The past few weeks have been full of fruitful discussions around patenting magic. As owners of a lot of magic intellectual property, we have often been asked to weigh in on the conversation. And, you might be surprised to hear our view: in our opinion, patents are mostly bad for magic. Here’s why:
Patents exist to give inventors a temporary monopoly in exchange for publishing details that advance collective knowledge. In many industries, that trade makes sense: a new drug formula, or a mechanical process, can be patented because it is concrete, measurable, and replicable. Magic is different.
Magic relies on a centuries-old honour system. We protect each other’s work by attribution, permission, and fair crediting. We have our own set of rules: only build on someone’s work when they have published it, and seek permission to evolve their ideas (and we only do it if permission is granted). When abuse occurs, it is usually handled within the community through reputation, not courtrooms. It's not perfect, but in our view, it fits the art form better than patent lawyers ever could.
Almost every trick traces back through centuries of shared methods. A routine or method today usually has roots in something that came before it. When patents are granted on adaptations of long-existing ideas, it can feel like one person is claiming ownership of tools that really belong to the whole art. That discourages creativity instead of encouraging it.
Progress in magic depends on magicians adapting, reworking, and improving the foundations that have been passed down. Patents, we believe, freeze that process, turning creativity into litigation. We’ve seen examples where broad patents on effects or methods have created roadblocks rather than progress.
The typical argument in favour of these patents is that they “protect” the ideas. But in practice, they often end up limiting how magic can evolve. Magic, as it so often does, loses out so that one person can personally gain. (This is most often true when people trademark generic magic concepts to try to capture the market. Magic has several disappointing examples of that.)
There are exceptions where we believe patents are warranted. Once or twice a year, we see magic that is so original it seems to follow only its own path. If those creators choose to patent, we can understand that. We also understand that some creators aren’t producing magic tricks, but instead original technologies that do magic tricks. Those, so long as the patent doesn't stop progress in the general area, feel like they might benefit from being patented.
But if an idea builds on existing effects or methods, or if the patent would stop progress on something a creator has varied, our position is that it should not be patented. For example, if someone creates a new ITR, the patent should be on the specific improvements they have made, not the general idea of an ITR. In our experience, patenting generic methods doesn’t protect magicians; it strangles the art.
The alternative is the system magicians have always relied on: publish carefully, give credit generously, and seek permission when building on someone else’s work. This encourages collaboration, fosters respect, and ensures that creativity stays alive. (Perhaps one day that approach can be formalised, but that’s certainly beyond the scope of this email.)
If magic creators were steered towards patents, large parts of our shared vocabulary could be locked away. Whole genres of tricks could vanish from the working repertoires of magicians simply because someone filed a legal claim. (And this is without even considering that the public record of a patent would reveal methods to anyone curious enough to read it).
We support creators and their right to protect their original work. But, in almost all cases, we don’t believe patents are the answer. Magic thrives when ideas are shared responsibly, credited honestly, and evolved respectfully. Therefore, we support an art form where the community protects itself, instead of using courtrooms to slow progress.
Sincerely,
Andi Gladwin and Joshua Jay
Vanishing Inc. Cofounders
