Silent magician Teller files copyright suit over "stolen" shadow trick
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
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.
It looks like Teller is upset at the crass commercializaiton of his work.
No they haven't. P&T don't really show how tricks are done. They especially don't reveal big secrets used by other magicians. The notion that they're doing something transgressive that makes other magicians dislike them is just a schtick they came up with for publicity purposes.
When P&T do "reveals" they are usually mock reveals - revealing a technique that they're not actually using which often was invented specifically for the purpose of being revealed. Or they're "revealing" something that everybody already knows which in no way detracts from the enjoyment of the trick. And sometimes they're just riffing on the psychology of magic, showing us how even when you're trying hard not to be fooled you can still fool yourself.
(The clear Cups And Balls might be an exception to this general rule. That's the only one I can think of that more-or-less fits your description.)
And the issue is that he recreated this illusion. Teller claims he copyrighted the trick nearly 30 years ago and has been performing it since the late 70s.
The problem here is telling how much of this Teller can lay claim to. He has been performing it a long time, and it's one of his signature tricks.
However, the heart of the trick is not terribly original. Illusions where a drawing or shadow interact with/mirror real life objects are very common and old. What teller did was take a unique version of it with a rose and package it up into a whole performance piece...and I think the issue is that this guy took that wholesale and is selling it basically as "Teller's rose trick" rather than using his knowledge of how the trick worked to create something similar but still unique.
The former is troubling, but without allowing the latter professional magic would grind to a halt.
You set up an online dating site using your algorithm.
Now someone else comes along, uses your site, looks at the matches your site is producing, and figures out your algorithm.
He decides to set up his own dating site.
No problem so far. Your algorithm (assuming you did not patent it) is protected at most by trade secret. If he gets it by being smart enough to infer it from your site, and there was no contract that prohibits that, he is free to use it. He can design his own web site, powered on the back end by his own implementation of the algorithm, and you have no legitimate complaint.
However, instead of designing his own site, he just copies the design of your site. The whole site is basically a clone of yours. He even advertises his site by referring to yours by name, and proclaiming their equivalence.
That's the problem here. Teller figured out a clever trick. That corresponds to the algorithm. Then he came up with a theatrical performance to present an illusion built upon the trick. That's like the web site.
The other guy figured out the trick. He's then free to come up with an original theatrical performance built around some original illusion using that trick. What he appears to have done, though, is simply take Teller's theatrical performance.
I love Penn and Teller but I was pretty bummed to read this story, it's so anti-competitive, and Penn's comments smacked of elitism, especially about how "elegant" the "real" way Teller did the trick was.
I think the issue here is that he's taking the performance whole-sale rather than coming up with a similar illusion. Teller offered to buy him out, which I think is a combination of class on his part and recognition of the nature of tricks in professional magic.
It'll be interesting to see what happens.
http://ia601207.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.869...
Also, it has nothing to do with orientation, because everyone/anyone would be embarrassed. I'm sure you have family members, co-workers, friends, etc. who you keep things from.
You're inferring a lot from a screenshot and a bookmark.
Teller isn't just a guy all by his lonesome - he's part of a production company. P&T have _staff_. The screenshot could have been anyone's desktop.
Can you elaborate about what part you find surprising?
Copyrights are an extension of property rights, which US Libertarians consider very important.
It goes back to classical libertarian theories of property, and how a person has a natural right to the fruits of his labor. Well, that's in the US, where our legal philosophy was strongly influenced by Locke. In Europe, their intellectual property philosophy was more shaped by Hegel, and the idea that the creations of your mind are an extension of your personality, and so for someone to use your creations without permission would be a violation of your personalty.
Those who prefer to analyze from an economic viewpoint rather than a philosophical viewpoint also have long considered IP a form of property--because that's the whole point of IP economically in a free market system. For a free market to work with a good, that good needs to have certain attributes. Goods that are non-rivalrous and non-excludible, like intellectual goods, do not work with a free market. In order to try to make the free market work to determine the allocation of resources to production of intellectual goods, we use the law to artificially give intellectual goods those aspects of real property that free markets need.