Tom Stone wrote:
David Alexander wrote:Copyright law says you cannot protect ideas, only the expression of them. Think of Effect as the idea. Not protectable.
That require that you simplify and reduce the effect in question. Because if you reduce everything to a Fitzkee level of abstraction, then there is nothing at all in any field that can have copyright.
Someone defending a ripoff of Stefan Schutzer's "Self-folding Bill" said: "The idea of getting a bill to move with thread is old, so therefore Stefan has no rights to his effect." That's like saying "The latest bestselling novel is just ink on paper, therefore the novel is public domain."
We are so indoctrinated to split up works into method and effect (choreography and drama) that we often forget that they are a whole. The synergy between method and effect is what the work consist of. Change the method, and you'll see that the effect will change as well - provided you don't fall into the Fitzkee trap of reduction and abstraction.
For example, the specific effect in Don England's "Loosers Weepers" (p. 13, second edition of Gaffed to the Hilt) is
different from Roy Walton's "Collectors". Anyone who is familiar with the field who see a performance of both, can discern clear differences. It's like the difference between "Romeo and Juliet" and "West Side Story" - the basic plot is the same, but the specific plot is different.
Ah silly meI shall try again.
No. It is NOT like saying that a novel is just ink on paper. Youve missed the point and "Fitzkee'd" the Idea too far. Back up a bit.
Method and Effect are different and separate.
Effect is what the audience seeswhat they perceive happens. That seems to be the traditionally accepted definition of the word in magic. This is the Idea that cannot be protected as in my example of a Four Ace trick because there are many ways to create Effect.
Clearly, magic history shows there to be myriad ways to create the same Effect. What the lay audience sees is what is important, not the nuances spotted by informed magicians which may or may not be noticed by lay audiences.
Ive experienced this myself. Back when I was opening for Billy Eckstine he casually mentioned that hed worked with other magicians who had done that cigarette trick. At the time I was doing Fraksons Cigarette production which was unique, unlike anyone elses, but Billy, an old-time show business pro, saw no difference between what I did and what others had done. We produced lighted cigarettes in the air.
The individual presentation of Effect the words spoken and, possibly, the choreography of hands doing specific sleights at a specific time may be protected. (Im not clear on the sleight of hand part but the presentation itself can be protected.)
If you create a new way of doing an Effect, publish/sell it and I copy it verbatim and sell or give it away I am guilty of infringement of your creation, your copyright. The Idea/Effect is not protected, only your unique expression of that Effect is.
There have been a number of articles written over the years about plots and plotting. Georges Polti wrote The Thirty-Six Dramatic Situations that, he claimed, summarized the various dramatic situations so plots could be constructed. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirty ... Situations
Yes, Westside Story was Romeo and Juliet but Forbidden Planet was The Tempest. More or less the same plot ideas with different characters and details, a different Method of expressing/creating the same "Effect" or "Plot." Unique expression of Idea protectedBasic Idea (Plot/Effect) still unprotected for others to use in their own unique expressions.
What you have made is an assertion...your opinion of what constitutes copyright protection.
What you assert may or may not be true in the law but until you go to the trouble and expense of adjudicating it and have a judge and jury agree with you and a decision for you to survive the appeals process, all you have is opinion and assertion.