Umpa Duze wrote:Tom, I agree completely that the artistic rendering of an effect is both personal and owned. However, I disagree that the ownership should extend to all aspects of the effect, mechanical and artistic.
Well, you are obviously free to disagree, but that doesn't change anything. Ownership does extend to all specific
aspects of the effect in drama and choreography.
The mechanical aspects are trickier though, but fortunately most props does not work themselves - most of them require the interaction of structured human movements to produce the specific magical effect, and as soon as the human movements comes into the picture we are under the heading Choreography again.
If what is published does not work, the field identifies the problem and moves on. This is precisely what I referring to. In magic the poor design of an effect can last indefinitely as was the case with the Cutting a Woman in Half effect Steinmeyer wrote about.
First of all, P.T Selbit's specific methods belonged to him, and no other person than him had any business describing it, unless permission had been granted.
However, there would be no problem to make an abstraction of the plot: "To saw a person in half" and then work out the specifics along a significantly different path - as Goldin did with his sawing. Of course, he failed on the part where he should have gotten permission for derivative work, but that was not contextualized back then and was more an ethical overstep.
A lot of people made sure that evolution occurred. Zati Sungur, Alan Wakeling, Les Arnold, Jonathan Pendragon and others.
Some other people came up with ideas that didn't work, and some of them decided to publish it as if it was realized work. Like in Method C in Greater Magic. And I can not imagine anyone knowing the craft looking at it and thinking it would be a good idea, or even work at all. Method C is not an academic problem, rather, the problem is people rushing to print before the work has been properly realized, motivation being fame, profit or anything except the actual art at hand.
I have never assumed Method C was workable, and neither has anyone else that cares about the craft.
The field did recognize the flawed design and moved on, and I can't find anything that support your hypothesis that it didn't.
That it has been republished over and over has nothing to do with magic, as the rehashing has been done by people who doesn't care whether it works or not. This is, and has always been, common knowledge among anyone who can see and read (I mean, come on, the person becomes half a meter shorter when he goes into the box)
news and huge surprise in Steinmeyer's book isn't that Method C doesn't work, but that it was Walter Gibson that was responsible for it (my guess is that he took inspiration from Horace Goldin's Buzz saw illusion)
I think you are misunderstanding my point in the last paragraph where you discuss the literal use of a significant piece of work such as a poem, or showing a TV show in a movie.
Nope. You suggested that a work becomes Public Domain the instant it is published. You also claimed that you knew no other fields outside magic where you need permission to make other creators' work public. So I gave a couple of examples that I'm sure that you have noticed to refute your claim - hence, your claim was not serious. You do
know other fields outside magic where permissions are important!
I would also suggest that the distinction between what is real and what is presented as real is not useful.
It is not only useful, but essential. We present fiction. Fiction is dramatic works. Hence covered by copyright.
Our fiction is realized through structured overt and covert human movements - which is choreography. Also covered by copyright.
I do realize that those pesky coins did not just appear from the air. The mechanics are real, and can be improved by a community of scholars.
Which mechanics? If you refer to Automatons that perform magic by themselves, without the additional requirement of human movements, then yes; the situation regarding I.P. is very unclear.
They must understand what has been done and what needs to be done so thoroughly that they know exactly where their contribution goes and how it helps the community move forward. This is what I am interested here.
If the goal is to help the "community" to move forward, there are a lot of simpler things that can be done, that will give more immediate effects. Just tell people: "Don't publish crp!" and "Don't rush to print until you know for certain that the item actually work" - and that alone will stop things like Method C from being published.
And Tom, I have published a magic book only to find that a Chinese company was offering it online for a fraction of the retail price. That was a bummer...
Why a "bummer"? Did you forget that your opinion is that all works are in Public Domain as soon as it is published, and therefore free for anyone to republish?