Hauntiques: "non-renumbered"...

Discuss the latest feature articles in Genii.
Guest

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

Postby Guest » April 20th, 2007, 10:25 am

Proof again that no argument ever dies on the Internet. I don't think we need to rehash this again since this poster is wrong on so many levels, especially given the last 150 years of the publishing of magic books and the lack of lawsuits to enforce such nonsensical claims arising out of use of material from published books.

Simply put, how will Chelman enforce his disclaimer against anyone if he has no proof that they ever agreed to it in the first place? You're claiming that by buying the book from a third party that the buyer has entered into a contract with the author. The "disclaimer" is all but worthless except to the most naive.

If Chelman wanted to keep his material exclusive, he should not have published and handed his routines to any magician with $75.

I look forward to news of his many lawsuits to enforce his fantasy of a contract. Until a court of law states that a contract exists then the buyers of his book are not thieves, merely readers.

Guest

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

Postby Guest » April 20th, 2007, 10:40 am

Thank goodness we have courts of law. If the world functioned like this thread we'd all be in big trouble.

It amazes me how folks can simply disregard what Richard and David have said about a legally binding contract as something that you just can't be 'entered' into by the mere purchase or gift of a book.
Selective listening is not a methodology that ever wins formal debates.

For the record (again) you can't be entered into a binding contract in the United States or Canada through an action as simple as purchasing a book sans any further information other than the price.
It really is that simple.

If however, the authors attempt is to promote an ethical response to the his request that magi not perform his routines from his book, that's a completely different story.

When hoping for an ethical response, it would likely have served the author far better to have promoted the concept that he'd like none of the routines in the book performed PRIOR to having good intentioned purchasers laying out their cash for the book, rather than making his wishes known after the purchase was made and the book delivered its new owner.

In the end the ethical response is the only response the author will get.
From there it's really up to the owner of the book to decide if he will respond to the authors request, or if he feels that, having paid $75.00 for a book of tricks, he'll perform the tricks in the book as he chooses to perform them.

Personally, I enjoy the book a lot as an inspirational read, and have no desire to perform any of the routines verbatim from the book.

Guest

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

Postby Guest » April 20th, 2007, 10:53 am

Has anyone tried ASKING Christian if they can use one of the pieces from Hauntiques and been refused? Or is this all speculative bitching?

P&L
D

Guest

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

Postby Guest » April 20th, 2007, 11:06 am

Silverking wrote:
When hoping for an ethical response, it would likely have served the author far better to have promoted the concept that he'd like none of the routines in the book performed PRIOR to having good intentioned purchasers laying out their cash for the book, rather than making his wishes known after the purchase was made and the book delivered its new owner.
____________________________________________

There you have it! If the book had been sold directly buy the author to purchasers who knew and agreed to the restrictions before purchase and ponied up the necessary money afterwards, if they signed an agreement or acknowledgement that they knew Chelman's requirements for purchase, then I would say there was an agreement between the two parties. Absent those conditions, say in buying the book from a third party who obtained it from a wholesaler, there is no agreement between the parties. If and when a court of law says there is, there is no agreement. Period!

Chelman states what he would LIKE to have happen, but that has nothing to do with the ethics, or lack thereof, of the buying party who may or may not be aware of Chelman's wishes printed in the beginning of the book on a page usually ignored by most readers.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 25314
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

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

Postby Richard Kaufman » April 20th, 2007, 1:19 pm

Mr. Chelman may wish to attempt to sue someone in the United States for performing routines from his book Hauntiques, but he will not be successful because there is no notice anywhere outside the book itself (back cover, etc.), or in any of the ads, that the material cannot be performed for the public for money.

This is a glaring ommission, and represents Mr. Chelman's part of the contract with the purchaser. While Mr. Chelman thinks it's perfectly find to impose his "contract" on the purchaser after money is spent, it is invalid because the purchaser was not advised of this obligation prior to purchase. Therefore the purchaser is under NO obligation to honor the restriction.

Whether the publisher understood his obligation to make this information available to all potential purchasers of the book before money is spent or not, we don't know. But I do know that if the publisher had printed the performance restrictions on his ads, on his websites, and on the outside of the book, he would have sold far fewer copies.

With Life Savers, the performance restriction was so narrow--merely that the material could not be performed on TV without permission--that 99.99 percent of the purchasers would not be affected, making it irrelevant for all intents and purposes because very few of us will ever have the opportunity to go on TV! I felt that the author, Michael Weber, could try and reserve that right if he wanted to.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Guest

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

Postby Guest » April 20th, 2007, 1:44 pm

The book is not the matter of the controversy.
I repeat myself: if David Mamet puts on sale a book with dramas, he is not selling the right to perform them publicly.
Imagine that: Mr.Mamet and Mr. Jay are publishing the script of "52 Assistants". Furthermore, in the book mr.Jay explains and discuss the detailed card techniques and his philosophy.
They put on the book a price tag of 1000 dollars.
Do this gives to you the right to perform this material publicly and for money?
Good luck with the court.

The sale of performance material in a literary form is just NOT the sale of the performance rights.
They are two separate things.
The fact that I publish my material into a book, exposes it more, so I do a disclaimer just to remind my implicit rights.


The performance rights are granted and protected in two different forms:
-proofs of previous performances
-registration of the performance at the society of authors and composers, anywhere in the world.
The publishing of this in a book has nothing to do.

Guest

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

Postby Guest » April 20th, 2007, 1:51 pm

This is a glaring ommission, and represents Mr. Chelman's part of the contract with the purchaser. While Mr. Chelman thinks it's perfectly find to impose his "contract" on the purchaser after money is spent, it is invalid because the purchaser was not advised of this obligation prior to purchase. Therefore the purchaser is under NO obligation to honor the restriction.>>>

I'm not so sure about that. When you buy order a copy of a play from, say, Amazon.com, it doesn't generally have the "All Rights Reserved" on the website. But if you tried to produce the play without obtaining the rights, you'd be gone after. And you'd lose.

And I'm not talking about public domain stuff, like Shakepeare. I'm talking about modern era plays, like those by Neil Simon.

If it's copyrighted, control of the rights belong to the copyright holder.

P&L
D

Guest

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

Postby Guest » April 20th, 2007, 3:50 pm

It seems so obvious as to not need pointing out, but legally the script for a play, and a book sold as a book are two COMPLETELY different things.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 25314
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

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

Postby Richard Kaufman » April 20th, 2007, 3:54 pm

The performance rights of plays are recognized by United States law. The performance rights of magic routines are not.

Comparing a magic routine to a play has no basis in the eyes of the law.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Guest

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

Postby Guest » April 20th, 2007, 5:18 pm

As usual, I believe Robert-Houdin said it best when he wrote, "An author of magic books is an actor pretending to be a playwright."

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4158
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

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

Postby Brad Henderson » April 20th, 2007, 6:36 pm

Raefelle,

You mention Max Maven's published works. Here is the key issue: If Max published a routine, without restriction, as he has, do we the magic public have the right to present it for money as a theatrical work?

While one may argue that according to strict copyright law, the rights to present that routine professionally are reserved, we have a tradition in magic that goes back hundreds of years that demonstrates practice AND EXPECTATION to the contrary. (Not the least of which are other books released by Chelman where the rights for performance were neither reserved nor was anything written to imply that performance in any setting was not granted.)

Regardless of what is "right", "wrong" or "legal," there is very real historical precedent for the fair use of published routines in magic.

Should someone wish to reserve those rights (which I feel is their perogative) they would have to be clear that their product falls under different rules and expectations than those set down by tradition.

This would require AT LEAST notice prior to purchase, consistent and clear "branding" of the rights restriction to the product, AND a formal agreement in which both parties made clear they understood the terms of the rights limitations.

Otherwise, I fear all ethical and legal arguments fail when put to the test of historical practice and expectations.

Guest

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

Postby Guest » April 20th, 2007, 6:59 pm

The performance rights issues and procedure for protecting those rights are probably best handled in a separate thread here.

The question about reserved rights and what rights might be reserved by the author seem a useful topic in context of this book.

What specifically does this guy want?

Guest

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

Postby Guest » April 20th, 2007, 8:54 pm

Interesting in that on the hauntiques website there's all sorts of information about the book and its contents and an easy way to buy it via PayPal, but I couldn't discover a word about restricted usage of the material it contains.

This furthers my arguement that no contract is created by the simple purchase of the book because the buyer is unaware of any conditions the author has placed on the material.

As my favorite judge says, "You're outta gas."

Guest

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

Postby Guest » April 21st, 2007, 2:58 am

Mr.Kaufman reminds that a magical "routine" is not protected, and this is right, in any country.
But the creator, and the legislation, can consider this as a "play".
The law has an important international precedent.
In the 90s, a French magician presented in television the act Flying.
He didnt just presented an act employing the flying technology.
He presented implicitly Mr.Copperfields Flying: similar in music,staging, costume, concept, props. In theatrical terms, he used Mr.Copperfields dramatic play. Even if he would have change one or more of those element, the problem is still the same. He used somebody elses concept.
The American illusionist sued his French copyst in the Court of Paris, and won.
This established an historical point in the international legislation concerning variety, circus and magic acts, on the basis that a performance material is protected if the works brings the mark of personality of his author (translation mine, Tribunal de Grand Instance Paris 3, July 20 1996, published in the RIDA register , 7/97 page 351).
What does this means? It means that the law on authors right doesnt protect a technique or a performing speciality. It doesnt even protect the idea. An idea is not protectable under the authors right.
You can only protect the shape you give to this idea.
So the law protects the combination of the flying technology with other artistic elements, trasforming the idea in a concrete performance, and in a written play, even if not published in a book.
If Mr.Copperfield had previously published all of his playlet into a book, with mechanics and all, the fact of having this available for sale in bookshops, would not have changed his sole right over the performance of it.
You can reproduce the fan act from the Wakeling book for professional paid work: until some of the Wakeling heirs decides that you owe them the rights to play this theatrical piece. This doesnt concern the right of Mr.Steinmeyer to do a book with. It concerns the performer (other think are the rights for the invention of the mechanichs behind this act).

Here in Italy, and in France too, the law establishes that a performance is protectable if it is fixed in written form or other form (L.112-2.4, L.212-1, French code on authors right), implicitly before this is or not lately published into a book. Under similar laws, the Copperfield Flying was registered and protected in the USA. At this purpose, it was written, even if not published. At the time, I discussed this case a lot with the late Gary Ouellet, an author and a lawyer. And he confirmed me of the perfect international conventions in those matters.
Now, if you want to use the flying technology, it is a problem between you and his inventor/producer, Mr.John Gaughan. The same for the Wakeling mechanics of fans. But if you wish to combine the flying apparatus with a story, music etc., you fall in the field of a dramatic product, intellectual property and personal creation. And is better for you that your creation is as much personal as possible.
Again, if you uses Elmsey count, you can do freely, unless you dont use some eventual personal written theatrical interpretation of Mr.Elmsey or somebody elses. But if you want to use it as in Chelmans Pact, you are abusing of the personal combination of this author, then of an intellectual property.
Unless Mr.Chelmans allows you to do, with or without a previous disclaimer.
The intellectual property begins when a performance exist and is documented in some form. This means that, for this moment on, the autor is granted perpetual moral rights: of divulgation, paternity, respect, retreating, repent. And of temporary pecuniary rights for performance and reproduction.
This is worldwide.
Now, you decide to publish and sell a book of your material.
Everything that goes publicly into a book, is becomes in a double way subject to protection, because it combines the rights of performance material with those of literary material: two distinct forms of authors right. Once something is into a book, it is implicit that every public use is forbidden. You dont need a disclaimer to protect you from photocopies. You can remind it with a disclaimer, if you want, but you are already protected. In the same way, you dont need this disclaimer to avoid commercial performance of your material. Mr.Chelmans book is not the first in magic stating this. The same did Ted Lesley in Paramiracles, or the late T.A.Waters in some of his works. They are both legitimate authors and professional performers. Their statement is not at all a contract, not even a necessity: it simply a courtesy, for something that is authomatically protected by the law by two ways: one is that this performance material exixst as an artistic product before the eventual existence of the book; two, that whatever material in the book is (by the fact of being published) implicitly protected from every kind of use, from photocopies to movie rights.
If nobody was never sued by Lewis Ganson or Dai Vernon or Slydini, it doesnt mean that we was granted the right for performing this material. But the author was in many points of the books encouraging to use the material and even the presentations, that at the time was still called patter. Just suggesting that this was an handbook more that a play. It is ambiguous, I know: but we have to consider that the professional publishing in the magic field is reaching a correct status only recently, thanks to peoples as Mr.Kaufman, Mr.Minch, Mr.Karr, Mr.Caveney and several others. Until the 80s, this field still struggled to fill the gap between the concept of home-produced binded fotocopies (even with remarkable material) and properly conceived books.
And still today: how many magic books are legitimately registered, or sent to the Nationl Library of their publishing countries?
Today this interesting debate helps us to recognize also in magic the difference of categories in the field of publishing: what is handbook, what is an artistic play with revelation of his techniques, or what are our Stanislavski or theories, as in the case of Swiss, Brown, Burger, Parr. Or to go beyhond the difference of writing for magicians or audience, as in the recent achievements of Mr. Steinmeyer or Mr.Swiss. Chelmans books too, in Belgium, are enjoyed by non-magic readers.
I think that today those talented author open us to a way of writing about magic that we dont even dreamed; but that is perfectly normal in the field of legitimate performing arts.

A final thought.
In 2001, I was invited by the National Library in Paris in a panel for a conference about authors rights in performances of circus and variety act (Loeuvre de cirque au regard du droit dauteur), to bring my experience as writer and director. There was important lawyers, judges, philosophers etc. One of the topics was the discussion of magic, and one of the speakers discussed in detail the Copperfield legislation case.
One of the speakers asked at a certain point how many magicians was in the audience. In the auditorium of 500 peoples attending (actors, acrobats, musicians), no magician was present.

Guest

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

Postby Guest » April 21st, 2007, 6:51 am

>>>The performance rights of plays are recognized by United States law. The performance rights of magic routines are not.

Comparing a magic routine to a play has no basis in the eyes of the law.>>>>

I would argue that copyright is copyright.

I can't adapt and perform "The DaVinci Code" for money, or any other copyrighted book for that matter. Under what legal precedent would Mr. Chelman's book be afforded less protection?

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 25314
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

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

Postby Richard Kaufman » April 21st, 2007, 8:11 am

Sorry, but United States copyright law does not recognize magic tricks as "plays," "poems," or anything else and doesn't afford them any sort of protection.

End of story.

Next.

Done.

If you don't like it, then begin a lawsuit in the United States against someone who has swiped a published or marketed magic trick, or who has performed one of Chelman's tricks in a paying engagement. When you've won the lawsuit, and set a legal precedent, then we can continue the discussion. Otherwise it's a dead end, plain and simple.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Guest

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

Postby Guest » April 21st, 2007, 12:22 pm

For Mr.Kaufman.
You are right.
I agree with you: of course the law don't copyright Chelman's "tricks". But it copyrighs Chelman's "play": a combination of tricks, text, plot, specific props, acting direction for the purpose of performance.
The Copperfield example demostrate that you can protect a play containing tricks.
And the "play" is the literary form Mr.Chelman used into his specific book.
Other magic books are done in the same way (David Parr's "Brain Food"); other are written as "tricks" with "patter", not as a "plays".

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 25314
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

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

Postby Richard Kaufman » April 21st, 2007, 12:26 pm

The Copperfield example doesn't apply because David would not have won his case in the United States.

The law in Britain and the European Union is different than in the United States.

Equally important is the fact that the rights restriction was unknown to buyers of the book in advance of purchase.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Philemon
Posts: 28
Joined: January 22nd, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

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

Postby Philemon » April 21st, 2007, 4:45 pm

Copyright Law of the United States of America

and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code

106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 25314
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

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

Postby Richard Kaufman » April 21st, 2007, 5:44 pm

And magic tricks are not legally recognized in ANY of those protected areas.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Guest

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

Postby Guest » April 21st, 2007, 6:02 pm

Sorry, but United States copyright law does not recognize magic tricks as "plays," "poems," or anything else and doesn't afford them any sort of protection.

End of story.

Next.

Done.>>>

I'm arguing apples, you're arguing oranges. With Mr. Chelman, the "trick" in the sense of Ghost Count here, bill tube there, isn't the issue.

The presentation is the thing. The original stories that go with the tricks most certainly ARE protected by copyright as his book is both published and copyrighted.

Based on your above argument, I could take any trick in Genii, copy it word-for-word, and re-sell it for money without fear of legal reprisal.

P&L
D

Guest

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

Postby Guest » April 22nd, 2007, 12:37 am

Exactly.
Mr.Brennan got exactly the point.
The copyright is a concept for the protection of the SHAPE given to the ideas, not the ideas themselves, or their relative techniques.
As Mr.Kaufman points, it is obvious that is impossible the concept to protect something as a "trick".
We are speaking here of the intellectual shape given to the trick.
And this shape must be phisical (print, audio, video).
And this falls in the categories of novel, poetry, drama, coreography, pantomime, musical play: it depends by your choice.
Apples and oranges.
And, anyway, concernig the book: when something goes in print the author is AUTOMATICALLY granted the right to whatever use of the material in PUBLIC.
Concerning the international protection, the Conference of Geneva on the Author's Rights of 1996 establishes precise international conventions.

In the respect of everybody opinion, all this risks to be endless.
The present controversy is very stimulating, but we reached more than 100 posts, that is maybe too much.
I agree with Mr.Kaufman's suggestion to stop it there and maybe pass to something else, similarly stimulating...
Next...

Guest

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

Postby Guest » April 22nd, 2007, 6:55 am

I'll add a post-script.

In the end, Mr. Chelman isn't going to come all the way to the USA to sue someone who does one of his pieces at a restaurant gig. He'd spend more than he'd ever recover.

It's up to the conscience of the individual purchasers to decide whether or not to honor Mr. Chelman's restrictions.

Godd luck with THAT, Christian!

P&L
D

Guest

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

Postby Guest » April 22nd, 2007, 10:41 am

And what of attempting to limit or claim rights to a trick using a Viking Bill Tube as is attempted in the 'time machine' effect in 'Hauntiques'?

In what possible world can a THIRD party claim rights to a marketed trick, the trick itself long in the public domain?
I own many Viking Bill Tubes, and I'll use them in whatever scenario I see fit to use them in.
...........PLEASE, take the time to answer this question.

Remember, this is a third party attempting to claim rights on an effect that's been marketed for many decades now, and is likely in the collections of thousands, if not tens of thousands of magicians.

Guest

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

Postby Guest » April 22nd, 2007, 11:21 am

Has anyone eeven thought of asking Christian permission to use one of his tricks? One might be surprised at the equanimity of Mr. Chelman

Robin DeWitt

Philemon
Posts: 28
Joined: January 22nd, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

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

Postby Philemon » April 22nd, 2007, 11:21 am

I can't speak for Mr. Chelman, but it seems pretty clear that he's not trying to restrict the use of the "Bill Tube" (or any other methodology or principle used in any of his routines), but rather the presentations themselves.

And he has graciously allowed amateur performers rights to perform his material as long as it's for a non-paying gig.

And he asks that professionals contact him if they wish to use his presentations for a paying gig.

It's not really too much to ask, and most professional performers would have no problem asking anyways...

What's sad about this entire discussion, is that here we have a inspirational mind who's willing to share with us a glimpse into his creative mind for the purposes of sparking the same sort of creativity in us, and it seems that the vocal majority have no appreciation for what Mr. Chelman has done.

By respecting his wishes, we will encourage him to continue publishing his material so we can garner further insights. If we don't, Mr. Chelman may very well stop sharing, and that would be a great loss, in my humble opinion.

Fortunately for Mr. Chelman, only about 1% of the people who read his book actually perform in public. And of those, I would wager that only 1% would go through the effort of memorizing his presentations (or patter, if you will) to present the effects the same way that Mr. Chelman would. Let's face it, what works for Mr. Chelman simply wouldn't work well for most other performers.

I repeat, Mr. Chelman is not claiming rights to the methods contained within his book, but the PRESENTATIONS, which by U.S. Copyright Law, are indeed his to claim. But I suspect I'm preaching to the choir on this one, as the names on this thread that I recognize as fellow professional performers seem to get this idea.

If Mr. Kaufman is so interested in seeing the idea of magic trick protection tested in Court, I recommend that he take the time to learn one of Mr. Chelman's effects verbatim from his book, and then present it in a paying performance without securing prior permission, THEN notify Mr. Chelman that he has done so. I'm sure the publisher of a successful magic trade magazine has enough funds (along with a good attorney on retainer) to defend himself against the resulting lawsuit. And think of all the publicity that would be generated from such an event!

I mean no disrespect to Mr. Kaufman. This is his board and I consider myself a guest here, but I think many folks here are misinterpreting Mr. Chelman's intentions as he tried to express them in his book. It's a far too common mistake to confuse 'remuneration' with 'renumeration', especially for a non-native English speaker. And it is my hope to try to clear up matters.

Plagiarism, rip-offs, and outright theft are certainly no strangers to the magic profession (nor any performing arts category), but one would wish that the readers of this forum at least have an interest in protecting the intellectual property of a fellow performer.

That is what 'ethics' are all about.

Guest

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

Postby Guest » April 22nd, 2007, 11:37 am

I also wonder how Richard would respond if I put the tricks frpom Genii up on a free website each month.

After all, "Tricks have no protection under Us copyright laws..."

HEY, I can reprint the entire Kaufman publishing cannon.

Need to hire me a typist to start transcribing. Look for Secrets of Bro. John Hamman and David Roth's Expert Coin Magic coming soon at half the price.

It's cool, right, Richard?

P&L
D

Guest

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

Postby Guest » April 22nd, 2007, 12:12 pm

From the U.S. Govt. Copyright site.

What Is Not Protected by Copyright?

Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:

* Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)

* Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents

* Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration

* Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)

Guest

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

Postby Guest » April 22nd, 2007, 12:48 pm

I think Christian Chelman is specifically referring to people using his scripts as printed, not his ideas.

However, as the original caveat was not clear anyway, I think in this case the argument is moot.

However, I do think if you publish a fully scripted performance piece and someone uses it as is, the author would be covered by copyright. But, as Richard has emphatically pointed out, this has yet to be tested in a court with regards to magical performances.

Mr Chelman's routines in this book are clearly devised to suit him, his personality and the unusual props he owns. So, really this book should be taken more as a map to developing your own routines, rather than mimicing Mr Chelman. My gut feeling is that Mr Chelman is more concerned about people screwing up his "creations" than he is about anything else ... but I could be wrong.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 25314
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

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

Postby Richard Kaufman » April 22nd, 2007, 1:11 pm

Sorry Dee, but your remarks reveal that you haven't understood a single thing being discussed here.

All of my published works are covered by copyright--every word I've ever written, every illustration I've drawn (or published that was drawn by someone else). The design of the books, the typography, all are covered by copyright.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Guest

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

Postby Guest » April 22nd, 2007, 1:27 pm

Philemon wrote:
If Mr. Kaufman is so interested in seeing the idea of magic trick protection tested in Court, I recommend that he take the time to learn one of Mr. Chelman's effects verbatim from his book, and then present it in a paying performance without securing prior permission, THEN notify Mr. Chelman that he has done so. I'm sure the publisher of a successful magic trade magazine has enough funds (along with a good attorney on retainer) to defend himself against the resulting lawsuit. And think of all the publicity that would be generated from such an event!
_____________________________________

You have that backwards, Phil. It is not Richard Kaufman's duty to prove anything. Chelman is the one making a claim that is not supported in 150 years of magic publishing or US Copyright law. If he believes that he has a right under US law and that that right has been violated, then it is his right and duty to bring a suit against an offending party. Finding a lawyer who will take his money would not be a problem. Finding a lawyer who thinks he has a case is another matter entirely.

The main point is, since there is no law supporting Chelman's position in the United States and no contract between the buyers of Chelman's book and Chelman, are we supposed to think that acceding to someone's wishes (or bullying) that was not articulated before purchase is somehow "ethical"? I obey the law and expect others to do the same. When someone wants more than the law allows, absent a previously-agreed upon contract, I just ignore them....as should everyone else.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 25314
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

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

Postby Richard Kaufman » April 22nd, 2007, 1:48 pm

I always find it funny when people make statements which imply that I am somehow wealthy or have made a lot of money publishing magic books or Genii. One makes very little money publishing magic books and Genii has been in debt since the day I bought it. I work hard to pay my bills every month like most everyone else, so spare me your mind-reading fantasies, Philemon, about my finances!
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1333
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

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

Postby Tom Stone » April 22nd, 2007, 5:16 pm

* Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration
Chris, the patent office have different definitions to those words than what we magicians have.
Methods are supposed to be protected by patents, not copyright - but if you take the "method" of a sleight of hand routine to the patent office, they will refuse to accept it as a method.

Guest

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

Postby Guest » April 22nd, 2007, 6:02 pm

>>>Sorry Dee, but your remarks reveal that you haven't understood a single thing being discussed here.

All of my published works are covered by copyright--every word I've ever written, every illustration I've drawn (or published that was drawn by someone else). The design of the books, the typography, all are covered by copyright. >>>>

The fact that you're taking what I wrote as a factual assertion reveals that you clearly don't understand sarcasm.

But let's pretend I wasn't being sarcastic. Under your theory of copyright law, would I be in any kind of violation if I re-typed sections of one of your books verbatim and sold them?

D

Guest

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

Postby Guest » April 22nd, 2007, 6:52 pm

I would like to thank Richard for his effort to keep Genii around and giving me a reason to vist my favorite magic shop once a month(shameless plug)Midwest Magic and I say again how much I enjoyed the book too! And what so wrong about asking??

Guest

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

Postby Guest » April 22nd, 2007, 6:54 pm

Tom,

I only posted that up because it's relevant to the conversation. It has nothing to do with U.S. patent law. Unless Mr. Chelman has patented something in this particular book, a comparison of copyright/patent law seems irrelevant.

I'm honestly happy to let Mr. Chelman (or any other person who feels their rights have been infringed) seek redress via the proper legal channels. If such infringement does pop up in the case of Mr. Chelman's book, it'll be interesting to see what (if any) lengths he'll go to protect his perceived rights.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 25314
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

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

Postby Richard Kaufman » April 22nd, 2007, 6:59 pm

Dee, yes, of course you would be in violation of copyright.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Guest

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

Postby Guest » April 22nd, 2007, 8:51 pm

I agree.

Now, how is it different if a magician performs Mr. Chelman's presentations, verbatim, for money?

P&L
D

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 25314
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

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

Postby Richard Kaufman » April 22nd, 2007, 9:18 pm

My copyright resides in the reproduction of my copyrighted work in printed or electronic form. Mr. Chelman's copyright resides in the whomever owns the copyright of the English language translation of Hauntiques (or whoever owns the original French edition). If it's Mr. Chelman, then he owns the work and in cannot be reproduced in any printed or electronic form.

Performance does not fall into that category.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Guest

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

Postby Guest » April 22nd, 2007, 9:25 pm

Performance does not fall into that category. >>>

OK, if I verbally recorded one of your copyrighted books, and sold it on audiotape or cd, would that violate your copyright?

P&L
D


Return to “Feature Articles”