Tom Stone wrote:
Of course he has. I see no reason to assume that magic creators alone would be without the same rights as creators within any other art.
I mean, come on - a painter splashes some paint on a canvas by mistake - and it is protected for a lifetime. But if a magician put a year into the development of a performance piece, then he has no rights to his work at all?
It's just a matter of linguistics - finding the proper words, to be able to get the rights to be recognized legally - on a theoretical level, of course.
On the practical side - it doesn't matter at all what the law says. No-one cares about that anyway. In the end, it all depends on which part can affort the longest time in court, and whose lawyer are loudest. Legal matters don't matter on a practical level - never has.
A stretch to refer to choreography? Don't think so .
Step-right, 2, 3, 4, step-left, 6, 7, 8..
Elmsley, 2, 3, 4, double lift 7, 8..
Both: A realised artistic idea communicated through human motion. Same thing. Identical. Claim it long enough, and loud enough - and it will become the truth. That's all it takes.
Well, the post above is filled with Tom Stone's opinion. It should be noted that an opinion is far different than a law and a legal fact. Tom's opinion has no force in law, which is what Im trying to talk about. My opinion has no force in law, either, but Im not making a claim that I have rights or contracts with people who buy my book.
If Christian Chelman, or any creator of magic effects/routines, wants to put forth a claim for rights, they should do so. They should enumerate those claims and by whatever theory of law or force of law they have as support for those rights. If those rights are to be licensed in a limited manner, which is what gives them value, then there should be some description of how Chelman will protect the value of the right granted. So far, no one has addressed that.
A painter creates something never seen before and is protected by copyright for his lifetime plus 75 years. An author writes a story and it is protected for the same amount of time. Stories or paintings may be similar in nature but ideas cannot be protected, only their expression and in limited ways.
While written expression is protected by copyright, does the publishing of the material to its niche market obviate copyright protections that may or may not have applied to the work when it comes to performance? Ive heard the vaguely-stated claims. Id like to see the statutes or the precedents that support the claims.
If the performance piece is derivative, how derivative is it? Does the creator use the principles and props of others to his end? Does this allow him to claim originality or is what hes worked up just old wine in new bottles?
The Elmsley Count was given to the world by Alex Elmsley, who, as the originator, was the only person who could protect it by whatever means were available to him at the time. However, I do not know if the protection of choreography will protect human movement when the result is realized through a secondary instrumentality beyond the human body. In the case of the Elmsley Count, said instrumentality being playing cards. Without the instrumentality, the movements realize nothing.
Toms example of Elmsley could be used for playing a musical instrument or painting a picture since the same human movements would produce the same result, but each would require an instrumentality for the realization of the art to happen.
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].
While it may be nice, and courteous, and to some, moral, to ask and/or pay Christian Chelman (or anyone for that matter) for permission to perform routines from his book, the central unanswered question remains: Why should I have to pay when no contract or force of law exists and the tradition of magic publishing in 100 years of books, magazines, videos, and DVDs is against it?