|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9 [Next] | ||||||||||
kissdadookie Inner circle 4275 Posts 
|
Quote:
On Dec 20, 2016, TStone wrote: Are you out of your mind? What we understand of our art has nothing to do with the law. The law follows precedents and established legislations, it does not care about what we think and understand of our art. Perhaps you wish to go about and create a legally binding Court of Magical Arts Disputes? Because there's not a single country contemporary court of law on the planet which would agree with you. Ethics and professional courtesy =/= legality. If you're going to speak upon what someone can or can not protect with IP laws, don't all of a sudden disregard IP law and argue about something that IP law isn't going to apply to or protect. What's mind boggling here is that (assuming you're a grown adult) you don't seem to understand how laws and litigations work yet have the audacity to give what is essentially legal advice when you clearly do not understand any of it. |
|||||||||
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 774 Posts
|
Quote:
On Dec 21, 2016, kissdadookie wrote: Wait a minute - you are the one claiming patent law is what's most applicable for magic creations. Well then... let's say you have a new routine that consist solely of a choreographed sequence of coordinated palms and eye movements. When you try to patent your hands and eyes as being the "mechanical method to achieve the illusion", you'll be laughed at. Your claim that your routine is subject of patent law will be ridiculed, and they will tell you, in no uncertain terms, that patent law isn't what's covering dramatic work. |
|||||||||
|
King14 Loyal user 268 Posts
|
You are right a mechanical device does nothing on its own,it requires force or in your setting prestation is the force which brings the trick to a successful conclusion.
The laws you are all talking about would not be suitable for this type of trick as it was sold on mass. Laws only come into play if the trick or concept was sold private and not made available to anyone else. Copyright and patent laws do not last forever. It is provided so the inventor can recoup costs and make money. After that time they have a transfer to the public domain. To further the art TStone you should give construct advice rather than play with words. You probably are a lonely sod with a big ego that cannot be filled but you can get self help books from Amazon. You need to work on being a person before you can be a great performer. Now go buy "Sharpie Through Bill By Alan Rorrison" and have a bit of fun. All the best for Christmas and new year. |
|||||||||
|
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 774 Posts
|
Quote:
On Dec 21, 2016, King14 wrote: By Eric Mead, you mean? |
|||||||||
|
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 774 Posts
|
Quote:
On Dec 21, 2016, kissdadookie wrote: It has everything to do with how we understand our art. If we had been painters - then someone with your lack of understanding would argue that since emulsions, pigments, canvas and brushes are neither new nor patented by the painter, the painter has no rights to his own artwork, and it can be copied freely. And then someone with understanding of the art would have to explain what the nature of the art is, and how the work in question relates to it. And then, with some luck, your position would be considered uninformed and wrong. |
|||||||||
|
kissdadookie Inner circle 4275 Posts
|
Quote:
On Dec 21, 2016, TStone wrote: You're trying to twist things now. Choreography falls under copyright. The mechanical nature of an effect in terms of the main method when it involves a gimmick, you patent the gimmick. Your argument only holds any truth if Aaron were to have copied the performance play by play from the Misled manuscript but this is not the case here. Aaron is selling the instructions to build a device. That falls under patents, not copyright as there is a device there for which one applies for a patent in both design and application. You clearly are aware of this and now trying to play semantics for which I can go at this ALL DAY. So let's hear you justify how all of a sudden the sale of DEVICES and INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONSTRUCTING A DEVICE all of a sudden is something that falls under copyright. If that was the case, there would be NO PATENT system since it would be redundant. However, there is a PATENT system which DISTINGUISHES what falls under patent protection and what falls under copyright protection. Dramatic work falls under copyright, however, Aaron is not selling Tim's performance, scripting, etc. Aaron is selling instructions to CONSTRUCT A DEVICE for which the application is to achieve a certain illusion. The illusion in question here is not unique and new. Solid objects phasing through each other leave both objects in their original state in the end, that is a concept/idea which has been around so long that you can be sure even before the earliest recorded history the idea has been thought about. Thus it is prior art, not copyright-able. It's public domain. Your argument is the equivalent of trying to claim that George R. R. Martin can sue people for using the idea of dragons or feuding families in a kingdom or the use of incest in a literary work. The only way George R. R. Martin would be able to sue is if someone brought forth work that is without a shadow of a doubt a direct copy of the fundamental basis of his story along with the same or very similar events and situations. You DON'T under stand copyrights. You DON'T understand patents. You DON'T understand IP law. Yet you are on here trying to essentially give legal advice on IPs? Inb4 you go round and round in circles and argue that magician ethics ='s legal standing. Oh wait, you already tried to use that argument. You know where this discussion will inevitably end up? Me repeating to you probably a dozen or more times the same thing I've been explaining to you and you just completely ignoring it and attempting to argue the same points for which I had already debunked several times. Your argument is essentially the same as if I created a lock and key and if someone created a completely different lock and key, I now can sue them because using that key and turning that lock requires the same bodily movements. You realize how asinine this is right? Because Aaron is NOT selling Tim's presentation thus your argument is the equivalent of my lock and key analogy. Quote:
On Dec 21, 2016, TStone wrote: You're just pretending to not understand now. Again, the painting has a UNIQUE PRODUCT. It's not a device with an application. It's sole purpose is as art. It falls under copyright and it is copyright for THAT painting, not simply the concept of that painting. Misled has a DEVICE with a SPECIFIC APPLICATION WHICH IS TO ACHIEVE THE ILLUSION. It has a demonstrable purpose for use. For your argument to hold true, ALL SHELL GIMMICKS OF ANY TIME CAN NOT BE MADE EVER AGAIN UNLESS THE FIRST EVER PERSON TO CREATE A SHELL FOR ANYTHING GIVES PERMISSION. Idiotic thought yes? That's how idiotic your argument is. I'm also not playing Mr. Nice Guy anymore here, you want a confrontation and you have the audacity to attempt to give legal advice when you have ZERO grasp of IP law? People unknowingly reading your post would come away with a completely incorrect understanding of the law. Let me give you a good example which we are all familiar with because it is within the magic community. Kohler & Fitch Holdout. They didn't patent it likely for various reasons 1) patent documents are public and would reveal the workings 2) applying for the patent and drafting up a patent document likely seemed too expensive for what it was worth 3) they likely would have had to invest a lot of resources and $$$ into researching holdouts because those needs to be referenced in the patent document. What they CLEVERLY DID instead however is have people sign a contract. This sidestepped the lack of a patent issue to protect their work. It was a legally binding and explicit contract. Based on your argument, they would never have had needed to make people go through the process of signing the contract and everything. Why? Because according to your nonsensical argument, it would all fall easily under copyright protection. Guess what? THE LAW DOESN'T WORK THE WAY YOU'VE IMAGINED IT TO BE IN YOUR MAKE BELIEVE LAND WHERE THERE'S SOME SORT OF MAGICIANS LAW. Note: On the Kohler & Fitch Holdout, I'm pretty sure they applied for a design and utility patent but unsure if they were ever awarded the patent. |
|||||||||
|
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 774 Posts
|
Quote:
On Dec 21, 2016, kissdadookie wrote: Yes, finally you say something sensible! Quote:
Dramatic work falls under copyright, Yes!Finally! Quote:
The mechanical nature of an effect in terms of the main method when it involves a gimmick, you patent the gimmick. Your argument only holds any truth if Aaron were to have copied the performance play by play from the Misled manuscript but this is not the case here. Aaron is selling the instructions to build a device. That falls under patents, not copyright as there is a device there for which one applies for a patent in both design and application. Who's Aaron? Don't be silly. If you created an innovative routine that involves a shiner, you would try to patent the mirror? And why do you say that the claim isn't the claim? The handling is copied exactly. What you call "device" isn't what is in question. You can do half a dozen tricks with Wenk's movable & removable gaff that isn't Misled, and Wenk has no claim to those. The permanent version (the prototype) is of a completely different nature, which should make it clear that the look and shape of the gaff is incidental and that isn't what is in question; the handling is. Anyone is obviously allowed to do what they want with their sharpies - but if they do Misled with it, á la Eric Mead, they shouldn't pretend that it isn't Misled. Quote:
So let's hear you justify how all of a sudden the sale of DEVICES and INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONSTRUCTING A DEVICE all of a sudden is something that falls under copyright. If Rorrison's instructions had stopped after detailing what you call a "device", there would be no problems. But it doesn't stop there, it goes on to describe how to perform Wenk's "Misled", and that is what is being questioned. Quote:
The illusion in question here is not unique and new. Yes it is. Do your research, and you'll find that the closest predecessor for the illusion is Paul Harris's "Cardboard Connection" (1977). The leap from that to Wenk's first version two years later (1979) constitutes a significant difference far above the threshold of originality. If you are able to find a different lineage that shows Misled to be old hat, I would be greatly impressed and humbled. Quote:
Your argument is essentially the same as if I created a lock and key and if someone created a completely different lock and key No, it isn't. My argument is that if you create a dramatic work that makes use of a lock and key, and someone else copies that work, it is still a copy even if they've painted the lock and key red. You are dishonestly trying to portrait the specific as the generic. Let's compare with other work that have a similar appearance. Let's subtract Wenk's Misled from John Cornelius's "Pen through Anything", and Cornelius's work will be unaffected since it duplicates nothing of Wenk's work. Subtract Wenk's Misled from Paul Harris's "Cardboard Connection", and Harris's work will be unaffected since the similarity is conceptual, not specific. It contains nothing of Wenk's work. Subtract Wenk's Misled from Harkey & Sankey's "East meets West", and Harkey & Sankey's work will be unaffected since it contains nothing of Wenk's work. Subtract Wenk's Misled from Johnny Hirose's "Invisible Hole", and Hirose's work will be unaffected since it contains nothing of Wenk's work. Subtract Wenk's Misled from Vanni Bossi's Pencil through Bill, and Bossi's work will be unaffected since it contains nothing of Wenk's work. ... ... Subtract Wenk's Misled from Eric Mead's Sharpie through Bill (what Rorrison is selling), and all you have is a broken pen. Quote:
Let me give you a good example which we are all familiar with because it is within the magic community. Kohler & Fitch Holdout. They didn't patent it likely for various reasons Misled is an effect, a routine, something you can perform. The example you give here isn't applicable. The Kohler & Fitch Holdout isn't an effect. It isn't a routine. You can't perform the Kohler & Fitch Holdout. Still, surely you know why they didn't patent their gadget? Because they had nothing to patent! The gravity hold-out is Jack Miller's. The hold-out lock is Tommy Wonder's. They could have tried to patent the specific design of their hold-out lock, but then they would need to research all other forms of line locks and I sincerely doubt they've managed to invent a new kind of line lock. What remained, that was 100% their own contibution, was the wing that prevents the hold-out from turning - and that's pretty minor in the context. Their real contributions was the routines! And remember, this was before Heer vs. Klok and Teller vs. Dogge. The copyright status of magic routines in the US was still pretty unclear back then, even though it was clear in Europe. A contract was an experimental measure to overcome the vagueness of US copyright. Remember, Rorrison is Scottish. As stated by the Berne convention, it is the legislation of infringing party's country that is in effect. |
|||||||||
Red Shadow  Inner circle 1788 Posts
|
I feel the need to clarify a few things.
1. The promo computer graphic of the trick / cover shows the grey part of the pen going through the bill. This is a LIE and its only the tip of the lid that passes through. 2. The trailer conviently edits out the sneaky part where you put the top back on the pen (after they sign the bill) and it magically teleports itself inside the bill. There is a clear logic jump at this point which the host poorly tries to justify. 3. The signing and defacing of legal tender with pernament ink is a requirement for this effect. You will be breaking the law. Furthermore, they have to sign the note at that awkward angle while you hold the note. Its unnatural as they will want to lean on something and hold it flat. 4. They will see the gimmick if you hand it them to be examined. But will probally not understand it anyway. 5. You could do a normal pen through note routine prior to this effect, but then you will have a hard time justifing the signing of the note 3/4 through the routine. Its a bit late. 6. Its an entirey different method to Tim's and there is no comparison. Its a good idea, but the misleading sansmind trailer and promo material hurts it. |
|||||||||
|
Alan Rorrison V.I.P. 2494 Posts
|
I'm sorry you feel that way about the promo image or material. We do try and paintithe effect in the best light. In the video you do see ano honest representation of then melt through.
The legalisty of signing money is different in most countries and to be honest it has never been issues with 90 of the bill effects released. I have handed this out over and over and had no one catch it thankfully bit if you think it's an issue let's start a Facebook group to dicuss presentations to help. |
|||||||||
makeupguy Inner circle 1411 Posts
|
I don't' care for this trick as it's seemingly ripped off from Tim Wenk... but that's an ethical detail to be worked out with the creator and the guy that ripped him off..
however.. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO WRITE ON MONEY!!!!! The only time defacing money is illegal is if you're doing it to change the value to a higher value bill. |
|||||||||
|
Alan Rorrison V.I.P. 2494 Posts
|
OK there are 2 points there... let's adress both..
One.. it's not ripping off tim. Both me and all of the largest magic companies says so.. Legality... well it's. Illegal to rip write and mess with a bill in some companies... untill now it wasn't an issue... so where is your line there |
|||||||||
|
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 774 Posts
|
Quote:
On Dec 21, 2016, Alan Rorrison wrote: Well, yes you are. Subtract Wenk's work from your release, and all you have is a broken pen. Your modification is trivial, and a step backwards in evolution - akin to the guy who "improved" Don Wayne's "Top Ten" by doing it with playing cards, which only reverted it back to the original McCombical Deck. You start dirty, end dirty and you are only able to do the original part of the extended routine. That your modification is trivial is evident because you're not even first with it. Others have done the exact same, for example Eric Mead who recently wrote: Quote: I "invented" or "discovered" exactly this idea of modifying a sharpie cap to do Misled about 15 or so years ago. (It can also be done with other pen caps.) I showed it around to a few magician friends back then, but we all agreed that, while it had certain advantages and appeal, it was a minor change and the disadvantage of tight viewing angles with a thick sharpie outweighed whatever was gained. I showed it to Michael Weber among others who commented, "Lecture Note Item." |
|||||||||
Kaliix Inner circle Connecticut 1990 Posts
|
It's not a step back. It is a step forward. It is not a rip off, and we've tried to explain to you why, but you don't care about the facts, just about you own completely wrong opinion. Wenk's invention and his gimmick are in the public domain and free for anyone to use, modify or improve.
You can't copyright the gimmick and you can't copyright the handling. It's just pulling a pen longways through a bill. Go back to the right and wrong section if you want to have this discussion. Quote: On Dec 21, 2016, TStone wrote:
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel J. Boorstin |
|||||||||
|
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 774 Posts
|
Quote:
On Dec 21, 2016, Kaliix wrote: You'll have to delineate the progress you claim have been made. Because I fear the progress you see is purely imaginary. 1: Misled (original prototype) - permanently gaffed, start & end dirty. 2: Misled (final version) - Non-gaffed, start & end clean. 3: Misled (Eric Mead's Sharpie version) - permanently gaffed, start & end dirty. ...That's a step back. 1: Misled (original prototype) - Just one phase, the original Misled effect. 2: Misled (final version) - Two phases, three effects (punch through, rip and the original Misled effect). 3: Misled (Eric Mead's Sharpie version) - Just one phase, the original Misled effect. ...That's a step back, and no original handling is contributed. The handling is 100% Wenk's. 1: Misled (original prototype) - permanent gaff, not useable anything else. 2: Misled (final version) - The moveable & removable gaff can be used for half a dozen other tricks that isn't Misled. 3: Misled (Eric Mead's Sharpie version) - permanent gaff, not useable anything else. ...That's a step back. Add to that, a thicker object makes the working angles more limited, so it is also a step in the wrong direction when it comes to practicality. All in all, Rorrison's release adds nothing, removes plenty and the small trivial modification he touts as 'significant' isn't even original with him, but is preceeded by Eric Mead. |
|||||||||
|
Alan Rorrison V.I.P. 2494 Posts
|
Hi Tom, it's a pleasure to see you here again. First and for most and just as a point. The original mislead by Tim's admission was never ever released. There is no way I could have known about it but again you already know own this...
Let's move on to the start and end dirty comment... basicaly what ur saying is there is nothing to ring in and ring out which for me is a positive and through the years of performing thjs I've never had a spectator notice the gimmick. Again a positive. On to Eric mead. I spoke to him a few days ago and this subject just didn't come up. We where talking about something rather geeky and unrelated but I'm sure if it was an issue for him he would have said something. Now I do believe we have a thread where points can be discussed and in a hope this thread dosnt have to be split by Steve again wasting his time. Can we keep that conversation there please That's kinda you |
|||||||||
|
Alan Rorrison V.I.P. 2494 Posts
|
Small important adition
Quote:
On Dec 21, 2016, Alan Rorrison wrote: |
|||||||||
|
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 774 Posts
|
Quote:
On Dec 21, 2016, Alan Rorrison wrote: Yes, there is a way you could have found that out - if you had acted ethically and obtained Misled from Wenk, instead of plagiarizing and reverse engineering it from video performances. The evolution of Misled is described in the manuscript. Quote:
Let's move on to the start and end dirty comment... basicaly what ur saying is there is nothing to ring in and ring out which for me is a positive and through the years of performing thjs I've never had a spectator notice the gimmick. Again a positive. Sure, you can revert to the original Misled prototype and gamble that the audience doesn't connect the pieces. It is still not a step forward, but backwards in the evolution. Quote:
On to Eric mead. I spoke to him a few days ago and this subject just didn't come up. We where talking about something rather geeky and unrelated but I'm sure if it was an issue for him he would have said something. It wasn't an issue for Eric Mead - he just mentioned it on Facebook; that he preceeded you and that he considered it to be a trivial modification of Misled. And sure, we can keep the discussion in the other thread, if you refrain from insisting here that your theft is ethical and that your ripoff isn't a ripoff. |
|||||||||
|
Alan Rorrison V.I.P. 2494 Posts
|
Hey Tom.
I owned the original misled. At no point in the book does he describe my gimmick.again even Tim has said this. On the evolution aspect. This gimmick allows you to do an effect with a shaprie and a bill that the original misled did. not. I'd consider that an evolution but that's purely an opinion. It's a shame Eric never released it. It would have ment I could have performed it this way sooner. Just to tip in the theft comment etc.. This gimmick was my own. It wasn't released before me and if anyone else had the same idea and decided to do nothing with it then there is no way I could tell have known about it etc. At that point it would be impossible to call it a rip-off or to call myself a thief... I'm sorry you feel that way mate but that's just how it is. |
|||||||||
|
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 774 Posts
|
Quote:
On Dec 21, 2016, Alan Rorrison wrote: If you remove Wenk's work from your release, all you is left with is a broken pen. You've added nothing and taken away plenty. You are not a good person, Alan. |
|||||||||
|
Alan Rorrison V.I.P. 2494 Posts
|
Hi Tom.
Well that is your opinion sir. I don't agree with it but its your opinion and you are entitled too it. small side note and more of a trivial point. The pen isn't broken, its still looks and functions as a normal pen. I believe "adapted" or "gimmick ed" may be a better word to use but again that is just my opinion on the "your not a good person" front. Ive tried to answer anyone concerns as openly and honestly as I can in a respectful manor with out getting heated or resorting to name calling. Its about the best I can do here and thank full people have noticed. Thank you |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Sharpie Through Bill by Alan Rorrison & SansMinds -VS- Timothy Wenk's MISLED (16 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Dec 21, 2016 09:56 am 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.11 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 < 
|