Okay, with this recent petition I have been thinking more about magic in the context of it being an art like film, music, art then a question came to mind: If I watch a magician do a trick, then figure out how to do the trick, that is frowned upon in the community because I did not pay for the rights to learn and perform it. But if I hear a song on the radio that I like, then go home grab my guitar and figure how to play it, that is called a cover and it is just fine. If we are to consider arts on a level playing field what is the difference here?
A question about magic as an art.
- Thread starter mclintock
- Start date
If you hear a song on the radio, you're welcome to sing it and perform it in the comfort of your home, or in the shower. I often do, horrifically. But, you can't utilize that song for commercial use without some form of compensation to the creator (in music, that'd be a license from ASCAP, BMI, etc).
The same is true in magic ethics already - as in, it'd be unethical to watch a trick, figure it out yourself, not buy it, and then perform it for your own purposes. Not to mention that in magic, that'd be a very unwise way to learn anything anyways. Learning directly from the creator himself or herself is always ideal, particularly when magic tricks are often priced less than most people spend on an average lunch.
The same is true in magic ethics already - as in, it'd be unethical to watch a trick, figure it out yourself, not buy it, and then perform it for your own purposes. Not to mention that in magic, that'd be a very unwise way to learn anything anyways. Learning directly from the creator himself or herself is always ideal, particularly when magic tricks are often priced less than most people spend on an average lunch.
