Is David Blaine Suing Magicians?

[Guest]

This IP thread is a fascinating discussion.

Chad - please do keep us informed as to the legal developments moving forward.

I am most intrigued as to which direction the law takes on this issue.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Joe Pecore:
If I buy a script or a piece of music, you would think that I would have an implied consesnt to perform it. But, that is not true. If you give a performance (other then for family and friends I believe) you could be in violation of copyright laws.

I don't yet agree with the premise that all magic effecs are the same as a play, I'm just trying to understand the different points of view.

Fair comment about music. I've always understood it to be as you describe - purchasing the notes does not confer public performance rights.

But the magic business isn't like that. I've always understood that when one buys a book, an effect, or some conjuring hardware, one is also buying performance rights unless explicitly stated to the contrary.

Many effects and props are advertised as being a must-have for the serious professional. Is that "serious professional" expected to ask the dealer "I've just paid you 100 for that effect - am I allowed to perform it in my professional act?"

If something is advertised as "this will bring in big tips" or "this will guarantee repeat bookings", surely that implies that public performing rights are included?

If a seller wishes to withhold some category of performing rights (all, public, professional, or televised), that has to made clear from the outset, since it isn't the norm. (I've absolutely no objection to someone selling an effect with the proviso that it cannot be performed in Manchester or when there's an "R" in the month, provided that they make that clear from the outset.)

And what happens when the purchaser resells the item?.....

Dave

[Guest]

Again, Mr. Farmer has cut right to the heart of the matter; though I'm curious as to where to anchor the elastic for my air conditoner Raven (copyright, service mark registered, trade mark protected, all rights belong to their respective holders). Mr. Acer - any ideas?

[Guest]

Dave Le Fevre writes:

But the magic business isn't like that. I've always understood that when one buys a book, an effect, or some conjuring hardware, one is also buying performance rights unless explicitly stated to the contrary.

You can't implicitly buy performance rights unless there are rights that can be sold in the first place. Unless the gimmick is patented (which it isn't in this case), the only rights that could apply are copyrights which only has to do with the written or pictorial instructions themselves.

So copyrights would prevent you from copying the book and selling it yourself. But the ideas/methods described in the book are not copyrightable or protected in any way. It's only the description that's copyrighted, not what's described.

It sounds like Chuck Leach is trying to extend the meaning of copyright protection beyond this to the magic effect itself (and to slight variations as influenced by the method -- i.e. using the Raven to vanish a coin versus some other method). I would think the chances of succeeding in that are fairly low.

[Guest]

I am curious to find out if the production of an instructional video to accompany an effect makes any difference to the outcome of this issue.
Presumably video footage runs the risk of influencing an individuals performance style, in that stance, vocal inflections, and gestures, can be picked up.
As an example, I often take people to task over the Taberay rope routine. Why? Because almost everyone does it with a French accent.

[Joe Pecore]

Originally posted by Bob Coyne:
So copyrights would prevent you from copying the book and selling it yourself. But the ideas/methods described in the book are not copyrightable or protected in any way. It's only the description that's copyrighted, not what's described.

But the description of how to present the effect as described in the book would be copy protected. And if that presentation is afforded the same protection as a play, then copyright laws would give the author exclusive rights "to perform the work publicly".

[Joe Pecore]

Originally posted by Dale Shrimpton:
I am curious to find out if the production of an instructional video to accompany an effect makes any difference to the outcome of this issue.

If I create an instructional video describing how I think someone should perform a play that I wrote, does that give up my copyright protection for "public performances"? Probably not.

I think the key to all this wil be how the courts will view the written desciption of the "presentation" of a magic effect in terms of copyright.

[Guest]

Leach has invented a method. It sounds like he is claiming rights to an effect.

[Guest]

But the description of how to present the effect as described in the book would be copy protected. And if that presentation is afforded the same protection as a play, then copyright laws would give the author exclusive rights "to perform the work publicly".

In case of a play it's the actual text of the play that's copyrighted. So it makes sense that performing the play would fall under copyright law. But unless the magic effect has copyrightable patter, I don't see how it could be protected.

[Bob Farmer]

Arguing about what is and what is not protected by intellectual property law is a dead end here because any good intellectual property lawyer can argue the case any way you want.

Don't assume the law is clear and unequivocal. If it was, we wouldn't need lawyers, all we'd need would be librarians to look it up.

It doesn't matter if the Raven is protected by some sort of intellectual property right.

Is it not fair that the Raven be treated the same as the music and the writing that went into the television show?

I think so. The composers got paid. The writers got paid. The magical inventors should get paid. The only argument should be as to how much.

[Joe Pecore]

Originally posted by Bob Farmer:
I think so. The composers got paid. The writers got paid. The magical inventors should get paid. The only argument should be as to how much.

Would purchasing the gimmick be considered enough payment? I'm guessing that Mr. Leach does not think so.

[Guest]

Arguing about what is and what is not protected by intellectual property law is a dead end here because any good intellectual property lawyer can argue the case any way you want.

Sure a lawyer can argue it anyway they like, but that doesn't mean they have a good case or can win.

The Raven potentially could have been protected by filing a patent. Perhaps the patent process is too expensive or onerous. But copyrights are intended to protect expressions -- they're not a backdoor method for protecting inventions.

[Joe Pecore]

The Raven potentially could have been protected by filing a patent.

I believe that would only stop the illegal manufacturing of the raven, not the public performance of it, which seems to be the issue here and which copyright protects.

[Guest]

I believe that [patents] would only stop the illegal manufacturing of the raven, not the public performance of it, which seems to be the issue here and which copyright protects.

True, though if the use or performance of an method could be copyrighted (and hence imply restrictions on its use), then it wouldn't be necessary to patent the invention in the first place. The copyright protection would be even more extensive in some ways (including use/performance rights) than a patent itself.

I suspect this is part of the reason why copyright is limited to expressions and not inventions/methods. Protecting an invention should have a higher hurdle (i.e. prove it's unique, not obvious, etc) and lesser protection (can't restrict it's use, only its manufacture and sales) than direct expressions (text, pictures, etc).

[Bob Farmer]

Okay, okay, I surrender!

The legalities do matter, whatever they are. I'll check back later to find out.

[Guest]

Bob Farmer makes a great point that the law is not black and white on this. Lawyers can argue it from any point of view as long as the meter is running and the client has deep enough pockets. I suspect Leach will soon fade from the scene when the bills start rolling in, unless he's got a lawyer who is doing this on a contingency basis...and that can be fought by the opposition with a flurry of paperwork that will run the bill sky high.

And if Leach should actually get to court and win, an appeal would run the bill up another $100,000 - $200,000+ Maybe lots more. He'll be putting his lawyer's children through Harvard.

If Leach is correct then I can only wonder how far the principle can extend. Do I owe Frakson's estate monies for every time I've performed the Giant Rising Cards over the last 36 years as I do it almost exactly like he taught me (minus the accent)? Or do I claim it was a gift, which it was even though I have no written proof?

Do I own Larry Jennings' estate monies for routines of his that I've done and/or is some of that money payable to Richard Kaufman because he did the actual writing and illustrating.

And how far would this be applied? Children's birthday parties? Local casual shows? Larger corporate gigs? Or just television, where, presumably, the deep pockets are?

Who administers the collecting of the performance fees? How much will be charged per license? Do we pay extra for the effect which buys us a license to perform the effect in perpetuity? Is that license transferable to someone else if we sell the effect, or do they have to pay for a new license?

And what are the penalties if caught performing without a license? Will a large, ugly man name Louie show up at my door demanding money and threaten to break my fingers if I don't pay up?

Jim Riser and I are in the process of recreating the Martin Round-topped Vanishing Birdcage. It will be sold with a companion DVD with all the details of performing. Do I now have to explicitly state that the purchaser is buying any and all rights, implicit, stated, and unstated?

As I said before, this is a lot of nonsense.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Gord Gardiner:
I have to admit, I'm not sure what you mean by "licensing his alledged misuse of copyright protected artistic expressions."

I am misunderstanding things as well. Both here, and the thread Chuck started over at The Cafe.

Chuck has been selling the performance rights for The Raven with every one sold.

His website advertises The Raven with: "Perform visual vanishes like you've never seen."

Now this of course is up to interpretation within the courts. However to me it is clear that he is selling performance rights for the effect.

But more things are left up to interpretation. What is the difference in an effect where a coin is vanished from a hand? Does it matter whether the coin was apparantly on the hand or in the hand? Seems to me that they are just different methods of accomplishing an effect (coin vanishing from a hand). And it is clear, that methods cannot be copywritten. And any copyright of a coin vanishing from a hand, if ever existed, is long expired.

Sincerely,
Wayne Stevenson
The SpookClub
http://www.spookclub.com

[Bob Farmer]

Wayne makes a really good point: how do we know the Raven gimmick was used to make the coin vanish?

What if some other method that looks (from the spectator's pov) exactly the same was used?

[Guest]

In rereading Leach's post, he seems upset not at the actual performance of The Raven (which probably made him a lot of money with Blaine's free network "commercial" for the device) but for the copies of the show that are being sold without payment to him.

Absent a previously agreed-to contract about performance rights when The Raven device was purchased, I think Leach is out of gas. Over the years I've seen a few tricks sold with the caveat that the television rights had been sold by the inventor/creator/manufacturer to a specific performer. Presumably, any original buyer of the effect/prop understood and agreed to that restriction when the deal was transacted and the item purchased. (How that would apply to a third party should the effect/prop be resold is another matter entirely.)

Absent such a restriction/agreement/contract in the original purchase of The Raven by Blaine or his production company (if they actually bought it and didn't have it handed to them by a friend), I don't see where Leach has any rights to enforce.

I'm also wondering about the term, "artistic expression." What the hell does that mean and has it ever been legally defined?

Sounds to me like Leach is trying to get more of a free ride that he's already gotten.

[Guest]

Stepping into the arena of an IP case can have results that one could not imagine in years of experience. It all depends on the attorneys and the judge. That's it. Period.

I'm not an attorney, but my father, who was the author of almost 800 published items, was the defendant in what anyone with any common sense could see was a bogus copyright infringement case. In this particular case, information that my father published had been gained from sources published in 1675. However, a fellow who had published a guitar chord wheel based on texts that derived from that 1675 text felt that Dad's chord chart infringed upon his copyright. Dad had two attorneys representing him. The one from the New York office of the publishing company decided the other attorney could handle the case, so he went back to New York. The other attorney became ill. So Dad decided to defend his own case. Bad move. He lost. He should have called to New York, but he didn't. It cost the publishing company $10,000. That was about 30 years ago.

But Dad learned an important lesson. That was that no matter how right or wrong you think you are, it's the attorneys and the judge that determine the outcome.

Chuck may think that by using a presentation that was similar to or exactly like the one that he furnished with The Raven, Blaine has infringed upon his copyright. Could be. But if the judge asks, "How has your business been since the show?" and Chuck replies that he has sold more Ravens, then the case may be thrown out of court.

If it's a matter of royalties for the performance, Chuck will be very disappointed at the amount he is likely to receive.

IP law is a treacherous field. If you can't afford the best, don't go there. It's like walking through quicksand.

[Guest]

First, thanks to those who have emailed me directly with on topic info.

Second, anyone who thinks this is greed based, needs to get up to speed. What would it cost to file a copyright infringement claim & deal with counter claims? Any idea??? And tell me how much financial incentive there is with this type of copyright claim? Any idea??? I bet those that suggest this is for money, don't have a clue. I do, and if this was about money, I'd shut up and keep making tricks.

Also, a few people are not familiar with the history of the Raven, and thus have an incorrect opinion that I should be thanking Blaine.

The Raven was a huge success three years before Blaine ever used it. Since Blaine's performance, sales have never come close to meeting the sales of the first few years. When I first watched the Street Magic Special and saw the Raven prop dangling outside his coat, I was sure he damaged sales.

People who assume I'm ungrateful should also do a little research on eBay and Google to see plenty of reasons for not being grateful. A few days ago there were over 6,000 listings for Magic Secrets Exposed ebooks and CDs on eBay (auction & buy now listings), with Blaine images and name. These listings sell my secret, often for a few pennies to a couple bucks. Do you think this is good for my business? Should I be sending Blaine a thank you card?

Then google: David Blaine, Magic Secrets, and see how may secret sellers are out there across the internet. Besides representing lost sales, it also impacts real magician sales. People who see this and decide NOT to buy a Raven due to the wide exposure. Should I be sending Blaine a thank you card for this?

Blaine has protection on his name and image, yet he apparently allows this missappropriation. By allowing these sellers to use his name and image, he is in a way condoning the action.

There was a time when the magic community got upset about magic exposures. Blaine could easily hire an IP watchdog company and wipe this industry out. I'm of the opinion he does nothing because they are spelling his name right. Since joining eBay's VERO program, I've wipedout over 1000 listings all by my little self.

One question some forum members should ask themselves, is why people poo poo, or even get upset, when intellectual property issues are discussed. Where is the harm in helping magicians protect their IP? There obviously isn't any harm.

So then you should look at the motive of the poo pooers. I suspect some people approach this issue the way they do, because they have never had the need to protect intellectual property. People who have created and marketed items generally have no trouble see the value.

Some people are simply cyber barnyard roosters who have to crow, even after sunrise.

Some people, I suspect, don't want greater IP protection because it hinders their inventory of free magic, for personal use, or resale. I'll let you figure out who is who.

Geno Munari suggests I'm sue happy. Have I ever sued anyone in my life? No. Have I ever threatened to sue any one? Nope. I was advised by a lawyer that I could make a claim against a person who offered $10,000 to Jerry Andrus to break his contract with me. It seems there is a legal issue there. Did I sue this person? No. Frankly, I wouldn't want to put Jerry through that.

I am motivated by principle only and acquiring greater protection for magicians and magic inventors. Some posters are going to just have to deal with that.

[Richard Kaufman]

Chuck, I still don't know what exactly are you suing David Blaine for? Can you state it simply in one or two sentences?

[Brad Henderson]

Chuck,

I am a huge stickler for IP protection. However, when one sells a product - a utility device - intended for magicians to use in performance, it should not be surprising that a magician used it in performance - recorded or otherwise.

I would be curious of the numbers though. How many Raven's did you sell the year before Blaine used it on TV? How many did you sell the year following the special? Perhaps I will put in an email to Kirchner and Trono and see how their numbers changed between the year prior to Blaine's use, and the year after.

As to the "exposure" CD's, that is a red herring. Any successful TV magician today becomes the victim of people trying to cash in on what they do, Blaine, Brown, etc. Was your item exposed on Fox? Yes. They also tried to expose other items presented by other magicians - the bullet catch, for example. Had P and T not presented it on television, do you think for a moment it would have been in their line up?

So, is the problem with magicians being successful or is the problem with the fact that we have created an industry which is fueled by selling as many tricks to as many people as possible? If "just anyone" can buy it, you should expect that it will be exposed through poor performance or through the telling of the secret. That is the risk one takes when secrets are offered for sale to anyone with a credit card, whether its the Zig Zag, or the Ball and Vase. Let's not forget, Fox hired magicians. The magicians exposed the secrets. Perhaps we need to take care of our own house first.(Consequently the idea that a magic trick is askin to a piece of music could be a good thing. Not to discourage people's performances, but to prevent leeches from republishing innovative ideas with only minor variations.)

Unless you want to create a magicial marketplace which restricts trade to certain people who can be trusted - not entirely a bad idea for MAGIC, perhaps not for the seller's pocketbook, then one must sleep in the bed we have made for ourselves.

If we truly want to protect our secrets, then perhaps we should put into place a system which does not allow those secrets to be so readily available to anyone with a paypal account, be it the next Blaine, the next Fox, or any of the other people who have helped pay a dealer's rent with their patronage.


Brad

[Guest]

I'll second RK's questions: What exactly are you contending that you're owed? What sort of licensing are you talking about? What are your damages? What do you want?

None of this seems clear so far.

[Guest]

Blaine has protection on his name and image, yet he apparently allows this missappropriation. By allowing these sellers to use his name and image, he is in a way condoning the action.

I took a look over at Ebay like you mentioned at The Cafe. I don't see any items being offered with David Blaine's endorsement.

I do see a ton of pictures of David Blaine being used that I am certain David Blaine doesn't own the rights to. I would imagine the pictures are owned by photographers or their magazines/networks that they were taken for.

David Blaine doesn't own the pictures, therfore he has no right nor interest I am sure, to look into who is using those images.

The only mention of Blaine in those adds, is an advertisement that they are the same effects that Blaine had performed in his magic specials.

Wether or not the methods are the same, more importantly, the effects are the same.

Either way, a lawsuit of this sort is going to have a huge negative impact on this art.

A lawsuit like this is going to garner major media attention given Blaine's celebrity status. It WILL make nationwide (if not worldwide) headlines. You can't tell me an article in a newspaper, or on Entertainment Tonight about a guy sueing Blaine because he used his mechanical appartus without permission, to make a coin dissappear is a GOOD thing for this business.

Magic Exposure specials on television, and the internet are frequented by MAGICIANS be them hobbiest or professionals. Not laypeople.

Newspapers and news oddities (where the details of this lawsuit are going to end up) are entertaining to everyone.

Perhaps I am paranoid, but I think we're all going to be nervous about performing coin magic, if the tabloids and newspapers cover this interesting story.

Sincerely,
Wayne Stevenson
The SpookClub
http://www.spookclub.com

[Guest]

This whole issue of performance rights attached to tricks and books IMHO is rather a pile of BS. If you want to retain rights to the stuff, stuff which exists PRIMARILY to BE PERFORMED, then don't sell it. Selling it then claiming restricted rights is bush league.

I can see it now, Stanley selling a hammer but now allowing you to use it in public.

[Guest]

Chuck is right about the protection Blaine has on his image and name. This is not an uncommon type of protection. Many celebrities have this. It doesn't keep people from taking or publishing photographs of him, but it does limit their ability to use his name and/or image legally.

The problem with the items on eBay is that even though they have David Blaine's name and image on them, he isn't endorsing them. It's very difficult to bring suit against these phantoms that post these things on eBay.

EBay does nothing to protect these things. If I were in a position to sue anyone over this material that is on eBay, I would name them as co-defendants in the suit.

This may be a difficult case for Chuck to win.

I'll sit back and watch. It's going to be interesting.

[Guest]

Wayne makes an excellent point about the exposures, most laypeople don't care, and those that are curious enough to tune in, forget easily. Further, even the most detailed explaination can be overcome with a good performance.

I recently did my ring routine for a friend, who is an engineer. I should mention that he is a bit of a know-it-all and believes that everything in the universe can be explained by science (hope you're not reading this :) ). I told him several days in advance that I would be doing a version of the venerable Chinese Linking Rings; I knew he would search for it and find an explaination. At the start of my routine, I told him that I don't do the modern version, but, rather, the original version. I explained that the rings I use are quite expensive and rare, being manufactured by only a handful of eastern artisans. He seemed a little doubtful. After the my first crash link, I saw, for the first time since I've know the fellow, his confidence vanish. By the time I handed him two linked rings he was thoroughly perplexed and almost angry. I told him to relax, that it was a just a miracle of, now mostly forgotten, ancient metal-working technology involving precise control of crystal growth, carbon content, and magnetism, that I didn't fully understand the science behind it. When I linked and unlinked the ring in his hand, he was delighted, simply enjoying the mystery.

When I saw him the following day, he spewed out some techno-babble about the metallurgy of Samurai swords.

Okay, to which Dynasty do I owe royalties? :)

[Geno Munari]

One more time Chuck, who is your attorney helping you investigate this issue? Bye the way there is a prediction envelope on the table????

[Bob Farmer]

Given Chuck's experience, the last thing that any magic inventor would want is David Blaine doing one of his tricks.

Some guerrilla tactics could work here.

I'm thinking of the old Mad Magazine Magic Book, where a coins across routine is accomplished by having a concealed dwarf strapped to your back who moves the coins.

First, have Blaine do your trick on TV. You make no money, but knowing he's going to use the effect, you open a website, on the same night the special airs, offering to sell the secret. Your target audience is laymen and dumb magicians (lumpenmagus).

Of course, you sell a fake secret (something analogous to the secret dwarf), charge way too much for it, and offer a caveat so you don't get sued (successfully) of "May not be exactly as pictured."

I think Chuck's case is not a copyright or patent case, but an unfair competition case: if it can be demonstrated that Blaine's use of a commercial item actually hurts sales because of the widespread unapproved exposure which follows, and if it can be shown that Blaine knows this, then Chuck might have a case.

It would be a first, but it's certainly an interesting approach.

[Guest]

I believe I understand Mr. Leach's premise, here.

That does not mean that I necessarily believe it to be correct, or that I believe it will hold up in court. (We have established that these are two very different things.)

If he has the money and wherewithal to pursue this, however, I do think it might be healthy for magic. I am enthusiastic about both the intellectual property rights, and the artistic dignity possible, but oft ignored in magic.

It is nice when to see it being taken seriously by some in this community. Oddly, I often find laymen taking magic far more seriously than my peers.

There is some evidence of these kinds of attitudes in this thread...the constant desires to reduce magic to mechanics, and the idea that we are talking about 'just a coin vanish'. (didn't see that exact quote here, but the sentiment seems to be around). I believe that if one could do real magic, but only a little, say, make a coin vanish, visually, but really, just vanish...then one could become a celebrity, rich famous, whatever. If you actually think about what is occurring, it's a fairly impressive event, and when you start treating it seriously, there is no reason that you can't achieve enormous results with these kinds of effects even though you aren't 'really' doing them. I understand Eugene Burger thinks along these lines, and it explains much.

The financial realities of the situation are also complex. The entertainment world grows huger and huger every day, but increasingly in areas like music we see artists gain fame and recognition without very quickly anyhow, becoming what I would call truly wealthy. (I will admit that varied events have left me with the sort of attitude that a million dollars really isn't much money nowadays, so this viewpoint may depend on interpretation).

The point is, however, that I know what it is to have strangers stop you in the street of a major city and say, 'hey, you're that guy who did that crazy [censored] on T.V.'....or have cars drive by, roll down the window, and yell 'Harry Potter!' at you. This does not translate into money, too well, lol.

What I'm driving at is that I very much doubt that Mr. Leach, even if he won, would end up with much money, or much more than he would spend in legal fees. I mean David Blaine's television appearances DID translate into money, but it's still hard to see how much proportionally each little piece of his act could be worth. They are actually, priceless...but if any one was too expensive, he probably could have used something else. Is this making any sense?

It might set an important precedent for the community, however.

[Richard Kaufman]

The first thing a judge will ask the person who brought the suit is, "How did Mr. Blaine's actions do damage to you?"

At which point Mr. Leech will be obliged to say something like, "Well, uh, I sold about 10,000 Ravens after he used it on his TV show."

And the judge will say, "So, you actually made money because he used your product?"

And Mr. Leech may shuffle his feet and say, "Well, yes, but then lots of other people copied it and that cost me money."

And the judge will say, "Are you holding Mr. Blaine responsible because third parties are copying your product--a product which has no legal protection because it's a magic trick and magic tricks have no legal status under the law?"

And Mr. Leech will shuffle his feet some more and say, "Well, if he hadn't done it on TV then all those people on eBay wouldn't be stealing my trick."

And the judge will say, "Pardon me? Do you believe it's David Blaine's responsibility to prevent these people from copying your trick? I think it's your own responsibility, but since you can't own a magic trick under the law, you're just [censored] out of luck."

Case dismissed.
How'd I do, Bob?

[Joe Pecore]

My guess is that Mr. Leach is rather hoping for this scenerio:

Judge: Mr. Leach, do you own the copyright to the Raven effect?
Mr.Leach: Yes.
Judge: Mr. Blaine, did you ask permission as required by copyright law to peform Mr. Leach's effect called the Raven on TV which was later sold as a DVD?
Mr. Blaine: No.
Judge: Mr. Blaine, did you ask anyone else for their permission to peform their effects?
Mr. Blaine: Yes, for one, I paid Mr. Moden for the right to perform his effect called "Healed and Sealed".
Judge: If you paid for one, then I don't see why you shouldn't have to pay for them all. My judgement is for the plaintiff. Mr. Leach, the copyright owner, is entitled to a percentage of all profits from the TV show and DVD sales of the shows in which you performed the Raven. Defendent will also pay all courts costs and attorney fees.

;)

[Guest]

Forget the percentage part...or it'd have to be a pretty small percentage I imagine. Anyone know how much money was floating around the whole deal? I think a flat fee is more plausible.

And our host's result is probably more likely, though the senario might play differently.

[Brian Marks]

Originally posted by Steve Bryant:
It would be pretty funny if someone were suing David Blaine over his clever patter.

I am. He stole my personality.

[Guest]

I heard a rumor that he is trying to set a record for most lawsuits won while underwater. Does Guinness have an entry for that yet?

[Guest]

Originally posted by Joe Pecore:
[QB] My guess is that Mr. Leach is rather hoping for this scenerio:

Judge: Mr. Leach, do you own the copyright to the Raven effect?

See, that is where copyright does not hold any weight.

Copyright applies to original works of authorship. Meaning, it will protect your movie, script, photograph, web page, novel, manuscript, painting, drawing. It does not protect methods or devices (sleights, gimmicks, etc.).

So, because the performance is entirely based on the use of the device, and it's methods, you could not claim it as a performance. Which is what David Blaine had done. Used a method, and a device for vanishing a coin.

Then there is the ruling of "There is simply no copyright protection afforded to the idea of revealing magic tricks" which came from Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain in a magic exposure case. Which has set a legal precedent for ALL future cases.

Sincerely,
Wayne Stevenson
The SpookClub
http://www.spookclub.com

[Guest]

I would just like to say that the raven is a great utility trick.

Baggins

[Guest]

May I? Can I?... anyway, I would like to do a trick on TV where a chosen card is revealed in a picture printed on the page of a magazine... Not the whole magazine, just the page! Would that be ok? I think that would be cool. :cool:

ed

[Joe Pecore]

Originally posted by Wayno:
Copyright applies to original works of authorship. Meaning, it will protect your movie, script, photograph, web page, novel, manuscript, painting, drawing. It does not protect methods or devices (sleights, gimmicks, etc.).

I think what Mr. Leach is going to argue is that he has the copyright to the Raven "scipt"/presentation (not the method).