Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectual rights to magic methods
Original research: no external citations. WP:Point, WP:NOR, WP:V. No grouding in legal theory or legal citations. Pseudo-law.-- Muchosucko 18:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete merge anything that is verifiable with Intellectual property. Peyna 18:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't disagree with your comments about the quality of the page, but I don't think deletion is a useful resolution to those issues. This is an interesting page (I know nothing about magic and enjoyed reading) and has had several people contribute to it. -Jcbarr 18:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting is one thing, but please bear in mind that we cannot publish original research or things which are unverifiable. Peyna 19:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- There are references on this page which clearly provide verifiability. Certainly this article is someone's newly created words, but per WP:NOR, I'm not sure it qualifies as "novel narrative or historical interpretation". I'm not a lawyer and certainly not qualified to find the right references, but there are references listed here which make most of the statements in the article obvious. You could remove the parts of this article which seem to make assertions of law without deleting the whole thing. -Jcbarr 21:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- The references provided are non sequitur to the thesis. The legal thesis on the page, if there is one, simply has no basis in law, but the authors refer to legal code to produce a pseudo-legal argument.--Muchosucko 22:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- There are references on this page which clearly provide verifiability. Certainly this article is someone's newly created words, but per WP:NOR, I'm not sure it qualifies as "novel narrative or historical interpretation". I'm not a lawyer and certainly not qualified to find the right references, but there are references listed here which make most of the statements in the article obvious. You could remove the parts of this article which seem to make assertions of law without deleting the whole thing. -Jcbarr 21:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, WP:NOR applies to all articles without exception. Even the interesting ones. Lord Bob 21:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Magic (illusion); failing that, Keep. The topic is of interest, there are 3 pertinent external hyperlink references, and the text, while possibly not currently up to Wikipedia:The perfect article standards, is far from unredeemable. Magic (illusion) is a pretty sharp article; the folks who keep an eye on it would have the (admitted) flaws of this text whipped into Wikipedia-shape before you could say 'Hocus-pocus'. -Ikkyu2 22:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Flawed but interesting article on a good topic which has moved to the forefront as the walls of secrecy around magic methods have fallen in recent years. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Surely there must be cases of actual intellectual property disputes with regards to magic methods. So put a cleanup tag up and get those documented. --TreyHarris 02:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm doing some cursory research and not finding much. First, to get a patent, they'd have to make their secret public after a couple of years, which would make it not very wise to get one. They'd be most likely to use trade secret protection, but as soon as someone reverse engineered it, they're through. Secondly, most of the stuff they do has been in the public domain for a long time, everyone knows it. Third, while they could surely copyright any of their performance, they wouldn't be able to stop someone from doing the same thing unless they wrote down the steps they took and then copyrighted it; however, at that point they're giving everything away again and since it would have to fall under "choreography" most likely, which would provide them minimal protection. I can no find evidence of anything aside from patents on specific magician devices and a case where Fox was sued for copying a show on another station where a "masked magician" revealed secrets. This article is merely speculation and original research. Peyna 03:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- This issue has been dicussed to death by those ignorant of the law here: Talk:Out of This World (card trick) I'm afraid the simple fact is that the legal system and keeping magic tricks secret have no overlap. Blending the two is original research. No outside references are available.It is not a matter of "interest" or an argument: there is simply no factual value in this article because it is original research.--Muchosucko 04:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm doing some cursory research and not finding much. First, to get a patent, they'd have to make their secret public after a couple of years, which would make it not very wise to get one. They'd be most likely to use trade secret protection, but as soon as someone reverse engineered it, they're through. Secondly, most of the stuff they do has been in the public domain for a long time, everyone knows it. Third, while they could surely copyright any of their performance, they wouldn't be able to stop someone from doing the same thing unless they wrote down the steps they took and then copyrighted it; however, at that point they're giving everything away again and since it would have to fall under "choreography" most likely, which would provide them minimal protection. I can no find evidence of anything aside from patents on specific magician devices and a case where Fox was sued for copying a show on another station where a "masked magician" revealed secrets. This article is merely speculation and original research. Peyna 03:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOR -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, this is definitely encyclopedic. I'm aware of the NOR issues. Stifle 12:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but I wouldn't be adverse to a move into the Wikipedia: namespace if no one can find citations. It gives us somewhere to point the folks who constantly blank magic-related articles (King levitation got the worst of it before being merged, but they've still got a fairly broad list of targets). —Cryptic (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into exposure (magic), remove the POV and OR. Samohyl Jan 02:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I see four sections, all of which are entirely verifiable. Magic secrets are not covered by copyright, usually not covered by patent or trade secret, and are covered by the ethical standards of the magic community. What on this page constitutes original research? Kleg 18:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Good question: This means that, in most cases, revealing a magic secret—even one that is on sale elsewhere—is neither prohibited nor allowed by copyright - this is allowed by copyright. provided the description is not a verbatim copy of another description that is otherwise available, and does not include details of a particular magician's stage adaptations of the trick - because then it falls into realms defined by copyright No. If a description includes details of a particular magician's stage adaptations of the trick it does not fall into the realm defined by copyright But "method" in the context of "magic method" has much more in common with a choreography or musical composition, than a scientific discovery or industrial method of manufacturing No legal basis whatsoever to back this sentence up, and none provided. Unfortunately, there is a linguistic problem as the covert choreography of a magic effect has always, by tradition, been refered to as a magic "method". What legal tradition is this? Cite. Cite. Cite. None provided. Original research. The copyright laws for litterature said very little about dance choreography, until the laws expanded to include that area, and now choreography has a similar protection as litterature This sentence establishes a legal thesis that, if true, would have wide ranging effects on how copyright law is implemented. It does not define the word "similar." How choreography is "similar" to litterature in the eyes of copyright law would completely destroy an essential part of copyright law that excludes the protection of ideas, procedures, processes, and methods of operation. This would make 80 years of copyright legal cases obsolete. the contributions either misunderstand the law, or purposely misrepresent it. I would accept their claims if they had citations, but they don't. As it stands, the article is making up legal precedent as it goes along. Other sections can be merged into their respective articles: Patent section to patent article etc.
- Hm. Perhaps many of the articles in the List of magic tricks should be nominated for deletion given the lack of citations.
- Good question: This means that, in most cases, revealing a magic secret—even one that is on sale elsewhere—is neither prohibited nor allowed by copyright - this is allowed by copyright. provided the description is not a verbatim copy of another description that is otherwise available, and does not include details of a particular magician's stage adaptations of the trick - because then it falls into realms defined by copyright No. If a description includes details of a particular magician's stage adaptations of the trick it does not fall into the realm defined by copyright But "method" in the context of "magic method" has much more in common with a choreography or musical composition, than a scientific discovery or industrial method of manufacturing No legal basis whatsoever to back this sentence up, and none provided. Unfortunately, there is a linguistic problem as the covert choreography of a magic effect has always, by tradition, been refered to as a magic "method". What legal tradition is this? Cite. Cite. Cite. None provided. Original research. The copyright laws for litterature said very little about dance choreography, until the laws expanded to include that area, and now choreography has a similar protection as litterature This sentence establishes a legal thesis that, if true, would have wide ranging effects on how copyright law is implemented. It does not define the word "similar." How choreography is "similar" to litterature in the eyes of copyright law would completely destroy an essential part of copyright law that excludes the protection of ideas, procedures, processes, and methods of operation. This would make 80 years of copyright legal cases obsolete. the contributions either misunderstand the law, or purposely misrepresent it. I would accept their claims if they had citations, but they don't. As it stands, the article is making up legal precedent as it goes along. Other sections can be merged into their respective articles: Patent section to patent article etc.