Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectual rights to magic methods

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)[reply]

Delete merge anything that is verifiable with Intellectual property. Peyna 18:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOR applies to all articles without exception. Even the interesting ones. Lord Bob 21:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
- Yes, David Copperfield has a team of lawyers that are working on things like this. They are quite tight-lipped, but I heard they won a case in France a few years back, I'm sorry I can't point you at a source and it might even be an urban tale --TStone 23:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is definitely encyclopedic. I'm aware of the NOR issues. Stifle 12:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Merge into exposure (magic), remove the POV and OR. Samohyl Jan 02:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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. Kleg 19:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with you. Many of the magic secret reveals lack external citations and may be original research. I think the vandals who continue to blank magic secret reveals would be much more effective if they afd'd them as original research. Does this mean you are changing your vote to delete for this article?--Muchosucko 19:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've been convinced that it could use some cleaning up, but I still think the article contains valuable information that should be kept. The contrast between what the IP laws of various sorts allow and what the social norms of the magic community allow is a topic of constant discussion among magicians, as is the need for keeping secrets. Kleg 22:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Any clean up of this article would make it pointless and redundant to : Exposure (magic), contract law, and patent. It would say: copyright does not protect magic secrets; Patent protects magic secrets, but requires publication; and contract law protects secrets if one signs a contract (duh). The ethics section can be merged with Exposure (magic). I am still not sure if you plan on changing your vote to delete on this article. --Muchosucko 07:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I do not plan to change my vote. It is still keep. This page is not redundant to Exposure because the social norms relating to "intellectual rights" in the magic community involve more than exposure. They also involve questions of "performance rights", such as whether it is okay to perform a trick if you haven't purchased it from the creator. It is generally believed within the magic community that this is not (usually) illegal, but that it is unethical. The idea of "intellectual rights" also involves "knock-offs", where person A puts an item on the market, and person B puts out a cheaper imitation of person A's product. This is usually legal, but in the magic community it is generally considered unethical and suppliers who do this tend to lose business. Neither of these issues involve exposure, in the sense of sharing a secret with non-magicians, but they both involve some idea of ownership that is based upon the community's ethical standards and not upon the law. Kleg 21:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I'm sorry but that is simply untrue. Patents can not protect a choreographed sequence of hand movements, just as little as it can protect a sequence of notes in a musical composition. Patents are designed for scientific discoveries, methods of operation - not realised expressions of art - and it is dishonest to pretend it is in any other way. And copyright is totally silent on the whole topic - there's not a single word that even mentions magic. Also, talking about "secrets" are irrelevant and confusing, since the topic is supposed to be about intellectual rights (or lack there of), i.e. has a creator any legally defined rights at all to his creations? And we all know that the answer to that is "no" --TStone 23:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        TStone has been making up legal precedent recently on Wikipedia. Please note that his legal arguments hold no weight. Talk:Out_of_This_World_(card_trick)--Muchosucko 19:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        "Legal precedents" to describe a known reality? As you've written that you 'want to take and republish peoples works without their permission, I thought you would be happy, not upset, to know that nothing can stop you. Anyone is welcome to point out how "Out of this World", a realised expression of Paul Curry, could have been patented. Or cite any passage of Copyright where magic is mentioned at all. Claiming I.P laws exists is pseudo-law, as no verification support that notion--TStone 09:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        TStone:You completely misunderstand this issue. Please take the courtesy to educate yourself before you make legal arguments. At this point any discussion would be unproductive. Respectfully. --Muchosucko 14:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Muchosucko, I don't understand you. I've pointed out that expressions unique to the field of magic isn't defined, even less mentioned, in neither copyright nor patent laws. Therefore, your Catch-22 demand I one should cite a relevant passage in the law that verifies that it is impossible to cite a relevant passage in the law... Well, that's simply impossible. And your claim that anything in this field is "allowed by copyright"..likewise, by aviation laws you are also allowed to frighten small kittens while wrapped in salami, but should that really be condoned or encouraged? Mentioning any law in a field in which that law doesn't apply is just deceptive.--TStone 12:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - And what's that strange notion of choreography and "make 80 years of copyright legal cases obsolete"? Once a sequence of words, but not a sequence of dance steps, were protected by copyright. Then they changed the law, and sequences unique for each field is now covered. This is common knowledge. Since 1978, choreographic works have been copyrightable. I've no idea how to verify that properly, so I just added it as common knowledge, thinking experts of law like Muchosucko would add the proper sources. Maybe this is relevant? --TStone 13:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - TStone:You completely misunderstand this issue. Please take the courtesy to educate yourself before you make legal arguments. At this point any discussion would be unproductive. Respectfully. --Muchosucko 14:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are probably right. You claim it would have been possible to patent a piece of work like "Out of this World", but seems strangely reluctant to even attempting to show how that would have been possible, and refuse to indulge in any discussions at all. I would gladly study any sources relevant to I.P. law and artistic expressions in magic, if anyone just could point out their existence. Thanks for adding "Respectfully" after dubbing me ignorant :-)--TStone 15:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't disagree that this article could be better, but the topic seems encyclopedic to me. If you feel there is some original research, mark it or delete it. I found a book reference to the patent of Pepper's Ghost and cited it. The article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. Mr. Know-It-All 23:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is interesting,it may need expansion or merging with another article but im against deleting the information altogether. It is usefull and expands the readers understanding of maical practice --Seth Turner 15:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting article, no doubt about it, but subject to WP:NOR. Schutz 22:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic is interesting, but the article was horrible to begin with, stuffed with original research and claims that was untrue (like the silly idea that it was possible to patent a magic effect). The title of the page said "intellectual rights" but not a single word on the page dealt with intellectual rights - instead it was all about something as esoteric and irrelevant as "secrets", as if any creator in the field ever thought about "secrets" when their creations were stolen, their names stripped from the work and had to see how others passed on their work as their own. The whole piece were just fiction designed to justify the act of taking material from people that were unprotected by law to begin with. In this field, it isn't necessary with any justifications - just take the works from the creators, there's no legal obstacles in the way. First I thought I just should delete the mess myself, but I edited it instead. Didn't become much better, almost the same amount of original research as before - but at least something that reflected a reality, instead of a fiction. So yes! Delete the mess. There exists no legal intellectual rights at all for creators in this particular field of artistic expressions - and it is deceptive to have a page that seem to claim that there is --TStone 23:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]