(Close Window)
Topic: F.U.2 by Lloyd Barnes
Message: Posted by: GeraintClarke (Jul 17, 2019 01:07PM)
Watch the trailer here > https://www.ellusionist.com/fu2-by-lloyd-barnes.html


Click here to get it 50% off : https://bit.ly/IqT6zt
Message: Posted by: JasonL2112 (Jul 17, 2019 01:31PM)
I do like this for the right audience and may just snag it to have in pocket.

Am I understanding right that each "pack" comes with not only different cards, but different force methods as well?

"HINT: If you want to learn Geraint Clarke's '2 of hearts' force - get pack #1."

So to get all force methods, one would need to purchase all 3 packs even if you didn't plan to give away the cards and had no need for that many? Just trying to understand.

Is Turner's force (used in the demo reel) included (with all or any) of the packs?

Either way, congrats to Lloyd on the fun release.
Message: Posted by: Lloyd Barnes (Jul 17, 2019 01:40PM)
Thanks for the possitive feedback man!

Just to clarify, the same download comes with any pack you pick up. Geraint's psych force is taught on the download. Pack 1 will contain a 2 of Hearts though, which is perfect for his force. However, he does explain that you don't need a 2 of Hearts for it to work, it can be any suited 2, which each pack will definitely contain.

Peter's force is not taught but we do explain exactly where people can learn it. There are 8 forces taught in total on the download, plus we give sources for 4 other psych forces that we know and love. As we say in the demo, you can use any force you like so we included a few different ones in the trailer for people to see how it plays out but we also provide a solid choice of forces that you can start performing straight away too.

Hope this helps and thank you again!

Lloyd
Message: Posted by: JasonL2112 (Jul 17, 2019 01:50PM)
Yeah, that makes much more sense...

Fully understand that any force will do (and I like I'm sure many have several favorites), but I had been thinking about looking deeper into Peter's work on the topic lately so was just curious if any of that is included. I'll need to break down and grab the his PDF regardless. :)

Appreciate the clarity. I'm sure some will get bent over this release, but I can think of plenty this will play well with.

Sincerely hope this thread doesn't go sideways. :cheers:
Message: Posted by: EobardT (Jul 17, 2019 04:10PM)
While it's great to see you guys respecting Asi's work as it pertains to method, is the whole premise of the trick and the effect generally not still directly taken from Harrison Greenbaum?
Message: Posted by: Noel (Jul 17, 2019 04:29PM)
Absolutely criminal theft.
Message: Posted by: brandon90 (Jul 17, 2019 04:52PM)
How original
Message: Posted by: mantel (Jul 17, 2019 05:11PM)
[quote]On Jul 17, 2019, GeraintClarke wrote:
Watch the trailer here > https://www.ellusionist.com/fu2-by-lloyd-barnes.html


Click here to get it 50% off : https://bit.ly/IqT6zt [/quote]


Click here to get the original video 100% off : [url=https://magicstream.com/programs/the-fu-deck?autoplay=true]The FU Deck[/url]

[quote]On Jul 17, 2019, Noel wrote:
[quote]On Jul 17, 2019, EobardT wrote:
While it's great to see you guys respecting Asi's work as it pertains to method, is the whole premise of the trick and the effect generally not still directly taken from Harrison Greenbaum? [/quote]

Absolutely criminal theft. [/quote]

Not criminal, only immoral.

[quote][The FU Deck]

PERFORMANCE RIGHTS
After some research we found out Harrison Greenbaum had created this presentation for the effect.

Harrison reserves all theatrical (theatres, comedy clubs/venues, touring shows, etc.) and film (TV, movie, Internet, streaming, and any future audiovisual medium) rights to this effect.[/quote]
Message: Posted by: EobardT (Jul 17, 2019 06:39PM)
Ok so they did steal the actual creative element of this trick from Harrison, but made the effect make less sense by mashing it together with that old fine print guarantee trick from Sankey. Very nice
Message: Posted by: Aaron Vlack (Jul 17, 2019 09:50PM)
This is the type of magic that we want to offer people?
Message: Posted by: brandon90 (Jul 17, 2019 10:01PM)
[quote]On Jul 17, 2019, Aaron Vlack wrote:
This is the type of magic that we want to offer people? [/quote]

Its Ellusionist.... and Lloyd Banks... what else do you expect ? Those guys just see dollar signs and don't care about the consumer
Message: Posted by: mantel (Jul 17, 2019 11:33PM)
[quote]On Jul 17, 2019, brandon90 wrote:
[quote]On Jul 17, 2019, Aaron Vlack wrote:
This is the type of magic that we want to offer people? [/quote]

Its Ellusionist.... and Lloyd Banks... what else do you expect ? Those guys just see dollar signs and don't care about the consumer [/quote]

You mean Lloyd Barnes. Ellusionist hasnt too my knowledge collaborated with famous rappers yet...

Ellusionist doesn't seem to care about creators either, as they seem to be violating Harrison Greenbaum rights. Funny thing is Ellusionist posted that ďHarrison reserves all theatrical (theatres, comedy clubs/venues, touring shows, etc.) and film (TV, movie, Internet, streaming, and any future audiovisual medium) rights to this effect.Ē

If thatís the case isn't posting the trailer, a direct violation of Harrisonís rights?
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 18, 2019 04:32AM)
I'm curious, what Greenbaum trick are you referring to? Is it the one where he writes F@$# YOU on the card? That can't be it. Is there another one?
Message: Posted by: GeorgeKerzon (Jul 18, 2019 08:43AM)
Not my cup of tea to give someone the finger and expect laughs from them. Kinda brash, maybe good for teenagers that love swearing at each other.
Message: Posted by: pegasus (Jul 18, 2019 09:43AM)
I like the concept and used in conjunction with DFB, but not a fan of the FU middle finger content personally.
Message: Posted by: Lloyd Barnes (Jul 18, 2019 01:30PM)
A Statement Regarding FU2 and False Accusations ||

I wish that we werenít reading this together and it was my hope that transparency and logic would prevail in this situation. However, it hasnít and itís upsetting that this statement needs to be written at all.

You may be aware that last year, I released an effect called The **** You Deck. Within hours of release, Ellusionist was contacted by Harrison Greenbaum under the pretence that the effect was not ours to release. The method used was a method heíd been using for a similar effect in his stage show. We immediately and without questioning him removed the effect from sale. As that was morally right thing to do, even though the effect was unknown to the magic community as a whole and was unpublished.

We stuck with our decision in good faith and because we took Harrison at his word that it was his effect. In the following hours, we were contacted by Asi Wind, where I myself had a productive phone call with him where he explained that he was true originator to the core method used in The **** You Deck. He was first to market. Of course, we kept the effect off sale and it would never be sold again in that form. Iíve had tricks that others have independently created that replicated my own work and itís horrible when people refuse to pull it off sale. I would never do this to another artist. Period.
The following year was spent entirely reworking the effect to remove Asiís method. Meaning we needed no full deck and no switches. It's just a force. Weíve since discovered that the use of the phrase **** You as a gag during a card magic routine even predates Harrison. More on this later though. I kept the ending of the effect, a singular gaff card that replaced the Joker with a **** You emblem and a change of the Ace of Spades in the Guarantee section of the Joker, to a different card to a reveal.
Although this could be seen as similar to Harrisons ending, the outcome, as a whole, is not. To explain Harrisons routine; A book is in view. A card is freely named, inside the book is a bookmark (a playing card), a move happens as the card is removed from the book, the bookmark is revealed to have a sticker on the face of it saying **** You. (He's put that online for magicians to deduce the similarities.) The sticker is removed to reveal that it was hiding a real playing card, which is their named card.

With my routine; A single card is placed in view in the spectators hand, a card is chosen via a force, the card is turned over to show itís a Joker thatís been designed to say **** You and upon closer inspection the Guarentee has the name of their chosen card. No sleight of hand, no sticker, not a freely named card.The only similarity the routine shares with Harrisonís are the words **** and You.

The differences?
- No freely named card
- No book
- No indexed deck
- No switch
- No sticker
- No reveal of a normal playing card.

The similarities?
- The use of the phrase **** You.

The selected card is revealed in some way. And certainly not in the same way. Itís not a sticker thatís removed to show a playing card was hiding in plain sight. After yesterdayís release of FU2, Harrison immediately posted on Facebook and other platforms that 'ELLUSIONIST HAS STOLEN MY TRICK AGAIN'. Whatís most concerning about this, is a select vocal few people have taken this false statement at face value and simply believe it. I get it, itís the way the internet works at the moment.

Anyone with a social media account can come to a conclusion, say it loudly and convince others to believe with zero critical thinking on their own behalf. Itís sad. Itís a sorry state of affairs but itís the modern world we live in now.
More deceitful and slanderous lies were spouted by Harrison like ĎLloyd stole this from me.í I can assure you, I did not know of Harrisonís existence until after the original release of The **** You Deck.

Something he found very hard to believe as he performs so many shows. Again, none of which Iíve ever seen. I live on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. 4,255 miles roughly.

He took a completely immoral recording of Geraint Clarke, entirely without consent and posted it wholly out of context to support his narrative, in what I can only guess was an attempt to spark rage and out-cry. A grown man did this. Let that sink in.

But most of all, he completely believes that FU2 and his unpublished performance piece are entirely one and the same. Which, although they share a small similarity, are entirely different.So I want you all to ask yourself, what defines an original creation?My thinking is this and Iíd like to hear any different opinions if you have them. An original effect/creation should have at least 2 of the following elements:

1. Entirely different method.
2. Entirely different routine.
3. Entirely different plot.

Wayne Houchin released Sinful, coin in Coke Can in 2006 (From what I can find). That was the first time I can find that a Coin in Can effect was ever created (I may be slightly off but Iím just using this as a basic example). Since then, off the top of my head, I can name 4 other versions of Wayneís Coin in Can plot being released on the market. Porthole by Luke Osland, Breakthrogh by the Menghel Brother, Osmosis by Dalton Wayne & C2C by Peter Eggink. With my previous list of what I believe defines an original creation, these only tick one out of the 2/3 necessary requirements to be an original relase. Different method. The plots are the same and the routines are the same. However, I DO believe that these all warrant their own independent releases as they each bring something new to the table. And you donít hear Wayne Houchin posting slanderous and defamatory statements over the internet each time a new one is released. Heís a smart man with integrity and loves magic.

To me, itís quite clear that FU2ís method is wildly different. No index. No switch. No sticker. No full card reveal to be hiding in plain sight. That is undisputable. Where it could be seen as similar. The use of **** You, but not a sticker on a normal playing card. Itís a Joker that has **** You written on it and the **** You Emblem in place of the Joker image.

It reveals the card only by name, in the Guarantee section of the small print. Itís a basic force and card revealed routine. Now, Iím pretty sure nobody living today can lay claim to a pick a card/reveal a card plot. So that canít be argued.

 Does he own the intellectual property to revealing a card and saying **** You?

Well, after doing some searching; Harrison explicitly told us on (this time) a legally recorded phone call (where all parties consented)that the earliest video he has is from 2009 performing it in a show.

However, David Sleaze, The Punk Magician (real name Greg Travis) performed a card effect where a card is chosen, he reveals it and THEN exclaims **** You to his spectatorÖ in 1989. The year after I was born.

20 years before Harrisonís and 30 years before FU2. Donít believe me? See for yourself: https://youtu.be/kJiUVp890TY?t=97

Again, although not exactly the same, it is similar. Does this mean that Harrison ďstoleĒ the idea from David Sleaze? I wouldnít say those words myself but itís hard to imagine that he didnít see this video, especially as a professional stand up comedian who seemed to know a-lot about comedy and magic in our phone calls. And David Sleaze (although before my time as Iím now discovering) is a well known comedy magician. Itís not hard to imagine seeing that and coming up with a card trick that uses **** You in a reveal and being able to claim sole Intellectual Property to it.

Even after seeing that right now, if anyone did believe they had sole Intellectual Property in the use of **** You in a routine where you reveal of a playing card, that claim is now null and void.

The first time around Harrison had a problem with the index deck method, we pulled it without question. Although unpublished, the method was almost identical.

Now, heís trying to tell us he owns the intellectual property of using **** You in a reveal. And now we know different. Whether he knew it or not.

There are 3 effects on the table here and Iíll list the dispute and chronological orders for you. So we can have a better, in depth understanding:
1989: David Sleaze performs an effect where a card is chosen and revealed, proclaiming **** You AFTER the reveal. Unpublished.

2009: Harrison performs a card trick where a card is named, found in a book, itís revealed with **** You shown BEFORE and then the card is revealed behind a sticker. Unpublished.
2019: I release FU2, where a card is placed out in the open as a Mystery Card, a card is selected, The card is revealed to have a Joker changed to a Middle Finger and the words **** You in place of the words Joker. The small print reveals the name of the card.

The only thing that we ACTUALLY share here is that ''**** You' is revealed before the reveal of the card. Neither of us can claim the use of the words **** You with the reveal is ours. It's everyones. We can't own words as magicians.

So the real argument, if using rationale and logic is; is someone a thief for sharing the same ordering in timing of a reveal in a card trick? Both reveals are different ĎGaff card vs. Normal card with a sticker on the face thatís removedí. Because neither of us can claim the use of using **** You in a card reveal is either of ours now. It predates us both. And what makes it ok to think that itís ok to call someone a thief and try to tarnish theirs, their peers and the company they work forís reputation when they know in their heart that itís true independent creationÖ of the timing of the reveal.

Iíll leave you on this. Whether itís someone you respect or itís someone unknown to you; Never just believe something anyone says without having respect for your own integrity and the use of critical thinking to understand the truth behind the statement. Sometimes, the magic community can be worse than extreme Social Justice Warriors. Not all of the community but a select few. To everyone else, thank you for the outpour of messages, comments, shares etc. It wonít be forgotten and youíve helped me to understand that I can hold my head up high, not being the guilty party. All of this over a card trick.

Lloyd
Message: Posted by: brandon90 (Jul 18, 2019 01:44PM)
Only the guilty feel the need to explain themselves.
Message: Posted by: videoman (Jul 18, 2019 02:52PM)
[quote]On Jul 18, 2019, brandon90 wrote:


Only the guilty feel the need to explain themselves. [/quote]

I have no horse in this race but that statement is such utterly ridiculous rubbish that I could not let it go unchallenged.
I suppose one could also state that those who have no facts to present in order to make their case often proclaim idiotic stock lines as the only defense of their beliefs.
Message: Posted by: magicinsight (Jul 18, 2019 03:03PM)
I agree with videoman. If Mr. Barnes did not coem on the Carfe to defend and clarify his position, people would say why doesn't he make a statment here and therfore msut be "guilty" as charged.. IF he does defend and clarify his position, as he did, the nhe is still considered "guilty." While I do not have this effect and will not get it because it does nto suit me personally, but I certainly appreciate and respect Mr. Barnes' taking the time to write a legnthy and factual stmeent explaining his position and the history of this particular effect and its various variations.
Michael
Message: Posted by: travisb (Jul 18, 2019 04:00PM)
1. What we can get away with and what we ought to do are not the same thing.

2. Ethics in magic are about community and friendship, not about legalistic maneuvering.

3. Do unto others, yo.

Travis
Message: Posted by: pegasus (Jul 18, 2019 07:47PM)
Poor Harrison Greenbaum will never be able to perform his stage version ever again now because of this release? My heart bleeds purple p@@@. FFS get a grip man. If this is all he has to worry about in life then heís a very lucky man. Lloyd, best of luck with your release.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Jul 19, 2019 12:02AM)
[quote]On Jul 18, 2019, Lloyd Barnes wrote:
However, David Sleaze, The Punk Magician (real name Greg Travis) performed a card effect where a card is chosen, he reveals it and THEN exclaims **** You to his spectatorÖ in 1989. The year after I was born.

20 years before Harrisonís and 30 years before FU2. Donít believe me? See for yourself: https://youtu.be/kJiUVp890TY?t=97

Again, although not exactly the same, it is similar.[/quote]
You're really going to push the narrative that a random dude shouting a random profanity was relevant in the lineage of the piece? You just lost all credibility.
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Jul 19, 2019 01:52AM)
[quote]On Jul 18, 2019, Lloyd Barnes wrote:

However, David Sleaze, The Punk Magician (real name Greg Travis) performed a card effect where a card is chosen, he reveals it and THEN exclaims **** You to his spectatorÖ in 1989. The year after I was born.

Again, although not exactly the same, it is similar. [/quote]
Actually, it is far less similar than you deceptively let on. The well known 3 1/2 minute act of The Punk Magician has been purposely edited in your post to make it seem that the profanity shouted is integral to the card trick. It isnít. In fact, the phrase is used at least 13 times on a handful of different ďtricksĒ because it is integral to the character, NOT THE TRICK.

[quote]Does this mean that Harrison ďstoleĒ the idea from David Sleaze? I wouldnít say those words myself but itís hard to imagine that he didnít see this video, especially as a professional stand up comedian who seemed to know a-lot about comedy and magic in our phone calls. And David Sleaze (although before my time as Iím now discovering) is a well known comedy magician. Itís not hard to imagine seeing that and coming up with a card trick that uses **** You in a reveal and being able to claim sole Intellectual Property to it.[/quote] You are correct, IF (and that is a BIG IF) it did happen that way, it is not hard to imagine someone claiming IP rights over that phrase being printed on a card in some fashion and it being integral to the trick. Those are details unique unto Harrisonís performance... until you co-opted it.

[quote]
There are 3 effects on the table here and Iíll list the dispute and chronological orders for you. So we can have a better, in depth understanding: 

1989: David Sleaze performs an effect where a card is chosen and revealed, proclaiming **** You AFTER the reveal. Unpublished.

2009: Harrison performs a card trick where a card is named, found in a book, itís revealed with **** You shown BEFORE and then the card is revealed behind a sticker. Unpublished.

2019: I release FU2, where a card is placed out in the open as a Mystery Card, a card is selected, The card is revealed to have a Joker changed to a Middle Finger and the words **** You in place of the words Joker. The small print reveals the name of the card.

The only thing that we ACTUALLY share here is that ''**** You' is revealed before the reveal of the card. [/quote] Again, purposefully, deceptively untrue. What you have in common is the phrase, that it is printed in some manner on the card, and that it is a major element in the ďentertainmentí of the trick. The fact you admit openly that you worked at finding a different method for achieving Harrisonís trick puts your IP claim on very shaky ground. But in the end, this wonít go to court. The finance dictates that. So all we have so often in magic is the court of public opinion. When I see someone convolute things so clearly to deceive the public, it makes their position seem VERY suspect.

It is not at all hard to believe that when Harrison says ďmy trickĒ he means the original presentation of a card with that phrase printed on it in some manner actually becoming the revelation which he has been making a living with by performing it since he originated it. It is also not hard to believe when you say ďyour trickĒ you mean just the specific method ignoring the artistic foundation. So here we are.

One person has created a unique card routine and performed it for many, many years to entertain audiences. Another person has, admittedly, taken the entertainment foundations and found a somewhat different method to utilize them, not to perform and entertain, but to sell as his own.

Is that thievery? I guess we each decide what we feel on such matters.
Message: Posted by: dooblehorn (Jul 19, 2019 04:51AM)
[quote]On Jul 18, 2019, videoman wrote:
[quote]On Jul 18, 2019, brandon90 wrote:


Only the guilty feel the need to explain themselves. [/quote]

I have no horse in this race but that statement is such utterly ridiculous rubbish that I could not let it go unchallenged.
I suppose one could also state that those who have no facts to present in order to make their case often proclaim idiotic stock lines as the only defense of their beliefs. [/quote]

Wow, yes, Videoman, thanks for your response, I totally agree...
Message: Posted by: scott0819 (Jul 19, 2019 12:50PM)
You guys are tough. The effect is not for me BUT I feel like Lloyd has been pretty darn transparent about crediting and Eís thinking behind this release.

The similarities between FU2 and Greenbaumís unpublished effect seem to start and end with the words EFFF YOU on the card. Presentations are not that similar. Seriously, if the card said EAT $#!T would it be the same trickÖ?
Itís not the same reveal of the selected card.
Itís not the same method.

I do think that FU2 is closer to Jay Sankeyís effect, as the card reveal is in the FINE PRINT. I hope E spoke to Jay and proper credit was given on the project (this is assuming the idea is original with Jay).
Message: Posted by: TStone (Jul 19, 2019 02:08PM)
[quote]On Jul 19, 2019, scott0819 wrote:
Itís not the same method.
[/quote]
That's irrelevant. You evaluate the piece as a whole. If you have to divide it up into tiny articifial components to make your point, it is a clear sign something is off.

Exchanging a free choice with a force isn't an evolution, but a devaluation. That's the obvious approach, and it is very reasonable to assume that approach was both tested and rejected by Harrison in his development.

The way to handle derivative work - when you want to incorporate someone else's work into your own - is to ensure that all permissions are cleared. They already had Harrison's contact info since last time; so why not contact him and obtain his permission, the way any other honest creator would do?
Message: Posted by: bcstoner (Jul 21, 2019 02:24AM)
[quote]On Jul 19, 2019, TStone wrote:
That's irrelevant. You evaluate the piece as a whole. [/quote]

Um... methods are very relevant. If you want to start evaluating pieces as a whole then I guess anyone who has ever sold a card trick is a thief/dishonest seeing as Giovanni Giuseppe Pinetti was the first person ever to use cards in magic.
Message: Posted by: travisb (Jul 21, 2019 03:04AM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2019, bcstoner wrote:
Um... methods are very relevant. If you want to start evaluating pieces as a whole then I guess anyone who has ever sold a card trick is a thief/dishonest seeing as Giovanni Giuseppe Pinetti was the first person ever to use cards in magic.[/quote]
a) Tom's post contains a part of the answer to this (within the text that you deleted when editing down the quote).

b) Obviously the method being different is in itself insufficient. Otherwise we could just steal Teller's Shadows (or what have you), change the method and sell it. So yes, we have to look at things as a whole.

c) Sometimes this stuff is a purely subjective call, sure, and it's easy to get lost in the weeds. But I think if we are honest with ourselves, if we act honourably and prioritize relationships over money, then I doubt these rationalizations ("I changed the method! The routine is slightly different!") will satisfy us.

Travis
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 21, 2019 09:54AM)
If you evaluate it as a whole, it is different. It's a card that says FU when it should have been a prediction. That's about it. I would argue that the concept of an insult in place of a prediction is not original enough to even warrant protection legal or otherwise. Other than that, it is a different effect. As Lloyd pointed out, No freely named card, No book, No indexed deck, No switch, No sticker, No reveal of a normal playing card.

If anything, there's a better case to be made that this is a copy of fine print by Jay Sankey.

[quote]On Jul 19, 2019, TStone wrote:
[quote]On Jul 19, 2019, scott0819 wrote:
Itís not the same method.
[/quote]
That's irrelevant. You evaluate the piece as a whole. If you have to divide it up into tiny articifial components to make your point, it is a clear sign something is off.

Exchanging a free choice with a force isn't an evolution, but a devaluation. That's the obvious approach, and it is very reasonable to assume that approach was both tested and rejected by Harrison in his development.

The way to handle derivative work - when you want to incorporate someone else's work into your own - is to ensure that all permissions are cleared. They already had Harrison's contact info since last time; so why not contact him and obtain his permission, the way any other honest creator would do? [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Ceierry (Jul 21, 2019 10:40AM)
Itís a card trick. Relax.
Message: Posted by: kipling100 (Jul 21, 2019 12:34PM)
No one can claim originality for using "FU" in the context of a card trick, but that's not the point. Both FU/FU2 use the same punch line as Harrison's routine. It doesn't matter if there is no book, sticker, or that the method is different. Both routines build up an expectation, and then the expectation is subverted and turned into the exact same joke, and then the joke turns out to be just a cover for the reveal. That particular expression is what should be protected in Harrison's routine, and taking that expression without permission is wrong, in my opinion.

And yes, it's just a "card trick," but when someone's livelihood depends on "card tricks," I think it's important to respect originality.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Jul 21, 2019 01:00PM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
Other than that, it is a different effect.[/quote]
Your "but I do it with a [b]blue[/b] deck" argument doesn't hold water. This is derivative work, even clearly hinted as such in its title, where the necessary permissons haven't been cleared.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Jul 21, 2019 01:07PM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2019, kipling100 wrote:
That particular expression is what should be protected in Harrison's routine, and taking that expression without permission is wrong, in my opinion.[/quote]
Good to see someone who understand the matters at hand! However, no need to add "in my opinion" - it [i]is[/i] wrong. Fortunately, the transgression happened in the UK where the creator's rights are much more clear and well defined than in the US.
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 21, 2019 01:50PM)
Wow, see thank you. A logical reasoned response that can lead to understanding. So taking your routine outline idea further, I submit that there are likely dozens if not hundreds of effects in magic/mentalism where a routine builds up expectation, subverts that expectation into a joke, which then turns out to be cover for a reveal. I would submit that such a basic plotline sequence is in the public domain and not protectable. Assuming that is true, the details matter, as how you create the expectation, what the joke is and how it is revealed matter. The effects are similar no doubt. The do use the same basic insult at the punch line, but the reveal is totally different. The initial framing is similar but not the same. The card choice is not nearly the same. Choosing to force obviates the need for an index and a switch with the advantage being that the prediction can be in full view or even held by the spectator from the start. Not an insignificant choice either because there are pros and cons to each approach. I think the differences matter.

[quote]On Jul 21, 2019, kipling100 wrote:
No one can claim originality for using "FU" in the context of a card trick, but that's not the point. Both FU/FU2 use the same punch line as Harrison's routine. It doesn't matter if there is no book, sticker, or that the method is different. Both routines build up an expectation, and then the expectation is subverted and turned into the exact same joke, and then the joke turns out to be just a cover for the reveal. That particular expression is what should be protected in Harrison's routine, and taking that expression without permission is wrong, in my opinion.

And yes, it's just a "card trick," but when someone's livelihood depends on "card tricks," I think it's important to respect originality. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 21, 2019 01:55PM)
It is not a derivative work. It is the use of a standard basic plotline in which there are similarities, yes, but those similarities don't push it into the derivative category.

[quote]On Jul 21, 2019, TStone wrote:
[quote]On Jul 21, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
Other than that, it is a different effect.[/quote]
Your "but I do it with a [b]blue[/b] deck" argument doesn't hold water. This is derivative work, even clearly hinted as such in its title, where the necessary permissons haven't been cleared. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: kipling100 (Jul 21, 2019 02:18PM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
Wow, see thank you. A logical reasoned response that can lead to understanding. So taking your routine outline idea further, I submit that there are likely dozens if not hundreds of effects in magic/mentalism where a routine builds up expectation, subverts that expectation into a joke, which then turns out to be cover for a reveal. I would submit that such a basic plotline sequence is in the public domain and not protectable. Assuming that is true, the details matter, as how you create the expectation, what the joke is and how it is revealed matter. The effects are similar no doubt. The do use the same basic insult at the punch line, but the reveal is totally different. The initial framing is similar but not the same. The card choice is not nearly the same. Choosing to force obviates the need for an index and a switch with the advantage being that the prediction can be in full view or even held by the spectator from the start. Not an insignificant choice either because there are pros and cons to each approach. I think the differences matter.

[quote]On Jul 21, 2019, kipling100 wrote:
No one can claim originality for using "FU" in the context of a card trick, but that's not the point. Both FU/FU2 use the same punch line as Harrison's routine. It doesn't matter if there is no book, sticker, or that the method is different. Both routines build up an expectation, and then the expectation is subverted and turned into the exact same joke, and then the joke turns out to be just a cover for the reveal. That particular expression is what should be protected in Harrison's routine, and taking that expression without permission is wrong, in my opinion.

And yes, it's just a "card trick," but when someone's livelihood depends on "card tricks," I think it's important to respect originality. [/quote] [/quote]

I agree there are certain levels of abstractions that are fairly within generic/public domain. For example, if we abstract any effect enough, it would be nonsensical to say one can protect a trick where someone divines a selected card. But as you add more detail, more specifics, the more protection the expression should get.

In this particular case, I think using the "FU" as the punch line / joke is particular enough that it is taking more than a generic plot line, but the particular expression of that plot line.

I think reasonable minds can disagree, but I've seen much less that has called for proper approval/crediting. It's also weird that they changed the method (which generally deserves little or no protection in the arts), but kept the entire premise. There's very little protection in magic, and it's easy and common to misappropriate someone else's work (even through accidental or independent creation), and I think we should apply higher standards.
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Jul 21, 2019 03:59PM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2019, Ceierry wrote:
Itís a card trick. Relax. [/quote]
To you itís just a card trick. To the person who built it from idea to reality when there was nothing like it, and then worked it tweaked it and reworked it into a finely honed unique routine, and then used that to make their living... itís much more than ďjust a card trickĒ.
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Jul 21, 2019 04:03PM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
It is not a derivative work. It is the use of a standard basic plotline in which there are similarities, yes, but those similarities don't push it into the derivative category.

[quote]On Jul 21, 2019, TStone wrote:
[quote]On Jul 21, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
Other than that, it is a different effect.[/quote]
Your "but I do it with a [b]blue[/b] deck" argument doesn't hold water. This is derivative work, even clearly hinted as such in its title, where the necessary permissons haven't been cleared. [/quote] [/quote]
Uh, Barnes already admitted it is a derivative work. He took a known plot, and worked up a different way to do it. It is by definition and admission a derivative work.
Message: Posted by: hotjacket (Jul 22, 2019 12:07AM)
Well, I like the Sankey Fine Print reveal, but the "F.U." aspect is not good entertainment IMHO (profanity does not particularly offend me, for what it's worth, it's just pretty weak humor). Maybe for an offensive heckler or drunken audience ... horses for courses I guess ...
Message: Posted by: TStone (Jul 22, 2019 12:31AM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
I submit that there are likely dozens if not hundreds of effects in magic/mentalism where a routine builds up expectation, subverts that expectation into a joke, which then turns out to be cover for a reveal.[/quote]
If so, you should be able to name at least ten examples. I can only name three: Asi Wind's "Gypsy Queen", Max Maven's "True Hue" and Harrison Greenbaum's piece. Name some more of all the "hundreds" you just submitted.
[quote]I would submit that such a basic plotline sequence is in the public domain and not protectable.[/quote]
No one have claimed it was. We are discussing a [i]specific[/i] expression of that plotline.
Message: Posted by: Ceierry (Jul 22, 2019 04:45AM)
3 pages saying the same. Lloyd already explained his version and posted on Facebook, as well as Geraint.

(IMHO, they actually explained too much.. I feel they didn't need to explain more in depth, magicians are going really CRAZY about this.. I actually start to think this is more a personal issue than the situation of the trick itself.. I would love to see the same situation with another creator, I'm sure this situation wouldn't happened.)

Can't we just move along, drink a nice beer, and that's it..? It's not that this trick will actually kill any magician reputation or what so ever right?

Credits are here, trick is here, what do you need more? What do you NEED to stop this situation? Do you need Ellusionist to stop selling this trick? But why? It's not even yours too!! I mean... this thread is really out of control guys..

Anyway, just my 2 cents, I'm not affiliated with E, neither Lloyd nor Geraint..

Have a great day, and enjoy the beach.
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 22, 2019 09:36AM)
Again, thank you for an excellent response.

I agree with you that it is a particular expression of that plot line. I don't believe the general plotline is protectable. Building up an expectation for a reveal is standard stuff, shifting that expectation to a joke then using that for a reveal I think is similarly basic. So is Greenbaum's use of the F*#$ You insult original enough to warrant protection?

I see a case to be made for both sides, I guess in the end, I just don't see telling someone one FU when they expect a reveal is that bloody original. And that is really what we are talking about here. Most everything else is different about the tricks.

Interestingly though, why isn't the prevailing argument focused on calling this a copy of Sankey's Fine Print. The build up is the same, the reveal is the same, the concept is the same. Really the only difference is that instead of the joke being FU, it is the standard magician in trouble joke with the wrong card.

It seems I agree with the Toms in principle, I just think they are focused on the wrong trick.

I agree there are certain levels of abstractions that are fairly within generic/public domain. For example, if we abstract any effect enough, it would be nonsensical to say one can protect a trick where someone divines a selected card. But as you add more detail, more specifics, the more protection the expression should get.

In this particular case, I think using the "FU" as the punch line / joke is particular enough that it is taking more than a generic plot line, but the particular expression of that plot line.

I think reasonable minds can disagree, but I've seen much less that has called for proper approval/crediting. It's also weird that they changed the method (which generally deserves little or no protection in the arts), but kept the entire premise. There's very little protection in magic, and it's easy and common to misappropriate someone else's work (even through accidental or independent creation), and I think we should apply higher standards. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 22, 2019 09:43AM)
We are talking about a specific plot line and I believe that you are incorrect. FU is pretty much of copy of fine print, not greenbaums FU effect.

I also believe that if I was allowed to post that question in this forum for people to respond to, I would get dozens of effects from magicians everywhere, particularly if they are incentivized to prove you wrong. The worst I can do is be wrong but that's about it. For you on the other hand...

[quote]On Jul 22, 2019, TStone wrote:
[quote]On Jul 21, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
I submit that there are likely dozens if not hundreds of effects in magic/mentalism where a routine builds up expectation, subverts that expectation into a joke, which then turns out to be cover for a reveal.[/quote]
If so, you should be able to name at least ten examples. I can only name three: Asi Wind's "Gypsy Queen", Max Maven's "True Hue" and Harrison Greenbaum's piece. Name some more of all the "hundreds" you just submitted.
[quote]I would submit that such a basic plotline sequence is in the public domain and not protectable.[/quote]
No one have claimed it was. We are discussing a [i]specific[/i] expression of that plotline. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 22, 2019 09:46AM)
It's weak humor used incorrectly and this trick in particular needs care in choosing exactly when to perform it, no doubt.

Used properly, with the right audience at the right time, it can be funny, even hilarious. But it's not for everyone that is for sure.

[quote]On Jul 22, 2019, hotjacket wrote:
Well, I like the Sankey Fine Print reveal, but the "F.U." aspect is not good entertainment IMHO (profanity does not particularly offend me, for what it's worth, it's just pretty weak humor). Maybe for an offensive heckler or drunken audience ... horses for courses I guess ... [/quote]
Message: Posted by: TStone (Jul 22, 2019 12:03PM)
[quote]On Jul 22, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
We are talking about a specific plot line and I believe that you are incorrect. FU is pretty much of copy of fine print, not greenbaums FU effect.[/quote]

No, we are talking about a specific [i]routine[/i]. A specific dramatic expression.
Changing it from an [b]actual[/b] free choice to a [b]perceived[/b] free choice and claiming it to be a completely new piece is the old "but I do it with a [i]blue backed[/i] deck!" argument - the dramatic expression is still the same. It is also a devolution from being fresh and interesting to being trite and predictable. That the devolution also make it more similar to other items, like Fine Print, isn't in favor of Ellusionists claim that it is original work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jIQjr_-gN0
The Fine Print is more along the lines of "magician in trouble" plot. A mistake is made, a prediction turns out to be wrong, but then the error turns out to be the correct in unexpected fashion. I've seen Max Maven and James Randi do more intriguing pieces on that plot, with written predictions that are wrong - but the predictions turns out to be ambigrams, and are correct once rotated 180 degrees.

The mistake is not a part of Harrison's plot. The customized face of the card immediately tells you that there never were any intention to actually succeed. Hence, no "magician in trouble" vibes.

Btw, you claimed there were hundreds of pieces that duplicates Harrison's plot. So far, I have not seen you cite or quote any. So, I guess it is a fair assumption to consider your claim to be wrong?
Message: Posted by: JCheng (Jul 22, 2019 12:35PM)
[quote]On Jul 22, 2019, TStone wrote:
The Fine Print is more along the lines of "magician in trouble" plot.[/quote]
You mentioned Gypsy Queen as being similar to the FU plot (or same class). But Gypsy Queen is also a "magician in trouble" plot just line Fine Print.
Message: Posted by: Lseeyou (Jul 22, 2019 01:44PM)
@Lloyd Barnes
The force that starts @3:10 in the trailer is not mentioned in the instructions or did I miss anything? Curious about this but can't find where you guys mention it in the instructions...

Thanks in advance
Message: Posted by: TStone (Jul 22, 2019 02:10PM)
[quote]On Jul 22, 2019, JCheng wrote:
[quote]On Jul 22, 2019, TStone wrote:
The Fine Print is more along the lines of "magician in trouble" plot.[/quote]
You mentioned Gypsy Queen as being similar to the FU plot (or same class). But Gypsy Queen is also a "magician in trouble" plot just line Fine Print. [/quote]

Never seen it played like that. In Asi's video, he presses on, like everything happened the way it was supposed to, and are using the resulting puzzlement for the same purpose Harrison use the groan.
Message: Posted by: JCheng (Jul 22, 2019 02:37PM)
[quote]On Jul 22, 2019, TStone wrote:
Never seen it played like that. In Asi's video, he presses on, like everything happened the way it was supposed to, and are using the resulting puzzlement for the same purpose Harrison use the groan. [/quote]

If you see the uncut performance of Gypsy Queen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg-UALCF59A

The spectators at some point are thinking that the magician is in "trouble" (got the wrong card) but obviously at the end the trick goes well (just like Fine Print).
Message: Posted by: TStone (Jul 22, 2019 09:12PM)
[quote]On Jul 22, 2019, JCheng wrote:
The spectators at some point are thinking that the magician is in "trouble" (got the wrong card) but obviously at the end the trick goes well (just like Fine Print). [/quote]
What the spectators are thinking is irrelevant. You evaluate [i]the work[/i] as a whole. There's no error, or acknowledgement of error, in the handling and scripting of the piece. Neither is there anything of that in the performance shown.
Message: Posted by: The Mysterious One (Jul 22, 2019 09:38PM)
This will play with certain audiences depending up one's character (like David Sleaze, Amazing Jonathan, etc.) and the audience.

Amongst the debate in this thread, what I haven't seen is anyone mentioning the ad copy about this being a heckler stopper. Is it my imagination, but is performing this for a heckler at the first sign of disruption could escalate the issue and turn the audience against the magician? What concerns me are the inexperienced magician thinking that this will endear him/her to an audience and silence a heckler. It may just do the opposite and embolden a heckler to increase the rude, disruptive behavior and turn the audience against the magician. Again, it all depends on the performer, but those that do it well lesrned through experience.
Message: Posted by: mantel (Jul 22, 2019 10:59PM)
[quote]On Jul 18, 2019, Lloyd Barnes wrote:

He took a completely immoral recording of Geraint Clarke, entirely without consent and posted it wholly out of context to support his narrative, in what I can only guess was an attempt to spark rage and out-cry. A grown man did this. Let that sink in.

Well, after doing some searching; Harrison explicitly told us on (this time) a legally recorded phone call (where all parties consented)that the earliest video he has is from 2009 performing it in a show.

Lloyd [/quote]

Youíve lost me as Ellusionist only cares about morals when theyíve backed themselves into a corner. Also Harrison didn't need Geraintís consent anyway as New York is one party consent state. What did you expect Harrison to do? Sit back and let Ellusionist profit from what he believes is his intellectual property?

Regardless of how you feel both phone calls were legally recorded.
Message: Posted by: JCheng (Jul 22, 2019 11:55PM)
[quote]On Jul 22, 2019, TStone wrote:
What the spectators are thinking is irrelevant. You evaluate [i]the work[/i] as a whole. There's no error, or acknowledgement of error, in the handling and scripting of the piece. Neither is there anything of that in the performance shown. [/quote]

Fair enough.
Message: Posted by: Harry Patter (Jul 23, 2019 05:22AM)
If a trick is close enough to another to cause this thread then I think that speaks for itself.

I watched Tom Stone lecture his Of Mice and Men routine many years ago, (International Magic Convention) I loved the premise, but I wasn't too keen on the method.

I changed it. It uses no dice, I have more than six options, and everyone who joins me on stage gets a go. It isn't binary but the kicker is still Kill.

Can I release it without consulting Tom Stone, I suppose I could in many minds. But I wouldn't, his routine was my starting point, inspiration and in my mind it the same trick. Is using 'Kill' in magic trick protectable, No. But it is morally wrong and it does nothing for our creative art to publish anothers work, punchline, kicker or premise as our own.
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 25, 2019 11:02AM)
Have you ever seen Harrison Greenbaum perform? I ask this because your argument about FU being integral to the card trick and not to the character is laughable on it's face. Having watched Greenbaum perform and lecture, I can tell you that f$%k specifically and coarse, vulgar language is integral to his character and his act. He uses the F-bomb twice in this effect and says that the card he uses in his kid shows is shorter and just says c$%t. Greenbaum's character appears to be MUCH MORE similar to Sleaze's character than you would have us believe. An insult comic/magician who is corporate vs. punk rock but is doing a similar trick with FU as the punch line.

It sure seems like Greenbaum is copy of Sleaze.


[quote]On Jul 19, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote:
[quote]On Jul 18, 2019, Lloyd Barnes wrote:

However, David Sleaze, The Punk Magician (real name Greg Travis) performed a card effect where a card is chosen, he reveals it and THEN exclaims **** You to his spectatorÖ in 1989. The year after I was born.

Again, although not exactly the same, it is similar. [/quote]
Actually, it is far less similar than you deceptively let on. The well known 3 1/2 minute act of The Punk Magician has been purposely edited in your post to make it seem that the profanity shouted is integral to the card trick. It isnít. In fact, the phrase is used at least 13 times on a handful of different ďtricksĒ because it is integral to the character, NOT THE TRICK.

[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 25, 2019 11:02AM)
Exchanging a free choice with a force is not a devaluation, it is a trade-off. By choosing to fairly force the card, the need for an index is obviated, as is the need for a switch. The prediction need not be handled by the magician and can be revealed by the spectator in their hands. The routine can be less cluttered, with no need for books or multiple envelopes.

The choice is hardly a devaluation.

Additionally, even though the participant in Greenbaum's effect has a free choice to name any card, Greenbaum curiously brings out a deck, shuffles it, cuts it, handles it on stage for minutes and looks through it for the named card but never actually uses it for anything (other than perhaps as cover for a hidden card). I don't see the advantage of a freely named card if the magician is going to introduce cards to cut and play with but not actually use for anything. It muddies up the effect.


[quote]On Jul 19, 2019, TStone wrote:
[quote]On Jul 19, 2019, scott0819 wrote:
Itís not the same method.
[/quote]
That's irrelevant. You evaluate the piece as a whole. If you have to divide it up into tiny articifial components to make your point, it is a clear sign something is off.

Exchanging a free choice with a force isn't an evolution, but a devaluation. That's the obvious approach, and it is very reasonable to assume that approach was both tested and rejected by Harrison in his development.

The way to handle derivative work - when you want to incorporate someone else's work into your own - is to ensure that all permissions are cleared. They already had Harrison's contact info since last time; so why not contact him and obtain his permission, the way any other honest creator would do? [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 25, 2019 11:02AM)
Greenbaum's FU effect is exactly the classic magician in trouble plotline. What was the card in the envelope if not for a prediction? Greenbaum's comic rant after the FU card is revealed is specifically about how the spectator thought he could do the effect, which was to correctly predict his card, with Greenbaum exclaiming, you think that trick is f'ing possible, FU!

Copyright protection extends to ORIGINAL works of creative expression. The magician in trouble plotline is standard and can be used by anyone, as Greenbaum does here. Greenbaum's specific interpretation of that plotline, his act so to speak is absolutely protected. Greenbaum's specific act has not been copied. No Harry Potter book, No free choice, No envelopes, No index, No switch, No handling of the reveal by the magician, No peeled of sticker reveal. The only part that was "stolen" was his use of the FU insult to cover the magician in trouble plotline.

Saying FU to someone is in no way original. It's been used as a retort for almost everything for centuries. Using it to insult someone who thought you could do something you lead them to believe you could do isn't original. If you think for some reason it is, Greenbaum wasn't even the first to use it in a card trick.

[quote]On Jul 22, 2019, TStone wrote:
[quote]On Jul 22, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
We are talking about a specific plot line and I believe that you are incorrect. FU is pretty much of copy of fine print, not greenbaums FU effect.[/quote]

No, we are talking about a specific [i]routine[/i]. A specific dramatic expression.
Changing it from an [b]actual[/b] free choice to a [b]perceived[/b] free choice and claiming it to be a completely new piece is the old "but I do it with a [i]blue backed[/i] deck!" argument - the dramatic expression is still the same. It is also a devolution from being fresh and interesting to being trite and predictable. That the devolution also make it more similar to other items, like Fine Print, isn't in favor of Ellusionists claim that it is original work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jIQjr_-gN0
The Fine Print is more along the lines of "magician in trouble" plot. A mistake is made, a prediction turns out to be wrong, but then the error turns out to be the correct in unexpected fashion. I've seen Max Maven and James Randi do more intriguing pieces on that plot, with written predictions that are wrong - but the predictions turns out to be ambigrams, and are correct once rotated 180 degrees.

The mistake is not a part of Harrison's plot. The customized face of the card immediately tells you that there never were any intention to actually succeed. Hence, no "magician in trouble" vibes.

Btw, you claimed there were hundreds of pieces that duplicates Harrison's plot. So far, I have not seen you cite or quote any. So, I guess it is a fair assumption to consider your claim to be wrong? [/quote]
Message: Posted by: TStone (Jul 25, 2019 07:43PM)
[quote]On Jul 25, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
The choice is hardly a devaluation.
[/quote]
That was a lot of words you had there.

But noticeable missing among them were any kind of citation of any of the [i]hundreds[/i] of routines you claim Harrison's piece duplicates.

Please name 3-4 of all those hundreds, Kaliix. I'd like to compare them myself, and make sure your claims are sincere and honest.
Message: Posted by: Lonnie_Lyerla (Jul 26, 2019 07:04PM)
[quote]On Jul 22, 2019, mantel wrote:
[quote]On Jul 18, 2019, Lloyd Barnes wrote:

He took a completely immoral recording of Geraint Clarke, entirely without consent and posted it wholly out of context to support his narrative, in what I can only guess was an attempt to spark rage and out-cry. A grown man did this. Let that sink in.

Well, after doing some searching; Harrison explicitly told us on (this time) a legally recorded phone call (where all parties consented)that the earliest video he has is from 2009 performing it in a show.

Lloyd [/quote]

Youíve lost me as Ellusionist only cares about morals when theyíve backed themselves into a corner. Also Harrison didn't need Geraintís consent anyway as New York is one party consent state. What did you expect Harrison to do? Sit back and let Ellusionist profit from what he believes is his intellectual property?

Regardless of how you feel both phone calls were legally recorded. [/quote]


Agreed. And even if it were a state that didnít allow recording someone without their knowledge, Technically, it doesnít matter what state heís in because Itís federal law from my understanding. The supremacy clause would come into effect since state law would conflict with federal. Anyone can record anyone as long as they are a part of that conversation or have full permission from someone who is involved in that conversation. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d)
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Jul 26, 2019 07:08PM)
[quote]On Jul 25, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
Have you ever seen Harrison Greenbaum perform?[/quote]

Yes, I have, in person.

[quote] I ask this because your argument about FU being integral to the card trick and not to the character is laughable on it's face. [/quote] Your statement is patently inaccurate because...drum roll please... I didnít make that claim. Something can be both integral to the character AND integral to the trick. AT THE SAME TIME. This is true of Harrisonís effect. Not true of The Punk Magician. So show me where I said the phrase was not integral to Harrisonís character. I expect you will have as much difficulty backing that claim up as you are having with Mr. Stoneís challenge posed for you provide evidence of your claims.

But Iím sure you convolute and argue the definition of ďintegralĒ and oversimplify things in an utterly invalid attempt to have people believe your untruths.
Message: Posted by: Mac_Stone (Jul 27, 2019 10:52AM)
Seems to me the only ones sticking up for Harrison are creators.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jul 27, 2019 08:10PM)
So I came up with this GREAT idea for a new trick.

You have a prediction in full view.
You have a spectator "choose" a card.

Then you reveal your prediction but it's the queen of hearts, the WRONG CARD.

But wait, what's that in her hand??? It's the spectator's selection!!!

But get this, there's NO SW!+C# :D

I call it GQ 2!
Message: Posted by: Chessmann (Jul 29, 2019 12:04AM)
[quote]On Jul 18, 2019, Lloyd Barnes wrote:
However, David Sleaze, The Punk Magician (real name Greg Travis) performed a card effect where a card is chosen, he reveals it and THEN exclaims **** You to his spectatorÖ in 1989. [/quote]

OMG...I was in a movie with Greg Travis back in 1977!

Glad I saw this topic. Brought back a lot of memories!
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jul 29, 2019 08:55AM)
[quote]On Jul 18, 2019, Lloyd Barnes wrote:
However, David Sleaze, The Punk Magician (real name Greg Travis) performed a card effect where a card is chosen, he reveals it and THEN exclaims **** You to his spectatorÖ in 1989. [/quote]

Yes, because yelling "FU" is the same as a turning an FU gag into a magical moment.

I guess every magician who ever borrowed a bill for a non-magic joke predates the floating bill, and thus floating money is not an original routine.

Oh, I saw a magician do a rope trick BEFORE a card trick once. Clearly Daryll's Ultimate Ambition was just a hack rip off of this magician doing a rope trick.

I have a WAY better version that just uses a duplicate card, and real rope.
I call it UA 2. Completely new trick, unrelated to Daryl's routine.
It's an evolution of that random guys rope trick.
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 31, 2019 09:20AM)
The plot is magician in trouble. Specifically, magician has a prediction, a choice is made, the prediction is revealed, the prediction is wrong, joke about being wrong, the prediction is shown to be correct. You really think I can't find many similar routines?

No comment on devaluation?

[quote]On Jul 25, 2019, TStone wrote:
[quote]On Jul 25, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
The choice is hardly a devaluation.
[/quote]
That was a lot of words you had there.

But noticeable missing among them were any kind of citation of any of the [i]hundreds[/i] of routines you claim Harrison's piece duplicates.

Please name 3-4 of all those hundreds, Kaliix. I'd like to compare them myself, and make sure your claims are sincere and honest. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 31, 2019 09:44AM)
So when the punk magician uses the phrase repeatedly during his act it is part of his character, but when he uses it a trick, it's NOT part of the trick. When Greenbaum uses the phrase repeatedly during his act, it is part of his character but when he uses it in a trick, it's ALSO PART of the trick. But it's deceptive editing to show only the 3-12 minute part of Sleazes act because that doesn't show him using it repeatedly throughout his act, even though Greenbaum repeatedly uses it through his act as well.

If you say so... :rolleyes:



[quote]On Jul 19, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote:
[quote]On Jul 18, 2019, Lloyd Barnes wrote:

However, David Sleaze, The Punk Magician (real name Greg Travis) performed a card effect where a card is chosen, he reveals it and THEN exclaims **** You to his spectatorÖ in 1989. The year after I was born.

Again, although not exactly the same, it is similar. [/quote]
Actually, it is far less similar than you deceptively let on. The well known 3 1/2 minute act of The Punk Magician has been purposely edited in your post to make it seem that the profanity shouted is integral to the card trick. It isnít. In fact, the phrase is used at least 13 times on a handful of different ďtricksĒ because it is integral to the character, NOT THE TRICK.[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Jul 31, 2019 10:15AM)
[quote]On Jul 31, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
So when the punk magician uses the phrase repeatedly during his act it is part of his character, but when he uses it a trick, it's NOT part of the trick. When Greenbaum uses the phrase repeatedly during his act, it is part of his character but when he uses it in a trick, it's ALSO PART of the trick.[/quote]

Watch closely. One performer uses the phrase for a gag AFTER the trick has culminated. The other performer has placed the phrase as a point of focus right in the middle of the trick AND it is instrumental in the working of the trick. Now guess which is which.

As long as you are distilling things down to their base elements, why not just say, ďItís a card trick. Seen it before.Ē or for that matter, ďItís a magic trick, nothing new or unique in that.Ē Why stop at ďsomeone once used those words right after his card trick for a gagĒ?
Message: Posted by: AlexTheAlrightandOK (Jul 31, 2019 01:57PM)
While I'm still unhappy with Barnes for the fraud that was Ice Cold ACANN, the punchline is part of the patter. You can't own patter, especially two words of it, whether it's written or spoken. Feeling like you can or do is just that... a mere misconceived ego propping feeling begging to be easily threatened by evidence of the contrary.
Message: Posted by: The Mysterious One (Jul 31, 2019 02:34PM)
If anyone is interested to Lloyd Barnes' response to the ensuing controversy, here is the official response:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxVZ7iA3K8Y

For those that do not received Ellusionist email, here is the body of the email that contained the above link:

Subject: FU2. Shocking Revelations. Lloyd Barnes owned? Controversy Answered!

Watch Our Full Public Video Response - Get the Popcorn (A "link" button to the video)

The market for original magic is too competitive. Everyone and their cat can release an effect from their iPhone and call it their own. In recent years this has bread a cut-throat industry with unfounded accusations of theft thrown around like confetti.

It shouldn't be this way. We should be a supportive family.

However it seems like the community chooses who to support based on who screams the loudest.

Companies face these boycotts and backlashes ever more frequently online. One celebrity endorsement too far and people are burning their own shoes to show their outrage.

The only reason we're bothering to publicly counter this claim at all is because it has crept into the community as fact. We needed to speak up for FU2 and ourselves... but we shouldn't have to.

Over 18 years in business and Ellusionist has helped launch and nurture the careers of hundreds of creators. Some of which have made enough to support their families - some still do. We pay fairly, we don't deduct travel and production expenses from royalties and artists have never been 'stolen' from.

We've started college funds for artist's children, donated decks to countless small community-driven fundraisers and paid artists EXTRA for good work. Despite the 'contract' not calling for any of that.

Every product we've ever published goes out with the creators name prominently on the product page. We believe there is no other company in magic that can feature an artist like we can. We're proud of that.

People see Ellusionist as some huge multi-million dollar conglomerate with hundreds of staff. In truth, we have 12 members of staff.

It's a small, modest company with family values and a passion for magic and playing cards.

So it only hurts deeper when actual lies and misrepresentations of the truth are published online.

We almost always stay quiet as some steal from us and others spread nasty, untrue things. Clarifcations from a company could be wrongly perceived as targeting... That's not a good look. However this situation has gone too far and needed a response. (As well as some mentioned publicly demanding a response.)

We hope that we never have to do this again. After this video is out we're going to put all of this behind us and concentrate on moving magic forward.

If anyone mentioned in this video wants to come to our party in Vegas this weekend, you're more than welcome. No grudges or bad feelings are felt.

Let's move forward as a supportive family.

- Ellusionist
Message: Posted by: The Mysterious One (Jul 31, 2019 02:36PM)
And for the record, sorry for the English mistake in the previous email. Stupid auto-correct on my phone (taking a break while perusing the Cafť). Also, for clarity's sake, I am not part of Ellusionist; I am hoping that both sides will work to amicably resolve their differences if possible.

Good magic to all...
Message: Posted by: professortango (Jul 31, 2019 02:58PM)
I think the methodology behind the tricks is different enough to be a non-legal issue, however, it was a ****-poor decision for Ellusionist to say themselves: "hmmm, that one trick which we took off the market due to a magician claiming we stole it...let's replicate the same effect but with a different method so we can still use it."

What matters most, to me, in determining if a trick is copying another routine is how the audience perceives it. The narrative for both versions is the magician has an isolated prediction card, the spectator chooses a card verbally, the prediction card is revealed to be an F You card, and then upon closer inspection it actually supports the magician's prediction. From an audience stand point, the two tricks are nearly identical in narrative. Ellussionist didn't break any laws, but they certainly sought to steal this routine's narrative and to do so, following a previous issue regarding the same effect, is just classless and dumb.
Message: Posted by: The Mysterious One (Jul 31, 2019 03:20PM)
Yeah, it seems the folks at E (Lloyd, Geraint, and co.) should of let sleeping dogs lie when their collective hands were slapped the first time around. About sending a video response to answer the controversy, I wonder how loud the rumbling was before feeling like they needed to send a response. In this thread alone, you have some very strong responses about E's actions and decision to release a second version of this effect.
Message: Posted by: professortango (Jul 31, 2019 03:28PM)
I also think its a bit slimey to openly beg viewers to tell him about other magicians who use similar words or punch lines just so he can turn around and say "SEE! These other people have similar routines so obviously I didn't steal anything." Like, if that was going to be your excuse, why didn't you do the leg work beforehand to truly know if this was a common routine rather than running around after the fact trying to excuse your immoral behavior?
Message: Posted by: Christopher Williams (Jul 31, 2019 04:12PM)
There have been MANY other releases, countless, that are similar to other effects out there, none of which I recall seeing such backlash. Ellusionist have said this is the last they have to say on the matter, will be interesting to see if the arguments continue or whether they will end.
Message: Posted by: JasonL2112 (Jul 31, 2019 04:56PM)
It should have ended before it started, but lots of people with too much time on their hands it seems.

Any concerns should be between those who may feel they own the IP and those who release an effect, but here we are, again... Sadly...

I hate to say this, but maybe an area can be created specifically for these debates to keep the more pertinent information in this part of the forum so we don't need to scroll through page upon page in more than one thread that don't interest those actually "interested" in a particular release. If this were my site I'd keep that debate out entirely, but if its supported, then give it a home and free the rest of us from it.

Sorry if it earns me some super-secret demerit, but all of the IP talk is just a huge distraction. Have fun kids.

[quote]On Jul 31, 2019, Christopher Williams wrote:
There have been MANY other releases, countless, that are similar to other effects out there, none of which I recall seeing such backlash. Ellusionist have said this is the last they have to say on the matter, will be interesting to see if the arguments continue or whether they will end. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: SleepyMagic (Jul 31, 2019 05:02PM)
Where can I learn the Peter Turner force on here? From his masterclass PDF's ????

Thanks
Sleepy
Message: Posted by: Arthur T (Jul 31, 2019 05:11PM)
Peter does have a pdf dedicated to psychological card forces but I think in one of the performances Ryan does in the trailer itís an idea I saw in free form mentalism.
Message: Posted by: magico (Jul 31, 2019 05:56PM)
[quote]On Jul 18, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
End of the day, all of this is basically Sankey's Fine Print :P [/quote]

Also Guaranteed by Johnny Dodge

When I did it along time ago they would turn over the card I would use the line ďJokers are WildĒ then I would have them read the fine print.
Message: Posted by: GeraintClarke (Jul 31, 2019 06:41PM)
Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxVZ7iA3K8Y
Message: Posted by: jetpilot (Jul 31, 2019 06:47PM)
[quote]On Jul 31, 2019, Christopher Williams wrote:
There have been MANY other releases, countless, that are similar to other effects out there, none of which I recall seeing such backlash. Ellusionist have said this is the last they have to say on the matter, will be interesting to see if the arguments continue or whether they will end. [/quote]

Exactly. 100% of magic is just iteration. There is NEVER anything 100% new in effect or in method. And how are you supposed to know about some guy (nobody ever heard of) is doing something similar in private shows? The reality is that a good magician can replicate virtually any effect you can imagine. Perhaps using a much different method. The arrogance of many of the "creators" who think they can OWN an effect that is merely a variation on the work of others is ridiculous. Magic is a performance art. As someone that holds a number of trademarks and patents I find many magicians claims to IP are questionable at best. Can a dancer OWN a dance step? Or a gymnast a difficult move? Of course not. A magician can patent a physical gimmick used in accomplishing a trick. You can trademark the name of a trick you are selling. But you can't "own" pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Or, a common phrase that preceded this conversation by a century.
Message: Posted by: The Mysterious One (Jul 31, 2019 07:21PM)
[quote]On Jul 31, 2019, Christopher Williams wrote:
There have been MANY other releases, countless, that are similar to other effects out there, none of which I recall seeing such backlash. Ellusionist have said this is the last they have to say on the matter, will be interesting to see if the arguments continue or whether they will end. [/quote]

I hope it ends. I actually watched the whole response (all 46 minutes) while on the train. It was interesting and Lloyd provided quite a bit of evidence to support his and Ellusionist's side of the argument. You can easily tell Lloyd was more than annoyed with the online character assassination. The word cyberbullying came up in the video with a phone number. His response wasn't something that was made quickly and off the cuff. The video was a methodical step-by-step case of the issue at hand. They provided quite a bit of evidence (screenshots, etc). If this was a court case (which is not, it is the court of public opinion in our insular world of magic), Lloyd provided a very convincing argument. Hopefully, this is the last round and people can concentrate on the effect itself.

And about the effect itself, I cannot wait to perform this at my next kid show. ;)
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 31, 2019 07:30PM)
The truth is self-evident, it is a standard plot sequence. Your grasping at straws and have been wrong since the beginning. I'm out... peace :righton:

[quote]On Jul 31, 2019, TStone wrote:
[quote]On Jul 31, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
The plot is magician in trouble. Specifically, magician has a prediction, a choice is made, the prediction is revealed, the prediction is wrong, joke about being wrong, the prediction is shown to be correct. You really think I can't find many similar routines?[/quote]
You are still not naming any of the "hundreds" you claim predates Harrison. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: JasonL2112 (Jul 31, 2019 08:54PM)
And YOU sir, are the official winner of this thread!

:dancing:

[quote]On Jul 31, 2019, The Mysterious One wrote:
<snip.....>

And about the effect itself, I cannot wait to perform this at my next kid show. ;) [/quote]
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jul 31, 2019 09:53PM)
A prediction is set aside.
A card "choosen."
The prediction is shown to be a big "**** You."
Ha Ha.
But wait, looking closer, the prediction actually reveals the spectator's card!

Did I just described Sleaze's or Sadowitz's effect? Don't think so (I could be wrong, I haven't actually seen much describing what Sadowitz's effect actually was.)

No, Sleaze and Sadowitz are both red herrings here.

So did I describe Harrison's? Barnes' FU Deck? Barnes' FU2?

Independent creation is one thing, and I FULLY understand that.

To then knowingly repackage it as something else, after the fact, so you can still sell it?
I think that is something else above and beyond the independent creation.
Message: Posted by: Waterloophai (Aug 1, 2019 12:44AM)
Five pages about a vulgar and low to the ground joke, shown by a vulgar man who needs a book to do a top change that is then probably still so miserable that one fearfully avoids filming it.
In the name of the art of magic, I hope that this creature does not call itself a "magician" and that no magician wants to be associated with such a man.

That a dealer thinks that it is worth making a commercial something of it, and therefore thinks that many magicians will find this fantastic, is something that worries me just as much.

Ah, it must be my age, isn't it?
An old man who apparently didnít keep up with the new "norms and values".
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 1, 2019 10:03AM)
This is about a very specific take/effect (FU gag revealed to actually be correct prediction) on a given plot (mystery prediction and magician in trouble.)
It's not about independent creation. That was addressed (and properly) the first time. This is about trying to repackage it as something else after admitting the AFFECT was someone else's.

45 minutes of repeating the same logical fallacies in an attempt to obfuscate that doesn't change the fact that their "argument" is still based entirely on fallacies and obfuscation.

Sleaze and Sadowitz: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Red_herring
Indexed deck: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
Message: Posted by: dman11 (Aug 1, 2019 10:37AM)
Sheesh.....

https://www.alakazam.co.uk/little-magic-bob-set-by-magic-bob.html
Message: Posted by: reignofsound (Aug 1, 2019 11:36AM)
F card in this as well.

https://www.magicshop.co.uk/magic-tricks/close-up-magic-tricks/parental-guidance-gimmicks-and-online-instructions-by-tom-wright-trick
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 1, 2019 12:03PM)
[quote]On Aug 1, 2019, dman11 wrote:
Sheesh.....

https://www.alakazam.co.uk/little-magic-bob-set-by-magic-bob.html [/quote]
[quote]On Aug 1, 2019, reignofsound wrote:
F card in this as well.

https://www.magicshop.co.uk/magic-tricks/close-up-magic-tricks/parental-guidance-gimmicks-and-online-instructions-by-tom-wright-trick [/quote]

It's honestly astonishing how many magicians are completely out of touch with logical fallacies.
Message: Posted by: Mark_Chandaue (Aug 1, 2019 02:11PM)
Itís also astonishing how many magicians are completely out of touch with when to stop flogging a dead horse!!
Message: Posted by: GeraintClarke (Aug 1, 2019 02:29PM)
[quote]On Aug 1, 2019, Mark_Chandaue wrote:
Itís also astonishing how many magicians are completely out of touch with when to stop flogging a dead horse!! [/quote]

They pick and choose mate haha. I imagine their egos are hurt a little and that's understandable, but they need to let it go.

Some hypocritical things, lies and defamatory statements made by them.

Our original statement was retracted because it was based off false information. We've said that, but that's their only angle.

They'll bang on about it still, but don't address their friend's alleged joke theft. If they want to live by the sword they have to die by the sword. Same rules should apply.
Message: Posted by: travisb (Aug 1, 2019 03:13PM)
What's the alleged joke theft?

Travis
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 1, 2019 03:14PM)
[quote]On Aug 1, 2019, GeraintClarke wrote:
[quote]On Aug 1, 2019, Mark_Chandaue wrote:
Itís also astonishing how many magicians are completely out of touch with when to stop flogging a dead horse!! [/quote]

They pick and choose mate haha. I imagine their egos are hurt a little and that's understandable, but they need to let it go.

Some hypocritical things, lies and defamatory statements made by them.

Our original statement was retracted because it was based off false information. We've said that, but that's their only angle.

They'll bang on about it still, but don't address their friend's alleged joke theft. If they want to live by the sword they have to die by the sword. Same rules should apply. [/quote]

I'm sorry, what was the false information that lead to acknowledging that the FU reveal itself, the magical EFFECT at the crux of the discussion, was Harrison's?

That has nothing to do with information about who first came up with the indexed deck method. False information on that front in no way changes the EFFECT (FU reveal) being Harrison's.

Because that's the ONLY point I've been making, and it was avoided by trying answer a question about EFFECT with misdirection about method.

But just keep moving those goalposts.
Message: Posted by: Arthur T (Aug 1, 2019 03:16PM)
[quote]On Aug 1, 2019, travisb wrote:
What's the alleged joke theft?

Travis [/quote]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxVZ7iA3K8Y
Skip to 24 mins in, your welcome :)
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 1, 2019 03:21PM)
[quote]On Aug 1, 2019, travisb wrote:
What's the alleged joke theft?

Travis [/quote]

A variation of an age old criticism of people quoting the Bible as an argument.

Variations include "and Spider-man comics aren't evidence there's a kid swinging around New York."
"That's why we also don't base laws on Lord of the Rings."

Harrison, and another comedian, both referenced quoting Harry Potter, as their preferred book to quote as an argument.

Fairly similar jokes honestly, and beyond just in theme/premise, also including in actual structure, but also both riffs on something that has been joked about for ages, referencing another modern touchstone "magic" book.

Make of it what you will.
Message: Posted by: Mark_Chandaue (Aug 1, 2019 03:49PM)
Hmmm ripping another comics material almost word for word (something considered a heinous crime to comics) is absolutely fine in this case and justified as an age old joke (which is isnít) variations on a theme (which it isnít, itís the exact same joke). Yes thatís fine is it.

Ah but using fu in a card reveal which I saw Jerry Sadowitz do before 87, as did several others, is not a variation on a theme despite that there is at least one example before Harrison was even born and another before he had learnt to walk. There are at least 5 examples of FU being used in a card reveal over the last 30 odd years and yet Lloydís use is singled out.

Well the thing that many have missed is Lloyd starts the trick by saying ďPick a cardĒ I can definitely show that I started a trick by saying pick a card as early as Ď71 and I suspect Iím not the first but I think Iím the first to publicly claim it so letís agree itís mine. So Lloyd stole 3 words from my presentation and only two from Jerry. Mind you Jerry once called me a ***** and I replied FU so it was probably me that gave Jerry the inspiration for the effect in the first place.

Do you see me complaining?

Not only is the horse long dead but itís starting to smell.

Mark
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 1, 2019 04:47PM)
Funny how everytime someone wants to ignore the point, they simplify everything to just using FU in a card trick.

Over simplifying it to the point of meaninglessness is precisely what always happens with goalposts on a wheel.

Enough of the same fallacious "arguments."
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 1, 2019 04:49PM)
As for Sadowitz, please, in all honesty, I would love to know what it actually was. Because so far I've only heard vague claims.
Sleaze's bit yelling FU over an over is an absurd comparison.

The effect has been very clearly outlined, no one would mistake it for a description of Sleaze's bit.
Message: Posted by: The Mysterious One (Aug 1, 2019 05:25PM)
[quote]On Aug 1, 2019, Mark_Chandaue wrote:
Hmmm ripping another comics material almost word for word (something considered a heinous crime to comics) is absolutely fine in this case and justified as an age old joke (which is isnít) variations on a theme (which it isnít, itís the exact same joke). Yes thatís fine is it.

Ah but using fu in a card reveal which I saw Jerry Sadowitz do before 87, as did several others, is not a variation on a theme despite that there is at least one example before Harrison was even born and another before he had learnt to walk. There are at least 5 examples of FU being used in a card reveal over the last 30 odd years and yet Lloydís use is singled out.

Well the thing that many have missed is Lloyd starts the trick by saying ďPick a cardĒ I can definitely show that I started a trick by saying pick a card as early as Ď71 and I suspect Iím not the first but I think Iím the first to publicly claim it so letís agree itís mine. So Lloyd stole 3 words from my presentation and only two from Jerry. Mind you Jerry once called me a ***** and I replied FU so it was probably me that gave Jerry the inspiration for the effect in the first place.

Do you see me complaining?

Not only is the horse long dead but itís starting to smell.

Mark [/quote]

Yep. Like I said before, Lloyd lays out a strong argument. I honestly am not the market for this (I live in Texas where this will not play well at all with certain folks; plus it is an open carry state ;) (saying that half-way kidding of course).

When I said "E should have let sleeping dogs lie after getting their collective hand slapped the first time," it was based on the flame war that erupted from the release of FU2. What a headache! It is the world we live in.. The loudest person screaming or making incendiary comments gets the most attention and publicity.

E (Lloyd and crew) seemed pretty motivated to release this effect and tried to stay within the realms of professional courtesy and decorum. They made changes accordingly to change the workings of the effect to make Harrison and others happy. Based on the screen captures in the video, the only persons that looked like "the adults in the room" were Lloyd, Geraint, Asi Wind, and Bizarro (on another effect).

And I didn't mention the joke lift Mark because I didn't want to incite anyone's fury.. but I thought the same thing as you.. That is such a cardinal sin amongst comedians. Lifting jokes was a common practice for hacks back in the day (The Marvelous Ms. Maisel on Amazon Prime Video does a wonderful job showing open mic night comedians copying elements or all of a Bob Newhart's Abe Lincoln routine in the late 1950s). It is part of a code of ethics amongst those practictioners of the craft to NOT use other comedians's material. I was speechless to seeing Harrison doing this on Last Comic Standing of all places. I am not saying that Harrison is a hack to be clear.

I am swayed by evidence. I found this release interesting even though it is not for me.Also, I found out something about Geraini and Lloyd. Who knew Lloyd and Geraint were the magician versions of famous TV lawyers Perry Mason and Jack McCoy (Law & Order)? If I ever get a traffic ticket, I want them to argue my case.

Ok, I kicked the smelly, dead as h*ll horse! Time to use it to make some glue.
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Aug 1, 2019 05:32PM)
And no one would mistake it for Lloyds effect either.

There is a minimum threshold of originality that must be met before we talk about someone having any "rights" to anything. The basic outline of Harrison's effect is common. The specific routine in total is protected. Harrison's use of F#$% You is at best, minimally creative while using FU as a retort or punchline is decidedly UNORIGINAL. If Greenbaum used a creative insult, something original he came up with that was unique to him, that would be different. But he didn't, he chose the most common, unoriginal, mundane insult known to man and that isn't worthy of protection.

[quote]On Aug 1, 2019, gdw wrote:
As for Sadowitz, please, in all honesty, I would love to know what it actually was. Because so far I've only heard vague claims.
Sleaze's bit yelling FU over an over is an absurd comparison.

The effect has been very clearly outlined, no one would mistake it for a description of Sleaze's bit. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Mark_Chandaue (Aug 1, 2019 05:37PM)
As to Sadowitz I saw it in around 85. I was no longer moving in the same circles as Jerry in 87 so I can certainly date it to prior to 87. We are going back over 30 years so I couldnít give you an exact date but I can say it was between 82 and 86. Many people in the London scene from my generation will have seen Jerry perform it and a lot of similar material. Jerry has always been pretty full on.
Message: Posted by: travisb (Aug 1, 2019 07:19PM)
What happens in the Sadowitz routine?

Travis
Message: Posted by: travisb (Aug 1, 2019 07:25PM)
Just watched the video at the time code provided ó thanks Arthur ó and yeah, looks like the same joke.

I hope Harrison took that joke out of his act after he found out.

Travis
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 1, 2019 07:26PM)
[quote]On Aug 1, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
And no one would mistake it for Lloyds effect either.

There is a minimum threshold of originality that must be met before we talk about someone having any "rights" to anything. The basic outline of Harrison's effect is common. The specific routine in total is protected. Harrison's use of F#$% You is at best, minimally creative while using FU as a retort or punchline is decidedly UNORIGINAL. If Greenbaum used a creative insult, something original he came up with that was unique to him, that would be different. But he didn't, he chose the most common, unoriginal, mundane insult known to man and that isn't worthy of protection.

[quote]On Aug 1, 2019, gdw wrote:
As for Sadowitz, please, in all honesty, I would love to know what it actually was. Because so far I've only heard vague claims.
Sleaze's bit yelling FU over an over is an absurd comparison.

The effect has been very clearly outlined, no one would mistake it for a description of Sleaze's bit. [/quote] [/quote]


Really? The one I keep outlining? This descrition?

Prediction set aside.
Card "selected."
Prediction revealed to be FU gag.
Ha. Ha.
Looking closer, the prediction actually reveals the spectator's card.

That one? The one I made by litteraly making bullet points out of the effect description E used for FU Deck and FU 2?

You're right, no one would EVER mistake that for describing FU Deck or FU 2.

[quote]On Aug 1, 2019, Mark_Chandaue wrote:
As to Sadowitz I saw it in around 85. I was no longer moving in the same circles as Jerry in 87 so I can certainly date it to prior to 87. We are going back over 30 years so I couldnít give you an exact date but I can say it was between 82 and 86. Many people in the London scene from my generation will have seen Jerry perform it and a lot of similar material. Jerry has always been pretty full on. [/quote]

I'm asking for a description of the actual trick. I can find nothing other than people saying Sadowitz's said FU alot, and may have had a card that said FU on it.
Unless he then revealed the FU card to actually be, or have prints on it, the selected card, it's irrelevant and just another blatent red herring.

That said, IF Sadowitz's DID then show the FU card contained a reveal of the actual selection, or be the actual selection in disguise, and someone can back this up with more than an anecdote, then I will absolutely concede the point.

Until then, if all he did was use the phrase FU in a random card trick, it's just as irrelevant as Sleaze.
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Aug 1, 2019 07:46PM)
What is totally relevant though is that the FU gag is minimally creative and unoriginal. It does not warrant protection, AT ALL. If you are arguing FU deserves protection, then it is incumbent on you to prove it meets minimum standards of originality. The FU gag is not creative, it is common, crude and basic. No one hand wrote it or made it the lone words on the card, no one stole Harrison's sticker reveal, no one stole Harrison's routine, get over it.

[quote]On Aug 1, 2019, gdw wrote:
[quote]On Aug 1, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
And no one would mistake it for Lloyds effect either.

There is a minimum threshold of originality that must be met before we talk about someone having any "rights" to anything. The basic outline of Harrison's effect is common. The specific routine in total is protected. Harrison's use of F#$% You is at best, minimally creative while using FU as a retort or punchline is decidedly UNORIGINAL. If Greenbaum used a creative insult, something original he came up with that was unique to him, that would be different. But he didn't, he chose the most common, unoriginal, mundane insult known to man and that isn't worthy of protection.

[quote]On Aug 1, 2019, gdw wrote:
As for Sadowitz, please, in all honesty, I would love to know what it actually was. Because so far I've only heard vague claims.
Sleaze's bit yelling FU over an over is an absurd comparison.

The effect has been very clearly outlined, no one would mistake it for a description of Sleaze's bit. [/quote] [/quote]


Really? The one I keep outlining? This descrition?

Prediction set aside.
Card "selected."
Prediction revealed to be FU gag.
Ha. Ha.
Looking closer, the prediction actually reveals the spectator's card.

That one? The one I made by litteraly making bullet points out of the effect description E used for FU Deck and FU 2?

You're right, no one would EVER mistake that for describing FU Deck or FU 2.

[quote]On Aug 1, 2019, Mark_Chandaue wrote:
As to Sadowitz I saw it in around 85. I was no longer moving in the same circles as Jerry in 87 so I can certainly date it to prior to 87. We are going back over 30 years so I couldnít give you an exact date but I can say it was between 82 and 86. Many people in the London scene from my generation will have seen Jerry perform it and a lot of similar material. Jerry has always been pretty full on. [/quote]

I'm asking for a description of the actual trick. I can find nothing other than people saying Sadowitz's said FU alot, and may have had a card that said FU on it.
Unless he then revealed the FU card to actually be, or have prints on it, the selected card, it's irrelevant and just another blatent red herring.

That said, IF Sadowitz's DID then show the FU card contained a reveal of the actual selection, or be the actual selection in disguise, and someone can back this up with more than an anecdote, then I will absolutely concede the point.

Until then, if all he did was use the phrase FU in a random card trick, it's just as irrelevant as Sleaze. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 1, 2019 08:46PM)
[quote]On Aug 1, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
What is totally relevant though is that the FU gag is minimally creative and unoriginal. It does not warrant protection, AT ALL. If you are arguing FU deserves protection, then it is incumbent on you to prove it meets minimum standards of originality. The FU gag is not creative, it is common, crude and basic. No one hand wrote it or made it the lone words on the card, no one stole Harrison's sticker reveal, no one stole Harrison's routine, get over it.
[/quote]

No one is claiming "FU" deserves protection. This is a strawman. Keep knocking it down all you want.

Vernon said a good effect can be dsicribed in one sentence, so here:
A "shocking" prediction gag card actually reveals the spectator's selection.

It could be anything. The words FU, a middle finger image, "You're a **** head" with a finger pointing at you, a some other vulgar image.

The point is the EFFECT is the same.
Message: Posted by: SydBeckman (Aug 1, 2019 10:26PM)
[quote]On Jul 31, 2019, AlexTheAlrightandOK wrote:
You can't own patter, especially two words of it, whether it's written or spoken. Feeling like you can or do is just that... a mere misconceived ego propping feeling begging to be easily threatened by evidence of the contrary. [/quote]

That is incorrect. You absolutely can protect patter via Copyright. No, not just the two word, but you can protect patter.
Message: Posted by: Mark_Chandaue (Aug 2, 2019 12:11AM)
Ah I mistakenly thought you said when not what was the Sadowitz routine. The routine to the best of my recollection was a prediction was placed down. A card was selected, the prediction was turned over and it was the selected card with the words **** U written on it. As far as I can see greenbaums is Jerryís effect with Asiís method applied fo it. Neither the effect or method is original to Harrison however he can lay claim to the unique presentation with the book double envelope and sticker. FU 1 also used Asiís method but thatís where the similarity ends other than that it is closer to Jerryís.

Mark
Message: Posted by: Mark_Chandaue (Aug 2, 2019 01:10AM)
Gdw the only person moving goal posts and using logical fallacies and straw men here is you and you have essentially hoisted yourself on your own petard. The reality is that the only thing the FU deck shares with Harrisonís effect is the phrase FU and Asi Windís method used by Harrison as far as I can tell without permission. He certainly didnít allow Asi to use it as he claimed. However to make your argument you reduce the effect down to the barest bullet points. Card placed down, card chosen, prediction revealed with the words FU.

In doing so you have reduced the effect down to a pretty exact description of Jerry Sadowitzí effect that can be dated to before Harrison was even born thereby destroying your own argument in the process. In fact you have reduced it down to a description of most of Jerryís effects. The fact that you never saw Jerry perform does not make it any less Jerryís. There are more than enough of us who have seen Jerry perform the effect and many other effects that meet your vernonesque description.

By your own definition the effect belongs 100% to Jerry Sadowitz so if you want to continue this debate you need to apply the same brush to Harrison. When you also add the use and even claim to Asi Winds method and add to this the theft of another comics material, Lloyd isnít the one you should be gunning for, his use follows the precedent set by at least 3 other people before him who copied Jerryís effect. Only one that we know of has attempted to claim ownership of Jerryís effect and Asiís method in top.

You can continue to refute the irrefutable if you want but how about instead you now accept that the horse has been flogged enough.

Mark
Message: Posted by: Doctor D (Aug 2, 2019 02:43AM)
So, Mark, I would suggest Ellusionist still take it off the market. Not because they are selling Harrison's effect without permission, but Jerry's.
The point still stands: FU2 is not their effect to sell.
Message: Posted by: Christopher Williams (Aug 2, 2019 04:51AM)
[quote]On Aug 2, 2019, gdw wrote:
[quote]On Aug 1, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
What is totally relevant though is that the FU gag is minimally creative and unoriginal. It does not warrant protection, AT ALL. If you are arguing FU deserves protection, then it is incumbent on you to prove it meets minimum standards of originality. The FU gag is not creative, it is common, crude and basic. No one hand wrote it or made it the lone words on the card, no one stole Harrison's sticker reveal, no one stole Harrison's routine, get over it.
[/quote]

No one is claiming "FU" deserves protection. This is a strawman. Keep knocking it down all you want.

Vernon said a good effect can be dsicribed in one sentence, so here:
A "shocking" prediction gag card actually reveals the spectator's selection.

It could be anything. The words FU, a middle finger image, "You're a **** head" with a finger pointing at you, a some other vulgar image.

The point is the EFFECT is the same. [/quote]

Glenn I have a tonne of respect for you and your work, however your argument here is the EFFECT is the same.... surely your 'Seamless' (which I love btw) is the same EFFECT as almost every other torn and restored card out there? Ok so you do't need to fold yours, but the effect of a selected card is torn into 4 pieces and then restored back to 1 is still the same EFFECT. And that is the point those arguing against this is. The argument against this, is it is the same effect as Harrison's regardless of how it gets there, what is said, the exact reveal etc, the EFFECT is Harrison's (Allegedly). The argument for it is that 90% of effects put out on the market are adaptions on a premise/effect already out there just done differently.

If we ask a spectator what is the EFFECT here:

He asked me to pick a card/think of a card, it said FU on it but then it turned into my card/had it written on it
He asked me to pick a card, he ripped it up and put it back together
He made coins move invisibly from one hand to the other

How many tricks can you think of that fall under the above categories alone?!
Message: Posted by: travisb (Aug 2, 2019 06:14AM)
[quote]On Aug 2, 2019, Mark_Chandaue wrote:
The routine to the best of my recollection was a prediction was placed down. A card was selected, the prediction was turned over and it was the selected card with the words **** U written on it.[/quote]
That's a very similar sounding routine up to a point, but the joke is a different joke and there's no plot twist. I can definitely see a case for checking with Sadowitz to see what he thinks, it's close enough to be worth talking, there might be something to talk about.

But it's not the same.

As described, the Sadowitz joke is, "here's your card: **** you" (very similar to the Sleaze joke!). In the Greenbaum routine the joke is more, "you really think I could do that?!" and the revelation after is a plot twist. Like, you could achieve a very similar joke to Greenbaum's routine using a card that said "YOUR CARD" or a card that said "NO" or what have you. You couldn't make that substitution with Sadowitz's routine because the structure of the joke is not the same.

On the other hand the Ellusionist trick [i]is[/i] the same joke and plot twist as Greenbaum's.

Consider: the Sadowitz joke is different enough that you could use it [i]within Harrison's routine[/i]. You could peel the sticker off and the card could be the correct card and also have the words "**** you" written on it, essentially functioning as a tag.

But could you do Harrison's trick and then follow it up with FU2 in the same set? I mean...

You could argue its creation was an easy leap to make once the Sadowitz bones are in place, but if the description of his routine is accurate then Sadowitz himself doesn't appear to have made that leap, and nobody else appears to have made it before Greenbaum.

So it's Greenbaum's. And like anyone in his place he deserves the respect of being talked to in good faith before trying to perform or sell any version of his routine, even in a case of independent invention.

As Ellusionist themselves wrote in their explanation of why they were withdrawing FU 1:

"We push the envelope, re-position the line the industry won't dare to cross and pride ourselves on keeping our integrity with every move we make.

Money isn't important in a community as small as magic is. We all have to look out for each other."

I personally don't have any hard feelings or strong moral judgements about the people at Ellusionist's behaviour, and if they work things out with Greenbaum then that's good enough for me. I just hope they will live up to the standards they (very eloquently!) espoused in their initial statement.

Travis
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 2, 2019 07:39AM)
TravisB did an excellent job explaining why the Sadowitz's trick is NOT what I described.

Sadowitz's effect in one sentence:

A prediction card is revealed to be correct, and has the words FU written on it.

Harrison's in one sentence:
FU prediction is a GAG, that THEN reveals the selection.

To say these are the same is the equivalent of saying ANY film where a killer is identified in the end is the same ending as the TWIST from The Usual Suspects.

As for moving goalposts, I've maintained precisely the exact position, AND the same criteria for counterong, from the start.
That's litteraly the opposite of moving goalposts.

As for Seamless, the unique aspect of the effect is a that it is a "piece by piece T&R with no folds."

It was the first PUBLISHED version of the a piece by piece T&R to do this.

You are conflating the general plot with the specifics of the effect.

The specifics are litteraly what makes ANY effect unique.

In this case, the specific is the TWIST REVEAL that FU gag ALSO reveals the selection.
That's the litteraly the "magic" part of the effect.

Conflating Sadowitz's with Harrison's is like equating Seamless with Torn Asunder because my card is never folded, and Copperfield irons out the folds in his, so they both end with a card with no folds.
Yet the specifics are what make them completely different takes on the same plot.
Message: Posted by: Arthur T (Aug 2, 2019 09:19AM)
The effect is definitely different. One involves the reveal of a normal card with a sticker. Laymen know what stickers are and by nature they aren't that magical. What laymen aren't use to seeing is a permanently altered joker with the words FU on it. The item itself is another magical moment. Any one who's left a gaffed card with a spectator knows the effect and affect that can have on them, its also a cool souvenir if you want to give it out - something more than an ordinary card.

One performance involves a freely thought of card, the other a "Freely" selected card. The selection is important. Otherwise the invisible deck is the same as having some one pick a card and then secretly reversing it in the pack. Same outcome, much different effect and affect.

Harrisons effect is a more fooling effect in my eyes but it uses Asi's index. E's version wins on practicality and the end souvenir is a bit more impossible in the eyes of a spectator. To us it may seem like a similar effect but in the eyes of a normal spectator I imagine they would see things differently.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 2, 2019 10:35AM)
Arthur, your Invisible Deck comparison works IF someone created the invisible deck and was performing it for a decade, but had not published it yet, then someone came around and released a deck with the same method and presentation, then took it off the market after admitting the effect was the same.

Keep in mind a R&S deck existed before the invisible deck.

THEN same person, after admitting the effect was yours, released a version with the SAME plot and effect, and even called it ID 2, only forcing a card that you already have reversed in a deck.

And again, all BEFORE the hypothetical magician who ORIGINATED the ID application and routine, had published it.

Then, someone releasing a reversed forced card, EXPLICITLY branding it as Invisible Deck version 2 of someone else's UNPUBLISHED effect, would be comparable.

Publishing something that is from someone else's UNPUBLISHED working repertoire is unethical. Publishing a VARIATION of someone else's UNPUBLISHED working material is unethical.

Doing so while passing it off explicitly as version 2 just shows you know exactly what you are doing.
Message: Posted by: SydBeckman (Aug 2, 2019 10:40AM)
[quote]On Jul 31, 2019, jetpilot wrote:
[quote]On Jul 31, 2019, Christopher Williams wrote:
A magician can patent a physical gimmick used in accomplishing a trick. You can trademark the name of a trick you are selling. But you can't "own" pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Or, a common phrase that preceded this conversation by a century. [/quote]

Actually you can potentially Copyright the performance of pulling a rabbit out of a hat.
Message: Posted by: Arthur T (Aug 2, 2019 11:04AM)
I can agree with you on that, my argument there was a little silly - you make a valid point.

But the fact you can leave the spectator with a permanently altered object does make this effect some what unique if you get into specifics. Its not fair to ask people to summaries the effect vernon style into one sentence and then explain that one of your own effects is different because of the specifics. To quote yourself "The specifics are what makes ANY effect unique". I may have missed something or I may just be too thick to understand your point but that is a contradiction.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 2, 2019 12:27PM)
This thread has become one of the most asinine debates I've read through in a LONG time. This effect really comes down to a "Ha, wrong card, GOT YOU! But oh look, I still got your card!" This is done SO VERY OFTEN in magic where you pretend you fumbled only to reveal in the end that you didn't. The fine print is really just dressing for the essential effect at play here. The effect at the end of the day is you knew what they picked. Period. Is there a novel method here? No, you're getting a *** card with what is basically the equivalent of a prediction printed on it. You more or less do what you want with it. Why are people arguing over who came up with it first? The similarities are trivial similarities. This thread is basically real dumb.
Message: Posted by: Arthur T (Aug 2, 2019 12:40PM)
I feel dumb for taking part!

Your right - this is really dumb. We should all be doing something more productive with our time.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 2, 2019 01:23PM)
That's the over simplification. It's not just about a card trick.
The ethical issue at the root is publishing someone else's unpublished working material, or explicit derivatives thereof. The Magic community has ALWAYS been concerned with this.


Arthur, the apparent contradiction comes from what each statement is referring to.
The specifics of the effect itself are important: prediction, shocking gag, magical reveal, etc.

The superficial details, like whether the prediction card begins in an envelope in their hand, or face down in their hands, the effect remains the same. Hence why those

This is the old "but I do it with a red backed card," or "I put my pinky here, not there." Or "I use x misdirection as opposed to y."
These are the superficial details that are ultimately irrelevant to the specifics of the effect itself.
Change them and the effect remains the same.

Similarly, the specifics of what the shocking gag is (fu, porno image, middle finger, etc) are less important than the ROLE the gag plays in the magical revelation of the SELECTION. Same as red back instead of blue back does not "change" an effect into something new and different.
Message: Posted by: Mark_Chandaue (Aug 2, 2019 02:27PM)
You are splitting hairs for the sake of it and the reality is that the moment Harrison lifted Asiís method the high ground was lost, even more so when he claimed ownership of it. This ultimately boils down to independent creation. Harrison was performing a similar effect albeit not a totally original effect. Any way you slice it the effects are similar not the same however different method and different presentation. Hairs are being split to make a silly point to the point where the name of this effect is almost the perfect response.

Independent creation happens all the time and if itís not published then itís fair game. Who knows how many other people are currently performing similar routines. Now recently Arthur T released an effect he independently created. However Manos shared the almost identical effect with me around 5 years ago. Why did Manos not release it 5 years ago? Because he discovered Colin Cloud had come up with it but not released it even before Manos. Go look at that thread to see how independent creation can be dealt with. Likewise a couple of weeks ago someone approached me because they had been pointed in my direction because they were about to release an effect I have been lecturing for some time and that I shared with others including Paul Brook years ago.

Now this is a chapter I have already written for Harpacrown 2 but I gave the guy my blessing to release it because I am confident it was created independently. Sure I am disappointed that something Iíve been using for years and is already written up for my own book will now be released first by someone else who came up with the same idea recently. But hey those are the breaks if you donít release something there is always the chance someone else will have the same idea and release it I first.

The reason I gave my blessing is because magic tricks are not worth fighting over!

Mark
Message: Posted by: Winnes (Aug 2, 2019 02:34PM)
Hmm.. some good points there Mark but until you EMPHASIZE them with CAPITALS, I'm not sure I'll UNDERSTAND them.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 2, 2019 03:15PM)
[quote]On Aug 2, 2019, Winnes wrote:
Hmm.. some good points there Mark but until you EMPHASIZE them with CAPITALS, I'm not sure I'll UNDERSTAND them. [/quote]

😂
Thank you, I needed that. Spent too much time discussing this on Facebook, where the only way to imply any kind of inflection is capitalization.

As for Mark, in the end, as you said, you gave your blessing. That was your choice.
Harrison made a different choice, and it was respected. Until it wasn't. Also, where has Harrison been accused of appropriating Asi's method?
I've seen it implied, but the only thing I've seen stated is that Ellusionist inferred that Harrison suggested he gave Asi his blessing to publish the index method.
Asi apparently said this did not happen.
Does this mean they just never spoke about it?
Does this mean they both came to the method independently, and as such Harrison was saying he was fine with Asi publishing a different effect with it, Gypsy Queen, and E just assumed that he meant he "gave" him the method?
Does this mean Asi told E that Harrison stole the idea from him?

I don't recall Lloyd going into detail on this beyond 'Asi said Harrison never gave, nor had to give, permission to publish an index deck method.' I could be wrong, I just don't remember any more details spelled out.

Asi hasn't said anything on the matter, and until he does everything else seems to be people inferring what they want.
Or if Lloyd wanted to be more specific about this, rather than implying just enough to serve his narrative.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 2, 2019 03:25PM)
[quote]On Aug 2, 2019, gdw wrote:
[quote]On Aug 2, 2019, Winnes wrote:
Hmm.. some good points there Mark but until you EMPHASIZE them with CAPITALS, I'm not sure I'll UNDERSTAND them. [/quote]

😂
Thank you, I needed that. Spent too much time discussing this on Facebook, where the only way to imply any kind of inflection is capitalization.

As for Mark, in the end, as you said, you gave your blessing. That was your choice.
Harrison made a different choice, and it was respected. Until it wasn't. Also, where has Harrison been accused of appropriating Asi's method?
I've seen it implied, but the only thing I've seen stated is that Ellusionist inferred that Harrison suggested he gave Asi his blessing to publish the index method.
Asi apparently said this did not happen.
Does this mean they just never spoke about it?
Does this mean they both came to the method independently, and as such Harrison was saying he was fine with Asi publishing a different effect with it, Gypsy Queen, and E just assumed that he meant he "gave" him the method?
Does this mean Asi told E that Harrison stole the idea from him?

I don't recall Lloyd going into detail on this beyond 'Asi said Harrison never gave, nor had to give, permission to publish an index deck method.' I could be wrong, I just don't remember any more details spelled out.

Asi hasn't said anything on the matter, and until he does everything else seems to be people inferring what they want.
Or if Lloyd wanted to be more specific about this, rather than implying just enough to serve his narrative. [/quote]

I have no reason to doubt Ellusionist in this instance. I also don't understand how you assume that Asi didn't say anything on the matter just because Asi hasn't come on here or what not to state this. He's a very busy individual. Lloyd in his long AF video on the subject stated that Asi contacted him directly so... I don't understand how you took that and jumped to "Asi hasn't said anything on the matter."

Anybody that should be upset about FU2 should be Jay Sankey IMHO. Does nobody remember Fine Print?!?
Message: Posted by: Arthur T (Aug 2, 2019 03:44PM)
I've always thought the effect was similar to fine print more than anything else, penguin have re launched the effect quite recently as well. E do credit Sankey on their site and date his effect as 2009, a year before Harrisons. Although I'm fairly certain there is another effect that goes back even further than that.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 2, 2019 03:47PM)
[quote]On Aug 2, 2019, Arthur T wrote:
I've always thought the effect was similar to fine print more than anything else, penguin have re launched the effect quite recently as well. E do credit Sankey on their site and date his effect as 2009, a year before Harrisons. Although I'm fairly certain there is another effect that goes back even further than that. [/quote]

Fine Print is only 10 years old?!? I felt like it was older than that, like from the time where he was selling things like that nickel to key trick :P I love that nickel to key trick, I should really buy another one. Not sure if they make them anymore, I basically lost the nickel part. LoL.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 2, 2019 04:03PM)
[quote]On Aug 2, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
...

I have no reason to doubt Ellusionist in this instance. I also don't understand how you assume that Asi didn't say anything on the matter just because Asi hasn't come on here or what not to state this. He's a very busy individual. Lloyd in his long AF video on the subject stated that Asi contacted him directly so... I don't understand how you took that and jumped to "Asi hasn't said anything on the matter."

Anybody that should be upset about FU2 should be Jay Sankey IMHO. Does nobody remember Fine Print?!? [/quote]

I'm sorry, I thought it from the context that I meant Asi hasn't said anything [b]publicly[/b] on the matter.

My point was that we don't know what he said to Lloyd beyond Lloyd saying it contradicted what Lloyd says Harrison said to him, as Asi hasn't commented publicly on the matter.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 2, 2019 04:22PM)
[quote]On Aug 2, 2019, gdw wrote:
[quote]On Aug 2, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
...

I have no reason to doubt Ellusionist in this instance. I also don't understand how you assume that Asi didn't say anything on the matter just because Asi hasn't come on here or what not to state this. He's a very busy individual. Lloyd in his long AF video on the subject stated that Asi contacted him directly so... I don't understand how you took that and jumped to "Asi hasn't said anything on the matter."

Anybody that should be upset about FU2 should be Jay Sankey IMHO. Does nobody remember Fine Print?!? [/quote]

I'm sorry, I thought it from the context that I meant Asi hasn't said anything [b]publicly[/b] on the matter.

My point was that we don't know what he said to Lloyd beyond Lloyd saying it contradicted what Lloyd says Harrison said to him, as Asi hasn't commented publicly on the matter. [/quote]

Why does it matter if Asi makes a public statement on this matter or not? He doesnít owe that to anybody. Unless Lloyd lied about Asi reaching out to him, why does it matter? Fact of the matter is that the FU deck was pulled because of the methodology involved. Now with FU2 the goal post is all of a sudden changed to itís not the methodology that got FU pulled but the presentation? Why wasnít this voiced in the beginning, last year? I recall Eís statement on why they pulled it in the first place was due to methodology. If presentation was ďstolenĒ then why was this not voiced like a year ago? Any reasonable person would view that as changing the goal post.

However, Iím digressing, Iím still bewildered by your insinuation on how none of what Ellusionist states is true unless Asi makes a public statement? Thatís ridiculous. If I was Asi, I would personally not bother because all this is quite silly.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 2, 2019 04:32PM)
You really like to put words in my mouth, don't you.

I've been pretty clear about beleiving the FU Deck was a case of independent creation.

Debate over who came up with the index deck first in no way change who came up with the specific effect, nor does it negate the admission that it IS Harrison's effect. Which they admitted in the same statement as saying it was Asi's method.

So trying to claim learning the index is Asi's changes anything is an outright lie, by their own words.

They said it was Harrison's effect in the same breath as saying it was Asi's method.
Now they're trying to change the narrative, and that's a problem.
Message: Posted by: Mark_Chandaue (Aug 2, 2019 05:27PM)
I disagree that it IS Harrisonís effect. I think it is SIMILAR to Harrisonís effect which is similar to Jerryís effect and also similar to the effect where **** you is revealed on the card case before the card is revealed. The effect is essentially a card prediction one of hundreds and thousands, the phrase FU is not the effect it merely forms part of the presentation. If you want to be pedantic the effect is that a thought of card is predicted. Any bits of business along the way are part of the presentation not the effect. If you want to claim that the prediction not appearing to be the prediction before turning out to be the prediction after all this has been done a million times whether by removing a sticker, pointing to hidden text or simply turning it upside down (or over in the case of the transparent card that shows a different card when held up to the light. You can claim itís the same effect a million times and you can claim the effect is Harrisonís sole property a million times but you will still be wrong a million times.

Instead of wasting time trying to prove that a card being predicted is a unique effect and that IS the effect, the card is predicted. Whether I pretend to get it wrong by saying FU billow, drat rats or poo before revealing the prediction is correct is neither here not there the actual effect is a selected card is predicted the FU part isnít the effect it is presentation just as Benjy Bruceís slam poetry during his magic square doesnít make it a different effect it is still a magic square. The part in this prediction effect unique to Harrison is the 2 envelopes, combined with the book and sticker and FU together. His presentation is his, the effect is that a card is predicted. The route to the final reveal is presentation not effect.

Your time would be better spent complaining about the miriad of torn and restored card effects that do not even credit the originator of the plot or the multitude of effects that have taken Deddy Corbuziers Free will plot or method without his permission and again in some cases not even a credit. There are far worse things to get uptight over than two prediction effects sharing totally different presentations to each other, totally different methods but a common gag. Particularly when the person who claims ownership of the gag has demonstrated that they are happy to lift gags.

Vernonís description of both of these effects would be a card is predicted no more no less. Between those two points there is only method and presentation.

Mark
Message: Posted by: TStone (Aug 2, 2019 05:52PM)
[quote]On Aug 2, 2019, travisb wrote:
I can definitely see a case for checking with Sadowitz to see what he thinks, it's close enough to be worth talking, there might be something to talk about.
[/quote]
Sadowitz is well known for defending his work, so if there is any duplication, there would likely be no problem to get a quote on that. If it is the same, it still leaves Ellusionist in the same place - not having cleared the permissions with the originator.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Aug 2, 2019 05:58PM)
[quote]On Aug 2, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
I have no reason to doubt Ellusionist in this instance.[/quote]
They've only said Asi Wind was "first to market", like that is something relevant. It was marketed in 2016. Harrison have performed his piece since around 2009.
If there is a date where Asi preceed Harrison, it has not been revealed by anyone.
Message: Posted by: Mr Matthews (Aug 2, 2019 06:10PM)
Asi Wind has just posted a statement on this...

"I got many comments on the FU trick, and I wanted to set the record straight. I saw Harrison Greenbaum perform the FU plot for many years, the plot is rightly his. I think Ellusionist should come to a resolution with him because I believe itís the right thing to do."
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 2, 2019 06:36PM)
[quote]On Aug 2, 2019, Mr Matthews wrote:
Asi Wind has just posted a statement on this...

"I got many comments on the FU trick, and I wanted to set the record straight. I saw Harrison Greenbaum perform the FU plot for many years, the plot is rightly his. I think Ellusionist should come to a resolution with him because I believe itís the right thing to do." [/quote]

Seriously? Where did he post this?
Message: Posted by: kipling100 (Aug 2, 2019 06:45PM)
I think on Twitter.
Message: Posted by: Mr Matthews (Aug 2, 2019 06:46PM)
Yep on his Twitter.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 2, 2019 07:00PM)
Https://twitter.com/Asiwind/status/1157425614581710848?s=09

Yeah, I think there's only 2 words that are an appropriate response at this time.
;)
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 2, 2019 08:20PM)
[quote]On Aug 2, 2019, gdw wrote:
You really like to put words in my mouth, don't you.

I've been pretty clear about beleiving the FU Deck was a case of independent creation.

Debate over who came up with the index deck first in no way change who came up with the specific effect, nor does it negate the admission that it IS Harrison's effect. Which they admitted in the same statement as saying it was Asi's method.

So trying to claim learning the index is Asi's changes anything is an outright lie, by their own words.

They said it was Harrison's effect in the same breath as saying it was Asi's method.
Now they're trying to change the narrative, and that's a problem. [/quote]

I donít quite understand how I have put words in your mouth. I asked a simple question which you are now clearly avoiding having to address. You bring up how Asi never made a public statement, I posed a question to you, why does it matter if he makes a public statement? He doesnít owe anybody anything to need to do this. Unless Ellusionist is lying about Asi having contacted Lloyd directly (for which if Ellusionist is lying, then I can see why he would make a public statement, but thereís no need to if they did not lie).

So how am I putting words in your mouth? All Iíve done was break down what your implied point is here because well, it is what one would come away with from what you posted with reason. If that is not what you meant to say then further explain it, instead, you didnít try to explain it and basically claiming that Iím putting words in your mouth. You know what a reasonable conclusion that can be made from your response then? That youíre deflecting.

So let me ask again, why does it matter if Asi makes a public statement on this, what does he owe you or anybody else in regards to this matter? You really are changing the goal post here. Again, Ellusionist pulled the FU due to methodology. They stated this publicly almost a year ago now. Why was the issue not brought up about the reasoning Ellusionist stated for pulling the product being only partially true or the main concern is about the presentation? Dishonesty is dishonesty right? A wrong is a wrong correct? But it was never brought up. Now they release FU2 which if anything, itís a version of Sankeyís Fine Print. Itís far far far closer to Fine Print then it ever is to Harrisonís effect. Iím not even a Ellusionist apologist here, I sure as heck chewed out their Console release in the Console thread. Objectivity is important but it appears that at this point you on the attack seemingly for no other reason than bias or perhaps just wanting to win a argument since youíre obviously so deeply invested in it now.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 2, 2019 08:22PM)
[quote]On Aug 2, 2019, gdw wrote:
Https://twitter.com/Asiwind/status/1157425614581710848?s=09

Yeah, I think there's only 2 words that are an appropriate response at this time.
;) [/quote]

Just saw that, thanks for posting. Good on Asi to come out and speak on this.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 2, 2019 08:30PM)
And THAT is why it mattered.

And by words in my mouth, I meant I was never insinuating that all of what Ellusionist, or Lloyd, said was a lie.

In fact I've gone out of my way at times (not sure if here, or elsewhere) to make clear that I absolutely believe this was initially a case of independent creation, among other things they stated.
I only suggested that shifting the narrative was dishonest, and that we don't know exactly what Asi did say at the time.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 2, 2019 08:40PM)
[quote]On Aug 2, 2019, gdw wrote:
And THAT is why it mattered. [/quote]

Itís great that he did chime in. I give him props for that. I do question if FU2 really qualifies as using the same plot though. The plot imo here is really mystery card with a Sankey Fine Print prediction reveal. This is more of presentational thing rather than stealing of a effect or plot. I do agree some merit argument can be made on crediting for the presentational hook.

I still stand by how ridiculous and asinine this thread ultimate is though. LoL.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 2, 2019 08:53PM)
Really?
If the noise people made holds a company accountable for trying to manipulate the industry, and using someone else's name to hide behind only for them to come forward and speak out, then it's sounds like the opposite of ridiculous.

It sounds like a enough people standing up for artistic integrity to make a difference in the industry, and that is anything but asinine.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Aug 3, 2019 03:26AM)
[quote]On Aug 2, 2019, gdw wrote:
It sounds like a enough people standing up for artistic integrity to make a difference in the industry, and that is anything but asinine. [/quote]
Well said!
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 3, 2019 08:45AM)
[quote]On Aug 2, 2019, gdw wrote:
Really?
If the noise people made holds a company accountable for trying to manipulate the industry, and using someone else's name to hide behind only for them to come forward and speak out, then it's sounds like the opposite of ridiculous.

It sounds like a enough people standing up for artistic integrity to make a difference in the industry, and that is anything but asinine. [/quote]

But the problem is that based on this thread alone and looking at the post on the Jerx and the piggy guy on YouTube, the noise over this matter is roughly 50/50. Itís divided and I donít see it winning on one side or the other (and the merits of the art in this matter is so slight and the lines keeps getting blurred and goal post continuously changing as originally the complaint was really about methodology for the original FU and now itís over what I would argue is a small similarity in presentation). I mean, your argument for example is that the effect is the same. How this argument can be made is beyond me since the effects as a whole are blatantly different. Then the argument was how the FU part illicit a certain beat in performance but if that is the argument then I can argue that Magix illicits a better and similar beat and that has a better pay off.

Personally, I suspect that ego is at play by all parties involved and that is the true crux of the matter rather than stealing of a effect. I would wager that in the eyes of the audience, Harridonís effect is dramatically different to Gypsy Queen and FU2 and vice versa.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 3, 2019 10:36AM)
Well, seeing as how we have actual video performance of both Harrison's performance, and FU2 to compare, and show laymen, you're basing a LOT on assertions and assumptions that can, and HAVE been tested.

These aren't hypothetical questions. You can see both full effects, rather than just relying on Lloyd's misleading descriptions that focuses only on the superficial details.

If you don't see the similarity in an effect where a shocking gag prediction card reveals the actual selection, and an effect where a shocking gag prediction card reveals the actual selection, there's not much left to discuss.

FU 2 could have been included as the easy alternative handling with the FU Deck, as it's explicitly (it's litteraly called FU 2) derivative of the exact same effect.

Literally [b]everyone[/b] involved in the initial issue, [b]except[/b] Ellusionist, believes the underlying trick IS Harrison's.
That's pretty telling.
Message: Posted by: Mr Matthews (Aug 3, 2019 05:25PM)
Even Chris Ramsay held his hands up when he showed an R Paul Wilson sleight on his YouTube and got called out for it. Hence forth why hes never done videos of a similar nature since.

Ellusionist and Lloyd Barnes have basically taken another magicians idea, used it for financial gain, been called out on it, tried to defend it and still carried on as if they've done nothing wrong.

If I was Lloyd I'd be begging to have the effect taken down as the longer this goes on the longer it is ruining his career.

When your inspiration for the effect (Asi Wind) comes out against you, surely then you know it's game over.
Message: Posted by: mantel (Aug 3, 2019 08:24PM)
I just don't understand why Lloyd continually points out that Harrison's effect is unpublished. As if that somehow makes what he did okay.

Also as I pointed out earlier in the thread the original FU Deck video (Performance & Explanation) was available on Magic Stream to everyone, no account required. It has since been taken down, but my question is Why was it on Magic Stream in the first place?
Message: Posted by: DadMagic (Aug 4, 2019 07:46AM)
People can claim to own plots now? Shakespeare be livid!
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 4, 2019 10:20AM)
[quote]On Aug 4, 2019, DadMagic wrote:
People can claim to own plots now? Shakespeare be livid! [/quote]

This is a matter of some ambiguity due to the use of the word "plot." Traditionally in magic it refers to the general high level plot: card to wallet, ambitious card, mystery prediction, magician in trouble, etc.


Magicians can have specific takes on these general plots. These are usually called tricks or routines. The individual trick can also have its own "plot." That is to say the [b]specific[/b] arc of that trick, itself a take on a general "plot."


So these are 2 different uses of the word "plot" in magic. One general, the other specific.


Asi is using the latter to mean the specific FU reveal trick that Harrison developed; his (specific) take on the mystery prediction (general) plot. Specifically, Fu gag prediction with hidden reveal of actual selection.


In the same way, Asi's Gypsy Queen is [b]specific[/b] plot/take on the same [b]generic[/b] plot of the mystery prediction. Itself based on an old impromptu reveal of a "card" held by the Queen, in the same way Harrison's reveal is a twist on the "shocking" gag "prediction."


If someone started selling packets of Queens holding different cards, with a card force, and calling it GQ 2, you can bet people would be calling them out for ripping off Asi.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Aug 4, 2019 11:09AM)
[quote]On Aug 4, 2019, DadMagic wrote:
People can claim to own plots now? [/quote]
Only since 130+ years back. Too recent for you to have heard about?
[quote]Shakespeare be livid! [/quote]
Shakespeare died 403 years ago, in 1617.
The Berne Treaty wasnít established until 270 years later, in 1886.
Message: Posted by: The Duster (Aug 4, 2019 11:19AM)
[quote]On Aug 4, 2019, DadMagic wrote:
People can claim to own plots now? Shakespeare be livid! [/quote]

Err why?

All of Shakespeare's plays were based on other people's stories... so the plots would mean nothing to him [were he around]... surely you mean if the words/text he used in his plays could be 'claimed' or copyrighted? Which of course they are and can be... nowÖ but even if they had the same protection in the early 17th CenturyÖ then the works would have fallen into public domain in/around 1686.

So what was your point?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 4, 2019 12:47PM)
Tom, I hope you don't mind me copping this from your comment on Facebook?

[quote]TStone wrote:
Lord of the Cups.
A young Hebbo known as Fritte has been thrown on an amazing adventure, when he is appointed the job of destroying the One Cup, which was created by the Dark Lord Sauron. He is assigned with three warriors including Grondolf, Arigato, and Baromit. But it's not going to be an easy journey for the Fellowship of the Cup, on the ultimate quest to a lava filled valley to rid the Middle-ground of all evil.
----
Someone named Tolkien doesn't want the above story to be published.

This is what Iím confused by. These are things that it canít be about:

- the overall story (they definitely arenít the same)

- the use of wizards (a concept seen many times, way before all of this)

- the end (a valley and a mountain are very different, the very opposites actually)

So can someone please just clarify for me the essence of contention? Bear with me; Iím clearly not following this well enough! [/quote]
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 5, 2019 09:36AM)
[quote]On Aug 3, 2019, gdw wrote:
Well, seeing as how we have actual video performance of both Harrison's performance, and FU2 to compare, and show laymen, you're basing a LOT on assertions and assumptions that can, and HAVE been tested.

These aren't hypothetical questions. You can see both full effects, rather than just relying on Lloyd's misleading descriptions that focuses only on the superficial details.

If you don't see the similarity in an effect where a shocking gag prediction card reveals the actual selection, and an effect where a shocking gag prediction card reveals the actual selection, there's not much left to discuss.

FU 2 could have been included as the easy alternative handling with the FU Deck, as it's explicitly (it's litteraly called FU 2) derivative of the exact same effect.

Literally [b]everyone[/b] involved in the initial issue, [b]except[/b] Ellusionist, believes the underlying trick IS Harrison's.
That's pretty telling. [/quote]

I did watch Harrison's video on his routine. Apart from using the same phrase of FU, the two effects are night and day difference. You are being completely disingenuous if you are to argue that they are the same effect or even remotely the same routine. Completely different.

I'm speaking on FU2 only btw, you're clearly trying to conflate FU deck with FU2. It is very unfair and disingenuous of you two assert as if the two are one and the same. They are not. Ellusionist pulled the FU deck, very ethical of them to do so. FU2 and Harrison's FU routine are night and day different from each other. You're claiming they are too similar because they both use the phrase FU.

Here, definition of plot:

the main events of a play, novel, movie, or similar work, devised and presented by the writer as an interrelated sequence.

The plot of FU2 is a mystery card with Fine Print revelation. The plot of Harrison's effect is card in envelope with a false mistake that ends up to be the correct prediction in the end. The plots themselves are even different. One is a mystery card the other is a card in sealed envelope.

What they share is that they both say FU to the audience but that's really not the pay off here. Saying FU to the audience I also don't find to be all that novel or new. Like I said earlier, this all sounds like a battle of egos more than anything. Even thought Ellusionist are in the wrong to NOT give Harrison a mention in credits, I also find it fair to criticize Harrison for not starting his dialogue with Ellusionist in good faith in the first place and was coming at it from the offensive from the get go. Going into a discussion on the offensive typically spurs an appropriately defensive response. I would also argue that Asi's response to me feels more like an adult telling two arguing children to stop arguing like children and hash it out like respectable adults.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 5, 2019 11:06AM)
What they share is a specific use of a shock gag prediction, FU, followed by a hidden reveal of the selection.
That is the same effect for both FU Deck, and FU2, AND for Harrison's... you know, like Asi said. Harrison's trick.

In this case, switching how the reveal is hidden is like switching out one colour change for another in a colour changing deck routine and calling it a whole new routine. Takes a bit more than that. Just like it takes more than switching from a free selection to a force. These are all still just variations of the original. You publish variations with credit AND permission.

Also, yeah, they also copped Sankey's fine print reveal, and in taking the step backwards to a force made it even more like Sankey's trick.
In the end, yeah, they've ended up ripping off 2 artists in one.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 5, 2019 11:09AM)
As I said, even Asi says it's still Harrison's trick.
If you're still trying to argue they're "night and day," you are splitting hairs, and the one being disengenuous.

And with that said, I'm done with the discussion here on the Cafť for now. The only people left commenting in defence of E here seem to be just trying to justify themselves for having fallen for the ow undeniable dishonesty and logical fallacies of E and Lloyd's video.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 5, 2019 11:14AM)
[quote]On Aug 5, 2019, gdw wrote:
What they share is a specific use of a shock gag prediction, FU, followed by a hidden reveal of the selection.
That is the same effect for both FU Deck, and FU2, AND for Harrison's... you know, like Asi said. Harrison's trick.

In this case, switching how the reveal is hidden is like switching out one colour change for another in a colour changing deck routine and calling it a whole new routine. Takes a bit more than that. Just like it takes more than switching from a free selection to a force. These are all still just variations of the original. You publish variations with credit AND permission.

Also, yeah, they also copped Sankey's fine print reveal, and in taking the step backwards to a force made it even more like Sankey's trick.
In the end, yeah, they've ended up ripping off 2 artists in one. [/quote]

Actually, you're reducing it down way way way further down to reach a level of generic-ness in order to support your argument. That's the problem with your argument. Like I've mentioned, this really appears to be ballooned egos battling it out. The plot themselves are:

FU2 is a MYSTERY CARD PLOT with Fine Print reveal which is actually practically verbatim what Sankey's Fine Print is.

Harrison's FU is a card in sealed envelope plot. Period.

The plots themselves are different and the fact of the matter is that you had to further reduce the effects down to "it's a prediction card" in order for it to fit your narrative. I've pointed it out, I think it's unfair that Ellusionist just chopped out crediting Harrison at all but seeing how things went, it would appear that Harrison is at fault for coming to the table on the attack first and foremost which naturally resulted in Ellusionist being on the defense and now two huge egos are hashing it out.

I would say that using the FU "gag" comes down to using a presentational hook but a presentational hook in and of itself is NOT a effect nor is it a plot. But as I've said, I concede and agree that Harrison should have received some credit for the hook BUT he also didn't help his own situation but coming to the table attacking right out of the gate and making the claim that and entire effect/routine was stolen by Ellusionist (not the case, not anywhere the case, in court this would get tossed out as Harrison realistically would find it to be VERY hard to win this copyright case since there is enough by a substantial margin to differentiate FU2 from his FU routine).
Message: Posted by: travisb (Aug 5, 2019 04:14PM)
In this thread we're being asked to believe that if Harrison came out and did his routine then I came out and did FU2 that the audience would see them as different because "mainly what's memorable" about Harrison's routine is that the card was in an envelope in a book.

Travis
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 5, 2019 04:24PM)
[quote]On Aug 5, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
Harrison's FU is a card in sealed envelope plot. Period. [/quote]

Did, it WOULD be a card in envelope IF it was actually the spectator's card in the envelope.

That was the most ignorant description of an effect I've ever heard, and right after accusing ME of " reducing it down way way way further down to reach a level of generic-ness in order to support your argument."

Holy **** balls is that ever laughable. I literally just spit my sangria out when I read that.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 5, 2019 04:25PM)
[quote]On Aug 5, 2019, travisb wrote:
In this thread we're being asked to believe that if Harrison came out and did his routine then I came out and did FU2 that the audience would see them as different because "mainly what's memorable" about Harrison's routine is that the card was in an envelope in a book.

Travis [/quote]

Either that or the plot is: this magician belittled and continuously cursed out this other audience member. If thatís the plot, then holy cow, that is a horrendous plot and really not a effect. Itís more like abuse if anything. Your choice. I think Harrison is an excellent performer and incredibly funny, so Iím pretty sure thatís not the plot here.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 5, 2019 04:26PM)
[quote]On Aug 5, 2019, gdw wrote:
[quote]On Aug 5, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
Harrison's FU is a card in sealed envelope plot. Period. [/quote]

Did, it WOULD be a card in envelope IF it was actually the spectator's card in the envelope.

That was the most ignorant description of an effect I've ever heard, and right after accusing ME of " reducing it down way way way further down to reach a level of generic-ness in order to support your argument."

Holy **** balls is that ever laughable. I literally just spit my sangria out when I read that. [/quote]

I was following your lead of reducing routines down to the barest minimum to fit a narrative. You know, just like how you claimed the joke Harrison stole is a standard joke that is public domain... even though the jokes were almost word for word the same. Same beats, same structure, script-wise almost a facsimile of the other.

That to you was perfectly ok but FU2 is a wholesale stolen effect? Lmfao.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 5, 2019 04:34PM)
The entire problem with your argument is that Harrison could take both envelopes out of his routine and it would still be the EXACT same trick/plot/effect. You have no argument.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 5, 2019 04:39PM)
[quote]On Aug 5, 2019, gdw wrote:
The entire problem with your argument is that Harrison could take both envelopes out of his routine and it would still be the EXACT same trick/plot/effect. You have no argument. [/quote]

Youíre making this assumption based on Harrison doing just that? Stripping away the book and envelopes? You realize that he uses a modified version of the Bible joke
that he clearly stole by using the Harry Potter book correct? He has an entire well thought out routine where the pieces all work together for a cohesive whole and youíre arguing that the routine would be the same if he just tossed out the books? You know, the books which are a integral part for that joke or else that joke wouldnít make sense. Lmfao.

Like the books are there for a purpose and itís to provide context for the Bible joke yet that somehow miraculously alluded you? Yet you are an authority on this routine even though you clearly missed the point that the books are actually very important for the routine?

For the method he needs the envelopes for cover for the method. He smartly integrates the Bible joke here by using the Potter book to hold the envelope. The envelopes are also used to give the strong illusion for the impossibility of it all. These are all elements that he clearly thought out thoroughly and are integral
To the routine as a whole.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Aug 5, 2019 04:52PM)
[quote]On Aug 5, 2019, makulit974 wrote:
I find your tone, arguments and overall interventions here belittling to anyone disagreeing with you. [/quote]
Good observation, but it requires more than simply disagreeing. You also need to be a theft apologist and a supporter of crooks.

Although, in this particular case, I wanted to know from which position of expertise this anonymous entity based his surprising plot analysis on, since it differed severely from what anyone Iíve ever discussed magic plots with.
Message: Posted by: travisb (Aug 5, 2019 05:13PM)
If somebody performed E's FU2 and then I came on next and performed E's FU2 but put the card in an envelope in a book, would the audience think they had seen two different tricks?

Travis
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 5, 2019 05:35PM)
[quote]On Aug 5, 2019, travisb wrote:
If somebody performed E's FU2 and then I came on next and performed E's FU2 but put the card in an envelope in a book, would the audience think they had seen two different tricks?

Travis [/quote]

Read my breakdown of Harrisonís routine on the previous page. If Harrison was to strip those elements out the effect and routine altogether is a completely different animal at that point.

Let me ask you, if itís as simple and straight forward as you propose, why does he also have the Bible on stage with him? Why does he use the Harry Potter book specifically? Itís for context and they are their in service of the Bible joke he stole (well, in he routine itís a very abridged version of the joke). You can tell that structured the routine very carefully and he has the Bible joke in there as well as itís a integral part of the routine. Based on your argument, he wouldnít use those specific books then and there would be no stolen bible joke. They are not just some superficial fluff, he put them in there very purposefully and I bet he workshopped the routine very hard. Itís integral for the routine as a whole. Based on your logic this wouldnít be the case, alas it is the case.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 5, 2019 05:42PM)
Man, the desperation to try and make it different, yet it was still similar enough the FIRST time. You know, when the effect was identical to FU2 but only the method different.

Again, the envelope has nothing to do with the EFFECT as is a PREDICTION.
Also, please stop calling any of these routines "Open Prediction."
It just solidifies your ignorance on the matter.

Open Prediction is where the identity of the prediction is explicitly known before hand. This is a mystery prediction. The mystery part comes from not knowing the identity of the prediction, either because it's face down, in a box, or in a ****ing envelope.

Its not an object to impossible location, in which case the envelope WOULD be relevant. In the case of a MYSTERY prediction, it serves precisely the same purpose as putting the card face down.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 5, 2019 05:44PM)
He has the Bible because he's a COMEDY magician, and he's working tricks into his COMEDY work.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 5, 2019 05:48PM)
[quote]On Aug 5, 2019, gdw wrote:
He has the Bible because he's a COMEDY magician, and he's working tricks into his COMEDY work. [/quote]

Again, based on just the trick alone, the magician found my card. Thatís the trick. That doesnít support your narrative though so now youíre trying to spin it every which way. I wish you had some integrity here in this thread but clearly you did not.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 5, 2019 06:00PM)
I will admit my misuse of the prediction being open though. LoL. I stand by it as a card in envelope. Now if you think about it, the card disappearing from a deck into a envelope, that logically if you think about it is a transposition or card to impossible location. Card to envelope in that context would be a specific impossible location or variant of said premise.

Yelling FU at a participant however, I think everyone would agree is at best a plot device or presentational element and not the plot. If you want to take ownership of such a chitty plot however, have at it hoss.

Side note: I am particularly amused by the fact that in this thread alone on these two effects, no less than 3 plots have been suggested as to what each of these effects are. Yet people are on here essentially claiming that thereís some standardized set of plots? We canít seem to come to an agreement on the plot for these two effects alone (which are alleged by some to be the same effect mind you) but thereís somehow a agreed upon standard set?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 5, 2019 07:53PM)
You also don't seem to know what card in envelope is.

There are basically 2 card and envelope plots in magic, that remotely relate to the discussion:

1. Object to impossible location
1 a. Torn & restored to impossible location/destroyed and found

2 Prediction (unknown, as opposed to open, ie a mystery) :wow:

https://www.conjuringarchive.com/list/search?keyword=Card+in+envelope
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 5, 2019 08:03PM)
Oh, and yes, there's a fairly well agreed upon standard, and Denis Behr has done a wonderful job categorizing and sorting the majority of known published tricks and variations of plots for us:
https://www.conjuringarchive.com

Just like there are standard genres, themes, conflicts, and even general plots, in fiction, we have the same in magic. It's how those get applied to a specific story, or in magic a specific trick, that is considered the creation of the individual.

Similarly, just as it's not the use of a plot device, but rather HOW it is used, that is unique, it is not that they both use the FU prediction gag, it's that both use it in the exact same [b]way[/b], to set up the actual (hidden) reveal of the selection, that make them the same trick.
Or in the case of FU2, a variation of the same trick.
Message: Posted by: kipling100 (Aug 6, 2019 12:47AM)
The critical point in both routines is the F.U. reveal. I think Lloyd even admitted that the F.U. reveal is what kept him coming back to the routine because of the impact it had. Putting the card in an envelope or book is not the part that is in disputeóit is and always has been the specific use of the F.U. expression in the reveal. This is the plot point that Asi has said is Harrisonís and there hasnít been any evidence yet that someone else has used this specific F.U. reveal prior to Harrison (Iím intrigued by the Sadowitz claim but have yet to see any sufficient description of the effect or corroboration). Arguing what is a plot or trick or effect is just a semantic debate. The issue as I see it is the use of the specific F.U. reveal and thatís it.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Aug 6, 2019 02:41AM)
[quote]On Aug 5, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
I consume and observe a lot which to be honest makes me in a better position to judge if the plots and takeaway effect here is the same... [/quote]
Intriguing!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DunningĖKruger_effect
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 6, 2019 04:12AM)
[quote]On Aug 5, 2019, gdw wrote:
Oh, and yes, there's a fairly well agreed upon standard, and Denis Behr has done a wonderful job categorizing and sorting the majority of known published tricks and variations of plots for us:
https://www.conjuringarchive.com

Just like there are standard genres, themes, conflicts, and even general plots, in fiction, we have the same in magic. It's how those get applied to a specific story, or in magic a specific trick, that is considered the creation of the individual.

Similarly, just as it's not the use of a plot device, but rather HOW it is used, that is unique, it is not that they both use the FU prediction gag, it's that both use it in the exact same [b]way[/b], to set up the actual (hidden) reveal of the selection, that make them the same trick.
Or in the case of FU2, a variation of the same trick. [/quote]

Yet you yourself have assigned a few different plots to both these FU effects. If thereís a standard in anything then how is it that a plot canít be assigned to the FU effects? Why is it that the plot apparently keeps changing for these two effects seemingly in order to fit a specific narrative one is pushing?

Again, what is the definition of a plot? In every creative work it is defined as a sequence of events. A sequence of events. Not a singular event in the sequence. Youíre on one hand stating that the plot here is the FU gag but that doesnít fit into any of the ďmagic plotsĒ nor does it fit into a narrative plot other than used as a plot device. You then argue that Harrison is a comedy magician so uses the magic to accentuate the comedy but in reality he does standup and when he does that thereís no magic involved. In the FU performance the comedy is clearly there in service of the magic. I mean, your argument does not seem to be consistent in this thread and it appears to change every which way at any given moment in order to again, fit your narrative.

Look, Iíve said it earlier in this thread, I think Harrison deserves credit for the bit. I honestly do, that is not what I find to be in contention here. The problem is with the allegations being made to be: theft of a plot (the FU gag is not and if you argue this to be a stolen ďmagic plotĒ then that canít be the case if nobody can really agree on what the plot is and this is even after you discount whatever I said in regards to the plot and theft of a effect (which is what you mainly claimed) but this gag is only but a element in the effect as a whole. I think the argument is misplaced and terms have been misused and abused in order to fit a narrative.

Again, I think Ellusionist should have received blessings for using the bit but itís hard to do so if what you are being accused of is a theft of an entire effect wholesale rather than having a bit stolen (and the bit is a important element in Harrisonís routine, Iím not contesting that, but it is a bit, not a whole effect or routine).
Message: Posted by: Alex McFly (Aug 6, 2019 04:57AM)
I have a general question that makes me wonder: What about credits in general? When does one have to give a credit? There are, for example, countless floating devices on the market. If someone creates a new levitation device, it will hardly be possible to name them all, will it? Or is it really reduced to the routine itself?
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 6, 2019 06:08AM)
[quote]On Aug 6, 2019, Alex McFly wrote:
I have a general question that makes me wonder: What about credits in general? When does one have to give a credit? There are, for example, countless floating devices on the market. If someone creates a new levitation device, it will hardly be possible to name them all, will it? Or is it really reduced to the routine itself? [/quote]

See, thatís an area where you can make a genuine distinction. Methodology, those can certainly be unique. Now, the concept of making something float, lets be honest, that public domain. So if your creation was inspired by someone elseís work that is more specific than the public domain concept, of course crediting should be applied if you did due diligence and know whom to credit (which in this instance, Ellusionist should credit Harrison for the bit, but since from out of the gate the accusation is that Ellusionist stole a effect, which is Harrisonís argument, one can naturally understand why Ellusionist is on the defense, the allegation itself is inaccurate at best).

A routine on the other hand is effectively a plot in the narrative sense. A plot by definition is a sequence of events. Any singular element in that sequence may or may not be unique to the person but that in and of itself does not make the plot and is a plot device/element and a plot device/element is a singular element in a plot that drives the plot forward. I personally donít think one can ethically put out their own variation of a routine without having drastically changed it to make it significantly different from the original. Now, crediting for a routine I believe is fair if one was inspired and borrows elements from another routine but creates a distinctly different routine to the original.

Letís put it this way, if all elements of a routine can not be used as inspiration or borrowed to create a new work that is distinctly different, then all art would proceed to stop in its place because inevitably many if not most ideas already exist prior to one coming upon it.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 6, 2019 06:22AM)
No one is saying you can't make derivative work, or variations. You just shouldn't be publishing ones based On someone's unpublished working material.

If it's published by the original artist, it's a completely different question. Make all the variations you want, but only publish with credit AND permission.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Aug 6, 2019 06:55AM)
[quote]On Aug 6, 2019, Alex McFly wrote:
I have a general question that makes me wonder: What about credits in general? When does one have to give a credit? There are, for example, countless floating devices on the market. If someone creates a new levitation device, it will hardly be possible to name them all, will it? Or is it really reduced to the routine itself? [/quote]
Be aware that you are getting really poor advice in this thread.
For crediting in general, look at Stephen Minchís books and Denis Behrís database for what we consider good crediting.
Crediting itself isnít enough. If you want to incorporate someone elseís work (or parts thereof) into your own, you need to ensure you have permission to do so. All rights are reserved as the default. So if a book says nothing about performance rights, they are reserved - although, in our little world, it is unlikely anyone will enforce it when nothing is said about rights. Work in public domain (works older that life of creator + 70 years) are completely free to be used in any way, but proper credits should still be given.

A gadget or device used in a trick isnít the trick. If someone have created an unique routine that depends on a specific gadget, it is the routine that is protected, not the gadget. The gadget can also be protected through patent.
You donít need to credit all variations, just the main ones in the lineage between the first one and yours.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 6, 2019 09:35AM)
Let's give Harrison the benefit of the doubt and say that perhaps he came up with the joke all by himself, independently. Going by the same line of reasoning used in defense of Harrison in this thread then, should Harrison have EVER told that joke without doing due diligence first? Seeing how he had a few years before he told the joke since that other comedian told that joke first? If one wants to be morally and ethically consistent, should it not stand to reason then that Harrison should not ever use that joke or variations of it? Since clearly someone else did it first, published or not published (clearly that other comedian was broadcasted thus in the instance of the joke, CLEARLY published and well known). It is absolutely nonsensical to apply the same line of reasoning only when appropriate in order to feed a narrative and serve the purpose of a argument. Doing so is having a double standard. Once you have a double standard in a situation which is essentially like for like, your argument is no longer valid.
Message: Posted by: reignofsound (Aug 6, 2019 11:39AM)
To be honest.
**** U has been used in Card tricks in Glasgow since card tricks were around 😂
This thread is getting borderline ridiculous.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 6, 2019 12:52PM)
[quote]On Aug 6, 2019, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Aug 6, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
[quote]On Aug 6, 2019, RNK wrote:
And he's off...... [/quote]

Yup. Never stopped, Iím being consistent like Iíve stated. Unlike some others here. Yourself, obvious why you are in this thread. That in and of itself is pretty sad seeing how you literally came in this thread to do nothing else other than to jump on other peopleís bandwagon to instigate things further. [/quote]

Well, not to instigate but to warn Tom and others how you won't stop, almost like a child doesn't stop, very similar. And I am betting most people here have had enough of your repeating redundant posts on this topic. You seem to love arguing with everybody that disagrees with you. I hope you enjoy life more than you enjoy this! [/quote]

You can be the judge then eh?

https://www.harrisongreenbaum.com/videos

Thatís from Harrisonís own site. Second video there is his Last Comic Standing appearance where the Bible Harry Potter joke is featured prominently. If Tom was correct with his assumption that Harrison gave up the joke he stole, then that video shouldnít be part of his current promo material on his site then should it?

How about it being a featured joke in his own FU routine video:

https://youtu.be/EZwEBtnbf7o

He stole a joke, never acknowledges that he has, and clearly still uses the material in some form. He now claims that Ellusionist stole his effect twice now. How does one reconcile that? Or would you agree that that is hypocritical and a double standard.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Aug 6, 2019 03:45PM)
[quote]On Aug 6, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
So the originator of the joke needs to come out and claim it for it to be stolen? Never mind that the joke was said by the comedian before Harrison years prior to Harrison using it and it was broadcasted so the evidence is there. Explain your reasoning and logic here. [/quote]
I gave three examples on the reasoning.
Look, you are still anonymous, still inconsistent, still crap at plot analysis, still a thief apologist. You could have gained some respect by showing your work, but you opted not to. So it is pointless to continue.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 7, 2019 09:08AM)
[quote]On Aug 6, 2019, mantel wrote:
How about a redirection kissadookie? Can you explain why Ellusionist put up the Original Video for the FU deck Performance and Explanation on Magic Stream for everyone no magic stream account required?

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:POfFwT5bAKYJ:https://magicstream.com/programs/the-fu-deck%3Fautoplay%3Dtrue [/quote]

So I've looked at the link on an actual computer (looked at it before on mobile) and noticed that this is a Google cache page that you linked to. The actual page does not seem to be available anymore (click around for the video links on the page you linked, it takes you to a page not found error). So with that in mind, it would appear that they did pull the video. That link is for content that essentially does not appear to exist and is just a Google cache page for that page. I don't have a Magic Stream account so I can't tell you if it's actually there behind a paywall or not but my guess is it is not? Someone with a Magic Stream account can confirm.

The following appears to be what is actually available on the Magic Stream site though:

https://magicstream.com/catalog/lloyd-barnes

Notice how FU is not included there. Nor can I find it here:

https://magicstream.com/catalog/card-magic

It would appear that at this point and at the point of FU2's release, Ellusionist appears to have handled things properly and professionally in this instance. They've provided ample evidence and the counter evidence appears to be entirely anecdotal and without any actual substantiating evidence. Ellusionist should give credit for the FU gag (which they apparently do on the product page for FU2) and the disagreement and claim against them appears to be that Ellusionist stole an entire effect which is far from being an accurate description of what has occurred, this is so even if you take the whole joke stealing issue and put it aside for a moment.
Message: Posted by: mantel (Aug 8, 2019 12:07AM)
[quote]On Aug 7, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
[quote]On Aug 6, 2019, mantel wrote:
How about a redirection kissadookie? Can you explain why Ellusionist put up the Original Video for the FU deck Performance and Explanation on Magic Stream for everyone no magic stream account required?[/quote]

So I've looked at the link on an actual computer (looked at it before on mobile) and noticed that this is a Google cache page that you linked to. The actual page does not seem to be available anymore (click around for the video links on the page you linked, it takes you to a page not found error). So with that in mind, it would appear that they did pull the video.[/quote]

Yes, when I posted the link again yesterday, someone at Ellusionist finally [b]did the right thing[/b] and removed the video and/or removed public access to the video.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 8, 2019 07:24AM)
[quote]On Aug 8, 2019, mantel wrote:
[quote]On Aug 7, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
[quote]On Aug 6, 2019, mantel wrote:
How about a redirection kissadookie? Can you explain why Ellusionist put up the Original Video for the FU deck Performance and Explanation on Magic Stream for everyone no magic stream account required?[/quote]

So I've looked at the link on an actual computer (looked at it before on mobile) and noticed that this is a Google cache page that you linked to. The actual page does not seem to be available anymore (click around for the video links on the page you linked, it takes you to a page not found error). So with that in mind, it would appear that they did pull the video.[/quote]

Yes, when I posted the link again yesterday, someone at Ellusionist finally [b]did the right thing[/b] and removed the video and/or removed public access to the video. [/quote]

They only took it down yesterday? Holy ****.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 8, 2019 08:27AM)
[quote]On Aug 8, 2019, mantel wrote:
[quote]On Aug 7, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
[quote]On Aug 6, 2019, mantel wrote:
How about a redirection kissadookie? Can you explain why Ellusionist put up the Original Video for the FU deck Performance and Explanation on Magic Stream for everyone no magic stream account required?[/quote]

So I've looked at the link on an actual computer (looked at it before on mobile) and noticed that this is a Google cache page that you linked to. The actual page does not seem to be available anymore (click around for the video links on the page you linked, it takes you to a page not found error). So with that in mind, it would appear that they did pull the video.[/quote]

Yes, when I posted the link again yesterday, someone at Ellusionist finally [b]did the right thing[/b] and removed the video and/or removed public access to the video. [/quote]

If that's the case, Ellusionist is most certainly in the wrong for that one. Let's try not to conflate that with the claims against FU2 though.
Message: Posted by: Mac_Stone (Aug 8, 2019 08:40AM)
The issues are related kissdadookie. This all started with the original FU Loyd tried to produce which was an open index deck and the FU card. After words with Harrison Loyd decided it would be better not to produce the open index deck but decided to continue producing the FU card.

So now with a forced card Loyd is producing a trick that frankly just is not as good as any card called for.

The original routine with the open index was available on magic stream until just yesterday apparently.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 8, 2019 09:03AM)
[quote]On Aug 8, 2019, Mac_Stone wrote:
The issues are related kissdadookie. This all started with the original FU Loyd tried to produce which was an open index deck and the FU card. After words with Harrison Loyd decided it would be better not to produce the open index deck but decided to continue producing the FU card.

So now with a forced card Loyd is producing a trick that frankly just is not as good as any card called for.

The original routine with the open index was available on magic stream until just yesterday apparently. [/quote]

I get you, the problem is related in that it all originated from the original FU deck, but it is unfair and nonsensical to conflate the two. FU2 is a distinctly different product which Harrison is claiming directly is his FU effect being stolen wholesale when in fact the similarity stops at the FU gag for FU2, unless one wishes to argue that one has ownership to a card prediction or basically a finding a spectator's card trick. Go after the Magic Stream bit directly (because clearly Ellusionist would be in the wrong for that one) BUT the focus and claims were made against FU2 which is really a separate release. Folks, be clear and specific with claims please, not being so does not help your case.

I actually did a little experiment with this. I showed laypeople that are not much in terms of being fans of magic (they enjoy it but don't go out of their way to seek it out, and these are people I generally have not shown stuff to, I do converse with them on many heady topics like systems of economics, history, societal policies, etc.). I believe 4 of them in total. Their reaction to the tricks themselves (didn't give them any background in the beginning about the controversy) and their conclusion was that the effects are different. I then showed them just the bit about the joke theft from the Ellusionist video. Then I finally explained what the controversy around FU2 is. Their response to this was that this is some truly petty controversy especially when the effects to them are completely different. They then practically uniformly concluded that it's a card trick, how can anyone lay claim to a card trick. I asked for further explanation of this and they explained that it's a find my card type card trick, how can anybody lay claim to the concept of finding a spectator's card or the use of FU in the routine especially when the effects to them had been perceived to be very different from each other.

I found that little experiment to be interesting and arguably the most objective view since those laypeople are not in any way shape or form invested in the industry one way or the other. Moral arguments fall flat there and so does ethical arguments against FU2, reason being the effect is perceived to be dramatically different from each other. If only behind the scenes do you see the two being the same but when looked at in practical real world terms, they are drastically different, what moral and ethical position do you have at that point? This really brings to question who are we performing for? One can make a great point that one perform's for themselves but then you come to the following dilemma: one can think anything they want in their own minds but this does not make what they think to be factually correct. So really, to say that FU2 is the same effect as Harrison's FU when perceived by the audience as two completely different effects, there is no valid argument there other than ego because at the end of the day that's what it is.

I would like to also say, yes, the FU2 is not that strong of a trick IMO. They are essentially selling gag prediction cards. I find it hard to even consider it to be them selling a person a effect. You're paying $15 for a pack of gag prediction cards, that's the product being sold really. I would also like to take this opportunity to point out a recent Ellusionist being a bit scheme-y move, the Pyro mystery thing they have going on where it's really just a liquidation of the Pyro pen. That is such a hot trash move.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Aug 8, 2019 10:02AM)
You asked laypeople? What would be the point of that? What they think is completely irrelevant.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 8, 2019 10:36AM)
[quote]On Aug 8, 2019, TStone wrote:
You asked laypeople? What would be the point of that? What they think is completely irrelevant. [/quote]

So you don't perform for an audience? Or do you perform strictly for other magicians? The effect is the effect is it not? The effect is to be shown to others. End of the day the product is consumed by others, not yourself. What you think of a effect that has no audience is irrelevant.

If you perform a effect and your audience can't make heads or tales of it, but you think it's a lovely effect with incredible structure, creative expression, nuance, subtlety, etc. but the audience to your effect thinks it's about as good as staring at paint dry or worse yet, does not actually know what the effect is and is rather confused than entertained/appreciative/astonished, do you still think that is a great effect or even an average effect at best?

Of course it matters especially when the conflict here between Harrison and Ellusionist is that FU2 is a stolen EFFECT from him seeing how the thing in question is the EFFECT but the methods are nowhere near being the same. In this situation one can not claim the similarity being behind the scenes since methodology is not similar in the slightest. What you have left is the aesthetics of the effect, what is perceived. If what is perceived is seen as being night and day different from each other, what argument is there left other than one person laying claim to a ownership of something for the sake of claiming ownership to something, at this point it's clearly a petty argument driven by ego.

I would like to just acknowledge that I do understand your point from a philosophical and self growth aspect. Where catering to the audience can in some instances result in stifling one's creativity and one's own goals. However, what is being discussed is a case of possible theft. That is a topic to be viewed objectively, not subjectively. Anything can have a myriad of concurrent and conflicting subjective positions because of the nature of subjectivity. Subjectivity has no place in a discussion over a claim of theft. Your personal views on the importance and role of the audience is just your personal view on a philosophical question. We are talking about a theft of a effect here though. The effect is a product. The audience are the consumers. If the consumers see the two effects as dramatically night and day different from each other, then there is no theft of an effect unless you want to reduce it down to them both being a card trick.

Crying wolf one too many times lessens the impact when crying wolf when an actual wolf appears for which we now are going to have a huge problem. I am not against Harrison demanding some sort of resolution with Ellusionist but the problem here is the exaggeration of the claim then the proceeding bandwagon-ing of the pro-Harrison side trying to legitimize the exaggeration by more or less being the loudest ones in the room rather than take a measured look at the situation in an objective fashion. One of the laypeople that I showed the videos to actually came back commenting on how not only are the two effects incredibly different from each other but that the level of pettiness on display here surprises him as to why people even would want to get into magic if there's this level of pettiness going on. He also commented that people can't claim ownership for a find my card trick as there must have been people doing that for centuries (thus suggesting what the perceived effects in question are here, not some let me massage this thing philosophically and theoretically to fit a narrative of there actually being theft of an entire effect). He also sees the same kind of pettiness and bickering in the academic world (since crediting is also a big topic in academia). He ended his observation with essentially: what's next? everyone starts their show with a long list of credits before the show can start? If methodology isn't the question then your left with aesthetics. If the aesthetics are very different along with the methodology being different then you effectively have two different effects.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 8, 2019 11:21AM)
Here is a list of things in a similar situation as FU2 where a plot device is used that was seen somewhere else earlier (except in the following examples, I'm pretty sure that no crediting was given for the newer work, and there's a distinct lack of bickering over crediting):

The Boys (comic book series) - The superhero team here is CLEARLY lifted from the Justice League.
The Girl Next Door (film) - The concept here is CLEARLY lifted from Risky Business
Spider-Man: Far from Home (film) - The concept here borrows HEAVILY from Eurotrip.
Super-8 (film) - This is basically an homage to Spielberg
Bird Box and that other movie where you are not allowed to make a sound because of aliens or something - They BOTH are incredibly similar to Quiet Place, also, PLEASE don't watch the aforementioned two. They were terrible, just stick with the Quiet Place.

These are just off the top of my head more contemporary/recent examples where we have a newer work that clearly borrowed heavily if not lifted the entire concept from a predecessor. One would find it hard to argue that they should never have been made without the permission and blessing of what came before them. We overall don't argue that and thus they exist and continue to exist, all the whilst moving their respective art forms forward let that be in the sense of new creative explorations or even simply bringing attention to a certain type of movie or genre.

If the debate here has even the remotest validity (where the argument is, taking a plot device equates to stealing of the whole enchilada) then that position needs to be consistent with ALL creative works. Why is it not a problem to this extent in books and films yet it exists for this FU2 situation? There are authors that claim that they own a genre, etc. and we have historically seen that they usually lose in that battle because the audience/consumer does not believe and feel that the author is in the right there. The above examples I've listed are comparatively far worse OFFENDERS than the situation with FU2. Far worse, except it's not much of an issue really and making a huge heated issue over them, most would consider to be petty and nonsensical.
Message: Posted by: The Mysterious One (Aug 8, 2019 05:18PM)
Wow, I haven't checked this thread since my few meager posts days ago. It is very interesting reading and seeing the opinions from both sides of the debate, a very passionate debate for sure. I am shocked that Ellusionist had the FU video on their Magic Stream, in spite of the objections of Harrison I may add. This puts holes in Lloyd's argument of Ellusionist being professional and mindful to Harrison's previous (and recent) objections to the original FU deck project. I see Tom and Glenn and other valued contributors to the Cafť making strong arguments on plot on how E shouldn't release FU2 in spite of different methodology, etc., My question is where should the line be drawn if there are releases with the same general plot that use different methodologies?

Keep in mind...I am not trying to get anyone's blood pressure up; I am not trying to cause anger. I am sincerely curious and wanting to understand. I will use the card to impossible location plot as an example. There were various products based on Kennedy's Mystery Box that uses a clear box. First, I remember Regal's Clarity Box following by a bunch of items (Penn's Mystery Solved, Allen's Paragon 3D [an updated to Jon's Paragon], Dobson's 3Sixty) and also other products in opaque containers (Garcia's Mintbox, Kramm's Toibox, etc.) All of these are brillant in different ways; each of these magicians are very creative.

Why wasn't there the amount of outrage when these various products were released? The methodology is slightly different in these releases, but the plot is the same. Is the lack of outrage due to the card to impossible location being a wonderful, older plot that has existed in magic for centuries?

For clarification, I am using these products as an example and not hinting at all that somone should be at all upset at these products, associated magicians, etc.
Message: Posted by: false_awakening (Aug 8, 2019 06:33PM)
[quote]On Aug 8, 2019, The Mysterious One wrote:
... I will use the card to impossible location plot as an example. There were various products based on Kennedy's Mystery Box that uses a clear box. First, I remember Regal's Clarity Box following by a bunch of items ... Why wasn't there the amount of outrage when these various products were released? The methodology is slightly different in these releases, but the plot is the same [/quote]

Yes, the ambiguity of the term "plot" causes confusion in this issue. I think gdw clarified this usefully a couple of pages ago:

"Traditionally in magic it refers to the general high level plot: card to wallet, ambitious card, mystery prediction, magician in trouble, etc. Magicians can have specific takes on these general plots. These are usually called tricks or routines. The individual trick can also have its own "plot." That is to say the specific arc of that trick, itself a take on a general "plot.""


[quote]On Aug 8, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
If the debate here has even the remotest validity (where the argument is, taking a plot device equates to stealing of the whole enchilada) then that position needs to be consistent with ALL creative works. Why is it not a problem to this extent in books and films yet it exists for this FU2 situation? [/quote]

I agree that a principle ought ideally to be held consistently, but in order for this to happen, shouldn't the application of the principle take into account the inherent differences across the categories of work you describe?

Books and films, in general, involve more variables than are found in a magic routine. This means a greater palette with which to modify a base idea, or obscure its having been "borrowed".
Music also: chord patterns repeat endlessly. But, if you use another song's chord pattern, along with the other primary elements of the musical "effect", such as melody, rhythm, key, tempo, etc., you're more likely to have problems.

Perhaps it is a matter of degree. Arguably there is less space and time in a magic routine for the plot (or specific "arc", as above) to be differentiated. Hence, the principle ideally is applied at a seemingly narrower, but relatively equivalent scale.
Similarly, successful musical copyright claims generally aren't based on chord patterns alone, nor successful literary claims on genre, because those scales of application are inappropriate for the spirit of the principle.
Message: Posted by: mantel (Aug 8, 2019 11:05PM)
[quote]On Aug 8, 2019, gdw wrote:
[quote]On Aug 8, 2019, mantel wrote:
Yes, when I posted the link again yesterday, someone at Ellusionist finally [b]did the right thing[/b] and removed the video and/or removed public access to the video. [/quote]

They only took it down yesterday? Holy ****. [/quote]

that's technically correct (they removed the link at some point after July 17 but Ellusionist left the video on the sever unprotected until yesterday.)

In retrospect I probably shouldnt have posted it. But I was hoping it would somehow get kissdadookie back on topic and away from his circular arguments. But two posts later kissdadookie is back on another tangent writing about how movies share similar plots.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Aug 9, 2019 12:59AM)
[quote]On Aug 8, 2019, The Mysterious One wrote:
Why wasn't there the amount of outrage when these various products were released? . [/quote]
...maybe because Bruno Hennig wanted others to do his trick? Maybe the point is about the creatorsí rights to their work?
Message: Posted by: The Unmasked Magician (Aug 9, 2019 01:40AM)
Tom, I really donít like your way of using rhetorical questions and the word ďmaybeĒ to belittle someone that stated he is just curious. You seem determined to use all kinds of rhetorical and pseudo-intellectual Ciceronian tricks to put people down in this thread. Calling a really positive and mellow guy like Kallix a creep is way out of line. To me that just shows a lack of social skills on your part and it really puts me off. The fact that somewhere in the past you made some contributions to magic does not make your opinion more important. It just makes you ... old. 😉
Message: Posted by: The Unmasked Magician (Aug 9, 2019 01:42AM)
Mind you, I am actually on the side of gdw in this argument. So itís not about that. And take all the shots a E you want, thatís business. Just town it down a bit on Cafť Members that have no commercial stake in this, just a different opinion on a complex issue.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Aug 9, 2019 02:36AM)
[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, The Unmasked Magician wrote:
Just town it down a bit on Cafť Members that have no commercial stake in this, just a different opinion on a complex issue. [/quote]
Hm... Iíd say deplorable opinions on a simple issue.
One claimed repeatedly that there were hundreds of predecessors, were 100% unable to name or cite any of them, and still persisted in claiming there were hundreds of predecessors. Clearly a bad faith actor, with a clear intention of making it more difficult for creators to have control over their work. As if that wasnít hard enough.

This time, the question was; how come people are outraged over a derivative of stolen work, when no one is outraged over derivatives of freely donated work? I.e. to the poster, there is no difference between stolen work and freely given work. Such contempt and disregard for creators and their rights does unfortunately not generate much cordiality at this end.
Message: Posted by: The Mysterious One (Aug 9, 2019 06:26AM)
Tom,

I see I got your blood pressure up, which wasn't my intent. My apologies. I was simply asking a question due to sheer curiosity and to further my understanding. You have made quite the assumption of my character by simply asking a question. I support creators, including you (own two of your books and DVDs). If one cannot ask questions without attacks, then what is the purpose of the Cafť?

I appreciate your time in answering my question. Thank you. I have learned a lot by your response (more than just the words you wrote).
Message: Posted by: The Mysterious One (Aug 9, 2019 07:30AM)
[quote]On Aug 8, 2019, false_awakening wrote:
[quote]On Aug 8, 2019, The Mysterious One wrote:
... I will use the card to impossible location plot as an example. There were various products based on Kennedy's Mystery Box that uses a clear box. First, I remember Regal's Clarity Box following by a bunch of items ... Why wasn't there the amount of outrage when these various products were released? The methodology is slightly different in these releases, but the plot is the same [/quote]

Yes, the ambiguity of the term "plot" causes confusion in this issue. I think gdw clarified this usefully a couple of pages ago:

"Traditionally in magic it refers to the general high level plot: card to wallet, ambitious card, mystery prediction, magician in trouble, etc. Magicians can have specific takes on these general plots. These are usually called tricks or routines. The individual trick can also have its own "plot." That is to say the specific arc of that trick, itself a take on a general "plot.""


[quote]On Aug 8, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
If the debate here has even the remotest validity (where the argument is, taking a plot device equates to stealing of the whole enchilada) then that position needs to be consistent with ALL creative works. Why is it not a problem to this extent in books and films yet it exists for this FU2 situation? [/quote]

I agree that a principle ought ideally to be held consistently, but in order for this to happen, shouldn't the application of the principle take into account the inherent differences across the categories of work you describe?

Books and films, in general, involve more variables than are found in a magic routine. This means a greater palette with which to modify a base idea, or obscure its having been "borrowed".
Music also: chord patterns repeat endlessly. But, if you use another song's chord pattern, along with the other primary elements of the musical "effect", such as melody, rhythm, key, tempo, etc., you're more likely to have problems.

Perhaps it is a matter of degree. Arguably there is less space and time in a magic routine for the plot (or specific "arc", as above) to be differentiated. Hence, the principle ideally is applied at a seemingly narrower, but relatively equivalent scale.
Similarly, successful musical copyright claims generally aren't based on chord patterns alone, nor successful literary claims on genre, because those scales of application are inappropriate for the spirit of the principle. [/quote]

Thanks false_awakening for the clarification.
Message: Posted by: The Unmasked Magician (Aug 9, 2019 08:25AM)
[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, TStone wrote:
Clearly a bad faith actor, with a clear intention of making it more difficult for creators to have control over their work. As if that wasnít hard enough. [/quote]

Thatís just not true, Tom. Kallix did not have that intention. You made that intention up in your head. If you would read his posts here you would know.

[quote] Such contempt and disregard for creators and their rights ... [/quote]

Neither Kallix nor Kissdadookie were feeling or showing contempt. Again, you made that up and assumed it was true. That assumption does however explain your vicious and disproportionately condescending tone of voice.
It would be good to see you apologize to those guys.

Listen, I get that you are very, very frustrated and angry about this issue. And I feel you have every right to be. Just donít get all paranoid and start lashing out at the wrong people.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 9, 2019 10:02AM)
[quote]On Aug 8, 2019, The Mysterious One wrote:
Wow, I haven't checked this thread since my few meager posts days ago. It is very interesting reading and seeing the opinions from both sides of the debate, a very passionate debate for sure. I am shocked that Ellusionist had the FU video on their Magic Stream, in spite of the objections of Harrison I may add. This puts holes in Lloyd's argument of Ellusionist being professional and mindful to Harrison's previous (and recent) objections to the original FU deck project. I see Tom and Glenn and other valued contributors to the Cafť making strong arguments on plot on how E shouldn't release FU2 in spite of different methodology, etc., My question is where should the line be drawn if there are releases with the same general plot that use different methodologies?

Keep in mind...I am not trying to get anyone's blood pressure up; I am not trying to cause anger. I am sincerely curious and wanting to understand. I will use the card to impossible location plot as an example. There were various products based on Kennedy's Mystery Box that uses a clear box. First, I remember Regal's Clarity Box following by a bunch of items (Penn's Mystery Solved, Allen's Paragon 3D [an updated to Jon's Paragon], Dobson's 3Sixty) and also other products in opaque containers (Garcia's Mintbox, Kramm's Toibox, etc.) All of these are brillant in different ways; each of these magicians are very creative.

Why wasn't there the amount of outrage when these various products were released? The methodology is slightly different in these releases, but the plot is the same. Is the lack of outrage due to the card to impossible location being a wonderful, older plot that has existed in magic for centuries?

For clarification, I am using these products as an example and not hinting at all that somone should be at all upset at these products, associated magicians, etc. [/quote]

The BIG difference with most examples like this in magic is that these are all variations of [b]published[/b] routines. Once you publish something, you've implicitly given permission to others to work on the idea.
[b]Publishing[/b] your subsequent work should still be done with the original artist's consent, and credit.

When you're dealing with independent creation, IF both want to publish, it's generally considered a race to market.
If you inadvertently recreate a signature trick from someones working act, which they are still using and not ready to publish, it is respectful to hold off on publishing until they either retire the piece, or publish themselves. The same goes for any variations you work on.
This is what we saw with FU Deck. E did not [b]have[/b] to take it off the market, but they [b]should[/b] have, and rightly did.

This is also a similar situation to what we saw with Teller's Shadows. Someone was selling a direct replication of the piece, which was ethically wrong.
Say the same guy now came up with his "own" method to accomplish the same effect, changes it to a cactus instead of a rose and knife. If he then calls it "Shadow 2" and publishes it, it would still be seen as derivative of Teller's unpublished working act and considered "wrong." At least until such time that Teller retires the piece, or publishes it himself.
Some would argue that if he only retires it, it should still remain off limits, but this mentality simply cripples the art, IMO, in a similar way to how broken IP law like the author's death plus an ever growing number of years(thanks Disney) has had many problematic consequences. There is a plethora of unpublished Marlo material that some of his students still consider off limits, even when others independently come up with the same idea. You can see how this line of thinking can be ridiculous, and problematic for creativity in the art.
So while there's some debate over work that remains unpublished after death et al, the rest is generally pretty well established, re. waiting till published by the original artists.
Message: Posted by: The Mysterious One (Aug 9, 2019 10:46AM)
Glenn,

Thank you so much for clarifying. Even though I have performed magic and mentalism for a long time, I was confused by the ire with this release. I now have a firmer grasp on why the FU2 release has caused such consternation amongst members of the community (including you and Tom). I am passionate about creativity in magic and mentalism; it is always good to get a better understanding from both sides on an issue (except those larger issues that are undebatable such as racism, sexism, violence, any other types of hatred..saying this due to a horrible, tragic event in my beloved state of Texas..Stay strong El Paso!).

Creators should be compensated and respected accordingly; the Shadows example drove the point home. I remember the whole controversy with that magician releasing Teller's Shadows routine for sale; he was demonized and rightfully so. It was an original plot that is personal to Teller and part of his performance repertoire.

Based on what you said, FU2 is a deriative of FU, which part of Harrison's act. The part in queston is the reveal and the fact that Ellusionist continued moving forward in spite of Harrison's objections. That part came across in the video with them reworking the method. The greater question Glenn is with the guidelines that you outlined (which clarifies the issue at hand about decorum and professional courtesy), why wasn't this adhered to? E is not going to sell that many FU2 decks to ever compensate for the PR hit and ill will created. There is a reason why they are 50% off at one point (almost a week after release). Plus, honestly, one cannot put a dollar sign in terms of integrity and one's reputation. If dollars matter more than reputation, it defeats true organic growth of a company over time.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 9, 2019 10:55AM)
[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, The Mysterious One wrote:
Glenn,

Thank you so much for clarifying. Even though I have performed magic and mentalism for a long time, I was confused by the ire with this release. I now have a firmer grasp on why the FU2 release has caused such consternation amongst members of the community (including you and Tom). I am passionate about creativity in magic and mentalism; it is always good to get a better understanding from both sides on an issue (except those larger issues that are undebatable such as racism, sexism, violence, any other types of hatred..saying this due to a horrible, tragic event in my beloved state of Texas..Stay strong El Paso!).

Creators should be compensated and respected accordingly; the Shadows example drove the point home. I remember the whole controversy with that magician releasing Teller's Shadows routine for sale; he was demonized and rightfully so. It was an original plot that is personal to Teller and part of his performance repertoire.

Based on what you said, FU2 is a deriative of FU, which part of Harrison's act. The part in queston is the reveal and the fact that Ellusionist continued moving forward in spite of Harrison's objections. That part came across in the video with them reworking the method. The greater question Glenn is with the guidelines that you outlined (which clarifies the issue at hand about decorum and professional courtesy), why wasn't this adhered to? E is not going to sell that many FU2 decks to ever compensate for the PR hit and ill will created. There is a reason why they are 50% off at one point (almost a week after release). Plus, honestly, one cannot put a dollar sign in terms of integrity. [/quote]

The effects are however not the same here in comparison to the Shadows effect. So it's a apples and oranges comparison. FU2 and Harrison's effect shares the FU gag, that's it. They don't share the same effect unless the argument is that they are both card tricks in the vein of finding/predicting the selection. That's virtually all card tricks. Using the FU gag has been documented to preceed Harrison's such as the examples mentioned in this thread. Peter MicKinnon's Blackpool Prediction is this EXACT GAG. Let's say Harrison has been doing his routine for 9-10 years. Ok, chronologically it preceeds the Blackpool Prediction... why was their no claim to the theft of his effect back then? How about the example I had previously mentioned, I've used the FU phrase to feign disappointment with not getting the spectator's card correctly only to then reveal in the end that I did get the selection correctly. I'm sure many many many others have done this exact thing for goodness knows how long. Crediting to Harrison is a valid point for the gag but unfortunately the claim made against Ellusionist is that there was a THEFT of an entire EFFECT. This is not the situation that is similar to Shadows. This is EXACTLY why I've pointed out how bits and pieces from other claim situations had to be cherry picked and massaged and pieced together out of context in order to support the defense of Harrison argument.

That's the inconsistencies in the arguments exhibited in this thread. That's what I have major contentions with. It's an example of hypocrisy and it also feels suspiciously of folks projecting ideals and their own firm beliefs into a situation for which those ideals and beliefs do not actually have a part in considering the available evidence at hand. I still think Ellusionist often do some grimy things (looking at you Pyro surprise item scheme!) but in my opinion, just because a company has a history of doing grimy things here and there, you lose your upper hand position when you start lobbing unfair accusations at them.

As for reference, here's the judge order for the Shadows case. Please DO NOT ignore the fact that Teller's Shadows routine is described at length and in detail. There is a reason for this, it is to demonstrate that it's not the idea or concept which has been stolen, but the entire structure or sequence of events which has been taken. That is the key here.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/213767662/Teller-v-Dodge-March-2014

Now, think about this, if we took FU2 and Harrison's effect and give a detailed description such as in the above judgement order, will they be similar? No, the two would be night and day different. Thus this debate is asinine. A argument based on ones projection of justice that excludes the actual facts at hand is not a good argument for anything. That is literally virtue signaling and this is coming from me, a person that most would consider a SJW. LoL.
Message: Posted by: The Mysterious One (Aug 9, 2019 11:48AM)
Very interesting perspective kissadookie and examples to illustrate your point.

I don't have a horse in this race, and I see both sides of the argument to a degree. I can see where Glenn and Tom are coming from, but then I see the other side of the argument as well that others (including a few talented creators) have stated.

In making an effective argument, one cannot cherry-pick the facts that supports it and blissfully ignore the other facts that counter one's argument (my statement applies to everyone). However, we see this behavior all of the time with politicians throughout the world (Ugh!). I think the anger over this issue is derived from E being hellbent to release FU2 in spite of Harrison's disapproval due to the FU component being a part of his performance repertoire. I still don't understand where was the outrage from the other releases with a FU reveal (as outlined by kissadookie and in Lloyd's video).

I also think that for some, conversing about this topic has gone beyond an earnest conversation about this effect and/or ethics in magic to an emotional, cathartic release of pent up frustration and anger over past wrongs or perceived past wrongs.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 9, 2019 12:32PM)
[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, The Mysterious One wrote:
Very interesting perspective kissadookie and examples to illustrate your point.

I don't have a horse in this race, and I see both sides of the argument to a degree. I can see where Glenn and Tom are coming from, but then I see the other side of the argument as well that others (including a few talented creators) have stated.

In making an effective argument, one cannot cherry-pick the facts that supports it and blissfully ignore the other facts that counter one's argument (my statement applies to everyone). However, we see this behavior all of the time with politicians throughout the world (Ugh!). I think the anger over this issue is derived from E being hellbent to release FU2 in spite of Harrison's disapproval due to the FU component being a part of his performance repertoire. I still don't understand where was the outrage from the other releases with a FU reveal (as outlined by kissadookie and in Lloyd's video).

I also think that for some, conversing about this topic has gone beyond an earnest conversation about this effect and/or ethics in magic to an emotional, cathartic release of pent up frustration and anger over past wrongs or perceived past wrongs. [/quote]

Completely agree with you.

You may also find the following interesting, it's a key paragraph in the judgement order by the judge in the Shadows case (the italics are as per how they are presented in the order, so it's not me italicizing things on my own to make a point):

"Dogge contends that the works are not substantially similar because his secret to performing the illusion differs from Teller's, and because he uses a clear glass bottle instead of a vase in his version. However the court finds that these reaching arguments by Dogge exceed his limited grasp of copyright law. By arguing that the secret to his illusion is different than Teller's, Dogge implicitly argues about aspects of the performance that are [i]not perceivable by the audience.[/i] In discerning substantial similarity, the court compares only the [i]observable[/i] elements of the works in question. Therefor, whether Dogge uses Teller's method, a technique known only by various holy men of the Himalayas, or even real magic is irrelevant, as the performances appear idential to an ordinary observer."

So why is method irrelevant, because that falls under patents and is why there is a patents system (granted it's been abused thus stagnating creativity and innovation, at least the US patents system has). COPYRIGHT protects the creative work as is presented and perceived. THAT is why for the Harrison vs FU2 situation, it is ABSOLUTELY relevant that we need to understand what the PERCEIVED effect is from the audience and I went with laypeople because that is the demographic for which the effects are going to be performed for (pretty sure Harrison is not performing his routine only for magicians or even mostly for magicians, it's mainly and mostly for lay people and the routine is designed with entertaining an audience of laypeople first and foremost). Plus, the methodology are not similar between the two so that's not even a point of contention.

Now, keep in mind that the judge is not making the order on the basis of concepts and ideas being similar, but on the complete work as a whole being substantially similar. This is why Teller's routine is described in depth (plot summary essentially) at the start of the order.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 9, 2019 02:11PM)
The flaw kissdadookie is now making is conflating legal culpability, and the nature of IP law, with business standards and ethics in magic.
The legal aspect of Teller's case is fairly unique, and shows the extreme lengths one must go for LEGAL protection.
Magic is, generally speaking, more akin to comedy, and joke theft* in this case. There is little to no legal recourse for comedians, just as there is, usually, no recourse for magicians who don't have hundreds of thousands at their disposal.

Also, once again repeating the reductive attempt to make the only overlap the gag, and again ignoring the concept of effect, plot of trick, etc, to focus on superficial differences, misrepresenting both.

[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, The Mysterious One wrote: . . .
I still don't understand where was the outrage from the other releases with a FU reveal (as outlined by kissadookie and in Lloyd's video).
. . .[/quote]

Because it's not about using FU in a card trick, it's about the SPECIFIC use of it in conjunction with the trick.
Neither Sleaze's, nor Sadowitz's, "tricks" involved a prediction being "wrong" only to reveal it was actually right. That's a specific turn in a card trick, and a [b]different[/b] turn than revealing a [b]correct[/b] prediction upfront. So, again, it's not the use of FU in ANY reveal of a card, it's FU used in the specific set up and reveal.

Just as saying FU in the set-up of a joke doesn't defines the joke, many jokes can set up a punchline with similar words, but rather it's the combination of specific set-up AND punchline that make a joke unique. Similarly saying the same punchline but with slightly different words doesn't make it a new joke. At best, it's a variation. Like "If you can cite your book as proof of x deity, then I can cite comics as proof of Spider-man . . . Charlotte's Web as proof of talking pigs. . . The Little Mermaid as proof of Mermaids" etc. Same joke, despite different specifics for the same punchline.


*Preemptively addressing Harrison's alleged joke theft before it's brought up as a "gotcha"; first, hypocrisy does not negate the wrong of others, and second, we have not seen any evidence the joke was stolen, NOR who did it first, or if it was independently concocted, etc.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 9, 2019 02:26PM)
[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, gdw wrote:
The flaw kissdadookie is now making is conflating legal culpability, and the nature of IP law, with business standards and ethics in magic.
The legal aspect of Teller's case is fairly unique, and shows the extreme lengths one must go for LEGAL protection.
Magic is, generally speaking, more akin to comedy, and joke theft* in this case. There is little to no legal recourse for comedians, just as there is, usually, no recourse for magicians who don't have hundreds of thousands at their disposal.

Also, once again repeating the reductive attempt to make the only overlap the gag, and again ignoring the concept of effect, plot of trick, etc, to focus on superficial differences, misrepresenting both.

[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, The Mysterious One wrote: . . .
I still don't understand where was the outrage from the other releases with a FU reveal (as outlined by kissadookie and in Lloyd's video).
. . .[/quote]

Because it's not about using FU in a card trick, it's about the SPECIFIC use of it in conjunction with the trick.
Neither Sleaze's, nor Sadowitz's, "tricks" involved a prediction being "wrong" only to reveal it was actually right. That's a specific turn in a card trick, and a [b]different[/b] turn than revealing a [b]correct[/b] prediction upfront. So, again, it's not the use of FU in ANY reveal of a card, it's FU used in the specific set up and reveal.

Just as saying FU in the set-up of a joke doesn't defines the joke, many jokes can set up a punchline with similar words, but rather it's the combination of specific set-up AND punchline that make a joke unique. Similarly saying the same punchline but with slightly different words doesn't make it a new joke. At best, it's a variation. Like "If you can cite your book as proof of x deity, then I can cite comics as proof of Spider-man . . . Charlotte's Web as proof of talking pigs. . . The Little Mermaid as proof of Mermaids" etc. Same joke, despite different specifics for the same punchline.


*Preemptively addressing Harrison's alleged joke theft before it's brought up as a "gotcha"; first, hypocrisy does not negate the wrong of others, and second, we have not seen any evidence the joke was stolen, NOR who did it first, or if it was independently concocted, etc. [/quote]

Actually, no. I brought up the Shadows judgement order (which was PRO protection of a magician's creative work btw, you know, something that you're claiming to be a proponent of in this thread) to demonstrate how that example is night and day different from the Harrison vs FU2 scenario. The fact that you are now trying to twist what I have said every which way in order to portray my posts as being inaccurate (because clearly they are not or else you would be addressing my points rather than wildly reinterpreting what I have posted to then portray what I have post incredibly inaccurately). This is why in your post above you make no mention of the Blackpool Prediction. Nor have you really addressed the issue of joke theft that Harrison appears to have committed. Both these very simple points that you should be addressing in order to validate your position you've very conveniently ignoring and did not address. Why? Likely because your argument completely falls apart if you did.

Ok ok, to be fair you TRIED to address the joke theft and Blackpool Prediction by cherry picking bits and pieces here and there out of context in a heroic effort to rewrite the narrative and muddy the facts that those two scenarios are DIRECTLY MIRRORING the FU2 situation.

Good try but it's not even sophomoric at best.
Message: Posted by: Craigers (Aug 9, 2019 02:31PM)
Erm, would this thread be a good place to ask if FU2 is any good ?
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 9, 2019 02:32PM)
[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, Craigers wrote:
Erm, would this thread be a good place to ask if FU2 is any good ? [/quote]

HA HA HA HA HA HA. Love your post. It's actually quite good (your post) and has me laughing pretty hard :D

You're basically buying a gag prediction card with video instructions teaching you how to force a card. Is that of use to you or not, that's all you boss.

GDW:

I've also given how I have used the expletive in what I do and it also mirrors how Harrison uses this phrase. I've been doing this for the purposes I have described on the previous page. I've done this going back over 10 years at least. Harrison claims he had his effect for 9 years or so now. My use predates his. Shouldn't I be the one who has been wronged? Pretty sure I'm not the only to use that phrase either in similar situations. Probably predates my use of it by decades. Inb4 you make a post trying to massage my use of it into something entirely different to what I have posted in order for you to explain how my use is substantially different from Harrison's use.
Message: Posted by: Craigers (Aug 9, 2019 02:46PM)
[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, Craigers wrote:
Erm, would this thread be a good place to ask if FU2 is any good ? [/quote]

HA HA HA HA HA HA. Love your post. It's actually quite good (your post) and has me laughing pretty hard :D

You're basically buying a gag prediction card with video instructions teaching you how to force a card. Is that of use to you or not, that's all you boss.

==================================================================================

Hey Kissdadookie, actually I've had a wee chuckle myself reading the contents of the thread. As I've been reading it I can't help but remember PRINCE. I really enjoyed winding him up with "facts" and he bit everytime !! BTW I was wondering why Pegasus has not jumped onboard here. We need more biting sarcastic one liners I think !! Think I will steer clear of FU2. Just spent all my money on "Any Card" and "Deep Clear"
Message: Posted by: The Mysterious One (Aug 9, 2019 02:51PM)
[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, Craigers wrote:


===============================================================

Hey Kissdadookie, actually I've had a wee chuckle myself reading the contents of the thread. As I've been reading it I can't help but remember PRINCE. I really enjoyed winding him up with "facts" and he bit everytime !! BTW I was wondering why Pegasus has not jumped onboard here. We need more biting sarcastic one liners I think !! Think I will steer clear of FU2. Just spent all my money on "Any Card" and "Deep Clear" [/quote]

I actually laughed out loud as well. Genius! Any Card and Deep Clear are both great. Plus, you are supporting two great creators and learning two principles/effects that won't get you in hot water with someone that doesn't like being cussed at...even in jest.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 9, 2019 02:54PM)
[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, Craigers wrote:
[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, Craigers wrote:
Erm, would this thread be a good place to ask if FU2 is any good ? [/quote]

HA HA HA HA HA HA. Love your post. It's actually quite good (your post) and has me laughing pretty hard :D

You're basically buying a gag prediction card with video instructions teaching you how to force a card. Is that of use to you or not, that's all you boss.

============================================================================

Hey Kissdadookie, actually I've had a wee chuckle myself reading the contents of the thread. As I've been reading it I can't help but remember PRINCE. I really enjoyed winding him up with "facts" and he bit everytime !! BTW I was wondering why Pegasus has not jumped onboard here. We need more biting sarcastic one liners I think !! Think I will steer clear of FU2. Just spent all my money on "Any Card" and "Deep Clear" [/quote]

Any Card didn't appeal to me. Deep Clear on the other hand, winner! I didn't pick it up (as you may have seen in that thread, I'm rather attached to the tarot card version of DA, they don't make them anymore sadly). I had I think it was Deep Astonishment 3? Whichever one that Bro put out years ago. I basically went back to the tarot version, liked it much better.
Message: Posted by: Craigers (Aug 9, 2019 03:09PM)
[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:

Any Card didn't appeal to me. Deep Clear on the other hand, winner! I didn't pick it up (as you may have seen in that thread, I'm rather attached to the tarot card version of DA, they don't make them anymore sadly). I had I think it was Deep Astonishment 3? Whichever one that Bro put out years ago. I basically went back to the tarot version, liked it much better. [/quote]

Just got them yesterday so havn't had a chance to get into them yet. I'll tell you what I think...............but on their respective threads. Don't dare to suffer the wrath of others for trying to hijack the FU2 thread !! Now..........back to the comedy
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 9, 2019 03:10PM)
[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, Craigers wrote:
[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:

Any Card didn't appeal to me. Deep Clear on the other hand, winner! I didn't pick it up (as you may have seen in that thread, I'm rather attached to the tarot card version of DA, they don't make them anymore sadly). I had I think it was Deep Astonishment 3? Whichever one that Bro put out years ago. I basically went back to the tarot version, liked it much better. [/quote]
======================================================================================

Just got them yesterday so havn't had a chance to get into them yet. I'll tell you what I think...............but on their respective threads. Don't dare to suffer the wrath of others for trying to hijack the FU2 thread !! Now..........back to the comedy [/quote]

HA HA HA HA HA :D
Message: Posted by: The Mysterious One (Aug 9, 2019 03:16PM)
LOL.

Yeah, we need some levity to say the least, but I did enjoy reading the points made from both sides of the FU aisle. Thanks everyone for answering my questionsa and making the day go little faster. I prefer stepping into a magic honest nest than dealing with most of my co-workers!
Message: Posted by: TStone (Aug 9, 2019 04:45PM)
[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, gdw wrote:
The legal aspect of Teller's case is fairly unique, and shows the extreme lengths one must go for LEGAL protection.
[/quote]
[i]Had[/i] to go... Teller created the piece in the 70's, before the USA had any proper copyright, and registered it in 1983..Five years before USA signed the Berne Treaty and got automatic copyright. After 1988, things changed.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Aug 9, 2019 09:41PM)
[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, TStone wrote:
[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, gdw wrote:
The legal aspect of Teller's case is fairly unique, and shows the extreme lengths one must go for LEGAL protection.
[/quote]
[i]Had[/i] to go... Teller created the piece in the 70's, before the USA had any proper copyright, and registered it in 1983..Five years before USA signed the Berne Treaty and got automatic copyright. After 1988, things changed. [/quote]

Does not change the reasons for which why Teller won his case. Itís not really the length that Teller had to go through but based on the facts at hand and the elements in contention as a whole. No way in any country would Harrisonís claim be valid. You know it, I know it, we all know it. I can ask the various IP attorneys at my firm if you wish including our European team. That is why folks are claiming that this is an issue of ďethicsĒ rather than discussion this from an objective point of view. Why care about facts and evidence right? Feels versus reals, amiright? LoL.
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Aug 9, 2019 11:49PM)
Anyone with love and respect for magic -or any basic understanding of its history -knows that the ethics of the art has nothing to do with court cases.

In the history of the Cafť has so much hot air ever been expelled debating such a terrible trick? It is utter garbage.
Message: Posted by: false_awakening (Aug 10, 2019 12:25AM)
[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
In the books and films I've noted, the degree for which there is a similarity to be drawn is FAR greater than one would be able to draw between Harrison's FU and FU2. FAR greater.[/quote]

I don't know if that's true. To take one example, based on info found online, it looks like Bird Box and A Quiet Place differ in several respects. The first deals with supernatural entities which cause a self-destructive psychological response in their victims, the second deals with natural aliens with hypersensitive hearing. I understand the same theme exists: *mortal danger hinges on one of your five senses*, but the mechanism, results, strategy (blind yourself, vs don't make noise) all differ. And of course, as you say, such discussion can devolve into nit-picking elements.
My point is that there seems to be greater room here for variance, compared with magic routines like the one in question.

[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
This isn't a stealing of chord patterns (that can be equated to stealing of methodology). Stealing of chord patterns can be defended and that defense can be won in some instances because it has to do with a demonstratable application of a specific sequence. This falls under copyright protection since copyright is protection for a specific expression. It's protecting the details of the expression, such as the sequence of words, the sequence of chords, etc.
[/quote]
Sorry, but I'm confused. It seems you're saying that using another song's chord patterns can be defended (with which I agree in general), but then you seem to say that a sequence of chords falls under copyright protection. What is the distinction here between "pattern" and "sequence"?

[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
What arc is there for Harrison's effect compared to FU2?
[/quote]

I have no stake in this issue and defer to those familiar with the material. I noticed this summary from earlier in the thread:

-- Prediction set aside.
Card "selected."
Prediction revealed to be FU gag.
Ha. Ha.
Looking closer, the prediction actually reveals the spectator's card. --

So this seems like the specific arc, the story that the effect follows.


[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
It's a card trick, a prediction of a thought of card. That is the actual arc here is it not?
[/quote]

What you're describing is to my mind a general effect, the development/execution of which could follow various arcs. Perhaps some of the confusion in this debate is around terminology.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 10, 2019 12:06PM)
[quote]On Aug 10, 2019, false_awakening wrote:
[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
In the books and films I've noted, the degree for which there is a similarity to be drawn is FAR greater than one would be able to draw between Harrison's FU and FU2. FAR greater.[/quote]

I don't know if that's true. To take one example, based on info found online, it looks like Bird Box and A Quiet Place differ in several respects. The first deals with supernatural entities which cause a self-destructive psychological response in their victims, the second deals with natural aliens with hypersensitive hearing. I understand the same theme exists: *mortal danger hinges on one of your five senses*, but the mechanism, results, strategy (blind yourself, vs don't make noise) all differ. And of course, as you say, such discussion can devolve into nit-picking elements.
My point is that there seems to be greater room here for variance, compared with magic routines like the one in question.

[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
This isn't a stealing of chord patterns (that can be equated to stealing of methodology). Stealing of chord patterns can be defended and that defense can be won in some instances because it has to do with a demonstratable application of a specific sequence. This falls under copyright protection since copyright is protection for a specific expression. It's protecting the details of the expression, such as the sequence of words, the sequence of chords, etc.
[/quote]
Sorry, but I'm confused. It seems you're saying that using another song's chord patterns can be defended (with which I agree in general), but then you seem to say that a sequence of chords falls under copyright protection. What is the distinction here between "pattern" and "sequence"?

[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
What arc is there for Harrison's effect compared to FU2?
[/quote]

I have no stake in this issue and defer to those familiar with the material. I noticed this summary from earlier in the thread:

-- Prediction set aside.
Card "selected."
Prediction revealed to be FU gag.
Ha. Ha.
Looking closer, the prediction actually reveals the spectator's card. --

So this seems like the specific arc, the story that the effect follows.


[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
It's a card trick, a prediction of a thought of card. That is the actual arc here is it not?
[/quote]

What you're describing is to my mind a general effect, the development/execution of which could follow various arcs. Perhaps some of the confusion in this debate is around terminology. [/quote]

There's definitely confusion on the exact Mathers tjou describe.
Not sure how much is intentional obfuscation by some though 😉
Message: Posted by: The Unmasked Magician (Aug 10, 2019 11:39PM)
Oh, but you know, Bob... you know... Pegasus told you... :ohyes:
Message: Posted by: The Unmasked Magician (Aug 10, 2019 11:46PM)
PS Bobby, Iím truly sorry if my sense of humour offends your utter lack of it.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Aug 11, 2019 05:31AM)
[quote]On Aug 10, 2019, The Unmasked Magician wrote:
PS Bobby, Iím truly sorry if my sense of humour offends your utter lack of it. [/quote]

No, it's ok. Just still waiting for your big reveal of which professional performer you are? LOL!!!!
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Aug 12, 2019 02:20PM)
Just to keep everyone up to date: the trick is still utter garbage. An insult to your audience and to magic. You would think people would be denying they had anything to do with it, not trying to take credit for it.

Ok. Continue.
Message: Posted by: mantel (Aug 13, 2019 06:38PM)
Kissdadookie, would it matter that Ellusionist already conceded that the theatrical and film Performance Rights belong to Harrison Greenbaum?


[quote]PERFORMANCE RIGHTS

After some research we found out Harrison Greenbaum had created this presentation for the effect.

Harrison reserves all theatrical (theatres, comedy clubs/venues, touring shows, etc.) and film (TV, movie, Internet, streaming, and any future audiovisual medium) rights to this effect[/quote]
Message: Posted by: The Mysterious One (Aug 14, 2019 05:26PM)
I remember someone here years ago started openly criticizing Craig Petty for his performances (a barrage of attacks). It was a harsh, unnecessary, thoughtless, and false critiques of a magician that is truly talented and has always put himself out there. I think Craig was/is awesome and I am glad he is doing well. I don't always agree with Craig on effects and am much more diplomatic than Craig, but I greatly respect him and his honesty (including being very open about mistakes he learned along the way).

About the guy that said harsh things about Craig as a performer and magician, this guy pipes up later admitting that he has zero performing experience, doesn't know/mastered any sleight of hand, etc. Why would this guy have the gaul to insult/criticize Craig when he has never performed for anyone?

I still don't understand the mindset, but anonymity gives some people the ability to be an expert and comfortably say/brag about things that they cannot do or experience in real life.

I always try to be positive and treat others with respect. I am not above critiquing an effect (FU2) or company (Hello Ellusionist! Hello Morally Bankrupt Sansminds!!!). I almost always try to help in some way (often via PM). It took me 14 years of toil, experience, practice, mistakes, and more experience to feel comfortable adding my opinons and sometimes insight to conversations. Why? To be authentic and continue to learn from others and my own mistakes/successes.

Hopefully, the shedding continues and only those that share their knowledge and authentic experiences remain. Also, it would great to see more helping others and less fighting here on the Cafť. We have lost a lot of great professionals, talented and knowledgable amateurs, and new people to magic that can add to the conversation due to attacks, etc. That is a cause of concern.
Message: Posted by: TimonK (Sep 5, 2019 04:19AM)
Hi all,

while I don't presume my opinion to carry any considerable weight in the matter, I'd like to briefly clear up any doubt there may have been regarding The Unmasked Magician's claims.
I can, for what it's worth, confirm that he's amongst the most popular corporate entertainers of the Netherlands. He has regularly appeared on national television over here and has, as far as I know, been in the business for an odd 20 years.
More importantly, however, he's a genuinely kind-hearted man, incredibly warm soul and a valued friend.

While it may strike some of you as odd for him to not want to reveal his identity on here, that's his decision to make, and thus I respect it.

Hope that helps a bit with whatever quarrels have been had,

may they be resolved,

all the best & give magic,

Timon
Message: Posted by: The Mysterious One (Sep 5, 2019 08:58PM)
[quote]On Sep 5, 2019, AndrewI wrote:
I canít believe youíre mentioning Danteís work and Miltonís nonsense as if they are two distinct descriptions of hell. Miltonís release is an abomination, completely derivative of Danteís masterpiece and John and his crony Oliver Cromwell are just a bunch of unethical money-grabbing theft-apologists. And donít start banging on about the mentions of a similar underworld in certain ďTestamentsĒ that might predate both. The patter is completely different. [/quote]

This post is performance art... and sums up this whole thread... LOL. Nice work.... Andrew...