The style couldn't be more different. The "effect" is the same, but the style is light years apart.
I don't believe you should be able to copyright an effect, and it's likely he's not even using the same effect.
I understand Teller wants to protect an idea he came up with, but I think it's protected simply by the grace and beauty of his version.
Given how much Penn & Teller built their careers on exposing the tricks of other magicians who had guarded their secrets for decades (and getting a lot of stage magicians made at the duo), it's pretty ironic for Teller to now decide he wants government protection for a trick of his.
Disclaimer: esquire.com is not working for me right now so I haven't read the original article yet; I'm basing this on your comment.
They do a couple exposures. Cups and Balls, Blast off, and a new escape in their act that you can choose to cover your eyes for or not.
Cups and Balls and Blast Off aren't exactly carefully guarded secrets... what are you referring to?
They have a particularly gory version of sawing a woman in half for example. I think it is on youtube somewhere, pretty solid.
But yeah, I don't think you could say that they reveal tricks that "belong" to other magicians. They reveal the basic stuff.
— The article.
The Cups and Balls is a classic, and everybody knows, or can easily find out, how it's done. And then they take it and turn that on its head, by doing a routine around "we're going to show you exactly how the trick works, and still amaze you with it". Which is, well, magic.
And in general, a lot of their "exposures" follow that patten. They're much more about artistry and that kind of next-level thing where showing the "secret" doesn't detract from but in fact adds to the effect.
Article version:
> Against a crimson curtain, Bakardy had erected an easel with what looked like a large pad of white paper on it. Perhaps six feet in front of the easel sat a small wood table bearing a glass Coke bottle filled with water. That bottle also contained a single rose. A spotlight, outside of the camera's view, cast the rose's shadow on the paper on the easel. Dressed in a dark suit, Bakardy appeared in the frame carrying a large knife in his right hand. He sliced it deep into the rose's shadow. And when he cut into its shadow, something impossible happened: The corresponding part of the rose fell off the stem and onto the table. Petal by petal, Bakardy cut at the rose's shadow until that Coke bottle somehow held only a decapitated stem, which he removed as though to demonstrate the absence of wires. He then lifted up the bottle itself — still no strings attached — and poured out the water. Ta-da.
It is not the same video, it is the same trick done with different patter, and feel. Sorry if that is not clear, I can tell by the reading the intention I was trying to convey was not the intention people got.
He reuploaded him doing the trick with different patter, not the same video.
The article specifically mentions treating a magic act as a performance and copyrighting it in a similar manner to a play - this video is a substantially different act to his. The video described in the article however is a straight rip-off.
The problem here is that the chap was then SELLING the trick for thousands of dollars, that's where Teller started to have a problem with it.
The general rule is you are to ask the individual you are copying if you can copy them in which case they will say no unless they sell the trick, or you can argue that you independently came up with the trick, and the person agrees with you.
Copying is always considered "theft" even with attribution unless there's specific permission.
There is a case where a performer does magic to the same song (Shape of my heart), but with different actual magic performance and it is considered copying.
*Edited to improve my tone, the person I responded to deserves good faith and seems quite reasonable.
I spent most of my life in the opensource and academic communities, where free sharing of techniques and knowledge was not only commonplace but encouraged.
It's very sad that much of the magic world is so anti-sharing and so jealously guard the knowledge they possess from each other (unless you can pony up their asking price).
This aspect of parts of the magic community is a huge turn off for me.
Much of the magic community is a huge turn off to me, but it's an enjoyable hobby that I have a lot of interest in.
Sort of like the way the BSD license works. However if credit is given and the new effect is sufficiently unique/innovative, then no objection is reasonably made.
In today's world, these age-old effects or gimmicks are popularized by various working magicians, some of whom make a name based on them. And once in a while a completely novel approach is invented.
Most new effects are the result of borrowing. A card trick may use a lift invented 100 years ago and a bit of verbal patter similar to something invented last year. The respectful magician will give credit where it's due and will still be respected if he has truly innovated.
If there is true innovation no magician will begrudge him the use of the borrowed elements, unless of course they make up the bulk of the trick.
The magician's creed is closely correlated with the steps needed to gain the respect of other magicians.
You're focusing heavily on borrowed elements from long ago. Sure.. No one cares. However take something from a current performer and it will not be respected.
I do agree that the magician's creed is very much about the steps needed to gain respect of other magicians.