow experimental choreographies to be protected. Like, someone twiddling his thumbs for 5 minutes, and end with a burp.. Well, if that can be considered to be a choreography, I think it just as easily can be claimed that a magic performance piece is a choreography - just by naming it so.

And just like many times before - say it long enough and loud enough, and it will become the truth.

Guest

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Guest » March 1st, 2007, 6:22 pm

Tom,

You may read into my posts anything you want...erect any strawman argument you care to create, but when you post scans of checks that you've mailed to creators of routines that you've used in your performances, I'll think better of your sincerity.

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Tom Stone » March 1st, 2007, 6:33 pm

Bob Farmer wrote:
So, if I explain the Elmsley Count in one way and you explain it in another way, we both get copyright protection for the explanation, though not for the Count.
Well - is the Elmsley Count litterature?

For the discussion, let's assume that Elmsley Count had not been given to be shared freely.

The protection of a work can't be circumvented by transfering it from one media to another. A movie is photographic film, but filming the screen with a digital camera is rarely approved, even though it is a whole other technology. Can't transcribe the movie either, really.

The nature of Elmsley Count are choreographic. It's purpose is to be performed. Meaning that both descriptions, no matter the words used, are transgressions - if what they describe are the Elmsley Count.

Guest

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Guest » March 1st, 2007, 7:04 pm

I think Christian is trying to protect his presentations. Odd that this has degenerated into a discussion about moves...says a lot about us magicians don't it? :)

Although I feel that you have the right to protect your moves as well.

I should be able to protect the presentation. The SCRIPT, the words I use to communicate to my audience.

Mamet is protected. The Beatles are protected albeit Michael Jackson owns the rights to their music, but you get my point.

There are traditional chord progressions that musicians have found to be attractive to the human ear. I can write a song using a I IV V chord progression and NOT have to ask somebody's permission for it. But if I steal the words and melody to a song that has been recorded and copywritten I run into trouble.

I think of sleights in the same way I think of chords. Somebody had to create or discover the A Minor Chord. I did not. But I use it. I think of moves in the same way. But the script that I create and the presentation I dress those moves up in...those are MY melody and lyrics.

Just as a playwright may use the words in the english language (which he did most likely NOT invent) and arrange them into a play and just as a songwriter will combined notes to create a song, I use moves and effect to create a piece of magic. And just as those people have the right to copyright and get a fee paid to them if somebody else wants to use their material, so should I.

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Tom Stone » March 1st, 2007, 7:14 pm

David Alexander wrote:
Tom,
You may read into my posts anything you want...erect any strawman argument you care to create, but when you post scans of checks that you've mailed to creators of routines that you've used in your performances, I'll think better of your sincerity.
Sorry, since I'm not an english speaking person, I had to check the term "Strawman", as I was unfamiliar with it. Wikipedia says:
"set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.
Have I created and misattributed an easily refuted opinion to you? If so, it is by accident and not by design - perhaps I've misunderstood your words. Please quote the strawman argument you refer to.

I'm curious - you were informed that there were no additional pricetag:
I don't think it's going to cost you anything. It is my understanding that all Christian wants, is to be asked,
Still, in following posts, you are mentioning an non-existant fee which you argue against. Is this an example of a strawman argument?

I'm pretty sure that my repertoire during the last 16 years have not contained pieces used in ways contrary to their creators' wishes. I own the books the pieces are described in, and since no extra requirements are mentioned in them, I consider that the ownership also grants performance rights. I've followed Michael Weber's wishes in LifeSavers. The only thing I'm unsure about is Gary Oulette's "Human Galvanometer" from an issue of Genii. I've lost that issue during a move, but I still perform it - and I'm not sure that is correct.

Before 16 years ago, I'm not sure.. I know that I once used a Max Maven idea improperly, but I've talked with Max, and he's okey with it. Then, there's probably a lot from when I was a teenager, but I can unfortunately not track those items.

So, no, I have no checks that I can post, since it never has been required.. which according to your posting means that I'm insincere.. Is this also an example of a strawman argument, or is that called something else?

Guest

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Guest » March 1st, 2007, 7:50 pm

I'm supposed to respond to your questions but you do not respond to mine.

We'll go back to basics: where does Chelman establish a contract by the purchase of his book?

What benefit does the purchaser gain by asking permission or paying a fee for a license? What happens if Chelman says no?

I haven't see anyone address these questions as yet.

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Tom Stone » March 1st, 2007, 8:06 pm

David Alexander wrote:
We'll go back to basics: where does Chelman establish a contract by the purchase of his book?
I don't know if "contract" is the correct word. But the copyright page is where you usually find out what you are allowed to do with the contents. I guess you find it there, just like with Michael Weber's LifeSavers
What benefit does the purchaser gain by asking permission
Goodwill and the permission to use the material.
What happens if Chelman says no?
Then you haven't got the permission to use the material, except in informal performances. Seems pretty straightforward to me...

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

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby John LeBlanc » March 1st, 2007, 8:29 pm

Tom Stone writes:
I don't know if "contract" is the correct word. But the copyright page is where you usually find out what you are allowed to do with the contents. I guess you find it there, just like with Michael Weber's LifeSavers
Sorry, Tom. While the rights statement for Life Savers is printed inside, it is also printed in plain sight on the back cover.

I have to say, I've traded notes with Christian over a lot of years. Not to say I know him well, but this issue really ... I don't know, feels unsettling to me.

Any writer is within his rights to ask or demand anything he likes. But, readers (and buyers -- now and in the future) are also free to act and react accordingly. This issue is not likely to be forgotten when the next book is published.

I just don't get why these routines would be published to the magic community and, at the same time, have restrictions put on its contents (restrictions that are not revealed until after the buyer puts his money down) that go completely against virtually every other published work for our community since forever.

It seems to me to be unprecedented in the world of magic that Christian would classify as "stealing" should a magician perform in a paid performance a routine from a book the magician purchased legitimately.

This is all just unfortunate.

John

Guest

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Guest » March 1st, 2007, 8:31 pm

Yes, Tom, "contract" is the right word and one is NOT established by the simple purchase of the book. I did not agree to his "terms" and the book was sold to me anyway by a third party, or, perhaps it was given to me as a gift. Do you think I'm still bound by the terms of the book?

I don't need Chelman's permission to perform the material I bought in his book any more than I need Mike Weber's to perform the material in his book. I don't care what the book states. No contract means no contract, no matter what you would like to happen.

The argument is nonsense unless Weber and Chelman have sued in US courts to block performances of their published material without "permission."

Have any instances of that?

Absent case law or legal precedent, the entire argument is nonsense.

And to those who think this is a good way to control your material, think again. The only way to control original material is to keep magicians from seeing it. Putting it in a book and selling it on the open market is not the way to protect your material.

That seems pretty straightforward to me...

Guest

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Guest » March 1st, 2007, 8:32 pm

Tom Stone:
The nature of Elmsley Count are choreographic. It's purpose is to be performed. Meaning that both descriptions, no matter the words used, are transgressions - if what they describe are the Elmsley Count
It just doesn't make sense to use present-tense verbs like "are" in your description. What you said simply isn't true -- If I perform an Elmsley count, I am not violating Alex Elmsley's copyrights (or, strictly speaking, those of his estate).

You may wish it were so, and it might be to the benefit of all magicians if it were so, but it isn't so.

And while I agree that it is the nature of the Elmsley count to be performed, that doesn't make it choreographic. From the U.S. Copyright Office website:
Choreography and pantomimes are also copyrightable dramatic works. Choreography is the composition and arrangement of dance movements and patterns usually intended to be accompanied by music. As distinct from choreography, pantomime is the art of imitating or acting out situations, characters, or other events. To be protected by copyright, pantomimes and choreography need not tell a story or be presented before an audience. Each work, however, must be fixed in a tangible medium of expression from which the work can be performed. Note: Sports games and physical-fitness exercises are not considered choreographic works.
While the exact definition of choreographed works is not settled law, instructions for a magic trick don't sound very much like what is described as protectable above.

Guest

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Guest » March 1st, 2007, 8:39 pm

Let me clarify something else - I do believe in certain kinds of performance rights, for original material on an exclusive basis.

A while back I brokered a lease of original material between two friends of mine. Approximately 25 minutes of original material was licensed from one top pro to another for a specific period of time on an exclusive basis for $5,000.

This material has NOT been published nor has it been seen by many magicians. Therefore, the owner of the material had something that was recognized as valuable by another and was paid accordingly. Both men are happy with the deal.

Had this same material been published in a widely-distributed book, available to anyone with the price of the book, there would have been no deal as described and no money other than the price of the book would have changed hands.

While the material licensed was commercial and practical it was also unpublished and licensed exclusively, the two factors that gave it high value.

Guest

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Guest » March 1st, 2007, 8:39 pm

And to those who think this is a good way to control your material, think again. The only way to control original material is to keep magicians from seeing it. Putting it in a book and selling it on the open market is not the way to protect your material.
Good Grief!

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Tom Stone » March 1st, 2007, 8:54 pm

John LeBlanc wrote:
I just don't get why these routines would be published to the magic community and, at the same time, have restrictions put on its contents that go completely against virtually every other published work for our community since forever.
Most published works are from people whose main income is from other things than magic, or makes their living from being "someone" within the magic community. It is a joyful experience to share material then. It is a bit different to share material you make your living of, especially when you work within a very narrow nische. The decision to publish can be quite unnerving then.
A lot of material is created for the main purpose of publishing it - this is something else, so why should there not be other requirements?

Guest

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Guest » March 1st, 2007, 9:00 pm

For the record, Michael Weber's Life Savers book does NOT put the complete statement of performance rights on the back of the book. In fact the statement on the back of the book reads to me pretty much the oppoosite of what his attempt to reserve rights inside on the copyright page says:

"Michael Weber hereby grants you full permission to perform any and all of the routines in Life Savers with or without the accompanying patter and or presentation anywhere on this planet, and in the universe, twenty four hours a day, for whomever you please, in any improvisational setting."

Anyone who read that on the back cover would certainly assume they had 'full rights.'

It is only inside on the copyright page that Weber has a paragraph whch attempts to reserve film/video, etc., performance rights. I didn't even find it until months after buying the book when someone mentioned it to me, since I usually don't read the copyright page of a book, particularly a new book.

Even if they agreement (which isn't one, since there's only one party to it) was a contract, the statement I quoted above is so poorly worded and so at odds with the other statement that no one could made much sense of it. This isn't even one of the rather suspect "shrink wrap agreements" that software manufacturers use to try and reserve their rights since there's no shrinkwrap or barrier to reading the material before using it.

So-called agreements like this do nothing more than piss me off as a buyer, since the only possible way I can interpret the situation is the seller is either trying to take my money and give me nothing, or the seller is trying to make me pay to listen to him show me how brilliant he thinks he is.

On top of it all, Hauntiques is rather high priced at $75 even for a magic book. Being then told after paying that money that there are limits on how you can use the material is just plain insulting.

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

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby John LeBlanc » March 1st, 2007, 9:07 pm

Tom Stone writes:
Most published works are from people whose main income is from other things than magic, or makes their living from being "someone" within the magic community. It is a joyful experience to share material then. It is a bit different to share material you make your living of, especially when you work within a very narrow nische. The decision to publish can be quite unnerving then.
A lot of material is created for the main purpose of publishing it - this is something else, so why should there not be other requirements?
Sorry. I have to call [censored] on that. And I can back it up in three words:

Michael Close -- Workers.

But there are plenty of professional magicians who have parted with their children, in whole, without restrictions (other than to plead -- rightfully -- to learn, practice, and do the routines justice.)

I'm just going to say that I believe Christian has every right to request or demand whatever he likes to. Now, do I think it's misguided, I don't think it will stick, and I think that position will only serve to alienate precisely the people to whom he intends to sell his books -- a relatively small group of buyers to begin with. After all, I don't see it on the shelves of Barnes & Noble or on amazon.com.

But, what do I know. The market will take care of itself.

John

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

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby John LeBlanc » March 1st, 2007, 9:10 pm

Robert Allen wrote:
Even if they agreement (which isn't one, since there's only one party to it) was a contract, the statement I quoted above is so poorly worded and so at odds with the other statement that no one could made much sense of it.
Maybe it wasn't poorly worded.

John

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Tom Stone » March 1st, 2007, 9:17 pm

David Alexander wrote:
I don't need Chelman's permission to perform the material I bought in his book
What are you arguing about then?

Do you want permission to ignore to ask for permission? Well, you can't get that.

There's nothing that can stop you. As you correctly said, there's little that can be done to enforce it. So it is pretty risk-free for you to make use of Christians work to put food on your table, while ignoring the little request he had in return.

So, just go ahead. But you'll still be using it without Christian's permission. And you've made it perfectly clear who you are, and what you are. You've put your character in this light all by yourself.

EDIT: By this reasoning, you don't accept the literary copyright either? By your definitions, that is a "contract" as well, of which you have not signed. Start up the photocopier! (I think I finally managed to make a strawman argument here. See, I learn from the best)

Guest

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Guest » March 1st, 2007, 9:18 pm

Sorry. I have to call [censored] on that. And I can back it up in three words:

Michael Close -- Workers.
Doesn't one of the Workers books have a restriction on even loaning it to someone who didn't buy it? (Which, BTW, is BS of the first order).

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Tom Stone » March 1st, 2007, 9:38 pm

Bill Mullins wrote:
It just doesn't make sense to use present-tense verbs like "are" in your description.
I'm not english speaking, so these mistakes happen. Sorry
What you said simply isn't true -- If I perform an Elmsley count, I am not violating Alex Elmsley's copyrights
No, of course not. You missed a sentence, "let's assume.."
You may wish it were so, and it might be to the benefit of all magicians if it were so, but it isn't so.
And while I agree that it is the nature of the Elmsley count to be performed, that doesn't make it choreographic.
Well, I'm pretty convinced otherwise. The title of the dramatic composition was named "The Four Card Trick", and was a rather tight choreographic piece in which you easily can identify the characteristic traits of Elmsleys mind. The piece relied on a seemingly simple set of movements repeated several times, but which caused very different visual effects. "The Four Card Trick"'s most defining movements have been given the name Elmsley Count. I have no problem to call it choreography.
While the exact definition of choreographed works is not settled law, instructions for a magic trick don't sound very much like what is described as protectable above.
Have you ever seen the notation system for dance? It doesn't look like much either - random lines and arrows.

Michael Close
Posts: 491
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: The Great White North
Contact:

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Michael Close » March 1st, 2007, 10:00 pm

Bill Mullins wrote
Doesn't one of the Workers books have a restriction on even loaning it to someone who didn't buy it? (Which, BTW, is BS of the first order).
Absolutely not. In the original volumes, there was a restriction concerning television, video, film, stage, and theater performances. This was included to protect me from famous stage magicians using my material on TV shows. As it turned out, this was never an issue, so I have dropped that clause from the copyright notice.

(By the way Bill, BS of the first order is typing without checking facts.)

Best

Close

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Tom Stone » March 1st, 2007, 10:04 pm

John LeBlanc wrote:
Sorry. I have to call [censored] on that. And I can back it up in three words:

Michael Close -- Workers.
I think that the venue for restaurant tablehopping are quite larger and different than the venues for fullblown bizarre presentations.

(Btw. Close's vampire trick is perfect for kiddie shows - sends them screaming out of the room, and then you can calmly reload the pockets until they return for more. Great fun! Makes that the parents want to sit in as well )

Guest

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Guest » March 1st, 2007, 10:16 pm

Tom Stone wrote:

What are you arguing about then?

Do you want permission to ignore to ask for permission? Well, you can't get that.

There's nothing that can stop you. As you correctly said, there's little that can be done to enforce it. So it is pretty risk-free for you to make use of Christians work to put food on your table, while ignoring the little request he had in return.

So, just go ahead. But you'll still be using it without Christian's permission. And you've made it perfectly clear who you are, and what you are. You've put your character in this light all by yourself.

EDIT: By this reasoning, you don't accept the literary copyright either? By your definitions, that is a "contract" as well, of which you have not signed. Start up the photocopier!
_____________________________

Not arguing about anything, Tom, I'm pointing the logical and legal nonsense that was posted here, or don't you believe in freedom of speech?

The "little request" as you descibe it goes against logic, tradition, and the law, so I don't see it as a "little request" if it interferes with my ability to use material I've bought and paid for, material that was sold on the open market and purchased like every other magic book I've bought in the last 50 years. (See Robert Allen's post above for more thoughts on this foolishness.)

There is nothing than can be done to stop the use of the material that Chelman himself made available to a wide audience for a price. If it is used by others, we'll, that's the purpose of buying books of that type. What did he expect?

Yes, I do accept copyright. I've made good money as a writer and have a lot of words under copyright, but copyright is not a contract as you would mis-characterize it to support your position, but well-defined law that is accepted around the world. See the Berne Convention for details.

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Tom Stone » March 1st, 2007, 10:54 pm

David Alexander wrote:
The "little request" as you descibe it goes again logic, tradition, and the law
Logic : If I find a piece I like, I assume that more of that kind can be found at the same source. My next assumption is; if the creator feels happy and rewarded by sharing, chances are that more will be shared - and that less will be shared if he is stepped on. If that logic is valid, what should be done to promote the chances that more will be published?
If you like these pieces so much, isn't it illogical to decrease the chances to get more from the same artist?

Tradition : Has little relevance today how it was 50 years ago. Lynching was a tradition too.

The law : It's agains the law for a creator to ask to be notified in specific occations? Are you sure?
What did he expect?
Don't know - but I'm pretty sure that he didn't expect this...
Yes, I do accept copyright. I've made good money as a writer and have a lot of words under copyright, but copyright is not a contract as you would mis-characterize it to support your position, but well-defined law that is accepted around the world.
Heh.. you read the law like that other guy reads the bible :-)

Don't matter though. I know you now.

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Tom Stone » March 1st, 2007, 11:04 pm

Robert Allen wrote
Hauntiques is rather high priced at $75 even for a magic book. Being then told after paying that money that there are limits on how you can use the material is just plain insulting.
This is a bit different than the other opinions here. Since he insult you, it is clear that you no longer have any interest in his work, and no intention to ever perform any of it. My advice is: Sell the book to someone you really don't like.

Guest

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Guest » March 1st, 2007, 11:34 pm

Tom Stone wrote:
Heh.. you read the law like that other guy reads the bible :-)

Don't matter though. I know you now.
_____________________________________

What the hell are you talking about? Some sort of mumbo-jumbo to make me feel bad? Guess what? I don't.

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Tom Stone » March 2nd, 2007, 12:17 am

Hmm.. it seems like I refered to a european (or scandinavian) idiom/proverb, thinking it was universal.

read like the Devil reads the Bible
Meaning: To deliberately look for loopholes, in order to follow the letter without following the spirit.

Guest

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Guest » March 2nd, 2007, 1:19 am

Mike Close wrote:
Bill Mullins wrote

quote:Doesn't one of the Workers books have a restriction on even loaning it to someone who didn't buy it? (Which, BTW, is BS of the first order).

Absolutely not. In the original volumes, there was a restriction concerning television, video, film, stage, and theater performances. This was included to protect me from famous stage magicians using my material on TV shows. As it turned out, this was never an issue, so I have dropped that clause from the copyright notice.

(By the way Bill, BS of the first order is typing without checking facts.)

Best

Close
I quote from the paragraph "A Small Request" at the front of Workers 1:
"I would be grateful if you would keep this manuscript to yourself."

I've always thought this meant what I said above, that you didn't want me to let anyone else read my copy of Workers. This is a much more specific statement than "don't make copies, don't let anyone else make copies" (although it is clear from the context that you don't want that, either). You seem to be a very careful writer, and it has occurred to me many times that if you were protecting your performance rights or copyrights, you wouldn't have specified the "manuscript" as you did -- I honestly believed that it was your wish that I not let anyone else have access to your written word.

If I've misinterpreted what you wrote, then I'm truly sorry. I have great respect for your magic, and for how you've respected the magic of others (as expressed in your written and video work, and as I've seen you discuss it in your lecture here in Huntsville a few years ago).

But I always thought that the quote above seemed much more restrictive than any other limitation I've seen any other magician place on their written work.

If I've spent the last few years misunderstanding your desires, again I apologize. If you wish, I'll delete my post so as not to have unwarranted aspersions against you as part of the archives of the Genii Forum.

At any rate, regardless of the exact meaning of your "small request", it was ungracious of me to characterize it as BS.

Bill Mullins

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

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Richard Kaufman » March 2nd, 2007, 2:49 am

Well, I've been away in London and this thread has gotten quite wild.

You can only enter into a contract KNOWINGLY. That's point one: if the information is not provided to the purchaser prior to purchase, so he can make an informed decision whether to purchase or not based on it, it will probably no legal standing.

Point two: The copyright law regarding choreography has never been applied to magic tricks in a court case that I'm aware of, so stating that it would have any basis regarding a legal case involving magic is beside the point until someone actually sues and legal precedent is established. Since it costs so much to do this, this is unlikely to happen.

Point three: (Which is a repeat from my earlier post) A person can write whatever he wants--that doesn't make it legally so. In this case, I think Chelman simply has no legal basis on which to make his demand. In fact, it's a preposterous demand: stating that no one who purchases the book has the right to use any of the material (except some card sleights) in a paying performance is unenforceable in the United States (at the very least).
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Tom Stone » March 2nd, 2007, 4:34 am

Richard Kaufman wrote:
Well, I've been away in London and this thread has gotten quite wild.
Yes! It's been great fun! :-)

Point one: It depends on the status of the contents. If considered to be litterature, the standard terms on the copyright page is considered valid, no matter if you know them or not. If considered to be the documentation of a performance piece, other terms might apply, just as valid as the terms for literature.

Point two: Nonsense. The law is there, and it can be applied just by choosing the proper words. That must be the starting point. How is the precendence set otherwise, if the idea is that it is pointless to claim anything that lacks precedence?
And precedence has little meaning anyway - it all depends on who can afford the longest time in court - and that's a question of money, not of the law.

Point three: What is the status for a theatre script, or movie script? Can you buy any script second hand and produce it without getting the performance rights? This is the same thing. I see nothing preposterous in it. Quite the opposite.

I look at your words: You can write whatever you want--that doesn't make it legally so.

Guest

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Guest » March 2nd, 2007, 4:53 am

Threats of lawsuits can go both ways, as Chuck Leach found when he tried to bleed David Blaine over a similar sell-something-then-claim-rights issue. Geez. Hauntiques is a disappointment on so many levels, but mostly for lowering my opinion of someone I once held in esteem.
Do you mind telling us why you were so disappoined with Hauntiques?

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

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Richard Kaufman » March 2nd, 2007, 5:40 am

I'm sorry, Tom, but you have no understanding of the law in the United States and until someone establishes a legal precedent with a MAGIC trick, this entire thread is meaningless--it's just a lot of magicians jibber-jabbering.

The only thing the copyright in Hauntiques prevents is someone reproducing the book itself, or the text of the book in printed or electronic form, and selling it or giving it away. The copyright law in the United States does not grant the material the same status as a play, or a poem, or a film, or any other damn thing which would enable the copyright holder to exercise control over public paid performances.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Tom Stone » March 2nd, 2007, 6:55 am

'm sorry, Tom, but you have no understanding of the law in the United States and until someone establishes a legal precedent with a MAGIC trick, this entire thread is meaningless--it's just a lot of magicians jibber-jabbering.
I understand enough to know that what the law books says, and what the reality is, are two different things - and that the latter can be shaped. Nothing is set in stone. Magicians jibber-jabbering, or lawyers jibber-jabbering..what's the difference? If jibber-jabbering is the game, at least we have a head start.

So how is a precedent set? First you need to have a claim that can be made to sound plausible - to bounce an eventual transgression against. Most attempted claims so far have been really silly - like "Trade Secrets", "Patent Laws" and such nonsense where it is obvious within a few seconds that it can't be applied to a performance piece. No precedents will ever be made that way.
But lo and behold - here's finally something from which a reasonable claim can be built. Choreographic copyright - Just some slight adjustments of a few words, and the legal texts fit magic routines like a glove - more closely than any of the alternatives. Sure, no precedents are set so far - but this would have most chance of success with current legislation, while the alternatives provide no chance at all.
And people outside magic listens to it. Not much of a proof, perhaps, but I've assisted to get exposure clips removed from YouTube, rewritten/reillustrated ripoffs removed from ebay etc, by refering to the Choreographic Copyright - and it was not even questioned. Now - two places accept this as being true. That can be used as a leverage to get a third instance to accept it.. and then perhaps a Domino effect will occur?

Anyway - at this point, I've used up all the words, so someone else has to wrap it up.

Guest

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Guest » March 2nd, 2007, 9:34 am

Dear members,

I am glad to see that my post has generated so much interest... ;)

I hope all of you are having fun with this "jibber-jabbering" (what a funny word) but I agree with Richard. This thread has, to some extent, become meaningless.

Tom, why don't you spend your time creating some more of your intelligent work instead of trying to make a point that everybody has understood (though not accepted...)?

In a way, this issue reminds me of the following quote:

"For those who believe, no explanation is needed. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible."

Regards,

D

Guest

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Guest » March 2nd, 2007, 9:56 am

Tom Stone wrote:
read like the Devil reads the Bible
Meaning: To deliberately look for loopholes, in order to follow the letter without following the spirit.
_________________________________________

Ah, well, then we're all lucky to have you to define what the "spirit" of the law is instead of the various legal definitions, case law, precedents, etc.

The fact that you've assisted in getting something removed from YouTube by quoting the Choreographic Copyright only means you've been dealing with people who either don't know the law (or understand the First Amendment) or don't want to bother with dealing with the problem on an extended basis....much like Jeff Busby in dealing with eBay. He had no basis in the law, yet was successful in his complaints until eBay wised up and that was the end of it.

In any event, you do a nice one-handed pass.

User avatar
Steve Bryant
Posts: 1947
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Ballantine
Location: Bloomington IN
Contact:

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Steve Bryant » March 2nd, 2007, 10:07 am

Sweet,

Briefly: I was a fan of Capricornian Tales and had looked forward for years to Hauntiques. It just didn't meet my expectations, and I became so bored I quit reading halfway through it. I especially found no use for routines based on Nazi minutia. I can't imagine any audience in any part of the world who would relate to that.

Second, there is this insane stance that has been discussed and over-discussed here. I deleted my original post because (a) it was angry and (b) I realized there is no point in arguing with those who take the opposite point of view because they are just never going to get it. (This seems to be the case for this or any other forum. I rarely see anyone change his mind unless it is regard to matters of fact.) The amazing thing to me is that some folks WANT there to be a new pardigm, which would, I think, put every magic dealer out of business and mean the end to new books and magic tricks. (This is NOT an invitation for new dialogue on that issue! Just stating my opinion.) But mostly the stance makes me regard Chelman as a crook, because he was happy to take the money for the books, marketing them as all magic books have been marketed for centuries, WITHOUT advertising his "policy" up front. I'd love for a judge to order him to purchase back, at retail, every book sold to folks who do not wish to be a part of his "contract." That might end such nonsense.

All this is a shame as it is a beautiful book. It just doesn't read as well as it looks.

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Tom Stone » March 2nd, 2007, 10:12 am

David Alexander wrote:
In any event, you do a nice one-handed pass.
...only when viewed from that specific angle ;)

Let's pick a more amusing theme for the next game, David. Also, as you might have noticed, I tend to become cranky when my sincerity is questioned. Do that again, and I'll bend another incomprehesible proverb over your head. Take care! :cool:

Guest

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Guest » March 2nd, 2007, 11:04 am

skl,Tom.

Best,
David

Guest

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Guest » March 3rd, 2007, 5:42 am

I know that the previous thread was deleted and I am sorry for bringing up a sore subject but I wanted to add my point of view on the Hauntiques matter. Mr. Chelman kept referring to Michael Cricton Books Constantly, in his arguments and I believe that that stance is invalid. You buy those books for reading enjoyment, not to produce your own version of Jurassic Park. I don't know one Magician that buys magic books just to read, especially at $75.00. If Mr. Chelman doesn't want anyone doing his stuff than he shouldn't have published it. I know many magicians that were honored when I told them I did their stuff at shows, NOT ONE OF THEM wanted a kickback. Greed is a terrible thing. I will not be buying ANY of Mr. Chelman's Books and I will never advise anyone else to do so as well.

Guest

Re: Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Postby Guest » April 20th, 2007, 9:18 am

In the real world of professional performing arts, if a text is registered as intellectual property, the author is the sole owner of the performing rights.
Wherever in the world.
Im not speaking of copyright for inventions or ideas. This is another matter. I am speaking of any work of the intellect.
In the same way, the author of a registered novel is the only that can authorize any use in any form of this product.
Even if is not published, if it have been registered.
Mr. Chelman is a man of the theatre.
He writes, directs and plays some material, mostly by his own.
Magic is just one of the forms he chooses to practice his art.

He sometimes publishes his works.
As playwrights, screenwriters, musicians.
The publishing of Arthur Millers plays doesnt have the purpose of performance for the reader. The published version of Godfather screenplay is not intended to be refilmed. You dont buy a Verdi partition only to play by yourself La Traviata.
They are the literary versions of a performance.
They are done to be read. And enjoyed.
Mr.Chelmans Hauntics is not an handbook of magic techniques. Neither it is a collection of routines to be performed.
It is the literary version of theatrical pieces, still being performed successfully by his author. In this form, they are available as a literary work, and eventually as source of inspiration.
If somebody wants to play some of Millers in their backyard with friends, the international legislation allows it.
If I want to film word by word The Godfather with my home camera for fun, I have the right to do it. The same you can do with Mr. Chelman material.
But once you are supposed to earn money with it, you right finish.

Yes, you can go to earn 1800 Usd in a corporate show with Mr.Chelmans material. But Mr.Chelman will sue you, and he will surely win in any court in the world.
Even if he didnt used the disclaimer.
His disclaimer is not a request: is the courtesy of a reminder for what the laws already guarantees.
Try to go in a corporate show, go on the bandstand with some musicians and earn money playing La Traviata, just because you purchased the book. Or a Sinatra tune just because you bought a songbook.
You will be in serious trouble.
The amount of money you pays for a songbook, doesnt allows you in any way to earn money eith the material contained, in any place of the planet.
Well, Hauntics is Mr.Chelmans songbook.

This is different for techniques.
Elmsey count is a technique, a tool. It is not an artistic presentation. Yes, it is similar at a coreographic or musical writing, it is true. But the difference is that it is not intended as part of a conceived artistic or dramatic piece.
It is a tool.
There are billions of chess and bridge and and crosswords and magic handbooks published in the world, many with routines. They are tools.
For exemple, Mr.Chelmans Blitz is a card technique, not an artistic piece. I am sure that he dont have any problem if somebody uses it without permission. I am sure, instead, that he will be very proud if most magicians are wanting to use his Blitz.
Once he decided to reveal his secret and to publish it, he did it in the context of instructional material. But this is not the case of his theatrical pieces.

Mr.Max Maven published a large amount of excellent routines: they are
written, directed, and complete of his technical instructions. All of his work, in print or in video, have a deliberate instructional nature, even if higly enjoyable by the theatrical and literary point of view. But beside this, Mr.Max Maven have some routines that he uses in his professional theatrical career.
You can go and perform those in your corporate shows for 1800 Usd. The artists lawyer will know what to do.

Even if a performing piece is not published, it can be anyway registered. Even if it is not registered, there is another way to protect it. If you have a film of a videotape of this performance, and until nobody deminstrates that he did it before you, you are the owner. Worldwide.
And you dont need any disclaimer for claiming that.

The fact with Mr.Chelman, is that he is still earning his life with some material he created.
This can be demonstrated, for example, by existing recordings of his previous performances.
As for any playwright or musician, he is the sole owner of the right to decide whatever use of this material.
If you asks him, he can refuse it to you.
Or he can ask money for a limited period.
Or he can sell it to you forever.
Or he can authorize you for free for a specific engagement, or he can accord you completely the rights because he likes you.
Whathever he wants.

When Mr.Chelman wrote his disclaimer, he didnt used the logic of the magicians world.
He acted as any professional creator acts in the real world.

To perform artistic material of somebody else, you dont need the authors disclaimer. You need respect. Otherwise, your are simply a thief.


Return to “Feature Articles”