|
|
Turk Inner circle Portland, OR 3546 Posts |
Jonathan Townsend raised a very interesting issue in a different thread that struck a memory chord with me and got me once again thinking about an issue that has been bugging me for many years, namely: To what extent does any magician have the right to teach something not his own and for which he has not been given permission from the originator to do so?
Example? A common example is all of the many packet tricks which rely upon the Elmsley Count. Assuming that the Elmsley Count was originated by Alex Emsley, what "right" does an magician have to "invent" an effect that utilizes this move without the specific permission of Alex Elmsley for this subsequent inventor to utilize the move in his subsequent effect? And, is you answer any different if the subsequent magician teaches a variation of the original move or an "improved" handling? (And of course, also assuming that the person did not get permission from the originator of the original move in order to teach his variation and/or his "improved" handling). And, is your answer any different if, instead of teaching the move, the subsequent inventor merely mentions his effect utilizes the "XYZ Move" and that this move was invented by "XXX" and the treatise on the move can be found in XXX's book entitled "YYYYYYYYYY" starting at page 83. Conceptionally, I can see an absolute requriement to obtain such permission before discussing the mechanics of the move in his "subsequent" effect. But, from a pragmatic and practical standpoint, I suggest that you'd see a lot less published magic. Either the subsequent inventor would be unable to publish without the prior permission of the originator, OR, the buying public would get frustrated by not having complete routines taught and then having to buy 3-4 original source materials in order to undersand all of the underlying necessary methodology that is merely referenced in the subsequent inventor's effect. Just throwing this out there for consideation and discussion. Mike
Magic is a vanishing Art.
This must not be Kansas anymore, Toto. Eschew obfuscation. |
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5925 Posts |
You have every right to invent what you want with material you have gained ethically. The issue becomes when you want to teach "your" invention.
I do not agree with your assumption on how this would change publishing. My experience has been that the act of asking for permission to include a move or handling of another has been met with not only the granting of that right, but also a greater exchange of information. Show respect and 99% of the time you get it in return. Cheers, Tom |
Turk Inner circle Portland, OR 3546 Posts |
I agree with your observation, Tom.
Instead, my concern about there possibly being less publishing is not because the originator declines to grant permission. Rather, my concern is that there might be less publishing as the subsequent "originator" gets frustrated about any peer pressure requirement about asking for permission, tracing down the originator or otherwise seeking to learn to whom proper prior credit should be attributed--with the subsequent "originator" just says the he**with it and deciding not to publish after all because he is not inclined to put in the research and work necessary for proper crediting. (Perhaps, that would not be a bad thing as there has been an explosion of magic publishing these days.) As I see the explosion of magic information that occurs these days, I believe little proper accurate crediting is being accurately done. And, I'm concerned that for common moves and effects, these are taken as "generic" and no crediting is given nor permission sought from the originator. For example: The Elmsley Count and Professor's Nightmare. People think nothing of publishing an effect using the Elmsley Count and teaching their version of this count--and all without seeking prior permission from Alex Elmsley. Maybe I'm making too big a deal about this and "common" moves need not be properly attributed nor prior permission sought for the same. Mike
Magic is a vanishing Art.
This must not be Kansas anymore, Toto. Eschew obfuscation. |
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-10-23 12:22, Tom Cutts wrote: First, when you go to the source on material, you gain a connection to them and to the work. Such things tend to benefit all involved... not only respect, but a better end product IHMO. Some time ago someone decided to take a version of one of my routines into print. They copied part of my mechanics into a separate item in their book, and then borrowed a coin vanish from a third party to avoid the difficulty of the one I showed them. Lots of permission questions there. What readers got was a hodge podge of methods and not the basic ideas which can make the thing work. Lots of fun fussing and experimenting happened and folks seem to like the items as "works in progress". Not the best possible outcome but it happens. Not so very long ago I got an email from someone about a guy who is working on Edge Grip material. Nice, I thought at the time, as nobody's been playing with the stuff in about twenty years. After a couple of emails back and forth the guy had my permission to publish the EG2EG coin switch. Why you may well ask. It seemed a simple decision to me. I respect enthusiasm and a heartfelt interest in connecting one's works to those that already exist in the field. I'm happy to know somebody is enthusiastic about that part of coin magic and he got my approval and even a copy of my old notes on that subject. The readers got an improved product with the inclusion of the item in his book. Seems a win/win to me.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
Frank Tougas Inner circle Minneapolis, MN 1712 Posts |
It seems many of these ethics issues revolve more around ego than ethics. I would have to assume the Elmsley count was invented for the benefit of magicians and not simply for a single trick done by Alex Elmsley to the exclusion of all.
Every move, subtley, sleight, etc. has a creator(s) somewhere on the magic history timeline. Who do they belong to? No one knows. The classic palm, maybe I'll name that after myself - how's Frank's Phlange Flex sound? Over the years I have noted that crediting of things has gotten not just popular but required. Much the same as a scientific journal, everything must be sourced. Thank goodness this was overlooked for so many years none of us would be able to do anything, invent anything, perform anything or God help us, sell anything. (We all know how rich we get doing that don't we?) While I am not against the trend I'm personally not going to get me britches in a bunch over it. At one point sourcing became so ridiculous I actually saw an Owens catalog credit a trick to Moses! Fact is the bulk of ways people GET famous in this business is to have something named after them that is used by magician after magician. I absolutely hate buying something that uses a certain move that is not taught in the instructions, only sourced. I feel I've been ripped off, left high and dry. I think as far as ethics go in magic I am up there with the best of them, but I haven't left the planet - thank goodness. Seems once a magician gets their varition on a variation of a move by a famous person - they want the process to stop! No more - I got mine I'll be danged if I let you get yours. While I have a lot more ranting, seems the medication has kicked in so it will have to wait for another time. Frank Tougas
Frank Tougas The Twin Cities Most "Kid Experienced" Children's Performer :"Creating Positive Memories...One Smile at a Time"
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-11-27 18:43, Frank Tougas wrote: From his discussion on the videos, it seems he invented it for a single trick, as a variation of the Jourdin count and between his trick "Ghost" and the Vernon routine which used the count, it took off to become more popular. The count is called "The Ghost Count" BTW. My guess is that in general, those who invent tools to use for their work tend not to name things at all until they choose to publish and even then tend not to name things after themselves. When others take it upon themselves to discuss works which are not their own... well things get interesting. The naming seems more a badge of "look who I was able to take something from". As to the price of taking...
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
Frank Tougas Inner circle Minneapolis, MN 1712 Posts |
From his discussion on the videos, it seems he invented it for a single trick, as a variation of the Jourdin count and between his trick "Ghost" and the Vernon routine which used the count, it took off to become more popular. The count is called "The Ghost Count" BTW.
Then it would seem Mr. Elmsley eventually did the very same thing everyone is upset about. See I am fine with that, it is how we all grow and how the art and profession grows. And it is odd no one seems to want to correct the error regarding the actual name of the count. I see it listed as an Elmsley count in books and articles endlessly. I do enjoy these discussions Jonathan, you are one of the few that is willing to get to the nitty gritty about a thing and mix it up a bit. So how would you propose to get the ghost back into the bottle? Frank Tougas
Frank Tougas The Twin Cities Most "Kid Experienced" Children's Performer :"Creating Positive Memories...One Smile at a Time"
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Frank, I was pleased to buy the Elmsley lecture video tapes and am happy to see Alex himself explain his material. Alex was explicit and gave full honors to Charles Jordin for his count and explained his count as derived from earlier work and the technical motivation (card placement and economy of action) for his count.
With that tape set, I purchased quite an education and also a license from the inventor of the material to both do what he offers, and in time perhaps offer contributions to magic that were inspired by his material. When that time comes I will cite his (Alex's) work and also the history has he presented it so the lineage of wizards will be unbroken, the past honored and the future prepared to continue the tradition.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Ethics of teaching another person's move (0 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.03 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |