Hello creative artists,

Can you perhaps explain to me what is possible and what is not? For example, there are a larger number of providers for most coin gimmicks, including disputes about their invention. This is not the case with the T.U.C.
In many cases, downloads contain the phrase "TV rights not included". This would probably be an impermissible restriction in Germany. On the other hand, choreographies can most likely be protected by copyright here, at least if they meet certain requirements, which should also apply to routines.
Sometimes I hear people remark that this or that sleight (R.O.P.S, I would like to mention here) can be taught with kind permission. Is that respect, or does it have legal effect? I suppose it is very difficult to protect a sleight.

Thanks for giving me a lesson

I am not a lawyer, but once I put something into print, my guess is that it is fair game to use (and ethical to give credit). Concerning R.O.P.S., I had given permission several times over the years to people who wanted to teach it, as long as they gave credit. I would have been miffed if someone put out just a R.O.P.S. tutorial (like my recent tutorial), as it is one thing to teach a move within the context of a routine, and another to make money by teaching the one sleight as if it was yours.
Back in 1985 I put out the Master Coin Technique video series (turned into the Encyclopedia of Coin Sleights) where I performed and taught some published material of other magicians, with credit. Darryl did the same thing with the Encyclopedia of Card Sleights. I made sure to emphasize that I wouldn't teach a signature move of a performer (like the Gallo Pitch) on that series, although in a later video series (Knockout Coin Magic) I did teach the Gallo Pitch within the context of a routine that used the move. And gave credit. No one said it was or wasn't appropriate to do this, but the videos/dvds were well received, and the only flack I got was from Al Schneider who felt I taught his Classic Vanish incorrectly.
There was one situation that happened to Latta. He created the French Pop, but it was unpublished. Gary Kurtz or Chris Kenner (can't remember which, maybe both) published his move without permission. If the move had been published by Latta, not an issue, but since he didn't publish it was a big problem. Of course Latta had no legal recourse, but that is why people who had unpublished material were reluctant to show it to other magicians, as it might have been stolen. This happened all the time (like the Schneider Pick-up move, which was shown privately to Dingle then stolen). When we were young, we were warned not to show stuff to certain people, as they had bad reps. One such person was Frank Garcia. I was told early on not to show him ANYTHING. He hung out at the famous Tannens, and was very nice. But you had to be careful.

Fascinating stuff. The subject is its own chapter in the history of modern magic.

You can copyright a play or pantomime - which is what Houdini did with the upside down and what Teller did with his shadow item. Here's some about modern visual art copyright: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act

Karma served Frank Garcia with "Wildcard" which was inspired by Peter Kane's Watch the Ace.

Geoff's French Pop got sideways "borrowed??" into coinbox item where a coin vanishes from inside the Hoo Coin Box - published in John Mendoza's Book of John (page 125). That's the story I heard when asking how it wound up in Totally Out of Control.

Geoff's Nowhere Palm wound up in Gary Kurtz's coin routine in Unexplainable Acts.

I had the painful misfortune of informing Geoff that those two items had been put in print in books written by someone he's known for years. He was so very not pleased about the situation.

Ahhh, thanks for clearing that up. I know Latta was ticked off, even years later when we did the seminars together. I heard that Kenner used Latta's move because he didn't want to release his own ending for the routine, but with the years passing the story gets blurred. On the other hand, once the cat was out of the bag, those two moves really advanced the art of coin magic.

* disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice *

First and foremost it is almost always a good idea to do some homework and seek permissions from living artists before publishing using their work. The general rule is that citing is fine but describing or teaching requires permissions. That's courtesy, not law. Enforced more by censure than law.

Coin gaffs have been patented. You can find Presley Guitar's patent for the S/C/B gaff here: https://patents.google.com/patent/US3822879A/en As with copyright the legalities and cost/benefits to legal action make "secret" protection something of challenge. For example, a patent protects commercial right to manufacture a useful device but does not protect against open discussion and description of the device.

The legalities around selling stuff (market politics notwithstanding) are one matter. Market politics is another. The relatively recent fuss over Bob King's New Wave Prediction still haunts some folks, even though (sadly) Bob King himself is gone. Also Steve Dusheck. The name of the magnetic L gaff coin set which he sold as "The Slippery Sam Combination Coin Set" has somehow been abducted into common language in magicdom to refer to L itself - a gaff he sold as "Ultimate Copper and Silver Transposition".

Such is usually not an issue for professional working performers, but gets complicated when publishers get involved. Or avid fans who write about tricks which are not theirs to discuss. Or astute suppliers who are willing to fabricate props no questions asked... See the literature about Karl Germain's work, or Robert Harbin's well known items for examples.

In the past, american copyright was not compatible with Europe and the rest of the world, so in 1989, the US copyright system was updated as America joined the Berne Treaty.
Unfortunately, most of what have been said in American sources regarding copyright in magic, is from sources published before 1989.
In effect, that means that, when americans give advice on the topic, it is essential to figure out if the information they share is pre-89 och post-89.

As a rule of thumb:
All artistic work is automatically covered by copyright at the point of creation. Nothing have to be done, no registration is required, it just happens.
That makes life for the creator a lot easier, but there's a price for that: The artist now have the obligation to ensure that the work is original before making it public, and if (accidentally or per design) someone else's work has been - in full or in part - been incorporated, the artist have the obligation to ensure that explicit permissions have been obtained.
Copyright consist of a bundle of rights which can be licensed all together or one by one, but they can't be sold or transfered: Manufacturing rights, distribution rights, performance rights... and so on. All those rights are reserved as the default. There is no need to say "TV-rights reserved", because if nothing is said about rights, they are always reserved. By tradition, we do the opposite in magic; we assume that nothing is reserved if nothing is said about the rights, but that assumption has no support anywhere.

Our artistic work usually consist of routines: Specific sequences of sleights, moves, gambits, deceptions... all done in a specific order. A routine of average length is usually not problematic. The shorter it is, the trickier it becomes. Once down to the level of specific isolated sleight, it becomes more difficult to point out what the drama of the move is, and whether it surpass the "threshold of originality" (a term within copyright). It is all case by case on that level, but thankfully, arguments on that level are rare.

The same with props in isolation. If you put the prop on a table and ask "what is the dramatic work here?" and can't think of anything, the prop are probably not covered by copyright. But sometimes it can be, if the design can be called artistic, or if it has the quality of a sculpture or an art piece. Sometimes, it can be covered incidentally - like, if you only can use the prop for a specific routine. For example, while the design of the props in my routine "Quantum Logic" are covered by copyright, their function and internal mechanism are not. But there are no other uses for that particular combination of props than my routine, and the pirates can not sell any sets if my routine isn't included, and because of that I can use my copyright to battle those pirates.
Sometime, the prop can be patented. That is a different kind of additional protection. That's not an either/or situation. A routine is still covered by copyright, even if one of its props are (or aren't) patented. Patents are rare though, since patents mainly deal with industrial and scientific innovations, while our innovations tend to be within artistic work.

Tom is almost right on some of what he wrote, and wrong on other parts.



Yes, the U.S. did join the Berne Convention in 1989. However, the Congress has yet to pass implementing legislation for some of what would have changed, so not all of the Berne provisions apply. For example, creators in many European countries enjoy stronger "moral rights" than in America. A French painter makes a painting, and no one else can modify that work of art to the artist's detriment. That is not the case in America.


The phrase "All artistic work" does not appear in the United Stats copyright law, which states "Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. "
The overlap between US law and "all artistic work" is broad, but they are not the same thing. The law goes on to list a number of types of work which enjoy protection. Magic routines are not listed, but "pantomimes and choreographic works" are. How much protection this provision gives magic routines is undeveloped in the law.



Not quite. The Work is automatically covered when once is fixed into tangible form. For example, consider if I mentally compose a poem, and recite it out loud and you hear it. It is not copyrighted until I somehow write it down or record the recitation. Likewise, if I create a magic trick and perform it, it isn't copyrighted (assuming that a magic trick is in fact copyrightable -- a question which is much more open than Tom implies) until it is fixed into a physical medium -- described in writing, or recorded in performance. (and even then, it may only be the written description or the recording that enjoys protection, and not the trick itself.)



Not so. Michael Jackson purchased outright the publishing rights to the Beatles catalog in 1985. Pophouse Entertainment of Sweden just last month bought the intellectual property, including copyrights, of the rock band KISS. If you work for a company under a "work for hire" contract, you are selling them the copyrights to anything you create as part of your job.



Distribution rights are not a part of copyright in the United States. The "first sale doctrine" is a specific carve-out -- if I acquire an legitimate copy of a copyrighted book, I have the right to sell or give or otherwise distribute that copy irrespective of the copyright owner's wishes.

Sara Crasson is an attorney who is also a magician, and formerly was a columnist in Genii. She wrote an extensive article about IP protections for the variety arts.
https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu......ext=mslj

She never answers the specific question, "Is a magic routine copyrightable?" but does point out that while a court found that elements of Charles Hoffman's "Any Drink Called For" act were protected -- his trade name "Think-a-Drink" and the specific language of his introductory speech -- the actual magic routine itself was not protected.

Thanks for these detailed answers folks!