Reader Bruce Arnold pointed me to this great article in the Guardian about some Spanish magicians who are trying the trick that hasn't worked with such great success before: suing the Masked Magician over his exposure of illusions on television.
Judging from the magicians' reaction in Spain that the Guardian reporter notes, it seems to be on par with a lot of anti-Valentino sentiment. One blogger said, "The secrets that magicians have been holding on to forever with the sole intention of entertaining their audiences are being exposed with the only aim of gaining a few points of audience rating." While it's true that the show is exposing these illusions (and has been for a while--the show's been on for some time--say, at least a decade) for ratings as well as educational value, let's acknowledge that at least some magicians have more than "the sole intention of entertaining their audiences" when they perform. While entertaining audiences is part of the reason magicians take to the stage, isn't making money part of the attraction? And shall we not also note that exposure has been around since, well, 1584 at least, with the publication of Reginald Scot's The Discoverie of Witchcraft? Whether or not he published his work with the intention of dissing magicians and/or squelching the employment opportunities of aspiring David Blaines, he did start the tradition of revealing the how-does-its of who-does-its.
As for more extreme reactions, as in the form of the individual who demanded death for Valentino ("for spoiling the illusion behind the tricks"), according to the Guardian article, I feel constrained to point out that what he reveals, like what Penn & Teller reveal, is the secret behind tricks that are generally already available, either in books, on videos, or now on the 'net, or of tricks they create themselves or own the rights to (sorry to end the sentence with a preposition). I've had discussions before, sometimes in animated tones, with practicing magicians, about whether magic exposure on tv made so easily is "worse" than in books and videos. Many people think it is because exposure on tv makes it so much easier--viewers don't even have to move from their chairs. It's the ultimate triumph of the coach potatoes. That may be so. But if it is so, then my libertarian soul says let it be. I don't think such viewers aren't going to remember anything about the explanations of the tricks, anyway. Would they pay to see a magic show? Possibly not. Would they watch one on tv? Six of one. I really don't think magic exposure on tv encourages or discourages them. As for others, who might be interested, I think they will still be interested. One might lose one or two, but one will gain others, and they might go to the library, might go to the bookstore, might buy some books on magic.
The argument that I have not heard made against exposure (maybe someone has made it and I haven't been paying attention) is that it suggests that magic tricks, like all information, are actually free. This argument is a corollary of the argument that magicians work hard for their secrets and should keep them close. It is not so closely related to the argument that magic tricks are part of the commons and common knowledge and should be kept for the group and handed out only to the group. Particularly in a world in which more and more people, particularly young people, think that information is free and freely available on the internet and routinely infringe on intellectual property rights by downloading and uploading material, not just music but other material as well, handing out information on magic tricks, or recipes or fashion or history, much or all of which is already freely available, confuses people who then think that EVERYTHING in those categories is free for the taking. They don't understand that that isn't true, and that moreover, although (at least under U.S. law) while facts cannot be copyrighted, presentations can and are. "Fixed in a tangible medium...."
As a rule, exposure lawsuits have variable success in court, whether in the U.S. or abroad. Recall the recent failed Japanese lawsuit, Rob Croskery's suit against Valentino, and the Brazilian magicians' lawsuit which had some success (I actually have some additional material on this one, sent me courtesy of a Brazilian attorney, but I haven't gotten around to posting it yet), and the history of Horace Goldin's lawsuits. If you want to be a prosperous lawyer/magician, you'll want a better track record than this one.
As for why plaintiffs in exposure cases don't do better at the bar, well, that's what some folks have been discussing for a while. Does IP law help or hurt here, or is it designed to assist at all in what magicians do? Check out previous posts, such as the ones discussing IP norms here and here, for more law and theory.
