Magic News

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by CWhite, Nov 14, 2018.

  1. Angle Z....
    Huge issue between Jay Sankey and Daniel Madison in regards to the creation of Angle Zero.
    Sankey's most recent YouTube video -removed at the time of this report- he teaches a "chocolate bar trick" essentially Angle Z. He mentions an English magician, we can assume is reference to Daniel Madison.
    Daniel Madison posted a "reaction" video, you can see here

    Again as of this report Jay Sankey has not responded to this.
    What are your thoughts on creation issues like this?

    Cheers.
     
    Mr_ARPY likes this.
  2. Magicians are such drama queens. It's sad. There are so many petty disputes over who created what in recent times that people will honestly forget about in two weeks since so many new effects are pumped out at a rapid rate. The magic "community" truly is toxic.
     
  3. I disagree somewhat. Magicians as a whole aren't drama queens. We just hear about the ones that are
     
    Ap77 likes this.
  4. It is true that these days people forget effects at a real fast rate. But would you like your creation to be credited to someone else, just because no one will remember who created it?
     
  5. You're right, it was wrong of me to say magicians as a whole. It's more than likely the majority but it's not fair to group everyone in one category.
    If I invent a new method, effect, and presentation that is completely original that I don't want anyone else to copy, I would put a patent on it or do whatever I could to legally protect it as my intellectual property. I would then be obligated to protect as my intellectual property. Every good businessperson outside of the magic industry knows this including the entertainment industry. The thing is, most magicians are not good at business. Jay Sankey and Daniel Madison are not good businessman. I can tell by all the complaints of Daniel Madison's Madisonist project and complaints against Jay Sankey. If they had been good businessman, this discussion wouldn't even be happening. They may be good social influencers but I highly doubt they went to a well respected business school.

    Yes there is a risk in getting a legal patent, it would expose the method. But like in anything in life, any good business school would teach you there is an opportunity cost with everything you do. The opportunity cost of the patent is method exposure but it keeps your show original. Plus, how many people in your show are actually going to look up patents into how presentations were performed? It would be way too much work. The other option is not patenting the method but the cost their is other magicians being able to copy with no consequences. Because of this I have no sympathy for Jay Sankey whining. If he wanted sole ownership of the method he should have protected it as his intellectual property.

    That is how I feel.
     
    Maaz Hasan and Mr_ARPY like this.
  6. Neither do I. I feel he is a really creative man, but also, a sore loser and a bad sportsman.

    But patents don't protect methods. They reveal them, as you rightly said.

    The weird part is, if you invent a trick X and patent it, I as a magician cannot perform or reveal it. But anyone, ANYONE else can reveal how X works. Is that a form of protection or is it more of an unnecessary and more importantly, useless hassle?

    The only thing which protects magicians legally is, unfortunately, a sense of morals. It may seem like a stupid protection, but see, we just needed two (even moderately) well-known magicians and one simple effect, and EVERYONE in the magic community (or closely involved with it) knows about it.

    Although it did not prevent Madison from using Sankey's method (I shall not use the term 'steal'), at least we all KNOW about it and can be the judge ourselves!

    Those who think Sankey was right, they can sympathise with him, and those who think Madison was innocent, they can sympathise with him too!

    TLDR; Those who wanna steal, actually steal methods, this sort of negative publicity is often enough to discourage them to do so. Other than normal human-morals, I don't really see how magicians can demand protection for methods.
     
  7. Sankey's video is available again. As you may already know Jay Sankey's work on this plot predates Angle Z by decades. But I think the reference to the English Magician (Daniel Madison) has been removed.

    Jay Sankey actually responded to this years ago, around the time he released Stuck and or the Kaleidoscope DVD.

    Sadly, Angle Z isn't the only trick of Daniel Madison's that is too similar to Jay Sankey's tricks. In 2008 when Jay Sankey contacted Daniel Madison with regards to Bound, Outlaw and Wrath, Daniel Madison responded " I do not have any involvment in the magic industry at this point as I consider myself to be a visual artist and not a magician."
     
  8. Not at all a useless hassle or no one would be willing to protect their IP. You bring up the point that anyone can reveal the method if it is patented. But is that not also true for methods that aren't patented as well? Methods are going to be exposed regardless of whether you patent them or not so I feel it would be best to patent them anyways. But we are starting to rabbit hole into another discussion about magic exposure which is a different topic.

    The main issue is what is going on between Sankey and Madison. My point is Sankey doesn't have a right to complain since he did nothing to protect his IP. Madison and Ellusionist were within their legal rights to release Angle Z. I have no sympathy for Sankey's complaints. Does it suck that Madison is profiting off a method that Sankey came up with first? Yeah it must suck a lot for Sankey. But still I don't feel it is right for him to cry foul when he did nothing to protect himself as every other entertainment industry has done.

    The thing is I'm not even a fan of Daniel Madison. I think he is over hyped and over dramatic so I find him quite annoying actually. He's more of a shock entertainer that builds his brand off of creating petty drama like saying he is better Erdnase and that magic is dead. But I think Sankey is in the wrong here and I will defend Madison's right to distribute Angle Z as he wishes and for him to take credit as the inventor of specifically the Angle Z project.
     
  9. I don't think you realize that not everything can be patented. Not to mention the costs involved. Jay Sankey can't patent most of the effects he's come up with, even if he wanted to.

    It's not that Jay Sankey didn't do anything to protect his IP. The problem being copyright doesn't protect the methods of anyone's effects. What has every other entertainment industry done? Did you forget piracy and plagiarism exists in the entertainment industry?

    Did you not watch Madison's reaction video? Madison says he's removing Angle Z from all of his marketed works that he has control over.
     
  10. I know that everything can't be patented but you can certainly own the rights to certain performances such as Shin Lim own the rights to the Dream Act. If anyone performs Dream Act without his permission and profits from it, Shin Lim can sue them. If Jay Sankey spent more time on creating workable material instead of creating just to create, then maybe he could protect his intellectual properties better and the cost wouldn't be so high since he didn't have to protect hundreds of creations.
    How do you know this? What proof do you have to back this claim up?
    Are you freaking kidding me? Other industries sue when their intellectual properties have been infringed upon. Why do you think patent trolls exist? They literally make their livelihoods by suing people. Also they can issue DMCA take downs on their IP which requires sites to be taken down (source: https://www.dmca.com/) If I were to upload some movie onto YouTube that I don't have the rights to, the owner of those rights can issue a DMCA and it's taken down no questions asked. Works for music and other forms of media as well. So you mean to tell me that copyright doesn't protect methods? What do you have to back that up? From what I have seen in the illusion industry and other smaller effects such as Dream Act, it has given creators power of their IP to where they have influence to penalize those who have infringed on their IP. Yes it's annoying but owning the rights gives them lots of power that they can use if they wish.
    The logic behind this argument is extremely flawed. You are basically making the claim that even though other entertainment industries take ownership of their IP it's meaningless since piracy and plagiarism still exists. Using that same logic structure, I'll apply it to another issue. Why should we put laws out banning murder when other countries that have banned murder still have murder anyways? Do you see the idiocy of this terrible logic? Just because there are exemptions does not mean that certain rules and procedures are ineffective. Protecting your IP is still very effective or no one would even bother to do it. I can't believe you asked me if I forgot that piracy and plagiarism exist in other industries and follow it with that terrible logic. It's like I'm arguing with a child.
    I did watch his terribly over dramatic and cringey response video. So because Madison says he's removing Angle Z does that still mean that Jay Sankey wasn't in the wrong for trying to protect his work and then whining about it later when someone else profits from it? What does Madison's admission have anything to do with what Sankey should have done before Madison even came up with Angle Z? Once again, another illogical argument from you that I'm very tired of arguing with you because your claims are just getting more ridiculous.
     
  11. To quote Judge Mahan directly: "Indeed, federal law directly holds 'dramatic works' as well as 'pantomimes' are subject to copyright protection, granting owners exclusive public performance rights. The mere fact that a dramatic work or pantomime includes a magic trick, or even that a particular illusion is its central feature does not render it devoid of copyright protection."
    As I said in my second post in this thread the effect, the method, and the presentation should have at least at attempt made to protect it legally. A method alone can't have a particular copyright but the creation as a whole can and I think you have been confusing the two for the same thing.
     
  12. The Dream Act is not what we're discussing.

    Jay Sankey's works are copyrighted. The books and videos of his work which exist.

    No, I'm not freaking kidding you. They can issue DMCA take downs on their IP, but sometimes the content won't be taken down because it's Fair Use. I wrote that copyright doesn't protect the "method". That's right. I have the fact that the Magic Makers company exists to back that up. Magic Makers releases effects like crushed and cured cola, which copies the method from healed and sealed. The Dream Act is not a small effect.

    I was simply pointing out that despite their best efforts the entertainment industry cannot fully protect their IP. Just like Jay Sankey is unable to. You made it seem like the entertainment industry was infallible and Jay Sankey was just dumb.

    Why would Jay Sankey be in the wrong for trying to protect his work and complaining about it later when someone else profits from it? As I have written most of Jay Sankey's published works are not patentable. There's not much else Jay Sankey could do.
     
  13. To summarise what happened regarding the Teller case and what ID4 is saying above, you can copyright a performance, not a method.

    If another magician performs your trick you can’t do anything unless proven to be deliberately copying your performance and trying to imitate you as this could infringe on IP protection.

    There is, however, nothing stopping anyone performing all the moves in, say, the Dream Act in their own performance and changing the music, the patter, the style. It would be a different performance and therefore unprotected.

    As the judge said, it was the parts that were imperceptible to the audience that were irrelevant to the case. So the move should themselves are not protectable.

    Now if someone wanted to start trying to sell a move that is widely credited to someone else, that would set a precedent legally should the creator want to sue. But there’s a difference between selling secrets behind a method and selling tickets to a performance in which the method is used in some small part.
     
  14. Shin Lim doesn't own the rights to Dream Act. He owns the rights to a televised or uploaded performance of the Dream Act, as he does with a few other acts. Anyone is allowed to perform the Dream Act. But if you're going to perform it on TV or for a camera that will be uploaded onto the Internet, then you must have his permission to do so.
     
    NinoIng likes this.
  15. I just don't understand what Sankey is getting out of exposing the method for these effects. Can he get at Daniel Madison in a more discrete way?
     
    Maaz Hasan and CWhite like this.
  16. Some basic intellectual property principles:

    1. Copyright applies to writings (books, music scores, etc.), computer software (by analogy to writing the ones and zeros of computer code), recordings (including music, movies, videos, etc.) and choreography (dance routines and Teller's rose routine). The item subject to copyright needs to be published or performed. A magic trick that is published in a book cannot be photocopied or scanned and uploaded. It also cannot be republished in another work verbatim without authorization. However, it can be performed regardless of whether you own the book and you can legally (but arguably not ethically) teach it in your own words through an online video or in another book. If someone makes and published a video of a performance or of teaching an effect, you can't post or sell that video without their permission. However, you can legally (but arguably not ethically) post a video of you teaching that effect.

    2. Trademark applies to words or symbols that are associated with the sale of a product. The Rider Backs for Bicycles are trademarked. I can print my own cards with those backs for my own use or to give to my friends, but I cannot use that design for sale. The characters's names in Harry Potter are trademarked. I can mention Harry Potter in this post, but I can't write a book about Harry Potter and sell it. Had Dai Vernon trademarked the trick "Triumph", nobody else could market a trick with that name (he didn't and thus the million variations).

    3. Patent is protection for a novel, useful and non-obvious product or process. A magic trick is not "useful". However, some illusions have been patented -- at least in part. I say in part, because the patents do not reveal the secret of how to do the trick but are more of a patent of the design of the illusion. You probably could patent some smaller scale apparatus or the methods used to create the apparatus, but not the methods of a trick. That said, a patent is expensive in both time and money to obtain.
     
    Al e Cat Dabra, JoshL8 and CWhite like this.
  17. Jay Sankey is getting free advertising among other things. As I wrote above Jay Sankey tried the more discrete way but Daniel didn't care his "excuse" if you can call it that for copying Jay's effects was that he considering himself a visual artist not a magician. Jay Sankey can do whatever he wants, as he was the one who created the angle z concept.
     

Share This Page

Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results