Talk:Intellectual rights to magic methods

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 January 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Intellectual rights to magic methods is within the scope of WikiProject Magic, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to magic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page (Talk), where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents 1 Patents 2 Industry standard and praxis 3 Controversial edits? 4 Examples 5 original research 6 Cleanup

[edit] Patents

Shouldn't this page discuss patents, which specifically can describe processes, such as industrial processes and computer algorithms? It's not clear to me at all whether patent law applies to magic methods, but it seems it might. Deco 05:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Seems someone did update it. Looks good, thanks. Deco 21:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Patent law does not apply to a method unless the method is part of a patentable gimmick, but even then, it isn't the method that is patented, but the operation of the gimmick. This whole thing is a very tricky part of the law. Until case law can produce some precedent, all of this will just have to live in the world of conjecture. Ultimately, anything that is patented is publicly disclosed anyway, so it is a Catch-22. --Gijones 23:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that what you are saying is already reflected to some extent in the text of the article. Patents give a particular type of protection - they were never intended as a way to help people keep things secret. This topic is not all conjecture because there IS some case law on patents in relation to magic. It reflects the limits of patent protection. Goldin used patents to try to prevent anyone else doing the sawing illusion and fought a number of court cases in relation to them. But Goldin ultimately lost his case relating to exposure because he neglected the fact that the patent process requires you to lodge publicly accessible copies of the details of the invention in question.Circusandmagicfan 20:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

[edit] Industry standard and praxis

This subject is a bit tricky, because there are intellectual rights to magic methods - it's just that those rights are not yet defined by law (just as it once was for a number of other fields).

So when it comes to revelation of magic methods, I suggest that Wikipedia adapt and comply to the standards that are used by the respected publishers of magic technical litterature around the world. Those are the people who on a regular basis has to decide what is ethical to publish, and have evolved a set of rules that are quite clear and simple to follow.

I'm a publisher of magic litterature myself, and I can contact "Hermetic Press", "L & L Publishing", "Kaufman and Company" and then put together a guideline for the Wikipedia that are in agreement with the industry standard. If this is interesting, where should I post it? --TStone 14:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I've put together a proposal for Policy for magic methods. Take a look --TStone 17:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Page moved to Wikipedia:Proposed policy for magic methods. --cesarb 14:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial edits?

I don't know if my edits are controversial, but now the page reflects a reality which is valid and accurate.

The discussions so far seem to be about whether magic "secrets" should be revealed or not - but not a single one of the people involved in those discussions have stopped for a second and thought a bit about what one of the people behind the "secrets" might want.

I'm a creator of magical effects. I'm also a pacifist who have never lifted a finger at anyone - but if anyone suggests that my take on my art is less serious or less valid than a playwright's take on his art... then my pacifism becomes more strained.

I don't agree to the "magic must be secret always"-crowd. I care nothing for "secrets", I don't like them. I'm proud of my work, just as proud as a playwright might be. And I desire immortality.. no, I crave it! I want people to know about the devious covert choreography within my best pieces of work - so I can share my joy with them. You want magic to be secret? Fine. Create your own pieces and keep them secret, I will not protest. I want people to know about mine.

..but I can not act like that. Because my name will immediately be stripped from my work. The people who doesn't yet understand the finer nuances that will kick in first in the performances, will cut out those nunaces, to make it easier and quicker to transmit when posting it to all kinds of rip-off sites. Get to the meat quicker, not realizing that it is the meat they're cutting away - dragging it down from devious to ordinary... so I will not only be bereft immortality, I will also suffer the discomfort of watching my proudest work degenerate into nothing. What protect my work? Nothing!

The "information wants to be free"-crowd.. I'm not too keen about them. Sure, I have downloaded movies from the net three times. But I have never cut away the end credits, and passed it on without the credits. I'm a performer too. I'm rather creative, and each piece takes a long while to rehearse, because the covert choreography is rather tricky and counter-inituive. I might create 8 new pieces in a month. One single piece takes between 1-3 months of practice before I can perform it in front of an audience. About 10 % of my creations find their way in my repertoire. So I give away 90% of my work - good pieces. The remaining 10% I want to keep for myself for a while. Enjoy that end of the spectrum too - performing an original act, of which there are no clones of nowhere in the world.

But there's nothing that protect my work there either. It's quite possible to videotape a show, reverse-engineer a simpler piece, strip my name from my piece, then spread it all over the net - and sooner or later, some new beginner who want to impress me and get my approval will try to perform a botched version of my own work, refering to it as a "cool thing he found on the net" - and will be hurt and surprised when I instead throw him out and have him excommunicated - because that is the only protection that exists. To show strong disapproval towards anyone who steals material - when, infact, I would prefer to welcome anyone interested enough to actually learn the stuff. But I can't do that. Because there are no protection - and those thefts are supported and condoned by "info wants..."

I understand the idea somewhat. Photoshop is expensive as hell, and skills in that software is necessary for any hopeful beginner in computer graphics. Using a pirated copy to practice on, and then (hopefully) use the first money he earns on the skills to buy a real copy. That's a quicker route than mine (as mentioned in a shareware ebook I made on self publishing).

But applying the same concepts on magic? Come on. There are no monetary stumbleblocks here. I was raised on a farm in the middle of nowhere, and had no money at all for many years. That's the good thing with magic, you need nothing at all to create - just think really hard, and that's it. I've never understood why so few do that. If the information should be free, why then the reluctance to include the information that a certain piece is created by a certain person? If you want to give away something anonymously, then create your own piece and give away - I will not protest.

Hmm... I lost control there. Sorry --TStone 05:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examples

To illustrate:

-This is an example of a discovery that can be patented:

• A pane of glass, angled 45 degree to the viewing plane, can under (this specific) lighting, get the properites of a semi-transparant mirror, making it possible to create (this specific) illusion in the context of a theatrical performance.

-This is an example of a script that can be copyrighted:

• -"I was only three when they put me out on the stairs. They did not say what I had done. I stood there, silent, shivering. Quarter past five, as the two moons had started to rise, a rhyming Qualu-circus passed our burrow, and a woman saw me. 'You poor thing', she whispered as she came towards me. She gave me a hug, looked at the sky and said 'life isn't easy, when the sisters are rising together. Come with us'. She and her husbands were the prime-dancers in the Qualu-circus. They taught me and gave me the love for the dance. When I had danced for fifteen years, nature called and I went looking for a tree. When I got back, someone had stolen my sleeping bag. It was then I understood the full meaning of what the woman had said; 'life isn't easy, when the sisters are rising together!' "

The second example can't be patented, as it is just random words stringed together in a specific order. The words in that order, together with some of the concepts, can be copyrighted. The abstract idea of having a Qualu-circus and two moons called "the sisters" - use that combination in a short story, a film, theatre play or radio theatre and it might be considered an infringement of copyright. Each separate word is no problem, but the combination. Same with dance choreography, each move is not protected, but a specific unique sequence can be protected. Music: Same there. Can't patent the tones, can't copyright the tones one by one - but a specific sequence can be protected.

Now magic. Let's take Paul Harris piece "Headache" as example, as that is a favourite with me.

That magic can be considered art should be understood, as it is possible for someone with knowledge to see a magic effect he's never seen before, and without any hints, recognize the creator, based on the style and thinking which is integrated with the covert choreography in the piece. No matter who perform it, I can spot a Max Maven-creation anywhere. Or a Jim Steinmeyer-creation etc. When I was 18, someone performed "Headache" for me, and I immediately recognized it as a Paul Harris-piece. So I searched until I found a copy of his manuscript, because I wanted to perform it myself. That's the polite and honourable way to do it, besides, I wanted to be sure that the one who performed it for me hadn't misunderstood some subtle nuance. Of course, I could have just taken it, how should Harris find out about that, with him in USA and me in Sweden on the other side of the world? But I had the dream of meeting him, and get noticed.. Anyway.. this is what his creation is about.

Paul Harris had made a discovery. An oddity in the printing on one of the cards in a standard deck. That discovery can't be patented or copyrighted. Harris also had the psychological knowledge that no one would notice the oddity, unless attention was brought to it. That knowledge can't be protected either. He deviced a dramatic (funny) plot about an overworked playing card with headache - now, this might almost fall under copyright. Then he created a covert choreography of actions, in a specific and unique order... And Harris discovery, together with the plot, while using his specific choreography, gives you the illusion that a King in the deck, after getting a headache, uses his sword to stab himself in the head to release the pressure. A very funny, impromptu and visual animation of a printed design, while using nothing else than a standard deck of cards - which can only be accomplished by using his specific choreography, and his discoveries.

It is just as much a realised expression of artistic vision as a script, composition or dance choreography. Just as a piece of work in the latter three categories, Paul Harris piece should enjoy the same status, recognition and protection. But it doesn't. Surely, it must be obvious that the copyright laws are flawed, and that my edits give a proper picture of the situation for a creator of magic pieces. And that all this nonsense about secrets or no secrets are totally irrelevant in the context. The question about exposures are equally irrelevant.

This is a serious matter - a creator must have the right to have his name attached to his work, anything less is madness. Otherwise, why all the carefulness when it comes to text, images, photos? Why not steal all that too? Is that just out of fear for a small amount of ink on a piece of paper in a big book? That can't be true - there are more people outside the legislature than inside, so that law could soon be rendered pointless.

It is pretty obvious that it would be impossible to stop the thefts that goes on here, on the magic-related pages. But it should be possible to demand that IF people insists on posting stolen material, they should be asked to provide the name of the originators too. --TStone 06:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] original research

I don't understand the sections that say citation needed. a) they link to other sections of wikipedia that say the same things b) the statements are common sense if you know anything already about intellectual property theories c) in one case the wikipedia article that gets linked to makes the same statement but does not cite specifically and does not have the same original research / not cited flag raised. 69.236.40.68 18:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The theory of copyright law rests on the interpretation of title 17 of us code. the word "magic" appears nowhere in this code. The only way to blend the two, i.e. interpret the law as it pertains to magic tricks is to actually have some sort of case go to trial and be decided by judges in a court of law. I am not aware this has happened. Therefore, any article that relates copyright law to magic is pretending to be a judge in federal court. Ultimately, arguments about the law should have legal case citations. Any statements about the law made by the uneducated (like me) should stay on talk pages instead of seeping into the article space as this article has. --Muchosucko 22:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I've added the cleanup template because this article needs, in particular, the attention of the wikipedia-legal-editing community, as well as help from others.

There are a number of misleading statements of law on the page itself, and more distressing, is the prevailing notion on this talk page that unsettled legal issues are uncommentable. Wikipedia ought to, with some caution, be able to at the least identify the legal doctrines at issue, and the issues that may arise if the issue reached trial. Certainly, even without actual trial, these issues come up in real life practice. But, as most of the previous editors have freely admitted though, this requires some legal knowledge.

There is ample room for discussions as to the wisdom of state protection for performances that involve misdirection and obfuscation. However, that discussion, at least on the article page, needs to be as accurate and fair as possible.

I look forward to this article's improvement. I hope others will work towards that too. LH (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)