Should you write a book of magic effects, if you don't want the reader to USE any of the material?

? use as in perform in public, perform on TV, publish "variations"? three distinct issues IMHO.

The most draconian copyright and use agreement I know of is Michael Weber's. in essence you can perform his material anywhere for anyone--unless they are buying a ticket to the show, seeing it on TV or other broadcast, or are watching any kind of recording. He retains those performing rights and you must get his permission in writing to use his material in such high visibility venues.

I have no problem with him protecting his ideas for his own use in such situations.

Now, if you don't want anyone to use any of it in any way ever? Well then I don't see the point of releasing a book.

SWN

Draconian - or just stringent/restrictive in terms of protecting a right of publicity?

If you don't want anyone to do your effects, don't write them up. Its a bit like selling your car but not wanting anyone to drive it.

If I remember correctly, many peoples' issues with Weber's restrictions were not knowing in advance that was what they were agreeing to.

How inforceable are such "copyrights"?

Nickel--How enforceable? I don't know, I'm not a copyright attorney. But Mr. Weber is. So I suppose he knows what the legalities are and how to word the legalese. Do one of the tricks he's published under such restrictions on TV and see what happens I guess.

But that's beside the point. Since those are his wishes I will respect them, regardless of whether I might end up in court over it or not. He has given and/or sold permission for many of his effects to people who contacted him and asked. He wants to be asked. He wants to be able to say no to someone doing his trick on TV or selling their version of it if he chooses. I don't see the problem.

I didn't know about the above reference to people being surprised after buying his material that there were restrictions. I can see how that might miff someone--assuming they actually have a TV or theater show slated. That must be a vanishing small percentage of those who buy material. If you're not mounting a TV show, a theater tour, or distributing a DVD, perform away. In other words, for most of us, most of the time, it doesn't matter.

SWN

It was discussed at length back in '91 on the (excellent) Magic! B.B.S. system that was created by David Lichtman. This link will give interested parties a look at those discussions:

http://questx.com/magic!/magic-36.html

Magic! was a great online resource in the pre popularization of the internet era. Nice that it is archived on the web now.

(on reviewing the link, Max Maven indicates that Weber printed the restrictions on the outside of the book. I was fuzzy on details, but remembered the discussion taking place)

There's a distinction between "It's wrong but it doesn't affect me" (because I don't have a tv show slated) and simply "It's wrong".

I see kind of a "Cake and eat it too" dynamic at work here. Licensing material gives you control over the material in the long run, but comes with it the downside of monitoring, collecting, etc. Selling something as a product eliminates those issues and gets you the money up front, but comes with it (or should in my opinion) less control over venue, presentation etc.

In my opinion, if you want to have that level of control over your content, license it instead of selling it as a product, and accept the fact that book sale revenues are going to drop, and will probably not be offset by license revenues. But you'll maintain control.

It's all a by product of the reality that the art and business of magic crosses the lines of copyright, patent law, and the shifting tides of what is ethical and moral in magic (something we don't have consenus on). What is being protected and controlled; The method, the effect, or the presentation?

I don't have the answers, but I can certainly raise questions.

Script/plays are well protected - ask your local theater group.

Stuff that is very particular to you in terms of what makes it work is also protected but by effectiveness - take the Ramsay tricks for example. Some are pretty good at getting through them but very few get anything close to the intended reactions from the items.

Here's my question...

If someone changes the effect just a bit, is it still protected by copyright laws?

Example, David Blaine's recent icepick through hand, is it still Dan Hauss's needle through hand or a different effect altogether?

If you change the character's names in The Godfather, and change the title, you'll still be a target for plagiarism.

An effect, however, would require a patent, unlike a play or movie script.

You cannot protect an effect with a patent. And, a patent doesn't protect you from someone else performing the effect. Plagiarism is when you write something that someone already wrote and claim it as yours. A patent gives you a certain time with a product on the market before others can start making their own and selling it.

As far as performing restrictions such as Mr. Weber's, it is not legally binding. The legalities of such a thing has been presented on the Café before. It was explained in detail why such conditions and restrictions are not legally binding, and why they should be discouraged. As it's been stated before, if you do not want people performing your effects, don't release them. If you do release them, remember, you have no right to dictate to others with restrictions and conditions outside of the law. Just because someone places conditions on a product for sale or routine does not make it legally binding.

It's especially non binding when the restrictions and conditions are not clearly explained before the point of sale. However, even then, good luck in enforcing it.

If morals and ethics were to come into place, my issue would be with those who are trying to put such restrictions on their products. When running a business it helps to know about the consumer laws, FCA rules and regulations, etc. I don't find it moral or ethics to try and cheat the system or others under the guise of protecting our art.

In any case, when I release something, I'm like A. Crowley regarding it: "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

Only the fixed (written, photographed or videoed) form of the performance can be subject to copyright. The effect in general cannot be.