|
|
Go to page 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
David Thiel Inner circle Western Canada...where all that oil is 4005 Posts |
It may simply be because I don't have an acutal life or because I read a lot of books and ebooks -- but there seems to be a sudden spate of "NEW" effects that come out after larger works are issued. I've always given the authors of "new" works the benefit of the doubt...but I'm starting to rethink this.
There are two sides. The first (which is frequently employed) is that two people independently arrived at the same idea. Take Bruce Bernstein's brilliant Taboo and Anthony Black's "The Secret 2.0." I found them both intriguing and purchased both. I'd picked up Taboo last year and was floored by the concept. My review is kicking around here somewhere...but suffice it to say that this was...well...brilliant. A couple of weeks ago, I purchased "The Secret 2.0" from Anthony and was struck by some serious similarities in the two effects. I wrote to Anthony, who told me that he's been doing his effect for years and that he'd never read Taboo. IS it possible that these two guys came up with the same idea? Sure. There's also the reality that there has been SO MUCH material released over the years that very few people can POSSIBLY know who first had the idea for what. (I've always suspected that the origin of the Svengali deck can be found in the hands of an obscure Polish shoemaker and part time monk from the early 1100's named Phil...but maybe that's just me?) How about another debate going on in another thread were Osterlind's ODDS system is being compared to "The Scantily Clad Drawing Duplication"? I actually use the former -- and haven't purchased the latter. In both cases, as I understand it, there was no crediting being given...nor was permission asked. In the first case I know that Anthony has forwarded a copy of his work to Bruce which shows, at the very least, good manners. Maybe both are innocent mistakes. It's...possible. Here's the thing: in an age where anyone can dash off a PDF -- derivative or just plain crap -- it's getting to a point where buyers not only have to beware -- they need to be paranoid. But at the nexus of this matter, it's not even about the buyers. It's actually about the originators...because they power our little industry. It's REALLY about the people who design the routines...the "playwrights" and designers who provide the inspiration for the routines we enact. How do you think they feel? Understand that I'm not necessarily speaking about the two instances above -- but a much gloomier and broader picture. Here's a snapshot: Imagine yourself as a lifelong performer. You've spent years refining an idea, lovingly polishing it and FINALLY releasing it to the community. And a couple of months later...some little snot not only doesn't ask your permission to use your idea, doesn't even provide a credit -- but actually passes YOUR material off as their own? How would YOU feel? I'm telling ya -- unless something can be worked out, we are going to start losing these insights and fresh new ideas because the people who produce the kind of quality work that sets standards are going to be reluctant to share it. All so some kid can get ten bucks for a pdf download? Seriously? David
Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Except bears. Bears will kill you.
My books are here: www.magicpendulums.com www.MidnightMagicAndMentalism.com |
|||||||||
Necromancer Inner circle Chicago 3076 Posts |
Let me throw a little gasoline on this fire:
I would say that if a second inventor takes any item to market that has already been introduced to the marketplace by another inventor, simply claiming ignorance and "independent invention" is not enough. The magic-buying public should expect that any conscientious creator will have done the research necessary to prevent such an event from happening; so when he fails to do so, it should be upon the second inventor to (1) apologize to the first inventor and to the magic-buying public; (2) pull his effect off the market, or (2a) receive permission to sell his version after working out with the first inventor an appropriate financial royalty and crediting in the product's ad description and instructions. That's in the case of the first creator being living, or if his estate can be located. If he is deceased and the estate cannot be located, I would expect that it would be considered "public domain," but crediting should still be given. Call me a hard-liner, but that's what I feel is fair in our little corner of the world. Best, Neil
Creator of The Xpert (20 PAGES of reviews!), Cut & Color, Hands-Off Multiple ESP (HOME) System, Rider-Waite Readers book, Zoom Pendulum ebook ...
|
|||||||||
eSamuels Inner circle 3085 Posts |
Neil, I concur with just about everything you've written.
I do, however, have one comment regarding your suggestion that "any conscientious creator will have done the research necessary to prevent such an event from happening." As you know, this is not a black & white issue. Not only does 'due diligence' seem to have a wide interpretation in our field (and posting on the Café asking if anyone knows of anything similar, just won't cut it), but access to the necessary resource material to perform anything resembling 'definitive proof,' can be a trying process. While a place like the Café is one resource/starting point in trying to network information, it tends, overall, to be a hit-and-miss piecemeal process. Alas, not everyone has access to the mind-files of the likes of Max Maven and Bob Cassidy. The other issue that we seem to struggle with, is what constitutes sufficient modification of an existing idea to legitimize a new release. e |
|||||||||
parmenion Inner circle Switzerland/Zürich 3988 Posts |
The good things is when you can't afford to buy the original one, you can buy the copy, often cheaper
“I love talking about nothing. It is the only thing I know anything about.”
<BR>Oscar Wilde experimentaliste <br> <BR>Artist pickpocket Professional <BR> <BR>Looking for the best book test in French? send me a PM! |
|||||||||
Amirá Inner circle MentalismCenter.com 5131 Posts |
I am on a debate right now regarding one of my releases. The buyer claims that my publication is just a compilation of some already published ideas.
On my opinion this isn't the case here. I cant do business with something that isn't mine. But is his opinion and even if I don't think that ia correct, I must accept it. He claim that there is nothing new on my effect due similarities in structure, technique and others. Yes,sure, I have my own credits to do but all the package of ideas, my version of that, using what I consider important on perfomance is mine, and if I want I can offer it as a product if I feel that is a constructive action for the development of thr practice. Sadly, in a public place he said that my eBook was a waste of money, and I clearly feel that I need to defend my reputation. My work was almost always not revolutionary in any sense, just offering my thinking obviously based in previous works from other masters. If I feel that adds something to the art and my close circle things that deserves to be out there, I will have the option to release it. This my opinion regarding this topic and if someone else thinks differently , its Ok. Best
Pablo
Performer and Author Mentalism Center: The best online space to get quality Mentalism www.mentalismcenter.com Arkanosophy: The Boutique for Mystery Performers www.arkanosophy.com |
|||||||||
Smoking Camel Inner circle UK 1039 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-02-22 13:11, Necromancer wrote: Pretty sure this is how its delt with in other industries as well..... Maybe Mr Cassidy can correct me here but doesn't the first creator assume intellectual property rights over his creations if he his first and can litigate against anyone that infringes therefore "independent creation" is really just a gentlemans agreement between mentalists.
I no longer smoke camel cigarettes.
|
|||||||||
Davit Sicseek Inner circle 1818 Posts |
Nevermind Taboo, isn't "The Secret" just Athos' Deus ex Machina? I think Anthony Black denied this when he was asked in an earlier thread and although I lost my copy of Deus to double check, as I recall, it is more or less the same. Can anyone (other than Anthony) confrim this?
As for independent creation - whether it is accepted or not seems for a factor of who you are, rather than what you've created and the extent to which it duplicates something else. What I find more amusing about the whole thing is that mentalists are forever going on about how its not about the 'secret' its about your presentation and framing blah blah blah - yet when push comes to shove, what they really care about are 'methods'. One method can be dressed up to look like a dozen different effects from an audience persepctive - but if a similar techinque with a different presentation is published people get mad. Yet people are forever reinventing methods for the "which hand" plot and any number of other plots.
Send me the truth: davitsicseek@gmail.com
|
|||||||||
Dr Spektor Eternal Order Carcanis 10781 Posts |
As an owner of Taboo, I was the person who asked Anthony about the Secret on that thread about the Secret and he said they were not the same. Of course, the reason I asked in the first place was they seemed very similar. Go figure. I didn't buy Secret 2.0 - but seems David has seen something I felt might be the case. But hey, all I am saying refers to something in the $10 Wasted thread in MENTALLY SPEAKING>
As I posted in the the thread Amira is referring to - I think true reviews need to be done with a certain concept of a set of principles in mind... also, the devil's advocate view of "its hard to find references all the time and know one way or the other..." well, the thing to me is OK, that is fine UNTIL EVIDENCE SURFACES THERE IS PREEXISTING MATERIAL - then at THAT POINT, the person who is selling a work that comes after it HAS NO FALL BACK TO SAY THEY DIDN'T KNOW AT THAT PONT - what I've seen is most creators would say MEA CULPA! I NOW TAKE MY WORK OFF THE MARKET, SORRY! IT WAS NOT INTENTIONAL. At least I've seen that done a few times... sinces an honourable course - what I don't get is AFTER EVIDENCE IS SHOWN (if it is so) WHY THE PERSON WHO HAS THE WORK THAT COMES AFTER can say "WELL I DIDN't KNOW - SO I'm GONNA KEEP SELLING" I've seen that too. Anyway - glad to see the discussion of these issues coming forth - as they need to - and I think it can lead to a fruitful discussion and eventually a common way to tell good reviews versus hype - and reviews that are based in ways that really tell you wassup. Again note - I don't think its easy to trace lineage - but if after time the lineage and history and truth comes up - the motivations of secondary releasers may be scrutinized in a new light based on their decisions... IMHO disclaimer: I am an academic and am also a director of a non-profit govt org in Canada and we do everything transparent, from buying the rights to images, papers, lyrics and so on when needed - do the best we can to credit everyone and everything - (which is a great way to create healthy community) - and be prepared for audits at any time! So I am biased... So, not owning Amira's IDS 2.0 or Secret 2.0 I can't comment on the comparison. (Heh, you might ask why I don't own those! well cuz I got Taboo and Switchcraft.... I wait until reviews come out from people I trust to show there is something new to get...and when that happens I will buy them. No one has yet. I hope someone will). ASIDE: Davit's Post - example of an Innovation for "which hand" - Prevacitor by redford - example of a which hand method with a ton of new nuances that I hadn't seen in print before etc. and then the video came out to cement that... as I believe the argument is really, is there something new and cool to the material being released or just a rehash with minor nuances which are not really anything important or actually complicate the routine. People like Redford to me are clearly people who release new material, fully credited as much as possible, vetted by friends knowledgable in the field, and so on - and have my undying support.
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
|
|||||||||
JohnWells Inner circle The Southern Wild 1791 Posts |
Quote:
My work was almost always not revolutionary in any sense, just offering my thinking obviously based in previous works from other masters. If I feel that adds something to the art and my close circle things that deserves to be out there, I will have the option to release it. And David's position, and mine, is that if those additions are minimal, the work is redundant. Let us consider an example: Elliott Bresler's EB Switch is a minor variant of a Bob CAssidy move. When he published the switch, he explained what his improvements were (he made the move easier) and explained in detail why he thought it to be an improvement. What I have asked of you in our "debate" is to do the same, to show me what you feel are specific improvements in your handling over the previous material. I am asking you to defend your reputation by defending your assertion with evidence. You have made no attempt to do so. This thread reflects that my opinion of your ethical stance is not unique, that where the material replicates available work, you should not publish it. You may feel differently, but at least you may see that others think differently. |
|||||||||
Atlas Inner circle 3103 1277 Posts |
As one of these 'new guard' authors who has made a few contributions to our art recently, I thought I'd take a moment to weigh in.
There are a number of points which I think are relevant and should be addressed: 1. Motivation 2. Innovation 3. Regulation Let's examine each in order. Motivation - In my mind, there are a number of reasons that a person would release an something. The first and most obvious is a financial dividend (though honestly, those are laughably small). Another is to enhance a creator's visibility and reputation in our field. Other, more altruistic examples include a desire to contribute ideas and drive the art forward, or the desire to see something the creator made accepted and used more widely. I've found that an examination of a person's motives will reveal a lot about the level of trust that they ought to receive. How can you discern their motives in this age of impersonal electronic interaction? We all leave a digital footprint. There is a digital trail of breadcrumbs left behind - especially here on the Café, and if you are unsure of a particular creator, you are free to take a look at who they have been on the Café. A simple name search will reveal a number of posts and you can discern much about them. In the past, have they: - tried to be helpful to others? - comported themselves in an honorable manner? - answered questions respectfully and shared freely (when appropriate)? - been respectful or argumentative in their communications with those they interacted with (even when they had been treated in a manner that was patently baiting or unfair)? - were their comments casual and flippant and riddled with poor grammar and spelling and punctuation errors? The list could go on and on, but I think the point is made. If you are interested in a person's product, conduct a sort of digital interview with them and you can make an educated decision as to who they are and what their motive is likely to be when they release a product. You can extrapolate from that information how likely you will be to be satisfied with what they have produced. Innovation - In my opinion, a number of things have been released over the years that are frankly devoid of any snippet of innovation. This thread is evidence of similar observations in others, and I think that there is a tremendous difference between an actual step forward and an example of fine routining. I personally feel that if what you have to offer is clever routining, it ought to be submitted to the creator of the effect you have drawn from and the idea can be released in the form of a supplement, or disseminated with the creator's permission. It is honest and honorable and denotes respect for what they have shared with you. I can think of at least four routines over the last six months that I have taken the time sit down and type out and then share for free with others who had purchased the effect from the creator. If I were avaricious, I would plop these ideas down in an eBook and sell them a week after I came up with my plot or interpretation of the effect. And I think a lot of people who are releasing things right now don't recognize the difference between an innovation and a subtle and clever bit of routining. I feel that only innovations should be released, whereas routining should be shared as it is an extension of another person's idea. In fact, as many of you can attest, when I have shared ideas that have their roots in my routining, I will pointedly reference the proper effect, and not detail any process that is proprietary to the creator. Why would it be necessary to share a process in the outline of my routining when I should be confident that the person I am sharing it with owns the effect in question and does not need to be walked through whatever takes place? There has to be a key improvement in a creation for it to merit being released for sale. When I released 'The Prodigal', I would have shared it openly had it not contained what were genuine innovations like The Wordless Psychic Approach and the Psychological Approach along with a number of unique anagrams that I use constantly. In my opinion, there is a difference between a genuine step forward and a different way of presenting an idea. A hot dog with mustard and relish is still essentially a hot dog. The bun is an innovation, as it holds it all together and makes it easier to eat, but the condiments are simply garnishments to the meal as a whole. Regulation - Given the sheer volume of ideas available in print over just the last century alone, it would take years to read all of the available material to verify if an approach is 100% unique or requires crediting. Add to that the fact that the best of us are actually performing for a living and don't have much spare time, and you have a recipe for a bottleneck in the release of ideas. Please do NOT get me wrong. I am not advocating at all the idea that work should not be checked and credited. I am just saying that sometimes it is easier than others. Ideas that can be shown to belong to others should be humbly withdrawn and proper credit given. Now, I have seen threads like this in many instances over the years. Inevitably, it is like any other meeting where there is no agenda - lots of information gathering takes place, but no discernible steps forward are made. I would like to propose an agendum (yes, just the one point of business). Why not create a pseudo-regulatory body? Realtors, Architects, Insurance Agents, nearly any body of professionals that requires a license - each have a regulatory body that oversees their activity. Now, I know that the body would have function but no authority - but can you envision how different things would be if you could buy a product knowing that it had been reviewed and approved by this regulatory board? The advertising was accurate. The sources had been properly credited. The innovation was there. The trust in the industry would be restored and that would be HUGE. Another thread that keeps showing up is one to do with the loss of secrets in a digital age. The brick and mortar stores show up more and more often with .com after their name and 'To Let' signs in their windows. To make it worse, all of these issues are coloring our relationships and infecting our outlook. We don't meet at the local shops anymore, so we have to meet online. That is something that we have to accept. But online, we aren't sure who to trust, and so the networks of creativity and mentoring that used to exist and which led to real innovation and progress in our art are dissipating around us. Eventually, all the secrets will dry up - and reasonable access to these avenues of thought are essential if diversity in our craft is to breed the innovations that continue to draw our wonder. We are doing an awful lot of complaining about the direction we are headed in this digital age, and we are taking very little control of the wheel...but it doesn't have to be that way. The first step could be to elect a body of an appropriate size and of a varied enough background to act as expert members of this pseudo-regulatory board. Creators of material who were serious about their work and respected the craft would submit their work for examination and the days of shoddily conceived and executed productions would be behind all those who did not buy an item that was NOT approved by the board. In addition, anyone who did have an innovation to share would learn an important process and mistakes that needed to be rectified could be turned into teaching moments by the old guard who continued to mentor the new members of the industry. This wouldn't stop people from creating and selling knock-offs and rehashed ideas. But purchasers of only board-approved items would never again have cause to regret a purchase for shameful or dishonest reasons. I know that it may sound silly, but I genuinely believe that it is possible to create a self-regulating industry again, where the code of the gentleman still prevails and a man's honor leads him to take the correct course of action. I have thought this issue through a number of times and know that my post here contains an awful lot to suggest and even more to digest, but we need to take action if we are not to further trivialize our craft and quietly disappear over the years that come. Best, Atlas |
|||||||||
JohnWells Inner circle The Southern Wild 1791 Posts |
I think it's brilliant. Sign me up to assist any way I can.
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
In the "old days" (pre-internet) most of us writers and creators started out by submitting effects to magazines, like "The New Tops," "Genii," and Bascom Jones's "Magick." We didn't get paid for our submissions, but over time we became "known." Nowadays, effects that would have in those days been magazine submissions are published (in many cases by relative beginners with little performing experience) as expensive e-books. With no editors and publishers standing between the "creator" and his market, it's hardly surprising that there is a glut of derivative and unoriginal material on the market.
|
|||||||||
DrTodd Inner circle 1976 Posts |
Thanks Atlas. Enjoyed that. In its own small way, the Psycrets network has played a role in enhancing due diligence and accountability. I am sorry to see problems emerging with some new releases, none of which I own, so cannot comment on specifics.
The work I have engaged in on this subject over the last few years has focussed on balatant ripoffs of well known ideas, and outright plagiarism of published material. These in my views are the easy cases. The derivative problem, as noted here is a much more grey area. I do think research, testing, and sharing with those in the know are the best steps to follow BEFORE releasing anything. I have been working with many creators here in going through that process, which is essential in my view. Best wishes Dr T |
|||||||||
Tim Dowd Special user ...Making the Magic Happen! 942 Posts |
Mr. Cassidy, you took the words right out of my mouth... Not to mention SAM, IBM & The Magic Circle... Each have a membership who would love to critique new publications before they became public... And give a seal of approval...
Timothy Dowd
...Making the Magic Happen! http://www.timothydowd.com These are my points of view; I accept no responsibility for your interpretation of what I just said... |
|||||||||
DrTodd Inner circle 1976 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-02-23 03:30, Tim Dowd wrote: Indeed, there are already epistemic communities and organisations that can serve this purpose if the new creators would avail themselves of what is on offer. |
|||||||||
Dr Spektor Eternal Order Carcanis 10781 Posts |
In academic journals - there is the process of a BLIND PEER REVIEW
in other words, editors would send submissions to reviewers who are known experts in the area the submission feels with (3 reviewers for example) with a specific set / template of criteria to use as well as specific feedback for the submitter and editor - the editors would take the reviews and their own backgrounds to collate a proper determination if the article etc passed criteria or at least could give feedback to authors with ways to bring the material up to snuff - or outright say not new with valid history Say, no one liked my pet above ?? Shuckins - I thought I had good points too (sigh) Anyway - I think creating an honest consumers guide is a more easy achievable step towards a greater goal of making the field truly a profession (if you define a profession one where a body exists to self regulate standards of those within it) One hurdle - time and $ - to make this truly work, you need a business plan to make such a venture self sustainable Anyway, I hope this post added something new and innovative to the discussion to consider.... My motivation - I want to raise the field I belong to and enjoy the most up into high level regard!
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
|
|||||||||
Richard Osterlind V.I.P. 2213 Posts |
OK, gentlemen. This is a very interesting thread. There are some wonderful suggestions.
How about, instead of an academic discussion, we put some of these ideas to the test. Over in the section Mentally Speaking, there is a thread called The Scantily Clad Design Duplication. I have issues with that effect. I won't say anything more. How would you resolve this conflict? Richard |
|||||||||
Dr Spektor Eternal Order Carcanis 10781 Posts |
IN THEORY:
MESMER (Mystery Entertainment Review Service Material Elements Review) Group would do the following... The creator of SCDD decides it wants a MESMER clearing... reads the instructions - please provide 3 electronic copies etc. - please see form (a template has been made to help create a synopsis of effect/routine/etc with a paragraph on how it got developed over what time period, credits, etc. any check off communications with other creators etc.) It is sent in. The MESMER editors look and see its a DD - reach out anonymously to 3 VIPS recognized as knowledgeble in the field e.g. likely they would contact Richard Osterlind, Bob Cassidy, John Riggs... they get a template as well to discuss clearly history, innovation, etc. editors of MESMER make sure the thing also reads clearly etc and then collates all the information and sends information back to creator. Now, the review is not published until the product comes out . Now for those who won't send it in - here comes the issue of $ and time - there needs to be an ethical and moral way to obtain the products people might ask MESMER to review. Also, one can also post "CREATOR HAS BEEN CONTACTED AND HAS NOT RESPONDED FOR US ASKING TO DO A REVIEW" - read whatever that is into it. Not perfect - just a start at getting this discussion going... I can see the reviewers need to be respected people etc. but also need anonymity - the quality of the reviews posted will demonstrate the value i.e. historical info, references, clear pointing out of innovations etc. The reason more than one reviewer - to make sure biases are caught as we all got them. Anyway, people such as JHEFF and other reviewers can be asked to join as well. IMHOoooooooooo Back to SCDD - that thread is bizarre - maybe I misread it but as it progressed it seemed the creator admitted it is very much like ODDS and seems to keep selling it anyway - that is what is shocking to me. A process above would identify and put some motivation for producers to contact relevant parties - I believe historically most people approaching Richard Osterlind (reading posts here) who kept him in the loop and talked to him about their effects got his blessings - while those who tried to run around in the dark shadows got spanked!
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
|
|||||||||
Necromancer Inner circle Chicago 3076 Posts |
Atlas' suggestion of a reviewing body is admirable, but that function in some way already exists. It's in the hands of reviewers for our trade publications, who are expected to approach their reviews with a greater historical perspective (and be generally better informed) than the masses. And it's in the hands of specific peers I know and trust, the greatest concentration of whom are in the P.E.A.
None of these sources can force an inventor to act honorably after discovering that, wittingly or unwittingly, he is marketing a reinvention. They cannot resolve any conflict between inventors (sorry Richard). But they can certainly prevent consumers from supporting the marketers of derivative work. And after having their reputations brought down a notch in the trades—and more importantly, their labors made unprofitable in the marketplace—they will stop.
Creator of The Xpert (20 PAGES of reviews!), Cut & Color, Hands-Off Multiple ESP (HOME) System, Rider-Waite Readers book, Zoom Pendulum ebook ...
|
|||||||||
Dr Spektor Eternal Order Carcanis 10781 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-02-23 09:32, Necromancer wrote: Heh, I haven't seen that last sentence turned to reality yet...!!!! They keep on trucking except for the really dopey ones who cut and paste entire things without alteration! Note: the people making money and growing fat are not after the PEA market - they are after the general market - and that general market gets brainwashed into thinking these producers are fantastic creators as don't realize its 99% ripped off - do we as a group have any moral obligation towards them? Maybe maybe not... but I think from a practical perspective - it will eventually effect everyone as future generations are raised in this cultural methodology... I think Atlas and I might be saying (atlas tell me if I am wrong) a more open review system from multiple sources - that can be accessed right here the Magic Café for example. IMHO
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Derivative Works...Or? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2~3~4 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.12 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |