Talk:Out of This World (card trick)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Out of This World (card trick) 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.

Many magic secrets are closely guarded. In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, only those with reliable and cited sources can be include in Wikipedia articles. If a secret cannot be verified through independent sources, it will be removed from the main article. Any "secret" revealed on this talk page may not be accurate; it may be speculative, erroneous, or even deliberate deception.

Contents 1 Comments on "how to" issues 2 Erroneous claims about copyright 2.1 Comments 2.2 Comments 2 2.3 Comments 3 3 Request for comment 4 Apology and my reasons 5 Closing remarks 6 Yet Another Point 7 A Magician speaks out in favour of greater knowledge 7.1 another magic professional 8 Industry standard and praxis 9 Temporary note 10 related deletion discussion 11 So how *does* the trick work? 12 ... must not be spoiled... 13 Method removed 14 Winston Churchill

[edit] Comments on "how to" issues

There is much discussion of this topic on some magician's BBS sites. I happen to be someone who enjoys doing card tricks and one who enjoys watching them and sometimes even inventing them. I do like the idea that an online resource can make some information about magic available to all who seek and also have some qualms about having the "how to" made readily available.

First, it seems odd to discuss the "how to" of a thing in a resource which is dedicated to the "what is" of things. It seems sensible to offer a description of the trick as seen by the audience, perhaps some about it history, of which magic has a good five hundred plus years of published history, and maybe even a link to a place where one might obtain the methodology. Such a separation of the "what" from the "how" would likely satisfy most readers and also the magic community. Just as one does not expect to find a "how to" lesson in "c" language programming when looking up the language, or to find a lesson on how to pilot a 747 lesson when looking up the airplane, it seems surprising to find the how to of magic tricks discussed in these entries.

Second and on a more technical level magic tricks offer the audience an experience unlike the other performing arts in that the very sensation of magic is a perception dependent upon NOT knowing what it is that makes the trick work. This has to do with a dimension of experience unlike what one enjoys in a play or movie, where one can freely associate with a character and invest oneself in the drama to explore the basic human experience. The experience of magic is like groping in the dark as contrasted with looking in a room with the lights on. From a cognitive standpoint there is an almost palpable, and most likely measurable difference in the inner experience due to such knowledge. Current research in actual brain activity seems to be supporting the hypothesis that how we experience a thing depends upon what we know of the thing.

I am not going to argue against stating that OOTW is a card trick or describing the basic effect or its invention by Paul Curry or even offering a link to a magic shop where one might purchase the manuscript. I am asking that we consider how the discussion of "how to" does more than merely spoil a surprise but actually offers a perspective which removes the option of experiencing the performed piece as it was intended to be enjoyed. By way of parallel construction, consider an entry on Shakespeare's play "Hamlet". It would be a spoiler of sorts to say that Hamlet and his family all die by the end of the play. It would be a completely different sort of spoiler to describe the play as a tragedy of denial where the young prince destroys his family before being willing to consider that his mother married his father for the kingdom all the while being in love with the King's brother, whom she finally convinces to kill his own brother. In the former we are left with the option to experience the play as intended and explore the drama as it unfolds. In the latter "spoiler" the work explained in a way that removes all mystery from the drama and leaves only the inevitable tragedy to frustrate the audience. I ask that we leave the "decoding" or the "how to" of magic tricks off the "what is" Wikipedia entries so we can enjoy the works as intended and with them the feeling of mystery that they were designed to offer audiences.

• Note to moderators: I was not sure where these arguments belonged in this page and ask only that they be put into appropriate context in this discussion. Thanks - Jonathan Townsend

This is a marketed effect. Exposure doesn't belong here. You are causing harm to certain entertainers and their ability to make a living. Certain of the exposures here are infringing on commercial products.

Yes, the exposure belongs here. See arguments on other talk pages. — Rickyrab | Talk 1 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)

The arguments used to support the exposure of this commercial and copyrighted routine are illogical and duplicitous. The author claims that "rather than stating the explicit method by which the trick is performed, only the basic principle behind its operation will be described". This is patently false. The 'basic principle' behind this trick would be : The trick is performed by using a pre-arranged deck". The explicit method to the trick is revealed, the trick can be performed with this information.

If I am describing the amputation of a leg, the 'basic principle' is : "a leg is removed with a saw or other device, and the resulting wound repaired". If I describe the 'basic principle' in terms of : "A no. 12 scalpel is used to make an incision 2 inches below the knee, the skin is then retracted..." etc etc", what I am describing is the explicit method to perform an amputation.

If the author, or indeed Wikipedia, is concerned with controversy or potential copyright infringements - this entry should be edited and "The Secret" amended.

There is such a thing as a patent. Yes, it involves revealing the method, but it also recognizes a process or a product as intellectual property (I think). You might want to check that out, if it worries you so much. — Rickyrab | Talk 1 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)

Magical routines are NOT copyrighted; only accounts of them are. — Rickyrab | Talk 1 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)

God forbid we move past what we can legally "get away with" and what is ethically/morally right for the art of magic and today's society. Stop hiding behind a loophole in IP law.--MacGyver07 2 July 2005 11:29 (UTC)

It is not a loophole. When copyright law was devised, magicians were already performing. The wording of various treaties were well-considered. This is was an intended effect. David Remahl 10:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

A patent means that a method for doing something is made _public_. It is not restricted by copyright and may be dealt with freely. Implementing, selling or otherwise using the invention may violate the patent. Describing the method does not. David Remahl 10:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Due in no small part to the Magic Cafe's hilarious and literally pitiable reactions to magic exposure here at Wikipedia, in particular those of thesaurus-loving postaholic Mr. Townsend, I am going to get to work exposing, with legitimate and informative articles of course, even more of magic's "secrets" (insofar as anything available in nearly every public library and bookstore could be considered a secret). Also I will be watching, ready to fix any and all of the changes made to exposure pages by their legitimately-secret cabal in the execution of their underhanded scheme to edit pages that contain exposure with information that is "subtly wrong". The irony here is delicious. Not only did their plan result in no changes in their favor, it's actually going to be responsible for making things worse from their perspective (and better for absolutely everyone else). I, along with the soon-to-be informed, thank you for the motivation, Mr. Townsend. 69.49.129.177 14:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Erroneous claims about copyright

Copyright a magic trick? I think what you meant to say was "Patent right". Copyright protects published works - literary, scientific, and anything tangible, from being uncontrollably reproduced. When you wish to protect a technique for your own personal use, so you can feed your family and pay the rent, you must file a _patent_ with the US. patent office. A patent restricts the usage of an invention (i.e. a unique, unprecedented idea) to one person.

There is a problem inherent with patenting magic tricks since you must publicize the information and make it freely accessible (35 U.S.C. Sect 10) Unless it's a national security issue (sect 181)-- and the patent must eventually expire in 14 or 20 years (sects 173, 156 - I think...). Second: since secrecy is essential to magic, the origins of any Magic tricks are hard to discover - making claims of inventor-ship difficult. Magic tricks often fall under the _novelty_ clause of patent law which denies patents to inventions which were "known or used by others in this country" (35 U.S.C. Sect 102). Trade secrets that are shared and used among an entire industry make it ineligible for protection under the law. Ultimately, the only protection you have against blabbermouths is via unofficial means (oaths of secrecy, appeals to ethics and morality, mafia retaliations etc.). You cannot claim any legal protection.

Refer to U.S.C. consolidated laws here CONSOLIDATED PATENT LAWS - United States Code Title 35 - Patents. It's a very readable explanation of patent law. Also Wikipedia patent article is pretty clean explanation. P.S. I'm not a lawyer. And, I can't speak about a magic trick has been patented out side of the US. If anybody knows - I'd be interested in how that works. And - there just might be magic tricks that ARE patented (note the article's incorrect use of the word "copyright"). If anyone knows any please also let me know. Finally for the guy who claims this is patented: this trick may very well be patented: please cite the pat. number for me - I'm interested. Seriously, not being facetious

Let me say this again. With force and clarity for those who missed it. A patent protects others from using your invention. It does not keep it secret. Indeed, when you patent a magic trick, you must publicize the mechanics of how it works. The word "patent" comes from the Latin "patens," past participle of "patere" which means "to be open". That is, you must "lay open" your invention. A visit to the U.S. Patent office shows how this works The patent for the Ipod user interface--Muchosucko 3 July 2005 10:28 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• • So what is happening here then? A magic creation is an realised expression, just as a dance choreography. It can be documented, just as a musical piece. The traditional way of referring to the covert choreography in a creation is referred to as a magic method, but that term has nothing to do with the kind of "method" or "process" that copyright doesn't accept. You can't patent or copyright the action "turning 90 degrees while lifting the right arm", but you can copyright the choreographic sequence in which that action occurs. So, try to perform the actions in Curry's piece in a different order then, and you'll soon notice that this specific and unique sequence is inherently tied to Curry's creation. Paul Curry's creation is a documented, tangible and realised expression of him - still it is uncontrollably reproduced? If people are going to steal like this, do that then, but please don't claim that it is in accordance with the spirit of the copyright concept. Call it a theft, because that is what it is, and be done with it. The covert choreography in a magic creation is just not expliably defined in copyright yet, just as dance choreography and other things once wasn't. See bitlaw-page for examples that copyright still evolves --TStone 19:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Sir, I don't fully understand your argument: Paul Curry's creation is a documented, tangible and realised expression of him. I really don't know what that means. I will, however flesh out TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 102 > B [1] of U.S. copyright law for you. It says: In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. I think that nullifies the entire discussion on Wikipedia. Oh, if you truly read this section closely you'll discover the most mind blowing thing, TStone:
    • even if you copyright a magic trick, someone can legally publish the trick's: procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, and principle.--Muchosucko 05:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Now you are trying to confusing the issue by throwing in irrelevant words. If I copyright a musical piece, someone can publish whatever they want about acoustics, how a piano works, the principle of pressing down the fingers on the keyboard etc. But they can not publish things unique to this particular composition; the sequence and order of the notes. The same with a dance choreography. It is misleading to claim that it is legal to take someones realised expression of art in this field - because the legality of it is still undefined. That will be changed with time, and is it a stretch to assume that it then will follow the spirit of how other forms of art is treated? Do you think that any copyright law ever will state "in this partcular form of art, a creator has no right to be attached to his realised expressions of art"?--TStone 08:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear: publish the trick's: procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, and principle - I agree to all that, but that isn't what is published here. What is published here is Paul Curry's covert choreography for his creation. That you try to call his choreography a lot of things it is not, does not make it so. Had it been a "process", "system" etc. - then it would have been possible to patent it. Please point out the things in Curry's choreography that you belive were possible to patent. If you don't succeed, then it is clearly wrong to use those words in this context --TStone 08:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to tutor you in the law. Most of your arguments are straw men that you set up to slay. You clearly misunderstand or pretend to misunderstand the law. I am sorry for that. You can re-read this section again.--Muchosucko 08:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to tutor me in anything. But you are using words that simply doesn't apply. By law you can patent things that are: procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, and principle. By applying those specific words on Paul Curry's realised expression of art, you clearly imply that it should have been possible to patent the creation. That is a rather interesting and provoking suggestion, which you are most welcome to expand on. Feel free to point out what, in Curry's creation, would have been possible to patent. I can not find a single thing, but since you are so certain, I would be most grateful to have it pointed out --TStone 09:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

At this point the conversation has devolved into a terrible mishmash stew of words. I am sorry, I simply do not have the time (surprisingly) to work through the baby steps for you. I hope you can acheive some level of understanding of the law to quell your concern. Ignorance is not bliss. I know I come of as arrogant here, but I don't know what else I can do. I am so sorry. --Muchosucko 10:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It is true that I'm ignorant, but I know that much of the law to know that I'm not covered or protected by it. And the terrible mishmash stew of words to use legal words like "process, method of operation, principle.." on things not defined by those words is hardly something I can be accused of. --TStone 09:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments 2

• • It is strange how good the ones who condones thefts are at reading the law texts. This has nothing to do with "secrets" - it has to do with a creator's right to his creation. When and if a creation end up in the Public Domain should be the creator's choice, not the one's who want to take it from him. The realised artistic expression of someone falls under copyright, not under patent. That covert choreography in a magic creation isn't defined in copyright, while dance choreography is, is a flaw in the law. It means just the theft of someones work in this field is neither prohibited nor allowed by copyright, because it is undefined. Talking about copyright in this context, like that law had relevance, is currently misleading. There is no laws, just ordinary ethics. And by those ethics: Taking an creators' realised expression of art against that artists will is not something that should be condoned. I call it stealing, and so should you. "Secrets" or no "secrets" has nothing to do with it. Has Curry's family given you permission to publish his creation here, then it has no relevance what any secrets-hoarding amateur magician might think. Without permission of the Curry estate, then it's theft to publish it here.--TStone 19:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • a creator's right to his creation I don't know what you mean by "rights". Intellectual property rights were created to foster creativity by giving inventors a financial incentive to create. Copyright laws were created to foster artistic production by insuring the artists would be compensated for their creations. Magic sadly falls in between both forms. Your disagreement seems to stem from outrage that "dance choreography" is somehow protected by law while magic is not -- i.e. instead of a real legal argument.

No, the comparison with dance choreography is more because that form of art once was in the same legal void as magic choreography, then the law was changed. Meaning, the law evolves, and comparison with how dance choreography became legally defined might provide insight in how the next evolution might turn out.--TStone 09:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making up legal cases as you go along. Please.--Muchosucko 10:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely don't understand what you mean. I'm not making legal cases, just describing a reality and making observations. Is it so unreasonable to assume that if magic ever gets defined by I.P Laws, it will probably follow the same spirit as in the other fields? Agreed, that is an assumtion, but fail to understand why that idea makes you upset. --TStone 09:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • OK: I'm not usually a braggart, but i think this is the most important paragraph on this entire page: The problem boils down to this: Magic is stuck between a rock and a hard place: if you patent a trick: you must publish how it's done. If you copyright a trick you do not protect the publication of its:procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, and principle. Goodnight.--Muchosucko 05:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

And once again you mistake the issue here. It has nothing to do with "secrets". Any creator within any artistic field wants his material to be known, and in this field too. Don't confuse a creator's wishes for the "secrets-hoarding" phase that most beginners go through.(A magic book in a library is usually written by a magic creator who want to have his material known, and quite often that book is stolen by a beginner who belives he has the right to decide that the material shouldn't become known) Anyone experienced in the field know that "secrets" are irrelevant. We are forced to secretcy because the lack of protection of our work, quite against our will. Because there is nothing that stop anyone from stripping my name from my work, misrepresenting the work itself, and republish my work under his own name. So, what remains, when that is how a creator's work is treated? "Secrets" are irrelevant to me. But having my name attached to my creations is essential. Now tell me, what is your suggestion? How can I ensure that my name doesn't get stripped from my creations? As soon as a good answer is found, I and most of my collegues would happily give away our creations to anyone who are interested.--TStone 09:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I try to reply to all the criticism raised to my points. But I give up. You win. I don't know what you've won, but you certainly deserve it.--Muchosucko 10:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Point is that all talk about the law is irrelevant in this area. People should not talk about copyright, because that law does not exist here. Patents do not exist either. Had a magic effect been a "process", "method of operation" etc. then it would have been possible to patent it. It isn't possible to patent something like "Out of this World", therefore it can not be a "process", "method of operation" etc. To use words like that to justify taking other peoples creations is dishonest on more than one level. The field is open, and there is absolutely nothing at all that prevent anyone to take anything and do whatever with it. I can't stop it, and I don't even try... but to act as if it was honest, or justified, or permitted by "law".. that is just insulting. Just steal the stuff, if it makes you happy, and if anyone accuses you, you can just answer: "Yeah, I stole it, and there's nothing you can do about it." And you will be correct --TStone 11:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

OK whatever. --Muchosucko 11:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Trade secret protection would be the most appropriate for magic tricks. However, the problem is that most of them aren't as secret as everyone would like. So long as you don't "misappropriate" someone else's trade secret through improper means, there is nothing to stop an independent discoverer, or reverse-engineer from publishing what used to be your secret. It doesn't help that most of these magic tricks have been around far in excess of any copyright or patent term. Peyna 00:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments 3

• • No - you try to patent a dance choreography instead. If you believe that you can succeed, then you can tell magicians to patent their works. You are trying to confuse the issue. Patent is for scientific discoveries, manufacturing methods, new principles - not for realised expressions of an artistic work.--TStone 19:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Again, you are not addressing the point. You may copyright realised expressions of an artistic work. I agree with that.--Muchosucko 05:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I wish that was true, but in this field it is not..yet.--TStone 08:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

Can we agree on some or all of the following points?

• P1: An article is only a copyright violation if it reproduces the specific expression of ideas, for example by using the same sequence of words, or images. It is not a copyright violation to express the same concepts in different words.
  • Translating a english book into swedish would be okey then? It's same concepts, different words!--TStone 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You mistake the argument here. P1 says: same concepts in different words. "Different words" refers to the Wikipedia description of the concept. These "different words" are licensed under GDFL. In your example, the swedish book is licensed under whatever scheme the author wishes. The concept is still up for grabs. Your analogy is false.--Muchosucko 05:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! I'm happy to hear that you recognize that to be false. To correctly apply P1 (if it had relevance) it would mean that the concept that a spectator suddenly get the strange ability to separate black and red cards from each other without looking can't (and shouldn't) be protected. "Up for grabs". The specific choreography that Paul Curry created to portrait that concept should be treated differently though, as that is equal to a specific sequence of words in an article, or a sequence of notes in a song. The proper way, if you are attracted to Curry's concept, is to devise your own choreography to accomplish that - just like Harry Lorayne, Michael Weber, Simon Aronson, Lennart Green and many others have done. It is as simple as that.. or should be...--TStone 12:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• P2: Patenting a magic trick requires the publication of its mechanism, and does not restrict publication by others, only implementation.
  • A scientific discoverie in any field (magic, computer hardware, etc) be patented, yes - but what has that to do with a realised expression of art?--TStone 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Nothing.--Muchosucko 05:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• P3: Trademark law is not applicable to the secret of a magic trick.
  • And likewise, it is not applicable to the sequence of notes in a musical composition--TStone 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed. non sequitur.--Muchosucko 05:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• P4: Trade secrets are generally only a constraint on people who are bound by some non-disclosure agreement. Absent a specific court order, third parties have no legal duty to restict republication.
  • So thanks to the wordings in Trade secrets, we are allowed to pirate movies? I've written no non-disclosure agreement and have therefore no legal duty to restrict republication?--TStone 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • So thanks to the wordings in Trade secrets, we are allowed to pirate movies? I don't understand. I've written no non-disclosure agreement and have therefore no legal duty to restrict republication?I don't understand please elaborate.--Muchosucko 05:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing in trade secrets that mentions realised expressions of art, as those things are supposed to be covered by copyright. Talking about trade secrets in that context has as little relevance for creations within both film and magic.--TStone 07:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• P5: There are some circumstances where Wikipedia should not publish specific information, even if it is verifiable; for example, on privacy grounds, where the subject is likely to incur harm from republication.
  • So what is all this nonsense about Creative Commons license etc.? A photographer or a writer that can not be harmed if you take his works, stip his name from them and post them here against his will - I mean, why a CC-license for one creator's work, but not for another's?--TStone 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• P6: Protection of a business model is a weak argument for third parties such as Wikipedia to maintain secrecy.
  • Secrets have nothing to do with it. We are discussing the right a creator has to his realised expressions of art. I don't care for several of those businesses either, since several use the same lack of definition within copyright to steal things to hawk.--TStone 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• P7 Any argument for secrecy is weakened if the information is already freely published (e.g. in books or DVDs), even if not for free.
  • So since Riverdance has been released on DVD, it's alright to trace and republish the choreography in a piece and strip the original choreographer's name from it?--TStone 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Bovlb 2005-07-04 18:16:08 (UTC)

I'd agree with all of this. I'd also add:

• P8: Wikipedia has a responsibility to publish information, particularly educational information, of genuine public interest and concern.
  • True! There are several pages in Keith Johnstone's book "Impro" that I believe has a genuine public interest. So should I scan those pages and post as a picture, or should I type the same words one by one?--TStone 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• P9: Numerous wikipedia articles (including those for books, games, and movies) contain potential spoilers. Reading these spoilers may impair the enjoyment the reader has of discovering the secret information in the way the author, etc. had intended. Wikipedia protects these spoilers with special "spoiler follows" messages. Doing so allows those who want to avoid being exposed to spoilers to do so. The choice as to whether to be exposed to spoilers is left to the reader.
  • I've looked at some of those pages, but I don't see any similatities - as it seems to be simple accounts of what happens. For the comparison to be correct, you need to add the shooting scripts for the movies. Then a comparison would be possible--TStone 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, perhaps discussion should be on a special page (say wikipedia:inclusion of magic secrets) so we can point all these talk pages there. If there's enough interest, that can (at some point in the future) become an approved policy. --Finlay McWalter | Talk July 4, 2005 18:40 (UTC)

I agree with both those points. I'd also add:

• P10: Excluding information just because someone really really doesn't want the information published is a bad idea. It would prevent any coverage of political scandal, for example.

WP:RFC recommends using a relevant talk page for a content (non-user) dispute. Once we've kicked this around a but more, perhaps we should propose a policy. Bovlb 2005-07-04 18:51:49 (UTC)

Okay. I also remembered another point (and its corollary), concerning the magicians' objection that we're potentially endangering people's livelihood:

• • That is an irrelevant issue. A creator's right to his creation is the main thing. If the originator has agreed to release his creation to the Wikipedia under a Creative Commons-license, that it's his choice, and the opinions of another group of people who had prefered that the originator had made another choice, has little relevance.--TStone 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• P11: Wikipedia publishes information on a wide variety of topics. Similar information is also published by professional publishers (particularly encyclopedia publishers). Equally wikipedia and its wikimedia sister projects provide free information similar to that provided by many professions, including travel agents, engineers ,and scientists. While it is not wikimedia's intention to deprive these groups of income, this may occur nonetheless. In general, wikimedia's core mission to provide free information to all superscedes these concerns.
  • If that is true that it "superscedes these concerns", how come that the creator's rights to his works seems respected by the Wiki within all other forms of artistic expressions? For the assessment above to be true, it should be possible to post and find score sheets for all kinds of musical compositions here, classical and current hits - why the diffence between works and works?--TStone 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• P12: Deliberately depriving professionals of income, when no or little educational benefit is yielded, is not something wikipedia should do.
  • A non-issue. If a professinal has built his income on the works of another creator, and said creator decides to release his work here under a Creative Commons license, then the professional might lose something. While that might be sad, it is hardly of relevance. Unless, of course, the professional and the creator are the same person, and someone else has posted his work without any permission at all.--TStone 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

--Finlay McWalter | Talk July 4, 2005 19:14 (UTC)

• Legal questions of revealing magic tricks have not bothered me for a second (unless a lawyer here can convince me otherwise!). Ethical and moral ones give me pause. So, I ask: is it reasonable for the magic industry to expect a publication to stay silent, so that magicians can make money? To answer, I take a parallel example: Magzines hurt a car manufacturer when they dissuade the public from purchasing a particular brand of car, just like Wikipedia hurts the magic industry by revealing their secrets and diminishing their audience. But, there is no ethical rule that forces a publication to help an industry succeed. There is no ethical rule that says, "a magazine must be censored so that car assemlers can feed their families." Just as there is no ethical rule that says, "Wikipedia must keep magic tricks secret so that magicians can feed their families." Instead, it is an industry's burden to attract new customers. For the car industry, it is with better engines, new features, flashy advertisement, etc.. Likewise, it is the magic industry's job to 1)better protect their secrets to begin with, 2)perform existing tricks with more flare, and 3)invent new tricks!--Muchosucko 5 July 2005 22:24 (UTC)

• • Whether something should be kept "secret" or not is also a non-issue here. The questions are: "Does a creator have a right to his realised expressions of art?" and "Have a creator the right to have his name attached to his creations?" All this about industry, "secrets", exposures etc. are just irrelevant side-issues.--TStone 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Does a creator have a right to his realised expressions of art? Yes. I agree with you. We have no dispute here. Have a creator the right to have his name attached to his creations? Again, I don't know what you mean by "rights" here. Does he have an ethical right -- yes. legal right -- beats me, and largely irrelevant. --Muchosucko 05:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

As an example on the latter then: If you obtain a painting, erase the signature, add your own signature, and then pass it on to others as if it was your own work. Or just erase the signature, and claim it's Public Domain with unknown origin --TStone 12:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The issue here overlaps with the Wikipedia guideline against including "how-to" guides. The encyclopedic information here is that it is a trick rather than magic and the details of who invented it. The process of how to perform the trick is not necessary for an encyclopedia article. This is comparable to including recipes or instructions on clearing clogged sinks. I don't agree with the arguments that we shouldn't post the mechanism of the trick because of copyrights or because it will put professional magicians out of work. The reason that we shouldn't post it is that it is a 'how-to". Wikibooks is the location where "How-to" guides are being moved, and it would be an excellent place to include this information. It could serve as a valuable addition to a wikibook on magic tricks. -Willmcw July 5, 2005 21:48 (UTC)

There's a difference (sometimes a fine difference, sometimes not) between a description of a pie and a recipe of a pie. Equally, there's a difference between a perfectly valid encyclopedia article that discloses the "secret" part of a magic trick and a detailed point-by-point procedure for performing the trick. If you consider the articles the magic vandals object to (King levitation, Out of This World (card trick), Metamorphosis trick, Spoon bending, Chinese linking rings, Cut and restore rope trick, Balducci levitation, Bullet catch, Cut and restore rope trick, and Billet reading) most have just a single paragraph describing the "secret". One paragraph clearly isn't detailed enough to allow one to actually do the trick - they're certainly not "how-tos". A couple of the articles, including this one, have slightly more. Even those don't rise, I believe, to the level of a "how-to" - a proper howto would have far more detail about who stands where, says what, how exactly props are built or decks stacked. I wouldn't be averse to the trimming of the longer secret sections, but I don't believe their presence is intrinsically a how-to. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk July 5, 2005 22:10 (UTC)

• • True, and good points. If a creation is noteworhty enough to be included here, it is necessary to describe what makes it stand out to some degree. To place it in the art's historial perspective, you might have to describe parts of the covert choreography in order to be able to compare it with its predecessors, so it is possible to understand the evolutionary value and relevance of this specific piece. But to include the full covert choreography to a piece where the originator is both alive and known within the field must be considered theft, if the publication is against the originator's will. Balducci levitation has a historical value, which makes it relevant here. It's also Public Domain, since its originator is still unknown after extensive research. Perfect example of something that should be included. King Levitation has no historical value, since it's just a crass minor derivative version of the Balducci - and it would be historical forgery to include the covert choreography under that title. Comparable with: Mr. X adds two tones to the end of Beatles' "Strawberry Fields", and then the result get a whole page discussing the whole composition as if it all belonged to Mr. X --TStone 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Finlay McWalter and Willmcw make excellent points. I think that Wikibooks would welcome a compilation of detailed directions for magic tricks; I also think it is appropriate to include a couple of paragraphs of description here. Though this particular description could perhaps do with some editing for clarity and conciseness, I don't think it is out of place on Wikipedia. Certainly giving nothing away would be doing a disservice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 5 July 2005 22:18 (UTC)

• If worse comes to worse, and info gets banned from wiki for being a "how-to", I would not object to opening an entire new Wikbooks section to document, in painful detail, the information on how to perform a magic trick.--Muchosucko 5 July 2005 22:24 (UTC)
  • ...and I sincerely hope that you mean either pieces in Public Domain, or where the creators have released their works under a Creative Commons license. Otherwise, it is theft --TStone 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If you truly believe the law is being broken here, I strongly advise you to contact legal authorities and file suit. It's that simple, and I'm serious.--Muchosucko 05:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it is impossible to break (or follow) a law that doesn't exist. That doesn't mean that it's impossible to use the correct description of it anyway. That I hope that you aim for pieces in Public Domain or under Creative Commons, and avoid theft, is just a wish and in no way a demand. You are free to behave in any way you want. But had you attempted to follow the protocol used in other fields of artistic expressions, I and several with me, would probably have considered donating some of our work as support, as thanks to the curtesey shown...But that isn't really the same thing, is it? Is it more of a "kick" the other way? --TStone 13:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have taken the liberty of adding labels to all the propositions proposed above for the convenience of editors who may want to indicate agreement or disagreement. Feel free to add new propositions using this scheme. Please do not renumber existing propositions, and be cautious in editing the wording of propositions someone has agreed to or disagreed with. I agree with P1–P11. I probably agree with P12, but would like to hear some examples. Bovlb 2005-07-06 04:24:06 (UTC)

• • I really can't think of an example where R12 has ever applied; the "no or little educational benefit" test is pretty strict (and is probably another way of saying "encyclopedic"). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk July 6, 2005 15:17 (UTC)

Two more propositions derived from comments by Willmcw and Finlay McWalter above:

• P13: Detailed instructions on how to perform some process are more appropriate for Wikibooks than Wikipedia.
• P14: Brief coverage of the key points or "secret" of some process does not violate P13.

Bovlb 2005-07-06 15:48:42 (UTC)

• P15 (somewhat related to P11): I do not agree with the main point of contention: that publishing secrets harms artfully performed magic acts. This seems to be some sort of sacred belief, but it deserves question. There have been, for decades, books published and available at public libraries (not to mention other web sites) for free that describe all tricks on Wikipedia and more. If these have significantly harmed the magic industry, the damage is already done; I don't believe we significantly add to it. — 131.230.133.185 6 July 2005 22:23 (UTC)

• P16 (with regard to P13): I don't believe that these articles qualify as extensive instructional manuals. Like most things, this requires balance. I think we've achieved that. Sating curiosity about the general details of a topic is one of the main goals and uses of an encyclopedia. The secrets are the main sources of curiosity in their articles; removing short explanations of them makes the articles unencyclopedic and dictionary-like. Under no circumstances should we do anything more than make them concise. — 131.230.133.185 6 July 2005 22:23 (UTC)

I am ending this P nonsense right now! I agree with the general consensus that the "secret" behind tricks should be handled just like any other piece of information. The "copyright" idea is just ridiculous, though a common belief among magicians. I've had many heated arguments about this with my brother, a budding magician, and I understand that they do not want it published (for good egoistic reasons) but that does not change the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. David Remahl 10:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

**Your brother, the budding magician, is probably right in the middle of the beginner's mindset, the "secrets hoarding"-period. I find it hard to belive that he has gotten so far as to even ponder about the rights a creator have to his creations. If he evolves to become a good innovator in the field, he will start to think about those things right after his first piece of art gets stolen. --TStone 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Magic tricks like King's Rising are copyrighted! The dvd is in print and is thusly copyrighted. By have the secret to that on this stupid wikipedia thing, it is violating that copyright. -by Art

• Did you read P1 above? Do you disagree with that interpretation of copyright law? Can you provide a citation that shows secrets can be protected by copyright law? Thanks, Bovlb 05:15:49, 2005-07-14 (UTC)
  • That law has no relevance in these questions. The covert choreography within a magic creation is still not defined by copyright - therefore it is neither prohibited nor allowed by copyright to take an artist's creation against his will or to separate his name from his creation. Mentioning a specific law within a field where that law can not be applied is deceptive, and an attempt to confuse the issue.--TStone 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology and my reasons

I apologise if I caused controversy by posting the secret. I only posted it because I learned about it from a friend and thought it was absolutely fascinating. I didn't realise it would be so controversial to describe it. I apologise for any trouble this has caused to wikipedians and I won't post anything of this type again.

I did try to check that it would be OK in copyright terms to post it, and I found that several places on the net were selling the secret - however, they weren't paying royalties to Paul Curry. Therefore, it was as others have said here - any given specific description of the secret could be copyrighted (and all of those were), but that didn't make it illegal to describe the trick, only to copy one of those descriptions. To make it illegal to describe the trick in any way would require a patent. It seems odd to argue that it's ethical for a paysite to post the information for a profit with no royalty to the creator, or write it in a book on those terms, but unethical for the same information to be displayed for free.

Anyway, I'm not trying to put up a protest here, just apologise for any trouble I've caused. Hyphz

I don't think you did anything wrong (and it looks like most or all of the regular wikipedians above largely think the same). It seems the only ones opposed to the secret were some magicians (called to action by some newsgroup or forum, I think). I'd have some sympathy for their position if they'd discussed it like adults, but they just chose to vandalise and run, so I don't. Clearly the law of counterfinal effect pertains: now there are far more people who are interested in preserving the secret than there were before (and talks of a wikibook too), most drawn here by the vandalism. So keep on truckin'. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk July 7, 2005 00:11 (UTC)

-- Hello - I'm one of the magicians who are against exposing magic secrets. I've read the reasons above, and I really can't argue with any of them. There's no law that I can point to and say "it's illegal to expose magic", so all I can do is try to talk to your reason. If any of you have kids - look at their eyes when they see something magical. It's a great moment in their life. I perform mostly for adults, and I often see the same sense of wonder in their eyes. It's not becuase we as magicians enjoy being a "member of a secret cult" that knows secrets. We're just here to spread joy and suspend the disbelief.

As Albert Einstin said: The most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical.

I'm not a vandal - I'm open to discussion. Thanks to bovlb to direct me to this discussion.

Broothal | Talk

• Hmm. This seems to be covered under P9 (spoilers). Do you think that Wikipedia should avoid spoiling book and movie plots (e.g. The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, The Crying Game)? What abut the secrets of party games (e.g. Scissors (game))? Can you propose a general principle that you think should be used to determine what to reveal? Also, you say on your user page that "Wikipedia is taking away my only source of income" — I don't mean to doubt your word, but can you cite any specific evidence to support this claim? Thanks, Bovlb 14:13:53, 2005-07-11 (UTC)

• First of all - thankyou for taking your time to discuss this with me. Let me start by answering the easy questions. No, I have no beef with movie spoilers. If a person watches a movie, he instantly gains access to the "spoiler". Thusly, the second time he watches "the crying game" he knows there's a "thing" about the woman. With magic it's different. I have recurring customers who, year after year, requests to see the same effect. After the show, they come to me and say "Please show us this and that effect - you know - the one I like so much". Each time, they're thrilled and enjoy to be amazed. If one of the audience in the mean time would have looked up the secret, he could ruin that moment instantly. "Hey Bob - did you know that the secret is..."

I've removed the claim that wikipedia is taking away my income - it was a very exaggerated claim. Thank you for pointing that out.

As for the general guidelines, there are several "levels".

- No secrets are ever revealed
- Only secrets found in books available at the public library are revealed
- All secrets are revealed

In the magic community, we are very careful about who's secrets we expose - even to each others. Some secrets are not "ours to give", so we don't. You might read an explanation that says "you the use the Out of this World principle to acomplish.." and then not explaining the principle.

The contributors to wikipedia doesn't have that experience. They don't know if a secret if someones. A lot of magicians make a living creating effects and then selling them to other magicians. If we could get them here for free, we'd basically put them out of a job. That's why I propose the first level - no magic secrets - because it would be impossible to validate each submission without being a magician.

A secret may take 10 lines to describe, but have taken 1 year to develop. It's like if you posted the entire Harry Potter books here. No one doubts that they're the property of the author, but basically it's just information. Like a magic secret. And they may have taken the same amount of work.

Broothal | Talk

I fear you may be underestimating your audiences. Even being familiar with how an effect is created doesn't necessarily remove the 'magic' from it. The sense of wonder is often as much–or more!–the product of the magician's showmanship as it is of the 'trick' itself. I know how painting is done; pigments are mixed, a brush is used to apply paint to canvas. Nevertheless, I appreciate the art: the skill with which the final product is assembled, the whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Similarly, I know that with magic tricks there is reason that they're called tricks. I know that misdirection is being employed; I know that the deck is stacked; I know that there's a trick to how the girl gets out of the trunk; I know that there's something funny about those rings. If a good magician is performing the tricks, it doesn't matter. The showmanship sells the illusion. The same way that I can rewatch The Usual Suspects even knowing the ending, I can appreciate a magic trick even knowing how it works—I can appreciate the execution.

On a more practical note, the spoilers described here are now marked clearly as such. Just as people who want to avoid knowing the end of a movie will know to stop reading, those who wish to preserve the 'magic' can avoid the explanation in these articles.

Moreover, the explanations of tricks provided here in Wikipedia are no more detailed than information readily available (for free) to a moderately persistent Google user elsewhere on the web. (Correct me if I am mistaken in that statement.) The genie was already out of the bottle; Wikipedia reports on information that is already available. Trying to build a business model around a trade secret that is openly sold never really worked—and is totally hopeless in the Internet age. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• I sympathize with your desire to preserve the illusion in your performances (and avoid informed heckling), but I'm afraid that I have to agree with TenOfAllTrades that: knowing the secret may not entirely eliminate the appreciation of a performance; people should be able to decide for themselves whether to learn the information; and once the secret is out, it's out. As a corollary to the last, Wikipedia should not in general be publishing the secret if that information is not verifiable, say by already being published. Would you feel differently if the unfortunate audience member had learnt the secret by buying Curry's book or DVD? I'm not sure what sort of magician-specific per-article validation you have in mind, but I imagine that most Wikipedians are capable of determining whether the secret to a magic trick has been verifiably published.

So, you seem to be proposing a new proposition (with which I disagree):

• P17: Wikipedia should never reveal the secret to a magic trick, regardless of whether the secret in question is widely known, or verifiably published.

Is that a fair summary? Bovlb 17:35:08, 2005-07-11 (UTC)

As for the "level" mentioned above: "- Only secrets found in books available at the public library are revealed." Which library, and at what time, and who makes the determination?

• If my proposal should be formalized, I reckon it would sound something like: Wikipedia should never reveal the secret to a magic trick, unless it's widely known.

We have a different perception of "Published". In the magic community, if you publish an effect, and nobody disputes you, then you are credited with that effect, and no one else should publish it. So, if I had it entirely my way, all published effects should not be posted on wikipedia. Unpublished effects are okay, if they are the creation of the editor, or with the creators blessings. I doubt that wikipedians will be able to tell if an effect has been openly published to the public domain, or it has been exposed by someone with malicious intent (like Herbert Becker)

This reminds me of the discussion we had on alt.magic about 15 years ago. We were a small group of magicians using alt.magic for discussion about our craft. Then came the question of exposure, and a large discussion took place - much like this one. The end result was, that the magicians left and alt.magic is now more or less dead. So instead of more information about magic, the public is left with less information.

Well, fortunately, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. We only need one user to donate information. And he doesn't have to be a magician.--Muchosucko 03:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

By the way - I'm a wikipedia neophyte. Will the information I provide here make the basis of a vote somewhere? Is there anything else I can/should do (besides state my opinion in public?)

Wikipedia:How to create policy. --cesarb 20:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• You do seem to be working with a different sense of "published". Wikipedia has a policy of no original research, which means that no information should appear here unless it is already available elsewhere from a (reasonably) reliable source. This is what I meant by "verifiable" above. In this sense, we would not generally publish the secret of a magic trick unless either it's been published in a book, or can be found on other web-sites. I'm inferring that you disagree with this, but with comments like "unless it's widely known" you seem to be getting closer. The secret of "Out of this world" is apparently for sale in several books and a DVD; does that count as widely known?

Regarding making new policy, my plan was to try to form some consensus here, and then possibly take it to a vote once we had a clear idea of what to vote on. It's my opinion that my position is aligned to current policy, and that a policy change based on it would be more in the nature of a clarification, but I don't speak for Wikipedia — the community does. Bovlb 00:31:00, 2005-07-12 (UTC)

While this trick (or any other) may be for sale in books and DVDs, they are books and DVDs which are only sold as special locations and not to the general public. That fact alone should have some impact. 70.60.152.14 20:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• It's apparently available for sale (in various forms) to anyone [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and revealed on other websites[8]. I got these seven links from the first ten results of searching for "Out of this world" and "Paul Curry" on Google. Bovlb 23:37:18, 2005-07-12 (UTC)

• Exactly. These sites (some of them) has purchased the rights to sell the manuscript. Wiki has not. --broothal

Sadly, I'm afraid that you are wrong. "Out of this World" has been stolen so many times, that it on a pragmatic level almost can be considered Public Domain, and sadly, for each generation of theft, a nuance or two of Curry's genious is lost. In many places (like here) there is just the bare bones, and not a single one of the details that would separate it from a simple puzzle. Fortunately, thanks to Hermetic Press, this piece is now restored to us, as they got permission of Curry's widow to republish all of Curry's creations, collected in a book in their original glory. The "strains" of stolen versions (as the one here) will continue to degenerate, until they become incomprehensible (if you check my edits on the piece, you'll notice that I've only sourced it properly, but taken particular care in not touching a single word of the choreography described, but have left it in the mess it is. As it spreads from this rip-off site to others, it is bound to degenerate further).--TStone 13:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that I understand your point. Are we back to copyright again? Wikipedia is not attempting to sell or distribute a manuscript. I was trying to refute the specific claim that the secret is sold only at special locations and not to the general public. Bovlb 14:12:58, 2005-07-13 (UTC)

• No - that wasn't my point. I have no laws to throw after wiki. As far as I know, wiki isn't breaking any laws. (If they were, my job would be easier ;) It's an ehtical question. I don't think it's ethical to redistribute other peoples creations without their permission. --broothal

• Broothal: I'm not sure that a compelling case has been made that it's unethical to reveal magic secrets on Wikipedia. What do you think of Muchosucko's point above, from July 5th?

• Muchosuckos points out, that we could just protect our secrets better. That made me twitch, because I would hate to see more information soiled in DRM, EULA's etc. Most magic publications aren't protected, because we rely on the ethics of other magicians. And yes - we did sleep in the class, because we didn't anticipate this move. I never for a second thought, that any of the "good guys" would purposely reveal any of the magic secrets.--broothal

• "That made me twitch, because I would hate to see more information soiled in DRM, EULA's etc." Well, I guess that's why EULAs, patents, copyrights, contracts & the entire legal system were invented: Because "good faith," "trust," and "ethics" alone didn't seem to prevent bad behavior... ;-)--Muchosucko 18:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that if any trick is widely know, certainly Out of This World is. If I'm not mistaken, this trick has been around for close to half century, and has spawned at least 5 or 10 variations that have been published in books or videos or marketed as tricks. The proposal that is 'Wikipedia should never reveal the secret to a magic trick, unless it's widely known' seems problematic; how do you define 'widely known'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.19.18 (talk • contribs) 2005-07-11 22:20:40 CDT

Sorry to become technical, but "variation" refers to small additions to the original piece. Like if you cleaned up an old movie, so the sound got better and the picture a bit sharper - then you would have a "variation" of the original film. A variation on "Out of this World" would still be under Paul Curry's name. But the plot has generated perhaps 8-9 separate and original creations that follow the same concept or theme - meaning that even if they appear as similar outwards, the covert choreography behind them are completely different. And it is amazing how much of the creator's mind you can see in each of them, so much that it is possible to identify the creator of an unknown piece, just by looking at the covert choreography --TStone 14:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've got a very simple solution. Why not have Wikipedia point people to sources where the solution can be found or purchased. I've done something like this on the Out Of This World Page.--Rd

Rd: Is this a solution for keeping secrets out? If so, I don't understand how having links to the solution will keep people from posting secrets. But maybe I misunderstood what you meant by solution. Many articles on Wikipedia have links to external sources.

[edit] Closing remarks

I've learned a lot about wikipedia from this discussion, and I feel it's time to try to wrap things up. The conclusion is, that we the magicians do not whish our secrets to be available on wikipedia. I have no laws to threaten with, but I ask you kindly. I know you'll be asking: ok - but if we agree to that - then what's in it for us? And what's in it for wikipedia?. Here's my proposal: Magic is full of history and many magicians has devoted themselves to researching magicians from both the US and abroad as well as tricks, their origin and their place in history. We are willing to share that information with wikipedia. If wikipedia will grant us that one little favor that no secrets are divulged we will provide the encyclopedia with information about magic, magicians, tricks, effects and history. I feel that the average user will have far more use for that information, than what the secret is to biting a coin in half. With the unique interface of wiki, I feel that it could be a valuable resource for both magicians and non-magicians. Often, when I write an article, I resort to my (rather large) library of ordinary books, wishing I had some online ressource. Wikipedia could become a tool for all of us, and I feel that both wikipedia and the magic community would gain from this solution. --broothal

I appreciate your concerns, and again I thank you for engaging in this discussion constructively. Unfortunately, I rather suspect that most casual encyclopedia readers will be more interested in finding out how some trick is done (even if that means spoiling it for themsleves and anyone they talk to) than in biographies of magicians. And, even if it is excluded from Wikipedia, the rise of new media is only going to make it harder for the magical community to keep its secrets under wraps. Information wants to be free. Bovlb 02:06:48, 2005-07-20 (UTC)

• I completely agree that information shold be free (as in speech, not as in beer), and my suggestion includes making a lot of information available at the cost of a very little decrease in a certain area. Unfortunately, if the above is how wikipedia feels, then we (the magicians) are forced to jump the DRM wagon, and the net result is less free information. Also, the quality of the wikipedia articles are in question here. Most of the magic related input (especially those that contains secrets) are clearly written by a non-magician who just happen to have figured out a trick. They are baddly written and in the short time I've been here I've discovered more errors than I can count. I would have an interest in editing these articles should we come to an agreement. But please understand, that my motivation to do so wouldn't be so high if I thereby indirectly helped the exposure.

Actually, I think we see things the same way generally speaking. In this special case considering secrets, it's however pretty difficult for me to summarize what 20 years as a magician has ment to me. So - take my word for it. The art of magic will not benefit from exposing secrets. Will you sacrifice an art to satisfy a few teenagers who've just seen David Blaine on TV? --broothal

Why is the art of magic sacrificed if the secrets are given away for free on Wikipedia, but not when they are sold for cash or checked out of a library? Don't be so quick to underestimate the talent and value of magicians as performers, rather than as purveyors of gimmicks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Ultimately, every art is about your pocketbook. If an artist can't make money selling his paintings, then he can't eat or pay rent and must spend his time doing something so he can eat, which leave no time for painting. This is the same issue of magic creators, if they invent something, they deserve to be rewarded for their invention, this is THE WHOLE SPIRIT OF COPYRIGHT LAW. To protect creators so they are not ripped off by those that didnt create. In this case, giving away secrets(which while not legally covered, in the SPIRIT of copyright law they should be) is hurting creators, which is turn lessens their ability to create more magic, with no influx of new idea's, it hurts the art. So the lesson in this, is that giving away creator's secrets DOES hurt the art by reducing their ability to publish and create. --MacGyver07 02:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

As dangerous as that sounds, I'm willing to take my chances. Movies, TV, Books, Broadway are all market driven. Their plots are available everywhere. And yet, quality is high, and they are economically viable. Artists were meant to starve -- I should know. If you don't want to starve, become an accountant -- reminds me of that Monty Python sketch. --Muchosucko 02:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's a hypothetical question: Supposed that Wikipedia didn't reveal the secrets to magic tricks, but instead each article listed as external links not only websites from which the secret could be purchased, but also one or more websites that simply reveal the secret for free. Would that make any difference to you? Bovlb 14:38:16, 2005-07-20 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that wouldn't cut it for me for several reasons. 1) It would diminish the quality of wikipedia, because external links comes and goes, and there are no community to secure the quality. 2) Many of the sites that sell magic secrets do so without the authors blessings. For every legit dealer there are 10 rogue dealers who sells knock offs. I'd hate to see them getting free advertizing from wikipedia. Again - it takes a magician to tell the original products from the knock-offs. 3) The external pages are often written by non-magicians. Sometimes they're dead wrong. Sometimes they get it partially right. Either way, it's no good. If you have a genuine interest in magic, reading these partial solutions would lead you down the garden path, and you'd never be able to perform anything from that info. It might satisfy the curious, but should we endorse this? --broothal

• I'm afraid that satisfying the curious is well within Wikipedia's remit. Bovlb 20:29:10, 2005-07-22 (UTC)

• I'm happy not to post any more exposures, and I'd certainly agree that well-written pages about magic can be useful even if they don't include exposures. But I think that saying you won't contribute particular information unless an actual policy banning the posting of exposures is put in place is rather extreme. Bear in mind, I only posted OOTW because somebody else told it to me, and that somebody else wasn't a magician. If actual magicians decide not to post exposures, that should be sufficient; if anyone who's not a magician posts one, in order for them to know the method the trick must already have been exposed elsewhere. I doubt there are many people who are going to go and buy methods from magic suppliers purely to expose them. --Hyphz

[edit] Yet Another Point

Magicans are (usually) bound by a code of honour and/or legal contracts not to reveal any tricks which they learn from other magicans or magic suppliers. However, this does not apply to people outside the magic business. Magical tricks are typically only sold or communicated to insiders, of course. That means, that revealing a taught (or bought) trick is questionable, while explaining a reverse-engineered trick is okay (if the reverse engineering was done without insider information about that trick).

It sure does sound ridiculous to me that it might be forbidden to talk about the working of such stupid tricks like "Copperfield goes though the Great Wall of China" after seeing it on TV. Klaws 11:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I am also a magician who is against exposure (revealing how tricks are done. I know this discusion is a long one and many points (good and bad) have been listed I would just like to add my 2 cents worth. As a magician I value my art. It is what I do, I do it because I love it and when you love something you will do anything ot protect it. It is like a garage sale. the wife loves something but in the husbands eyes it is worthless and they should sell. The wife argues that she must keep it even though you can buy them for $10 at the corner store. That is how magicians feel about exposure. On most magic forums exposure is not tolerated. Which means even though the forums are filled with magicians we are not allowed to talk about how a trick is performed or reveal any secrets. We as magicians we cherish our secrets. We practice for weeks, months, for 5 hours a day. And then to find out that the secret we have been working so hard to protect has been given away just like that, it is a very bad feeling (for lack of a better word). Every one out there probably has something of someone they love very much and would never give up. We as magicians feel the same way about our secrets. Another example. Many of you probably have husbands or wives, who you love and who love you. You spend time together, love each other, spend money on each other and then you find out your spouse has been having an affair. All that time you spent together, all that money you spent to make your life and theirs better, it is all been wated. It is probably (don't know yet) a really bad feeling, something that you will hate that person for forever. That is sort of how we feel for magic. We spend all of our money, all of our time on it and e love it and then to have that all taken away from you, just like that...... All I ask is that exposure be moderated here. Instead of saying the magician palms her card and places it in his pocket while she is not looking say something like "Using misdirection and a bit of slieght of hand the the magician is able to move the selected card from the deck to his pocket or any other selected location" It still says how the trick is essentially done without revealing many of the secrets. Of course I would like it to be removed completely but the above will do.

Please consider me and all of the other magicians in this world when posting how we do our magic. Thanks unsigned comment

Using misdirection and athleticism, the magician avoids penetration of the bricks when travelling through the great wall of china, and actually goes over the wall instead. The audience is mystified.

Using misdirection and a flight plan, the magician arranges for the plane to disappear from the tarmac. The FAA has a record of the movements of all aircraft within the US. The audience is mystified.

Using sleight of hand, the pea is removed from beneath the nutshell and placed at the magician's will wherever he pleases. The audience is mystified.

Using Wikipedia process, the clever magician attempts to remove all evidence that magic is not an illusion, thus rendering wikipedia useless wtih respect to the magical arts. The audience is mystified. Pedant 18:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Magician speaks out in favour of greater knowledge

I'm a magician. I do amateur shows and some paid shows. I'm skilled in sleight of hand. I'm skilled in misdirection and skilled in presentation. (The last two are a thousand times more important than any secret by the way). I consider it is more important to give people free knowledge than to supress it in favour of a trade argument.

The argument about non exposure is about greed. It is not about principle. It's not about the sacrity of secrets or the look on a kids face or all these emotive arguments. Any magician will part with secrets for a few measly bucks and they do so all the time. Show him a few greenbacks and he'll gladly sell his secrets; in magic shops, at conventions, on the internet, in ebooks.., you name it, he'll do it. Splash the cash and he'll dish the dirt. Simple as that.

At Wiki, we don't want money. We don't write the articles for cash. We have different motives than that. We want to give people the gift of knowledge. We want to give the gift of knowledge to all people, not just the rich ones who can afford to buy their kids what they want. Wiki exists so that people who are genuinely interested in a subject can improve their knowledge in a subject, be that magic or otherwise. No financial transactions required, thanks all the same. That is true ethics in my mind --MagicValentina 23:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I listened to a radio programme on this very subject on Saturday. Trouble in the Magic Circle, which had essentially the same thesis as you state above (there's a listen over the internet button on that page, although it may only work for a week or so, and perhaps only for visitors from the UK). One magician confirmed what you say about all tricks easily being for sale, and the "sin" being giving them away. Another magician (who had invented a highly-regarded trick involving a deck of cards seemingly held together with a large metal rivet) complained that no-one honoured the supposed sanctity of his invention - he said other magicians and magic supply companies cloned his riveted deck prop, and sold it as their own without paying him or giving him credit. Most tellingly, it quotes magic historian and trick designer Jim Steinmeyer who says "an obsession with secrets is the sign of the amateur". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes Finlay, I have heard of this programme, but not yet listened to it. The Magic Circle like SAM and the IBM is a trade organisation. I believe thay have a rule where you can sell a book revealing secrets but it has to be for more than a certain amount of money. That says it all really. It's not principle, it's profit.

Jim Steinmeyer is dead right. The method of the effect is really a very small part. The real secret is the presentation of the effect, its history/variations and the showmanship of performing it the right way for that particular audience. I hope we can get many of the effects on Wiki magic to a standard where the presentation ideas will be assisted to the maximum. For example Krash pointed out to me the Bullet Catch article and how the history of the effect has been well researched. That material would be invaluable to someone wanting to perform it again or give a new presentational slant. Yes, the methods will form part of that description, but it is in the interest of giving the complete knowledge.

I have written a few articles here along with the timeline of magic and list of conjuring terms. But there is much work to be done to get these up to feature standard. I hope the magicians who haven't understood how all this works can see what we are about here. One day, even they may come to Wiki for ideas and knowledge in areas of magic they need to research, and perhaps even add to the articles from their knowledge. It's a multi way process :) --MagicValentina 01:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] another magic professional

I am sworn to the Magician's oath since I am a magician. All magicians, if they are to be recognised as such by the magic community, are sworn to and follow the Oath. Magicians never reveal the secret of an illusion to a non-magician without first administering the oath. Following the Oath and having magical knowlege and being able to perform magic so that it looks magic are what it takes to be a magician.

That said, every illusion which is known to the public became known by someone violating the oath. A magician let each secret loose. It is the fault of magicians' that secrets are out. Wikipedia is not a magician and has no responsibility to conceal the secrets of magic. Once an effect's technique has been revealed, it's no longer a secret and wikipedia doesn't have any responsibility to keep it secret.

However, knowing the secret spoils the illusion and it would be considerate to include a spoiler warning and some white space sufficient to conceal the secret from those who don't wish to accidentally spoil the illusion for themselves. I think that is all that can be expected.

Magic grows. Every day new techniques are devised. Just the same as with master thieves, master chefs, jewellers, candymakers, housewives, and all other masters of an artform, magicians must expect that their secrets will be discovered, stolen, revealed, etc. and the artist must continually progress and improve their art. Everyone can find out that the elephant simply walked offstage, that the 3 of clubs was forced, that the imp in the bottle is a piece of thread, that the women sawn in half were folded, not spindled ore mutilated, that a zig-zag is a magicians straight line, that Lloyds of London provided David Copperfield's misdirection by insuring the Statue of Liberty (done with mirrors as so few illusions are) and so on.

How do we adapt to the increasing public knowledge of magical illusion? By magic, pure magic. A real master magician will always have a trick on the back burner, a new technique for an old effect, a new effect for an old technique, the best magicians make magic work even among their peers... who are magicians, and who can know the secret.

       Funny, Valintina is the real name of the masked magician, a notorious exposer of magic

Magic works, as TV, Movies, and many other artforms, by the willing suspension of disbelief and not by the keeping of arcane mysteries. Svengali_effect 04:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

PS I saw the "Nu-Way Out of this world" performed when I was a child, so the secret here is still 35 years out of date or so, nobody should be made to feel bad for publishing the secret to this illusion, it's extremely old and has been published in at least a dozen books. If you are really interested in old magic, read Tarbell's Course in Magic, written by a magician for other magi. It's maybe 200 dollars for the set now, but well worth it for any serious student of the magical arts. Svengali_effect 04:44.1, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You said "every illusion which is known to the public became known by someone violating the oath." Well, in a word, no. I have never taken the Magician's Oath, since no magician has ever told me the secret to any of his tricks, but if I felt like it, I could tell everyone reading this page (or the main article about it) precisely how Penn & Teller did their Double Bullet Catch trick ([9]). How? I figured it out, by thinking about it. (Hint: initials, helmets, video, felt marker. Good enough so you know I know?) The reason I haven't told is because, as you said, "knowing the secret spoils the illusion" for people who are probably better off not knowing. Don't you suppose it's possible that other people with more ego or less concern for others in the audience have figured out other magicians' tricks over the centuries? There are a lot of tricks I can't figure out; please don't tell me. But don't say nobody ever has. Aumakua 09:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Industry standard and praxis

When it comes to revelation of magic methods, I suggest that Wikipedia adapt 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 reveal, 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 some kind of guideline for the Wikipedia that are in agreement with the industry standard. If this is interesting, where should I post it? --TStone 14:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

So, you think we should take advice on what to include from people who have a vested financial interest in us not revealing information? We're not that stupid. -- Middenface 15:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I've never met you, so I can't comment on the last remark. But what would Hermetic Press gain from preventing you from describing information published by Kaufman and Company? These companies are not opposed to the publishing of magic methods. As long as it is done in a proper fashion. I've put together a proposal here:Policy for magic methods --TStone 16:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Page moved to Wikipedia:Proposed policy for magic methods. --cesarb 14:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary note

For those who end up here, following a comment like: TStone has been making up legal precedent recently on Wikipedia. Please note that his legal arguments hold no weight.--Muchosucko. I'm not sure what that means, as this is a discussion on the talk page of a card trick. If I interpret it correctly, Muchosucko seem to claim that it had been possible to patent an effect like Paul Curry's "Out of this World", while I find that to be a remarkable and original claim - because, as far as I know (I'm not a legal expert), patents are for things like scientific discoveries and principles etc. Well, it's just a friendly discussion on a tricky subject. Anyway, after asking Muchosucko to please point out how "Out of this World" could have been accepted for a patent, he (quite correctly) pointed out that I lacked knowledge on how the law works, that he lacked the inclination to teach me and then remained silent in response to my question - Instead, the comment TStone has been making up legal precedent.. started to turn up all over the place, often in discussions I was a part of, over my head like I didn't exist. I find this confusing, and quite sincerely, I have no clue on how to interpret it - but it seems to imply that I have a hidden agenda with my presence here. Like I had other wishes than to assist to create an encyclopedia with reliable information on all topics. I find that notion quite disturbing and welcome anyone to review and pick apart my edits in search for anything that is flawed. I've got strong opinions of a few topics, but that is mainly visible on talk pages, and not as much in actual articles. End of note --TStone 14:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." 35 USC 101. The scope of patents is continually being increased by the courts. Most notably when business method patents were allowed in the not so distant past. A magic trick is a process. The question would be whether a particular magic trick meets the standards for being new, useful and nonobvious.

• New - new compared to the prior art (those things already patented, used or published).
• Useful - useful for the purpose it was invented (low standard, but has to do what it claims to do).
• Nonobvious - whether the invention is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (minor modification of a trick, such as using the Ace of Spades instead of the King, is probably obvious; but a new way of using your hands to complete it may not be.)

However, I have been unable to find any court cases determining whether patent protection is available for a particular magic trick. There are cases where someone patented a magic device and those were held as valid. There is also the obvious problem with disclosure requirements for patent protection and the secrecy which magicians desire. Peyna 15:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks putting my notice at a more proper spot Peyna. However, I wonder where you've got the notion that "A magic trick is a process"? I have never seen anyone with knowledge of the field describe it with such words - and I have a rather extensive library on this art. As I've never come across that idea (before coming here), and have been active within this particular field for several years, it seems to me that it would require quite extensive verification, before naming it "process". If you take a look at "Out of this World", you probably notice that there's not a single thing that could (in I.P. terms) be called a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Still it is hailed as one of the greatest pieces ever, even by legends like Dai Vernon (of course, that refers to the original work, not the ruthlessly stripped-down description here). To me, it seems most likely that people would use the term "choreography", if they were forced to use a descriptive term taken from outside the field. Also, I and most creators in the field care very little about "secrecy", but can occationally become a bit cranky if our works gets stolen, butchered and misattributed ;-)

A process is a series of steps to acheive a result. The difference between magic and what typically is considered choreography, is the "result." In typical choreography, the result is nothing more than the desired artistic effect. In magic, you've taken A, done steps B-G on it, and ended up with H. I agree it's not a bright line, but I do think that magic is more akin to the subject matter of patent than that of copyright. Theoretically, I could patent a football play, but probably not copyright it. Peyna 16:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, isn't choreography also "taken A, done steps B-G on it, and ended up with H"? As is the preparation of a meal, or putting paint on a canvas? If the difference is "the desired artistic effect"; then the same is true for us. We dream up a vision, a dramatized plot. The desired artistic effect is that people should be caught by the plot and get a sense of wonder they haven't felt since they were kids. Then we dream up a way to reach that goal. I'm a minimalist, so I work mainly with attention and timing - usually it becomes a rather specific choreography of how and when I look in certain directions. Quite tricky stuff to create, and even trickier to perform, but very effective. In my university lectures, I usually start be performing a piece, which I then spend an hour on going through every psychological detail in the piece, until everyone understand exactly how everything was accomplished. Then I ask "Now when you know, the effect shouldn't be deceptive anymore, right?". To which they agree. So I do the piece again, and to their surprise, they are just as taken the second time as the first.

So, "secrets" doesn't mean a thing to me, since I know that I get my desired artistic effect, no matter if everyone know what really happens or not. I usually get surprised myself when I watch me on video. I'm also not especially worried of rip-offs for my own sake, as my works not only are difficult to perform, but even trickier to describe so it can be understood, as most of it is just what to say, when to say it, where and when to look. I mean, a key sequence in one of my pieces is:

While thinking "That was a really stupid thing to say", lean back, scratch the head with one hand, simultaneously taking the potato from the pocket with the other hand, while saying "Are you really sure". Then reach for the coffee mug, simultanously placing the potato in the center of the table, while thinking "Yes! Yes! Excellent idea!". Stand up straight. Show the inside of the mug. Turn to your right, holding the mug by its bottom in the left hand. Now, openly place the mug over the potato on the table, while showing the right palm (spread fingers) to the spectator on your right. Say: "Hold your hand like this". Then direct her to place her palm on top of the mug. Now, move slowly back and to your left, while asking the spectator to wish really hard for something she really desire or covet. Wait in total silence for about 8 seconds, then tell her to say "It's magic" and lift the mug. The sudden appearance of a potato from under an empty cup is quite surprising, especially since everyone has followed everything carefully the whole time. It's also very funny that she appears to have wished for a potato.

..This was just a very simplified description. To properly describe the timing involved, and all direction of attention, and the inner mind-scripts, the foot placements etc, the text would need to be at least 3-4 times longer, require 5-6 illustrations... and this is still just a small part of the whole piece. And everything is connected. Skip the inner mind-script, foot placements or skip the scratching of the head - and everyone will see that you place a potato on the table and then a mug over it. Done right, the potato will be invisible to them - even if I tell them from the beginning what I will do.

This is my creation. My work. I dreamt up a plot in three phases, where peoples wishes came true, in amusing ways. It took me about three years and 8-9 different discarded versions before I decided that I was happy with my creation. It took about half a year to practice it, then half a year of frequent failed performances before the timing became right. The minimalist approach is unique to me. My whole person is built into it. There existed nothing similar before I created it. So, what would be possible to patent? The potato? The mug? Leaning back and scratching my head? Thinking: "Yes! Yes! Excellent idea!"? There is absolutely nothing that a patent office would accept as beeing a "method of operation", "machine", "principle" etc. Still it is an unique piece of art. A realised expression unique to this field - similar to, but quite different from, theatre and dance. Before coming here, I had never come across any notion at all that a piece like this were possible to patent. And I know my field, my library is quite extensive and I correspond frequently with other creators in the field. Since this notion seems unique to Wikipedia, while it is unknown to everyone who is actually working in the field, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for verification of this unknown fact. --TStone 19:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know really. All these notions about "secrets" and "patents" I've come across here seems really odd. The "effect" (the term used to describe the plot, how it is percieved) in "Out of this World" is: A person suddenly and surprisingly get the psychic ability sense unseen things, enabling her to separate a whole deck of cards into reds and blacks, without looking at the faces of the cards.... To me, at least, that sounds somewhat like a dramatic work. And there's many widely different ways of portraiting that plot, each creator who attempted the plot have found a way that are so characteristic for each of them. Lennart Green's (unpublished) version needs no preparations at all, no pre-set deck, but is based on a rather brutal choreography right under people's noses, which requires guts and being Lennart Green. No one but him could ever perform it. Max Maven's is devious like hell and crossbreeds mathematics and psychology. Juan Tamariz maximizes the plot to have it separated into the four suits, and builds layers after layers of deceptions, using everything from having only 1/4 of the deck preset to make use of his broken english... Even if you had never seen the effects before, it's easy to identify each creator, just by looking at the structure of the inner-workings of the effects. That would not have been possible, if there wasn't a lot of personality built into each version. Paul Curry's personality was all about simplicity, and his works tended to share that characteristic - so his original effect wasn't just only the first, but also the one easiest to take, as he managed to portrait this amazing miracle with just a pre-set deck, a simple nonchalant sequence of hand movements and a knowledge about how people's minds work. Max Maven's version of the plot has not been stolen, as it would read like a full page of calculus and boolean logic. Tamariz' is too chaotic. And Lennart's is impossible to use for anyone else but Lennart. Had Jim Steinmeyer attempted this plot, he would most likely invent a new scientific principle (and promptly patent it) enabling him to elaborate the plot so the cards fly apart by themselves, like sorted by a demented poltergeist, because that's how his engineering mind works. My own attempt on Curry's plot is characteristic to me, minimalistic, using direction of attention, enabling me to appear to show all the faces of a fully shuffled deck before starting. (it's just 9 shuffled cards, but due to choreography of actions, it looks like 52).

If you study 5-6 pieces of any profilic creator in the world, you would then be able to recognize that creator's other pieces, no matter who performs them, and no matter if you've never seen them before. I can not for a second believe that any patent office in the world would accept any of the pieces above. Except possibly Steinmeyer's if he had spent time on this plot, as that man would be able to even find a new scientific principle in his breakfast cereal. It seem more likely that they should belong between Dramatic Works and Choreographic Works, as these pieces are realised expressions, an extension of the creator. But Muchosucko (and Wikipedia) seems confident that Curry's original creation could have been patented, and I guess that he soon describe what most of us in this field have missed. --TStone 01:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have never claimed this. Most of my posts to you point out your misunderstanding of the law. This post will be no different. Please educate yourself before you discuss the law.--Muchosucko 02:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

But you started posting here long before I arrived, or have I missed something? And this is the talk page of "Out of this World" where it and related matters are discussed. And "Out of this World" is a magic trick, isn't it? And on this page, you've said things like:

• • Copyright a magic trick? I think what you meant to say was "Patent right".
  • Magic tricks often fall under the _novelty_ clause of patent law
  • Indeed, when you patent a magic trick
  • you patent a trick: you must publish how it's done.

..which seem to imply that you include Curry's trick in those statements. On an another page you clearly stated copyright does not protect magic secrets; Patent protects magic secrets. And when I've said it was impossible to patent magic routines, you clearly made it known that I was wrong. Well, I've seem my errors now, and I'm very, very sorry for having been this bone-headed. I've no intentions of attempting any further amateurish talks about a subject I know nothing about.

If I have offended you, let me know in what way I best can compensate you, and I'm still serious in setting up a joint locked bank account to gather donations. I can set up a second account in Europe also. Feel free to add any further terms, because your knowledge in how Paul Curry should have done to get his creation accepted for a patent is something a whole field would benefit from.

Does this seem fair? I've just started to compose a letter to Jim Steinmeyer (I'm thinking that his lawyer probably is better suited to set up the U.S.account than me), but it is maybe better that just bring the two of you in contact. They have the knowledge of the law I lack, and since Steinmeyer already owns several patents on scientific principles he has invented, he is sure to understand your explanation at once, and will be very happy that you've solved it!

To avoid any further misunderstandings, it's probably best if this is done at once. Do you have an email?--TStone 04:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To avoid any further misunderstandings, you should stop misunderstanding. You continue to misunderstand patents and copyrights. Anyone can contact me at anytime on my Talk page User_talk:Muchosucko. That is what talk pages are for. Wikipedia relies on a philosophy of being open-source. All discussions are public.--Muchosucko 05:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

WHAT WORKS ARE PROTECTED?
Copyright protects "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories:

• literary works;
• musical works, including any accompanying words
• dramatic works, including any accompanying music
• pantomimes and choreographic works
• pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
• motion pictures and other audiovisual works
• sound recordings
• architectural works

These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most "compilations" may be registered as "literary works"; maps and architectural plans may be registered as "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works."

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)

[edit] related deletion discussion

The article King levitation has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King levitation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So how *does* the trick work?

The discussion on whether or not any copyright violation has occurred is all well and dandy, but the article itself does not actually explain the trick, rendering this entire discussion, as well as the vandals' and anti-vandals' energies, useless (where this particular trick is concerned, anyway). It describes that you have a deck that is half black and half red, so if you deal cards from the top you get black cards first and then red cards. All this makes perfect sense but the spectator gets to choose which pile the cards go onto. So either the spectator needs to be manipulated to choose just black cards in the first half, or the deck needs to be manipulated to suit the choices of the spectator, neither of which is explained in the article.

I went through the history of this article to see if an older version explained this so I could edit the article to explain the trick better, but after 15 minutes of clicking and clicking and more clicking, I decided to just look at the oldest versions. I found that the current explanation is the first one offered, and all of the edits made are either grammar/spelling fixes or vandalism reverts. Can anyone please explain the trick in here so I can edit, or edit the page themselves? Thanks in advance... --Toon 22:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you could check the references. Oh wait, there aren't any! Why are people fighting so hard to protect a page that doesn't even have any verifiable references? WP:NOR Kleg 22:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If you feel it needs references, why don't you include any? It's just as much your responsibility as it is other people's. If I knew where to look for references I might try to find them, so I could improve the quality of this article. Sarcasm isn't improving anything in this case, or for that matter, in any case. Furthermore, I hope you realize that what you're saying means that it's okay to commit vandalism to a page if it doesn't include verifiable references. --Toon 13:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

it would be necessary, in the section “detective novel” of wikipedia, to indicate has each time the “murderer” for all the crimes : that would be well in the spirit which is it here your, when ou tell secrets.

and your warning

"The following section reveals a magic secret"

is the same to saying at a teenager: : there are girls naked on the page, turn the eyes

it’s stupid.

It is a violent attack against the magician groups.

We fight on…

[edit] ... must not be spoiled...

THIS CARD TRICK, DEVELOPED BY MY FATHER, MUST NOT BE SPOILED LIKE THIS ON THE INTERNET, AND CAN BE PURCHASED FROM A GOOD BOOKSHOP. PLEASE DO NOT WRECK IT. MANY THANKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.161.193 (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, but why must I buy it? If dad did an exceptional job describing the method (i.e. a good author) I might consider it, but this article reads pretty well. -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 21:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Method removed

I have removed the method from the article as it is unsourced. This is following the guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Magic#Magic_Methods_and_Exposure. If the method can be properly sourced, then it can be re-added. StephenBuxton (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

NB: The material was removed in this diff and contained the following information:

---

/==Method==

The principle is very simple: the deck used by the magician is stacked, with all the black cards at the top and all the red cards at the bottom.

In the first round of dealing face-down cards, all of the cards dealt will be black. The switching of sides occurs at the halfway point through the deck because that is the point at which the black cards will be exhausted and the red cards will begin to be dealt.

To understand why this enables the trick to work, think about what will be in the two lines of cards at the end of the trick. The left-hand line will begin with the black marker card (placed at the start), followed by the face-down black cards from the top of the deck, then the red marker card (placed at the side switch), then the face-down red cards from the bottom of the deck. That's (black marker) (black cards) (red marker) (red cards). In other words, this line is exactly right, and is given to the subject to gather up.

The right-hand line will begin with the red marker card (placed at the start), followed by the face-down black cards from the top of the deck, then the black marker card (placed at the side switch), then the face-down red cards from the bottom of the deck. That's (red marker) (black cards) (black marker) (red cards). Although incorrect, it should be apparent that this can be instantly made to appear correct by moving the red marker card from one end of the line to the other, or by reversing the order of all other cards in the line. This must be performed by the magician during the act of gathering up the right-hand line of cards, while the subject is distracted by gathering up their own line. Since the cards are gathered into a stack at that point, this is trivially easy.

---

Editors are encouraged to restore the material when they find appropriate sources, or to restore the content if the original removal of the material was in error, and to correct any errors in the method described. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Winston Churchill

The source of the Winston Churchill link may well be the book Magician's Magic By Paul Curry, Julio Granda and Martin Gardner (ISBN 0-486-43176-2). Chapter 13, The Mind Reels, describes an occasion where a magician named Harry Green showed the trick to Churchill during World War 2. There is a section of the text on Google Books at [10]. Back in the 1980s, Paul Daniels performed the trick on BBC television with Vera Lynn and repeated the story of the link with Winston Churchill.

Also, there are quite a few videos relating to Out of This World on YouTube, but I am saying nothing about how it is done. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)