Magician Suing For Copyright Over Magic Trick 296
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."
Vegas huh? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure Penn and Teller know "a guy" who can make this deadbeat...[poof!]...disappear into a hole in the desert.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
However, the feel good, good guy reputations Penn & Teller enjoy, just might take a trip to the deserts of Nevada to the hole you mention.
Teller can be 'right', or he can be a human being and appeal at that level publicly to show he's human and then use his bully pulpit of fame to shame the guy if no deal is reached. But going to lawyers only shows you're going to be a douche about it.
The 'value' of his repu
Re:Vegas huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Vegas huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
a legitimate application of copyright law
Screw that. I don't see how a magic trick can be copyrightable. The performance of it is copyrightable, but Bakardy isn't selling a recorded version of Teller's show. He watched the show, figured out how Teller did the trick, and is telling other people how he does it for a price. The equivalent analogy is if I go see a movie where a character gets his hand chopped off, figure out based on my own experience how the special effects guy made the hand-chopping look so realistic, and sell the information of how to do that to people, who will then proceed to make other movies where characters get their hands chopped off using the same technique. That's perfectly valid. The movie scene is copyrightable, the method used to film the scene is not.
There's more to a magic show than the trick. Presentation is everything. If the trick is so well know you can no longer present it in an entertaining way, tough luck, create a new trick. So yeah, Teller lost my respect.
Re: (Score:3)
you can give away the plot of a book without infringing on the copyright..
Re:Vegas huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
There are several problems here: the law claimed by Teller is a grey area of copyright laws, and he is not just pursuing legal action, he is using DMCA to prevent the sale of a product before getting a judgement. Both of which are quite hypocritical of Teller in the light of Pen & Teller's reputation. To wit:
1. Is there copyright infringement at all, and is the copyright even valid? It would be a clear copyright infringement if Bakardy uses the same music, same gestures, and same sequence of events as Teller, or if Bakardy uses footage from Teller's performance in his video, otherwise it becomes debatable as to whether one can copyright the spirit of an act, or an idea, or an invention.
2. Bakardy's product is not damaging in any way Pen & Teller's ability to continue their act or make a revenue from it. If Teller had already created a similar instructional product, he may have a tiny bit of a claim, but he hasn't and even so, can the first person to write a textbook on a new scientific theory, or a tutorial on a new programming language, claim copyright on all textbooks/tutorials written on the subject?
3. Pen & Teller use many tricks in their performance, some of which are classic tricks invented by previous magicians. In one famous act, they actually perform a classic trick with transparent boxes. It's basically a tutorial of a magic trick that was not invented by them (and yes they make money from that tutorial by virtue of charging a fee for the performance). Seems hypocritical that now Teller doesn't want someone else to make money from a tutorial of one of his tricks.
4. Pen & Teller have made a reputation of calling out magicians, politicians, and law-makers who use too much smoke and mirrors (no pun intended) to further their own agenda, yet here's Teller using a grey area of copyright law trying to prevent someone else from marketing a new product. Furthermore, Teller is going the over-the-top DMCA route by forcing removal of the product first, before getting a proper judgement. If Pen & Teller care as much about sensible laws as they say, Teller should have simply served Bakardy a notice such as "I believe you're infringing on my copyright, please stop marketing your product or I will file a lawsuit and you will then be responsible for X dollars in damages for every day you continue to market said product, your choice..."
Re: (Score:3)
and penn supports strong patent protection because "he wants [his] friends to be able to get rich."
totally consistent with this fiasco, and a typical modern libertarian; wealth redistribution for my friends, but not anyone else.
Re: (Score:3)
So then why should performers and content generators even register copyrights for things at all
They shouldn't.
I don't think one iota less of Mr. Teller for pursuing legal action for the violation of copyright.
I do. Just because an unjust law exists does not mean it is right to take advantage of it and use it as a weapon against people.
Re:I think less of him (Score:4, Interesting)
Mr. Teller i hope you lose.
It wouldn't surprise me if Teller hopes he loses too. Penn & Teller strike me as just the type of guys who would sue someone in hopes of losing in order to set a precedent against a bad law. Would that make them anti-copyright trolls?
Re:Vegas huh? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
That is *not* what I said. I said, use their bully pulpit of Fame to destroy the man with Penn & Teller's amazing comedic and sarcasm talents. Get the public to understand the issue so that when you do 'lawyer up' people don't attribute it to you negatively.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The trick itself could be patented (but generally isn't).
In this particular case however, the stage performance (blocking, expressions, actions) was quite thoroughly documented and registered for copyright by Teller as a pantomime in 1983. Note that no details as to how the trick was accomplished were documented, just the performance. That makes it fairly cut and dry - if its an explalnation of how to do the trick, the suit is meritless. If its details as to how to perform the act, that's a blatant copyr
Re:Vegas huh? (Score:5, Informative)
There's plenty of footage of Teller talking, giving interviews, etc.
Re:Vegas huh? (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgtgOs_OkTU
Re: (Score:2)
i wonder if teller will be called to testify? that would be a first!
It is easy to find videos of Teller talking.
seriously though, did teller copywrite the work?
No. But he did copyright it, as TFA said, in 1983.
Re:Vegas huh? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Vegas huh? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Vegas huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
You missed the really important part where you didn't go to law school. Neither did I, but in this case I still actually understand the law. You completely misread your own quote (and the law). The important bit "fixed in any tangible medium of expression" and you highlighted it. But what that means is that it is a form of art that is * recordable*. It also means you have to record it in some fashion to be copyrighted.
If I write a song I own the copyright on that *TUNE* I don't only own a copyright on the performance. But once it's performed or recorded then I own the copyright to that tune. This is important so that you can't say "oh the Beatles stole my song idea." without a recording of it somewhere. And now a recording doesn't have to be a literal audio recording it can also be a metaphoric recording such as sheet music or some form of notation.
So if there was "magical notation" then you could say that the choreography of the trick was copyrighted without even performing it. But in the case of Penn and Teller the fact that he's performed it is also an example of your creative work being recorded.
I don't know if he'll win his lawsuit but if a dance is copyright-able then a magic trick I would think should be as well. Just not the idea behind a magic trick.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 [archive.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That's what's puzzling me... how can you copyright a magic trick? Doesn't copyright law still say a work must be "affixed in a tangible medium" so that you can't copyright a dance, but you can copyright a movie of that dance?
Can someone explain this please?
Re: (Score:2)
Did Teller write down the steps needed to do the trick? Don't magicians dislike sharing their secrets?
Re:Vegas huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, he wrote down the entire performance. [archive.org]
Re: (Score:3)
And it would only be that document that you wrote which would be protected. In this case the performance was observed and someone reverse engineered it themselves so any copyrighted description Teller may have made is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
you'll likely meat them afterwards
Cannibal!
Re: (Score:3)
Mmmmmm. Long pig.
Good luck. (Score:5, Funny)
You'll need it. Or, as Teller might say, " ."
Reminds me of the Electric Slide (Score:3)
Reminds me of a similar usage of the DMCA and copyright claim for performance art. Remember the Electric Slide [cnet.com] fiasco?
If he manages - you know what the next stage is (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
To patent it, you must publish it. A magician does not reveal his secrets.
Modern patents don't tend to publish much in the way of specific information on how something works, they're pretty vague (which is why a patent holder can sue anyone with something that looks even vaguely similar). Actually fully implementing something described in a modern technology patent using just the published information is pretty much impossible these days.
Re: (Score:2)
You certainly could patent a trick, but not the idea of a trick, it has to be an actual, specific, working implementation of a trick. If you have a working implementation of a good magic trick, you'd be much better off performing it or selling it to someone who will than you would be patenting it. Magicians aren't that desperate for tricks, and your patent registration would more likely inspire someone to think of a different way to implement the same trick than encourage someone to license it from you (a
Re:If he manages - you know what the next stage is (Score:5, Funny)
Comic Sans?
Re: (Score:3)
No. I own the patent on using Comic Sans to write sarcasm.
Re: (Score:2)
See sig.
That said, the copyright, not patent, is on the performance of the trick, not the mechanics behind it.
Just because you say something doesn't make it fact.
That thing in your sig does not mean "snarky" it means "approximately" among other things see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilde [wikipedia.org]
What bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to see them cover copyright law on their show...
Probably an interesting phone call... (Score:5, Funny)
Teller a copyright thug?! (Score:5, Funny)
Very sad (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Very sad (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Dance and pantomime arguably shouldn't be copyrightable either. If anything, this would fall under patent law since it's an invention, but of course they don't want to file patents and disclose how it works, which makes it a trade secret and subject to reverse engineering.
Re:Very sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would a dance performance be covered under patents when all other artistic performances are covered by copyright?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, that's not what I meant to infer. I was referring to the rose trick as the patentable invention. Since most magic tricks are machines/gadgets, and since this rose is sold along with instructions on how to use it, we can assume it's an invention.
Unless someone can tell me what idea is being expressed by a dance, it shouldn't be covered by anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Imply, not infer. Argh. Too much Mass Effect, not enough sleep.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, it
s pretty clear it falls under copytright.
A fundamental principle of copyright law is that copyright covers the expression of ideas but not the ideas themselves.
Dance, and pantomime, and other performances are expression of ideas.
It is not about the technical aspect of the rose falling apart, it is about the performance in doing so.
If the other magician talked and wore a sad clown face while playing tragic music of a love lost as the rose comes apart, it would be fine.
And that would be kind of awesom
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Very sad (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Seen this trick before (Score:5, Funny)
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 ;-).
Re:Seen this trick before (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, nicely done, english language. Tricked me into turning a trick into a missunderstanding ;-).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, when I did magic the magician called them tricks.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. Whores get paid to get fucked, whereas it is this Dutch guy's clients who are the lucky fuckees, paying $3k for a simple illusion.
As much as I like Penn and Teller (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:As much as I like Penn and Teller (Score:5, Insightful)
If he's doing the exact same performance, what's the difference between plaigarizing Tellers act, or Lady Gaga's, or performing any other copyrighted dramatic work? If I went out and performed Louis CKs routine, word for word, I'd expect to have the hammer dropped.
I haven't seen this guys video. If he's selling a video of him doing the exact same routine, same setup, same moves, same 'punchline', but claiming it as his own - fuck him.
I don't see anything about Teller claiming he owns sleight of hand, smoke and mirrors, etc.
P&T tend to be on the 'intelligent' side of most issues. They tend to like to exploit bullshitters, and scam artists - like a guy selling a 3000 video explaining one of their tricks, and pretending to have created it.
I'll wait and see how this plays out.
Seems to Be a Performance Copyright (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:As much as I like Penn and Teller (Score:5, Interesting)
A theatre play also falls under copyright, regardless of whether it involves spoken words or not. Changing minor details does not change that, just like changing the names in the Harry Potter stories would not be sufficient.
There is no exact definition of when something stops being a derivative work and becomes a new/independent work. The reason is, as you sort of touched upon, that it is simply not really possible to write a strict definition for something like that. As a result, either both authors come to an agreement, or a judge decides after their and expert witness testimony.
Slashdot user suing geek.net for spelling mistakes (Score:4, Funny)
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?"
Teller *does* speak frequently.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know, right? This underline how hard it is for people to divorce performance from reality.
How is this... (Score:2)
... 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.
Lawyers getting paid (Score:2)
How fast did their lawyers find that video that it only had 14 views on it when screenshotted, impressive.
Oh, Teller, you make us laugh (Score:2)
I find it ironic Teller is boo-hooing about this.
Tesla's machine is at work... (Score:5, Funny)
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...
Actually important case (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Oh noes, he copied him!!!! (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if the suit can be won, but writing this off as sincere flattery is a mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that he does have a copyright on the trick's performance. So.... it really doesn't matter what you say.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't matter what he says... what matters is what copyright says. What matters even more is what a judge says.
I like Penn and Teller, but personally I'm rooting for this guy. Not just because he's the underdog in this case, but because what he is doing is absolutely no different than what other magicians have been doing to eachother for hundreds of years.
Re: (Score:2)
Since you obviously read the article, Teller registered a trademark for the performance of this trick in 1983. So, yes, he can copyright it since he already obtained the copyright 28 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, we won't. It's already well-establshed that you can copyright pantomine acts. You don't even have to take my word for it. [copyright.gov] Care to just admit you were wrong now?
Wasn't FOX sued over magic secrets revealed (Score:2)
Wasn't FOX sued over that magic secrets revealed show?
Re:Wasn't FOX sued over magic secrets revealed (Score:5, Informative)
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.
that may not be wise (Score:3)
to piss off someone that can make you disappear
How libertarian (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Nice. (Score:2)
You stay classy Teller!
Teller not Penn (Score:2)
Because Penn is such a lunatic libertarian he barely wants any laws at all.
Just remember (Score:2)
Telling a joke is a copyright infringement.
That trick puzzles people? (Score:2)
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.
The actual claim seems a bit dodgy (Score:2, Insightful)
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
NDA (Score:2)
Given Teller's persona on stage, I'm really trying hard not to make a Non-Disclosure Agreement joke....
As the saying goes (Score:2)
stage name Gerard Bakardy (real name: Gerard Dogge)
Can't teach an old Dogge new tricks?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm about as big a Penn and Teller fan as it's possible to be, but I agree that reverse engineering a trick and selling it is legit. It happens all the time in software. Perhaps the rules are different in magic, but I doubt it.
Especially when you consider that P&T made their bones doing exactly that.
My understanding here is that he's copywritten the specific performance, and this guy is stealing and selling that. The difference between showing someone how to do the cup and balls, and someone doing it *exactly* the way Penn does it (with the potato and everything).
Re: (Score:2)
If it was* true that you are a fan, you would have had the courtesy to read the article toi find out what it's about.
Hint: it's not what you think it is.
*were true???
Re: (Score:2)
It will be up to a jury I suppose but there are some misunderstood implications. While the techie community cries foul every time some company slightly mishandles personal information or claims ownership over it; the moment a performer or company gets it's "secrets" or "identity" borrowed or stolen comments like "fair use" and "copyrights are a shame" pop up. If part of a Magician's professional identity is his magic tricks and those are free-range to be copied, how different is the data that makes up your "professional identity" or even your personal identity? At what point is something really your "own" if the moment someone simply sees it you cease to own it as yours? This is where I see massive hypocrisy in the tech industry.
You didn't expect the comments section on a major site to be a shining beacon of rational argument did you?
Did you only just get connected to the internet?
Re:Bullshit. (Score:4, Interesting)
Copyright vs patent. The claim is copyright infringement and not a patent issue.
If the copy-cat magician had used a daisy instead of a rose or had done it with scissors instead of a knife......probably wouldn't have had a case.
Re:Bullshit. (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem as I see it is that he's explicitly using the Penn & Teller brand in his marketing efforts. That YouTube video is an ad. He is selling stuff off the back of Penn and Teller. So maybe he should really be going after them for abuse of trademark, and get a forward injunction on future sales based on the argument that the initial breach of trademark law is directly responsible for the level of publicity received and the future sales potential of the trick.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the 1960s original HUMBUG! was better. The next generation show was never quite as good, and has aged poorly. (imho)
check what he's suing over (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 g
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 com
Re: (Score:3)
And how does Penn and Tellers "let's do the trick with transparent cups/walls/sheets" fit with that first one?