6 ms·

Gerard Bakardy reuploaded his version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkq4XfFgCYs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkq4XfFgCYs The style couldn't be more differen

Gerard Bakardy reuploaded his version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkq4XfFgCYs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkq4XfFgCYs The style couldn't be more different. The "effect" is the same, but the style is light years apart. I don't believe you should be able to copyright an effect, and it's likely he's not even using the same effect. I understand Teller wants to protect an idea he came up with, but I think it's protected simply by the grace and beauty of his version.

robmil 14y ago
That's the big question, with a universal application: that tension between the fact that knockoffs have a diluting effect on the original, and the idea that if your idea can so readily be copied it's perhaps not worthy of protection.
- grandalf 14y ago
  The magician's creed is a lot like an open source license with the restriction of attribution. If attribution is given then copying is considered respectable, whereas if it's not then it's considered theft.
  - AndyNemmity 14y ago
    Copying is not considered respectable if attribution is given... The general rule is you are to ask the individual you are copying if you can copy them in which case they will say no unless they sell the trick, or you can argue that you independently came up with the trick, and the person agrees with you. Copying is always considered "theft" even with attribution unless there's specific permission. There is a case where a performer does magic to the same song (Shape of my heart), but with different actual magic performance and it is considered copying. *Edited to improve my tone, the person I responded to deserves good faith and seems quite reasonable.
    - gnosis 14y ago
      That so many magicians are so possessive of their precious "secrets" and that so many of them are against sharing (even with other magicians), came as rather a big shock and disappointment for me when I got interested in magic. I spent most of my life in the opensource and academic communities, where free sharing of techniques and knowledge was not only commonplace but encouraged. It's very sad that much of the magic world is so anti-sharing and so jealously guard the knowledge they possess from each other (unless you can pony up their asking price). This aspect of parts of the magic community is a huge turn off for me.
      - AndyNemmity 14y ago
        I have spent most of my life in open source communities and understand completely. It's a different way of looking at the value of an idea. Much of the magic community is a huge turn off to me, but it's an enjoyable hobby that I have a lot of interest in.
      - grandalf 14y ago
        There is a nuance here -- magicians are possessive of someone else taking credit for their idea and do not appreciate someone selling it as their own. Sort of like the way the BSD license works. However if credit is given and the new effect is sufficiently unique/innovative, then no objection is reasonably made.
    - grandalf 14y ago
      Well, your explanation assumes that the magician you would get permission from is still alive. Most material used in modern magic was invented decades if not centuries ago. In today's world, these age-old effects or gimmicks are popularized by various working magicians, some of whom make a name based on them. And once in a while a completely novel approach is invented. Most new effects are the result of borrowing. A card trick may use a lift invented 100 years ago and a bit of verbal patter similar to something invented last year. The respectful magician will give credit where it's due and will still be respected if he has truly innovated. If there is true innovation no magician will begrudge him the use of the borrowed elements, unless of course they make up the bulk of the trick. The magician's creed is closely correlated with the steps needed to gain the respect of other magicians.
danielweber 14y ago
I understand Teller wants to protect an idea he came up with Given how much Penn & Teller built their careers on exposing the tricks of other magicians who had guarded their secrets for decades (and getting a lot of stage magicians made at the duo), it's pretty ironic for Teller to now decide he wants government protection for a trick of his. Disclaimer: esquire.com is not working for me right now so I haven't read the original article yet; I'm basing this on your comment.
- AndyNemmity 14y ago
  I don't agree with you that Penn and Teller built their careers on exposing tricks of other magicians. They do a couple exposures. Cups and Balls, Blast off, and a new escape in their act that you can choose to cover your eyes for or not. Cups and Balls and Blast Off aren't exactly carefully guarded secrets... what are you referring to?
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    They do several tricks where they pretend to reveal what they are doing, revealing how the trick normally works I think, and then proceed to do something that makes it apparent that is not actually what they are doing. They have a particularly gory version of sawing a woman in half for example. I think it is on youtube somewhere, pretty solid. But yeah, I don't think you could say that they reveal tricks that "belong" to other magicians. They reveal the basic stuff.
- Retric 14y ago
  I never got the impression that most magicians cared that much for the actual trick. It's a performance art and some of there 'show the magic trick behind clear plastic' is just as interesting as the actual 'trick'. So, I don't know if this is really about protecting tricks as much as preventing bad imitations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_n3Zb3bW3g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_n3Zb3bW3g
  - AndyNemmity 14y ago
    Magicians care deeply for the actual trick considering it often takes years to develop one trick.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Stubbs 14y ago
As other people have mentioned Penn & Teller don't have a problem with people copying their ideas & improving them or performing them in a different way. The problem here is that the chap was then SELLING the trick for thousands of dollars, that's where Teller started to have a problem with it.
ajanuary 14y ago
Judging by the description of the video in the article, this isn't the same video.
- AndyNemmity 14y ago
  It isn't the same video, it's the same trick. He has uploaded a new version of the same trick in an attempt to get past the removal that Teller did of the previous video.
  - ajanuary 14y ago
    I read your comment as "the style is different, and you shouldn't be able to protect effect, so Teller shouldn't be persuing this." Which is obviously a flawed argument if the style is the same. Apologies if I misinterpreted your comment.
ZoFreX 14y ago
Did you read the article? That is not the same video or trick that Teller is suing over. Article version: > Against a crimson curtain, Bakardy had erected an easel with what looked like a large pad of white paper on it. Perhaps six feet in front of the easel sat a small wood table bearing a glass Coke bottle filled with water. That bottle also contained a single rose. A spotlight, outside of the camera's view, cast the rose's shadow on the paper on the easel. Dressed in a dark suit, Bakardy appeared in the frame carrying a large knife in his right hand. He sliced it deep into the rose's shadow. And when he cut into its shadow, something impossible happened: The corresponding part of the rose fell off the stem and onto the table. Petal by petal, Bakardy cut at the rose's shadow until that Coke bottle somehow held only a decapitated stem, which he removed as though to demonstrate the absence of wires. He then lifted up the bottle itself — still no strings attached — and poured out the water. Ta-da.
- AndyNemmity 14y ago
  I read the article. I have followed the case when it was initially brought by Teller, and have read the legal documents he put forth. It is not the same video, it is the same trick done with different patter, and feel. Sorry if that is not clear, I can tell by the reading the intention I was trying to convey was not the intention people got. He reuploaded him doing the trick with different patter, not the same video.
  - ZoFreX 14y ago
    Obviously I can't speak for Teller but based on the fact the reasoning he presents in the OP article would not apply to the linked video, I don't think he would have a problem with it. The article specifically mentions treating a magic act as a performance and copyrighting it in a similar manner to a play - this video is a substantially different act to his. The video described in the article however is a straight rip-off.
    - AndyNemmity 14y ago
      However Teller does have a problem with it. He doesn't want him to sell the trick, and the trick that is occurring has nothing to do with the performance.

robmil 14y ago

That's the big question, with a universal application: that tension between the fact that knockoffs have a diluting effect on the original, and the idea that if your idea can so readily be copied it's perhaps not worthy of protection.

grandalf 14y ago
The magician's creed is a lot like an open source license with the restriction of attribution. If attribution is given then copying is considered respectable, whereas if it's not then it's considered theft.
- AndyNemmity 14y ago
  Copying is not considered respectable if attribution is given... The general rule is you are to ask the individual you are copying if you can copy them in which case they will say no unless they sell the trick, or you can argue that you independently came up with the trick, and the person agrees with you. Copying is always considered "theft" even with attribution unless there's specific permission. There is a case where a performer does magic to the same song (Shape of my heart), but with different actual magic performance and it is considered copying. *Edited to improve my tone, the person I responded to deserves good faith and seems quite reasonable.
  - gnosis 14y ago
    That so many magicians are so possessive of their precious "secrets" and that so many of them are against sharing (even with other magicians), came as rather a big shock and disappointment for me when I got interested in magic. I spent most of my life in the opensource and academic communities, where free sharing of techniques and knowledge was not only commonplace but encouraged. It's very sad that much of the magic world is so anti-sharing and so jealously guard the knowledge they possess from each other (unless you can pony up their asking price). This aspect of parts of the magic community is a huge turn off for me.
    - AndyNemmity 14y ago
      I have spent most of my life in open source communities and understand completely. It's a different way of looking at the value of an idea. Much of the magic community is a huge turn off to me, but it's an enjoyable hobby that I have a lot of interest in.
    - grandalf 14y ago
      There is a nuance here -- magicians are possessive of someone else taking credit for their idea and do not appreciate someone selling it as their own. Sort of like the way the BSD license works. However if credit is given and the new effect is sufficiently unique/innovative, then no objection is reasonably made.
  - grandalf 14y ago
    Well, your explanation assumes that the magician you would get permission from is still alive. Most material used in modern magic was invented decades if not centuries ago. In today's world, these age-old effects or gimmicks are popularized by various working magicians, some of whom make a name based on them. And once in a while a completely novel approach is invented. Most new effects are the result of borrowing. A card trick may use a lift invented 100 years ago and a bit of verbal patter similar to something invented last year. The respectful magician will give credit where it's due and will still be respected if he has truly innovated. If there is true innovation no magician will begrudge him the use of the borrowed elements, unless of course they make up the bulk of the trick. The magician's creed is closely correlated with the steps needed to gain the respect of other magicians.

danielweber 14y ago

I understand Teller wants to protect an idea he came up with Given how much Penn & Teller built their careers on exposing the tricks of other magicians who had guarded their secrets for decades (and getting a lot of stage magicians made at the duo), it's pretty ironic for Teller to now decide he wants government protection for a trick of his. Disclaimer: esquire.com is not working for me right now so I haven't read the original article yet; I'm basing this on your comment.

AndyNemmity 14y ago
I don't agree with you that Penn and Teller built their careers on exposing tricks of other magicians. They do a couple exposures. Cups and Balls, Blast off, and a new escape in their act that you can choose to cover your eyes for or not. Cups and Balls and Blast Off aren't exactly carefully guarded secrets... what are you referring to?
- jlgreco 14y ago
  They do several tricks where they pretend to reveal what they are doing, revealing how the trick normally works I think, and then proceed to do something that makes it apparent that is not actually what they are doing. They have a particularly gory version of sawing a woman in half for example. I think it is on youtube somewhere, pretty solid. But yeah, I don't think you could say that they reveal tricks that "belong" to other magicians. They reveal the basic stuff.
Retric 14y ago
I never got the impression that most magicians cared that much for the actual trick. It's a performance art and some of there 'show the magic trick behind clear plastic' is just as interesting as the actual 'trick'. So, I don't know if this is really about protecting tricks as much as preventing bad imitations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_n3Zb3bW3g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_n3Zb3bW3g
- AndyNemmity 14y ago
  Magicians care deeply for the actual trick considering it often takes years to develop one trick.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

Stubbs 14y ago

As other people have mentioned Penn & Teller don't have a problem with people copying their ideas & improving them or performing them in a different way. The problem here is that the chap was then SELLING the trick for thousands of dollars, that's where Teller started to have a problem with it.

ajanuary 14y ago

Judging by the description of the video in the article, this isn't the same video.

AndyNemmity 14y ago
It isn't the same video, it's the same trick. He has uploaded a new version of the same trick in an attempt to get past the removal that Teller did of the previous video.
- ajanuary 14y ago
  I read your comment as "the style is different, and you shouldn't be able to protect effect, so Teller shouldn't be persuing this." Which is obviously a flawed argument if the style is the same. Apologies if I misinterpreted your comment.

ZoFreX 14y ago

Did you read the article? That is not the same video or trick that Teller is suing over. Article version: > Against a crimson curtain, Bakardy had erected an easel with what looked like a large pad of white paper on it. Perhaps six feet in front of the easel sat a small wood table bearing a glass Coke bottle filled with water. That bottle also contained a single rose. A spotlight, outside of the camera's view, cast the rose's shadow on the paper on the easel. Dressed in a dark suit, Bakardy appeared in the frame carrying a large knife in his right hand. He sliced it deep into the rose's shadow. And when he cut into its shadow, something impossible happened: The corresponding part of the rose fell off the stem and onto the table. Petal by petal, Bakardy cut at the rose's shadow until that Coke bottle somehow held only a decapitated stem, which he removed as though to demonstrate the absence of wires. He then lifted up the bottle itself — still no strings attached — and poured out the water. Ta-da.

AndyNemmity 14y ago
I read the article. I have followed the case when it was initially brought by Teller, and have read the legal documents he put forth. It is not the same video, it is the same trick done with different patter, and feel. Sorry if that is not clear, I can tell by the reading the intention I was trying to convey was not the intention people got. He reuploaded him doing the trick with different patter, not the same video.
- ZoFreX 14y ago
  Obviously I can't speak for Teller but based on the fact the reasoning he presents in the OP article would not apply to the linked video, I don't think he would have a problem with it. The article specifically mentions treating a magic act as a performance and copyrighting it in a similar manner to a play - this video is a substantially different act to his. The video described in the article however is a straight rip-off.
  - AndyNemmity 14y ago
    However Teller does have a problem with it. He doesn't want him to sell the trick, and the trick that is occurring has nothing to do with the performance.