A follow up on the post about Teller's lawsuit and how copyright might protect magicians' IP. This issue isn't particularly easy to understand. The obvious IP vehicle that protects illusions would be patents, but in order to get a patent, one would have to disclose how the illusion works. That would then disclose the secret of the illusion, precisely what a magician wouldn't want to do.
Briefly, in order to get a copyright on something under the Copyright Act, here is what one might do to comply with the requirements of the Act--to "fix" the work in a "tangible medium of expression." One might film an illusion, for example. That would protect the presentation and would comply with the requirements under Section 101 of the Act. One could also file a script to go along with the video. The script could describe in detail what happens in the video. One would then register the work under the Act. Section 410 passim gets one access to the courts should the copyright be infringed. Section 501 passim provides remedies. Here's the copyright registration for Teller's work "Shadows"; it's described as Dramatic work and Music; or Choreography. Since 1976, choreographic works have qualified for copyright protection. What's also interesting is that Teller is listed as having several works under copyright; he's listed under two names, Teller, and Teller, Raymond.
Another L&M post on copyrighting magic here.
For more about how a copyright could be used to protect illusions, try F. Jay Dougherty, Now You Own It, Now You Don’t: Copyright and Related Rights in Magic Productions and Performances, in Law and Magic: A Collection of Essays 101 (C. A. Corcos, ed., Carolina Academic Press, 2010). Sorry, not available on the web, but Jay offers an analysis of the issues in the lawsuit based on his piece in Law and Magic here at the Loyola (LA) Law School Faculty blog, Summary Judgment, here.
Comments