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."
I'm sure Penn and Teller know "a guy" who can make this deadbeat...[poof!]...disappear into a hole in the desert.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
You'll need it. Or, as Teller might say, " ."
Reminds me of a similar usage of the DMCA and copyright claim for performance art. Remember the Electric Slide fiasco?
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. -Thomas Cardinal Wolsey
Lawsuit sounds like Bullsh!t to me :)
If he manages - you know what the next stage is. Patent trolls patenting tricks that someone might think of a way to do - so when they proudly show some illusion that has taken a year to perfect someone will say "I have a patent on making large objects appear to come out of Uranus" and demand most of the profit.
I'd like to see them cover copyright law on their show...
I calls 'em like I sees 'em, Teller. Backward engineering a trick and selling the solution is legit.
Bakardy: Hello? Teller: . Bakardy: Heelloo? Teller: . Bakardy: Goodbye. Teller: !
So... Teller's bite is worse than his bark?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I assume this must be a strong test on Penn and Teller's partnership, considering just how hardcore of a libertarian Penn Jillette is. Most libertarians don't support overly strong copyright laws, and many of them do not support any copyright laws at all. Using the DMCA would certainly be against any libertarian's agenda of ensuring everyone gets full and fair rights to a trial and that nobody should need to prove themselves innocent.
Just some bogus claim, lawyer behind a smoke screen and some copyright waving in a trick to confuse a judge..... Larry Ellison does this routine a hundred times the size before breakfast ;-).
This is insane. By all means call the guy a hack, tell everyone he stole your trick, but in the end he's not reproducing your image or any literal representation of something you did. He reverse engineered the trick. What if he changes the rose to a posie? Or makes some other minor change? At what point does the "concept" of your trick become something that's unique and that you "own"?
A Slashdot user, known for his misspelings in his bad analogies, car analogies, and Soviet-era Russia jokes has sued Slashdot's owner, geek.net.
The user alleges that the editors saw him use these corny techniques for replying to Slashvertisements, and they copied the technique for use in their own story summaries.
Geeknet offered to buy him out, but negotiations came to a standstill when the user also demanded that the company buy his "in Korea, only old people read email" technique. The 23-year old negotiating for Geeknet had responded, "What's email?"
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
...you guys act like it's some big deal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP4_MuBugFo
... not something I could cook up in two hours with a small electromagnet and a bit of ferrous metal embedded in the leaf stem?
I take PayPal if anyone wants to pay $3000 for detailed plans, sketched on the back of a used bar napkin.
I thought the 1960s original HUMBUG! was better. The next generation show was never quite as good, and has aged poorly. (imho)
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
How fast did their lawyers find that video that it only had 14 views on it when screenshotted, impressive.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
I find it ironic Teller is boo-hooing about this.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
What you don't know is that Bakardy hired Tesla to create a machine which performs the trick. And, every night after the performance, workers have to remove large boxes full of drowned flowers, secretly out through the stage door and into a warehouse...
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
So, yeah, it's easy for us to point and laugh at this and say it's just a useless farce.. but this effects us all actually.
The brief filed states that Teller is suing because the rival's trick supposedly violates a 1983 Copyright he filed for the trick. What is important here is that the Copyright filing DOES NOT describe how the trick functions, but instead HOW IT LOOKS. On those ground, Teller is suing.
I believe this is important. Why? Because I think it is similar to SOFTWARE PATENTS.
Of course, obviously PATENT != COPYRIGHT, but the similarities in this case are still apparent. Unlike every other kind of working patent, software patents generally describe the outcome/result of something instead of the actual mechanism (patents of physical things are based on the WAY it works, not what it produces, SW patents are generally based i the end product).
If suit is upheld it means software patents *could* have an extra life, and indeed if a vendor wants to squeeze out competition they could simply file for a COPYRIGHT on the visible result of the software too.
IANAL, but food for thought.
Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
Imitation is a form of flattery. He should take it as such, or simply decide to not show off what he doesn't want people to copy. Magicians have been figuring out how other magicians do their tricks for centuries. Unless the secret was actually misappropriated (which means he would have actually broken the law to acquire it), the copier has done absolutely nothing wrong here.
Oh.... and you can't copyright an idea.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Wasn't FOX sued over that magic secrets revealed show?
to piss off someone that can make you disappear
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
to sue for government protection of your ideas. I'm sure litigation over reverse engineering of a performance something very near to the heart of free men everywhere.
Why else does the Masked Magician revealer wear a mask?
Um, marketing maybe? 'ooh this is so secret I have to wear a mask' is going to get a LOT more viewers than just some 2 bit magician laying out how tricks work.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
You stay classy Teller!
Nice link to mantube for the world to see. Well-done.
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.
Because Penn is such a lunatic libertarian he barely wants any laws at all.
It's the code of ethics professional magicians agree to - it's kept Magic interesting over the years, and really forced Magicians to come up with their own routines.
Take a look:
On May 8, 1993, the International Brotherhood of Magicians Board of Directors approved the following Code of Ethics jointly with the Society of American Magicians. This was the result of a cooperative effort to work together for the betterment of magic.
All members of the International Brotherhood of Magicians agree to:
1) Oppose the willful exposure to the public of any principles of the Art of Magic, or the methods employed in any magic effect or illusion.
2) Display ethical behavior in the presentation of magic to the public and in our conduct as magicians, including not interfering with or jeopardizing the performance of another magician either through personal intervention or the unauthorized use of another's creation.
3) Recognize and respect for rights of the creators, inventors, authors, and owners of magic concepts, presentations, effects and literature, and their rights to have exclusive use of, or to grant permission for the use by others of such creations.
4) Discourage false or misleading statements in the advertising of effects, and literature, merchandise or actions pertaining to the magical arts.
5) Discourage advertisement in magic publications for any magical apparatus, effect, literature or other materials for which the advertiser does not have commercial rights.
6) Promote the humane treatment and care of livestock used in magical performances.
The masked magician took his mask off 14 years ago. His name's Val Valentino.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Saw this guy once - he balanced stones one of top of the other. Very impressive. Does that mean he could own the worldwide rights to doing that? Does that mean that NOBODY but him can ever make money from that because he was the first?
How about jugglers? Acrobats? Gymnasts? Yo-yo'ers? Trick cyclists? "Hustlers"? Derren Brown? Dancers?
Just because you have an act, doesn't give you exclusive rights over that act for ever and ever and ever. That's NOT what copyright is for. He's basically suing a guy because he wants to be the only person in the world allowed to perform that trick.
Now, if he's suing because the guy used his speil, word-for-word, or because the guy took Teller's video and photoshopped his own head over it, then you'd have a copyright case. As it is, he's saying that nobody may copy what actions he performs. That's like a dancer saying you can never dance like he does, ever, without his permission.
And just as stupid. Sorry Teller, I swear I used to think you had a brain in there somewhere. A *copyright* takedown over a magic trick? Damn, the guy had better copied your speil word-for-word or something because you're going to fall flat on your face otherwise, and if you don't, the world will still hate you anyway.
Agreed, the commercial nature makes it a legitimate (as opposed to a legal suit, which both non-commercial and commercial would be as well).
However, Penn & Teller are some of the most popular magicians out there. And the beating their reputation could take over being seen as legal assholes vastly outweighs the small damages the guy might be causing them. And THAT is what they should be thinking of.
They have the bully pulpit of fame to destroy this guy with their unique brand of biting social commentary, get the word out that they're human about it and ask him to stop in a very public way. When he doesn't, you then have you reputation intact and destroy him legally, but by going straight to lawyers...they may be 'right' but long term it might not be the best thing for their careers...
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Telling a joke is a copyright infringement.
It doesn't seem hard to do. You just need piano wires threaded up the rose stem, which are withdrawn to make parts of the rose fall off. Either some mechanism under the table or an assistant is pulling the wires.
This illusion puzzles people? It's an elegant performance piece, but easy to figure out.
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.
Penn and Teller revealed secrets of tricks in many of their shows and televised specials. Not really getting why Teller's all bent out of shape and claiming copyright. Did the duo get permission from other magicians to reveal their stunts to audiences which makes it okay?
And so I suppose that Teller has never ever ever performed a trick that someone else developed and everything he has done is truly original work.
The masked magician took his mask off 14 years ago. His name's Val Valentino.
For the record, that was one of my favorite shows growing up. It was always cool to see how the tricks were being done.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
what a horrible show. they're so full of their namesake, it's worse than mythbusters. when they do get it right it's because they're a broken clock, not because they have any clue what the scientific method is.
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
Here's the problem with Teller's claim:
"As a direct and proximate result of such unfair competition, Plaintiff [Teller] has suffered, and will continue to suffer, monetary loss and irreparable injury to his business, reputation, and goodwill."
I give him the last one; his goodwill definitely comes out of this injured, but how exactly has Teller suffered "monetary loss and irreparable injury to his business [and] reputation" ? Teller wasn't selling a kit with the trick, so he's not going to lose any "potential sales". No one seriously believes that people planning to go see or hire Penn & Teller will change their minds and hire Gerard Bakardy instead, and Bakardy made it perfectly clear that his trick was inspired by Teller's, so there's no damage done to Teller's "reputation", either (i.e., there's no suggestion that Teller may have copied Bakardy).
In other words, this smells like a pure "copyright troll", trying to deny someone else a chance to do something similar even though that person is in no way a competitor or a threat.
Given Teller's persona on stage, I'm really trying hard not to make a Non-Disclosure Agreement joke....
This signature is a waste of 42 characters
Why won't you people bother to understand WTF you are talking about?
If I stacked rocks while miming a tragic death to music, then yes I could copyright that performance. If some else stacks rocked while on fire, then that would be a different performance.
The article sums up copyright nicely:
A fundamental principle of copyright law is that copyright covers the expression of ideas but not the ideas themselves.
I could do the same cutting trick with a different performance and that would be fine.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
stage name Gerard Bakardy (real name: Gerard Dogge)
Can't teach an old Dogge new tricks?
Troll Mage specialised in the Patent school...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un1pNtmYguA
For those that were interested.
Teller, the silent half of the well-known magic duo Penn and Teller,
...
then called Bakardy to demand that
...
So, Teller can speak! You're so outed, dude!
Have gnu, will travel.
Magician Disappear!
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
I think less of him for having a video removed from youtube - he didn't make, he had nothing to do with it, and even if it resembles his trick its non his to remove.
Fuck you Mr. Teller i hope you lose.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Perhaps you would like to understand WTF you are talking about. A performance is not copyrightable, as it has not been fixed upon tangible media. A script? Yes. A film? Absolutely. But not a performance.
doesn't seem like it should be copyrighted
Works subject to copyright law: "Pantomimes and choreographic works"
How can you sue over magic tricks? I mean, everyone knows they're not real. Duurrrrrrr
than exposing his douchebaggery to the public
you should perhaps brush up on reading comprehension. This EXACTLY what I said they should do...in the way they do best, mass marketing in shows naming the guy and saying he's a douchebag for what he is doing. P & T are successful not because of their magic tricks, but because of the comedic talents, biting wit and overall superb showmanship they have performing magic tricks. Use their talents to destroy the guy before bringing in the legal guns.
What I did say was that running straight to lawyers is perhaps not the best way to be seen as a likeable and 'hey I want to pay for tickets to see that person' type of individual. It's called the Streisand Effect and they may very well learn about it the hard way.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
doesn't seem like it should be copyrighted
Works subject to copyright law [wikipedia.org]: "Pantomimes and choreographic works"
doesn't seem like it should be copyrighted.
Why do people by default assume everyone is a lawyer or legal expert? I was making a normative statement, not a factual statement about laws. Everyone runs around pointing out IANAL, we should really just assume by default that people are not offering legal advice or interpretation unless they say they are.
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea." - Thomas Jefferson
I'd be pretty surprised if the copyright angle will work in this case.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
It isn't like he's mute, you know. He just doesn't really talk on stage, during the act.
Isn't enough that I ruined a pony, making a gift for you?
Copyright is a complex issue with many applications and rules, and even in this thread there appears to be very little agreement as to which parts, if any, do or should apply here, and whether one or both parties are doing something wrong. To ask whether all of Slashdot is for or against copyright is a gross simplification in several ways.
Isn't enough that I ruined a pony, making a gift for you?
Gerard could've recorded that conversation then blackmailed Teller (back) into silence.
...I find this awkward for teller considering how in several of their acts they do a "how it's done" act, even boasting they've been kicked out of the Magic Castle for revealing tricks.
for example
For many years Penn and Teller have publicly revealed how tricks are done on their television shows. This is in defiance of organisations of professional magicians such as The Magic Circle (who they deride). In nearly all cases they were not the original devisors of the effect but by their actions they, in a small way, spoil it for everyone. OK, so be it, magic is not very important and they have successful showbiz careers. For them now to complain about someone revealing how one of their tricks is done, and try to use the law to copyright it, is just incredible hypocrisy.
"Prior art" is patent law, not copyright law. Copyright law relies on proof of prior existence, but I don't know if there's a like term to prior art.
IMO he'd have a better case if he'd patented the trick; then he'd be an automatic winner if Dogge's version uses the same method. I think. On the other hand, there's a (probably weak) case to be made that Teller's copyright covers all methods of creating that same illusion.
Teller apparently registered copyright in 1983. Therefore it must be fixed in some form. Your argument is moot.
But he didn't run straight to lawyers.
If that dance or play has not been fixed in some medium, then copyright does not apply.
That is incorrect, see Article 2 of the Berne Convention. A simple example: if I come up with a poem and recite it, and you hear it and start using it in performances, you infringe on my copyright. Copyright protects the creative work itself, not a medium it has been fixed in.
But if I see you do a trick, work out how it happened and then do the trick myself, then this is no more copyright infringement [..]
That's probably true. The point in this case was however not just that the guy figured out how the trick worked, but he basically copied the entire act.
Donate free food here
Deli sues competitor for copying the process for assembling a ham sandwich
Now, if he's suing because the guy used his speil, word-for-word, or because the guy took Teller's video and photoshopped his own head over it, then you'd have a copyright case. As it is, he's saying that nobody may copy what actions he performs. That's like a dancer saying you can never dance like he does, ever, without his permission.
What about people making a living by imitating famous persons, eg Michael Jackson? This whole lawsuit is bogus.
The last two paragphs, above, are *NOT* from the paper I quoted... I mistyped </blockquote> in my response at the end of what I intended to quote, and as a result it simply put the remainder of my post into the quote.
Slashdot really needs a window of opportunity to edit posts that are accidentally sent... even if only a couple of minutes wide.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
...how would Slashdot have reacted to this if Teller wasn't the one suing. Or even better, if he was the one being sued.
Does that mean that NOBODY but him can ever make money from that because he was the first?
It would, if he were the first and registered the copyright. He wasn't, and he didn't, so that's an irrelevant argument.
For the rest of your examples, yes. Someone that creates a new artistic work owns it. If you disagree with that, you aren't disagreeing with Teller, so much as the premise of Copyright.
Learn to love Alaska
Wow that's a shame. I often look up to Penn & Teller.
You deserve mod points, AC.
It wasn't marketing, although I do imagine it helped. Valentino was the one who insisted on a mask when the idea was initially pitched. Valentino just wanted to be able to finish the series without scorn being directed at himself from the magic community until the series was over.