Slashdot Mirror
Magician Suing For Copyright Over Magic Trick
Fluffeh writes "Teller, the silent half of the well-known magic duo Penn and Teller, has sued a rival magician for copying one of his most famous illusions. The case promises to test the boundaries of copyright law as it applies to magic tricks. A Dutch magician with the stage name Gerard Bakardy (real name: Gerard Dogge) saw Teller perform the trick in Las Vegas and developed his own version — then started selling a kit — including a fake rose, instructions, and a DVD — for about $3,000. Teller had Bakardy's video removed with a DMCA takedown notice, then called Bakardy to demand that the magician stop using his routine. Teller offered to buy Bakardy out, but they were unable to agree on a price. So Teller sued Bakardy last week in a Nevada federal court."
Penn has spoken in defense of Teller on this. And apparently the copyright claim was made in 1983. I assume they've copyrighted a few of their tricks as performances this way, and have for years.
Teller knows you can't copyright an idea. He has copyrighted the performance itself, and you can copyright a specific pantomime routine. His claim is that by performing the exact same steps, you are infringing on a copyrighted pantomime routine.
There is legal precedent for that, but I can see this going either way.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
There are a wide spectrum of libertarians in the world. Some do believe in IP. I don't myself.
IMO if you can't keep it a trade secret, that is your tough luck. You can't rest on your laurels in this world.
There's plenty of footage of Teller talking, giving interviews, etc.
Not really a first, Teller doesn't speak on stage, but he does speak. There's a few candid videos floating around. And yes, from TFA, he registered copyright on the trick in 1983
Not sure but I think this is not a filing over how it's done but rather a filing over whether or not the performance is a copy of or derivative of Teller's 1983 copyrighted description. I don't know how this trick works but I'm guessing if Bakardy had chosen a different flower, a different cutting device, a different setting, etc and changed it just superficially enough so that the mechanic is still relayed to the viewer he might escape the copyright. But it seems Teller has written this out like a play and it will be up to the courts to decide if Bakardy is infringing on that copyrighted material. You'll notice that this is about copyright and performance, not a patent and methodology.
...
If this lawsuit is over how it's done, I agree with you. I see it similar to software patents where I see a program that does something -- say manages all ID3 tags of your library through HTML table interactions -- and I want to make something behave the same way. Even though I don't have the source code, I figure it out one way or the other. Maybe it's the same way your patent describes, maybe it isn't. It doesn't matter, I've never seen your source code and I'm not infringing on the graphics and layout so why should you be able to sue me when I write something that does (perceptually) the same thing? People who are smart enough to figure out their own solutions shouldn't be prohibited from employing that intelligence
My work here is dung.
The claim against FOX was with respect to violation of the magician's code of honor to not reveal how their tricks are done.
This code enjoys no legal protection, however, and the lawsuit against FOX for that show failed.
Nonetheless, magicians could actually enjoy some legal protection for their tricks under trade secret status.
However, trade secrets do not enjoy any protection at all against being reverse engineered by somebody who did not know the secret.
The only allegation that would have had even the slightest chance of succeeding was to show that the masked magician in FOX's show had misappropriated trade secrets he did not own for broadcast.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Teller is NOT suing over the technical aspects of the trick (how the rose petals are actually made to fall). They are not copyrightable, and indeed are not described in his copyright registration. Rather, he is suing over the dramatic presentation; essentially he is claiming coypright in a short (2-minute) theatrical performance.
I don't think Teler would have protested his competitor adopting the trick itself (magician interacts with shadow on screen but affecting the physical object casintg the shadow) -- he'd have expected credit ("This trick was invented by Teller") but wouldn't have claimed legal ownership. But Teller should be able own the theatre he creates.
It would only be a douche move if he went strait to lawyers. He has tried being polite. So now he is using the last recourse, the courts.
That said, I have to agree with the article in that it will depends on how close it resembles tellers performance of the trick.
If it is simple a guy making a rose fall apart while cutting a shadow, then teller will probably loose. If the performance of the trick is the same, teller may win.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
From the Copyright Act of 1976:
(a) 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. Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.
Emphasis added. He does not claim copyright over the trick itself, he claims copyright over his performance of it. That performance is absolutely protected by copyright, which he registered. The problem he faces though, is that when registering his copyright, he obviously did not want to give away the secret of the trick, so his description is as brief and nondescript as possible. As such, even small variations in the performance may be sufficient to be considered non infringing.
Yes, he wrote down the entire performance.
You missed an important part:
The choreography itself can't be protected, only a particular performance of it that has been recorded on some medium.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgtgOs_OkTU
-----------
100% pure freak