Teller Sues Over "Stolen" Magic Trick

[BENZOOKA]

Copyrights and patents. It's such a mess.

If nothing more, the Dutch in question is really low.

 

[Yopaz]

Well, sure the main point of the episode was the cold reading and getting in touch with the dead was complete and utter bullshit. However one of the mediums had everyone in the audience sign contracts about not revealing anything that didn't hit the screen and he was an asshole because of this. The thing is that I love them for their work, but there's some serious hypocrisy in this deal. They called bullshit on someone who sued over revealing secrets, now they sue over revealing secrets.

If I may ask a question, do Penn and Teller make their audiences sign NDA's? A fraudulent psychic is an asshole for protecting his secret because exposure of that secret makes him legally liable for his actions. Magician/mentalist Craig Browning has actually corroborated with law enforcement several times to track down and arrest fraudulent psychics who were doing massive damage to communities.

They don't as far as I am aware. What difference does that make?

If you call someone an asshole for wanting to protect his secret (his secret being that he's not as good at cold reading as the finished show makes it look like) then you're an asshole when you do the same. Psychic mediums are not legally liable for destroying anything because there's a disclaimer at the start and the end of the show. The editing and the contracts the audience have to sign are merely to hide the fact that most of his guesses are in fact wrong or not close enough to amaze. The contracts about protecting that secret is simply because people wouldn't want readings, go to the shows or watch it on TV if they knew it.

In fact there's only one difference from "psychics" suing over leaked informations pre-edit and Teller suing over a leaked magic trick. That is the fact that Penn and Teller are amazing, they are entertaining, they have had a show revealing a lot of what's wrong with the world (from their point of view) while psychics are frauds who take advantage of grief, loss and the naive and vulnerable among us.

To boil this down so you can see this in its simplicity and not unleash fanboy rage on me, Penn and Teller are awesome, psychics are assholes. That's why they get support in this. Not because we all know a lot about copyright law and know that this is wrong. Not because the magician broke a golden rule or a sacred vow. It's not the crime we consider here. It's the victim.

 

[Guffe]

How would the court proceedings go

Teller:"..."

I laughed out loud at this one, good one sir!

On Topic: Creating own versions of tricks has been done for a long time and by doing it he shows Teller people can fihure it out = good rivalry and most likely some respect from a great illusionist as Teller.
But selling it? fucking sellout!

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

I love Penn and Teller (own every one of their DVD's, including an imported set of the entire Bullshit! series) but I fail to see how Teller has any right to this illusion. It's shitty, but shitty isn't good enough when it comes to the law. Teller has no more right to this, than someone to a coin trick.

 

[Treblaine]

" clear violation of the Magicians' Code

It's not exactly the worst violation

It's a low blow and he should be kicked out of the magician's league but I don't think there is any legal power to stop him performing this trick or revealing (for any price) how to perform it, unless Teller had copyrighted or somehow patented the act. Maybe if Teller refused to perform at any establishment that this rip-off artist performs at... maybe that's the full extent of influence.

 

[esperandote]

That's bullshit...

The trick: Small electromagnets that hold the petals wich are deactivated with a remote control (the knife)

 

[Treblaine]

How would the court proceedings go

Teller:"..."

Teller's Lawyer: "Hey, let me do the talking, Okay?"

 

[Yopaz]

Psychic mediums are not legally liable for destroying anything because there's a disclaimer at the start and the end of the show. The editing and the contracts the audience have to sign are merely to hide the fact that most of his guesses are in fact wrong or not close enough to amaze. The contracts about protecting that secret is simply because people wouldn't want readings, go to the shows or watch it on TV if they knew it.

Yes and no. There actually is legal precedent for going after psychics. Not just TV psychics, but psychics in general. Those who cater to the shut-eye market and actually have a decent moral compass (such as the aforementioned Mr. Browning) genuinely endeavor to help people indirectly.

An example. At one point Craig's career, he was working at a New Age shop in the Southwest when he was told of an old Guatemalan immigrant woman who was seeing two psychics who claimed that there was a curse over her family. This old woman lived alone, hadn't perfected her English, and still adhered to one of the unique regional religions that combined Christendom with the indigenous beliefs (think voodoo or Santeria). Most of the New Age enthusiasts had a bad feeling about these two and asked Craig, as an expert in the subject to look into it. He found out these two were asking this woman for fucking $35,000 to lift the curse. They said if the curse was not lifted, one of her loved ones would die soon. Craig, being familiar with the tenets of her faith, offered to do it as someone of her faith would, for the cost of a few candles. He also gave her some books on the subject so that she could perform the rites to "protect" her home in the future herself. He got information on the two psychics from the old woman and later informed the police. That information resulted in a sting that brought an entire ring of psychic con artists to court.

The point is that some psychics genuinely believe they have strange powers. But more than that are sleaze using ancient skills to take advantage of people, especially those who are emotionally vulnerable. Magicians and mentalists try to adhere to tougher ethical standards, and though they don't always agree on where the line is drawn, they genuinely want to do the right thing.

Speaking as a magician and being a part of the magic community, we are nothing like John Edward or James von Praag.

And to answer my own question, no, Penn and Teller do not make you sign anything. Also, Teller tried to negotiate with this guy before going to court. His objection is that this guy reverse engineered the Shadows routine not so that he could perform his own take on it, but so that he could sell it to others. Among magicians, that's a big no-no. You don't sell other people's secrets while they're still performing them.

To boil this down so you can see this in its simplicity and not unleash fanboy rage on me,

You thought that was my motivation? No, this is a professional concern.

So you used the example of people swindling people. Well of course that is against the law! If you sell someone a false painting or a false service. I am saying that the TV psychics have a disclaimer that says that the show is meant for entertainment and not to be accepted as a full truth. I did never mention that TV psychics were being sued because they were running elaborate scams. I said TV psychics made contracts so they could sue the audience if they revealed secrets from the show. The example you mentioned had nothing to do with TV psychics at all. It wasn't even closely related to it.

Brief overview: I made a comparison between a TV psychic suing over revealed trick and a magician/illusionist suing over a revealed trick.
You made a comparison of a TV psychic suing over a revealed trick and a conman being charged with criminal charges for running an elaborate con.

You claim to only care about this for professional reasons. Now quote me ONE law that states revealing a magic trick and selling it is illegal. If you are able I will admit that I was wrong and I will take back all the insults. If not at least explain hoe revealing a psychic's tricks is different than revealing a magician's trick.

 

[Something Amyss]

It has to do with fundamental differences between "copyright" and "patent." Copyright only applies to duplicable works -- recordings, written works (words or music), videos, and so on. Teller could hold copyright over the recording of a particular performance of this illusion, for instance.

They're arguing performance, which is covered under copyright as has already been established. But as patents last a maximum of 20 years, there would be no claim to patent on "sawing a woman in half" for over a century.

Invented by P.T. Selbit for his Grand Guignol performances in the early 20th century. I don't believe he ever copyrighted anything, his contemporaries simply reverse-engineered the effect.

I've found info going back to the mid-nineteenth.

Was it a patent or copyright? I'm not being snarky because of the other quote; I'm curious about the precedent. As to whether or not there is a precedent here.

 

[Jordi]

Any theories on how it's done?

Obviously I don't know how he's actually doing it, but it seems you could easily pull this off with a fake rose that will break down in predefined places on command (remote control possibly in the knife) or on a timer.

Based on the video, I don't really understand what the fuss is about. Usually I have no idea how illusions could work when I see them, so this must be one of the least impressive magic tricks I've ever seen.

It still seems like a bit of a dick move from Bakardy though. I've heard another magician talk about buying tricks from other magicians even if he knew how to perform them, so I figured that was standard practice. And telling people how a (recent) trick works, is obviously a big faux pas for magicians.

 

[Dastardly]

They're arguing performance, which is covered under copyright as has already been established. But as patents last a maximum of 20 years, there would be no claim to patent on "sawing a woman in half" for over a century.

So the best he can hope for, then, is that the court agrees this other performance is intended to be an exact copy, or that it makes use of copyrighted material.

Copyright doesn't always, contrary to popular belief, protect the idea. It just protects the specific arrangement of that idea. So, for instance, I could write a biography of Tiger Woods and register copyright for that book. You wouldn't be able to photocopy, transcribe, or directly quote more than 10% (I think) of my book without infringing. But you could write your own biography of Tiger Woods, and you could use tons of information from my book.

Copyright keeps me from putting Harry Potter in a book I write, but it doesn't stop me from creating the same basic situations with different character names. Furthermore, characters can be protected by trademark when it comes to merchandise, etc.

Copyright, trademark, and patent often get very confusing as to what they protect and how. An illusion is intensely difficult to classify under any of them.

- You can patent the process and gadgets... if the patent office grants the patent. That will most likely only get you the gadgets.

- You can hold copyright over recordings/photographs of a particular performance of the illusion. DVD sales are your exclusive right. You could maybe even copyright the title/name of the illusion, provided it's not too general.

- You could trademark any specific iconography that identifies the illusion as yours. A logo, a personalized design, anything that is distinct enough.

 

[Dastardly]

I'd also like to mention that the theories you guys have come up with are very funny to me. I'm not making fun of you, you're actually very imaginative. It's just that audiences always come up with ideas that are so much more convoluted than what we actually do. Trust me, you don't want to know the secrets because they're not very sexy. I lost track of the number of times when I was starting out that I learned a secret and felt like a moron for not thinking of it first.

Thanks for all your sharing in this thread! I wanted to kick a theory your way, for your entertainment:

Spoiler: Spoilered, to protect the innocent

I imagine a false rose, or even a real rose, with some thin wire/s inside (say, small-gauge piano wire). As the performer cuts the rose, a partner pulls the wire/s slowly out of the rose.

The blossoms are pre-cut, and still held on by the wire. When the wire slides out of each blossom, it falls off.

Mechanically, it's pretty simple. And because the wires are internal, the bright light (casting so sharp a shadow) isn't going to reveal them the way it would external wires/strings/etc.

 

[Yopaz]

No, I was addressing you implying that Penn and Teller were being hypocritical. They don't go after performers, they go after scam artists.

A TV psychic, who's got a disclaimer saying the show is for entertainment only is a scam artist? If I sell you a copy of Mona Lisa, which was copied with the blessing of those who have the rights to the painting and I told you before you bought it that it was nothing more than a copy. Does that make me a scam artist?

You keep saying that Penn and Teller are different from the TV psychics, but you don't say how. They inform beforehand that they're not really psychic. They claim to be entertainers. Sure, they're as entertaining as watching paint dry, but they claim to be. Penn and Teller are entertainers also claiming to be entertainers.

Now one TV psychic who is an entertainer makes the audience sign a contract not to reveal a trick. If he wants to sue his audience for revealing the trick he's an asshole.

Teller has a trick that someone figured out and when that person reveals the trick he gets sued.

The difference here is that if a person in the audience of the TV psychic reveals something there's actually a violation of a legally binding contract so legally, he should be sued.

You say that Teller tried to be nice and reason with the one who stole his trick. That's nice and all, but the law doesn't work with who's nice and who's an asshole. I stand by what I have been trying to say all along. One entertainer suing over tricks revealed is no different from another suing over a revealed trick. Calling one of them an asshole and one of them righteous just proves you as a hypocrite.