Okay, it's a given that we all build on what has come before us. But, if we take a complete "hands off" appraoch to illusions, how can we ever develop something new? When is an illusion new enough to be called "ours"?

When we take the idea of Zig Zag but create completely new method and technique, but it looks exactly the same to the audience, is it new? Can we call it our own? Or when we take the idea and divide the standing girl into only two pieces, rather than three, is that different enough?

Jack Gwynn was sued -- and won -- when he created his own "Sawing" illusion. He satisfied a judge, but let's face it, it wasn't his idea. And Blaney had a clever way to hide the gimmick in a suspension with ladders, but it's still basically a Super-X, right?

So, how different must something be to be called new?

IT MUST NOT BE A COPY...in my opinion. Or if it is designed and built by the grand masters of illusion builders, with their signature look & feel design to it.

To the magic community, it must not look and feel like the original. To the legal community, it must have a look, feel OR design difference. (See my post in Ethics)

In any case if SOMEONE is more bankrolled than you and wants to sue you, you might not have the funds to defend yourself, even if you are right! (This is a political and legal fact of life)

Starrpower,
As a designer and builder myself, I follow the same rule as most people in the artworld. The design must vary by around 30%. Method is a bit tougher as there are so few real priciples around but do your best to tweek it enough to validate a signifigant change. If it is a truley NEW method you are "improving" then follow my "Golden Rule" below.
Is this a LAW...yes, for artwork etc. but in the magic world it seems that there are quite a few who really don't care. I try my best to go even further than 30% so there is no question.
My GOLDEN RULE is this:
ASK the Creator/Rights Holder FIRST before making your "improvements"!
Pretty simple and saves a lot of hassles. You may be surprised at the reaction of the creators. Most are pretty reasonable people.
Take care,
Chance

Great Advice Chance and with a 30% difference, there would not be any haggling in a court, especially in look and design.

And I also must add, the "Wacky Look" of Chance Wolf's Products are clealy a signature design belonging to Chance Wolf. Changing his ABC to DEF and painting it Blue with cubes for legs won't cut it!

Den,
I will be sure to offer you a seat in the courtroom if I need the help
Chance

I like to think I'm a creative person (I'm way stronger in this area than in technical skill in most things I do), I have no interest in doing anything that has already been done the same. But nothing exists in a vacuum; in music for example, every musician began by copying the music that inspired them, the new things they brought to it created something new. The Rolling Stones began by aping Chess blues greats, but from it found something new that's still selling millions. Madness created a sound and style different to the jamacain ska they started out imitating, the list goes on.

I'm right at the bottom of a ladder, but the tricks I've created so far developed from existing ideas; my "floating gypsy" came about because I wanted to do a Balducci levitation over a tray of water, then the method took off in other directions. There are only so many basic principles in magic, it's how they are combined and utilised that makes it. Similarly there are only so many effects that can be considered; I understand a well-known illusion builder is working on a "walking on water" illusion, so should I chuck mine in the bin in case I get accused of copying? Hell no.. for one thing, I'm not competing with them (they're selling a professionally designed and researched illusion, I'm messing about with a paddling pool in my bathroom) and the effect itself is hardly unheard of. I think there's an account of someone doing it 2000 years ago in a book I have somewhere, but I forget which one.

Also, every new method for an illusion increases the lifespan of that illusion because it protects it against know-alls and exposers.

Ryan,

Chance is paying me a complement, not beating me on the head. Chance has/will/may deal/dealt with those who try to copy his signature products and (I believe) he meant that if he needed someone who could easily recognize his signature product in defense of his fine craftsmanship, he’ll call on me because of my previous statement. That his products carry a recognizable signature that is new on the market and should be heavily defended

Being an "internet unofficial lawyer" doesn't carry any weight; hence, they are just opinion based on life experiences with dealing with the law and lawyers. (They are not all bad!) The only real opinion that matters is that of a judge.

As for what HelenHeld posted, I have Jim Snack's books and the section he has on illusions is excellent in illusion routine selection design. For the last two years I've been working on my fundraising illusion show. I have ordered it very closely to Snacks format and listed the effects I wanted to do, the songs, I wanted to use with the illusions I've bought over the last two years.

Last week I went to a local illusion show fund raiser, and I was flabbergasted that the order and effects were identical to my design, the twister, the Wiz-Kote, the Rabbit Production, the danger element. Will this stop me from moving forward? No because my routines are different, and the way they are presented are different and my music selection is different except for two songs.(Twist for twister, and the other may/may not end up in the final show).

Do I see it as a copy, NO, do I see it as competition YES. Since we both use stock effects, I must add sufficient differences so the show is different, however, the format stays the same with levitations and danger effects toward the end of the show because they are such powerful closers.

Gotcha I must have read it wrong hehe good times.

Ryan,
I only have a second here but the whole thing is a misunderstanding!!! Den is the MAN!! It was meant for him to HELP ME battle in court.
I am just giving friendly advise to the original topic starter and mean no harm
But I guess we all got it figured out by now!
Take care,
Chance

But isn't that a bit ambiguous? How exactly does one ascertain what "30%" is? I might think that my contribution improves something 100%, while someone else might think that it's no improvement or change at all. What does one do, count all the individual parts and if there are nine parts, change three of them? Sounds ridiculous, but I can think of no other way to determine what a 30% change is.

In music, it's easy ... count the notes that are different. But not so easy in magic.

You're just looking for trouble aren't you. Heres a simple way to figure things out ... ask yourself this... "Are the illusions being compaired different enough to perform in the same show?" This is a simple way to see if it is in fact "new" or differnt enough to an audience. I think that's the best advice there is... and it doesn't hurt to contact the designer of the effect.

Steve

P.S. Can we get a spell checker on this site... it's late when I type this stuff... I don't want to look stupid... ouch!

Thirty (30%) percent is a figure that works for Chance, and it is an arbitrary figure. Since we are on this topic lets look at Chance's ABC GUMBALL RE-COMBOBULATOR.

The basic effect is a common one, square circle, a classic effect with numerous designs, big ones, small ones, square ones round ones, etc. When you look at it's outer covering, you see a new pleasing look without strange oriental symbols!

The color is bright, the design is unique, the load is gumballs, the unit has a crank, a bell and a palette of sticky chewed gumballs.

I don't own this nor have I seen it performed, however, having done lots of kid shows I smile just looking at it...a start of laughter. Does my other square circle do that? I can see me using the gumball mouth coils and really having fun with it. (Obviously on my future purchase list.)

Is it sufficient different than my standard routine square circle production? Absolutely. What percentages (subjective answer:) 100% in design change, 100% in presentation, 100% in signature look of Wolf Products, 0% in effect (production-Square Circle is a Square Circle). This exceeds Chance's Golden Rule of 30%.. With the exception of the basic effect, it is 100% different.

Star Power,

Now lets apply this principle to the illusion you want to create. Think of the effect, production, vanish, levitation, transformation, disembodiedment, etc. Take production for instance, and you want to produce a person. Set your limiting factors: surrounded, stage only, no cranes. Look at your options, Surrounded, means concealment must be within, stage only allows for a free side (back of illusion), you like the existing shadow box design concept. You notice the square box and triangle design have been done and have studied their concept. You think, I've never seen a tall thin rectangle type which can be spun around, the insides have a series of halogen light bars (Home depot 12v 50 watt style) The unit can be put together right before the audience's eyes On the front side a projection of a beautiful assistant appears not in shadow form but in full color and out from that picture emerges your assistant.

This concept just popped into my mind, the details need working, but I believe this effect is sufficiently different and could be classified as a "new" illusion, even though I remember variations of different illusions which have been drawn up in Osborne plans (Screens effects), and Mark Wilson’s giant cards. My idea is to convince, to the audience there is no one in the back, no one inside and the girl of my dreams comes alive.(Cooperfield's picture frame illusion, but with a projection.)

For an illusion to be "new", enough of you (30-40-50 percent) has to be put into it to make it look different.

To me if it hasn't been recorded done and you create it, it is new

If you have any doubts, just simply ask the originator of the illusion you think you're copying.

Den NAILED IT as usual! Great advice and examples Den.
StarPower,
It is a good question either way. " How do you determine 30%?
Actually, I was stressing DESIGN which is exactly like music. A design is based on components of shape and composition with and endless aray of possibilities. This is actually the easier aspect...well, at least for me.
Method/Gimmick at 30%. This is a bit more difficult to determine. As we all know, there are only so many priciples to go around and I am not sure who can claim "rights" to these. I believe this to be a judgement of the combination or Design & Method and is it enough change.
Steve Chezaday ( what's up Steve ) is right up to a point. It is a good start but you may have created a fresh new idea that has been changed enough but is in the same categorie, such as a Sawing in Half. Example, Copperfield's Visible sawing. That was CLEARLY a new Method and Design but with an EXTREME change to design and Method.
I am not saying my "rule" is perfect but it is a good place to start.
Once again, as Steve confirmed, save yourself the headache and simply ASK the Creator first. I approached Jim Steinmeyer with a new twist to his "Hospitality". He was absolutley cool about the whole thing and took the time to give me LENGTHY advice on my approach.
Can there be a better example? Jim is the KING as far as I am concerned.
Hope this helps,
Chance

The magic world is reletively small... if you want to get anywhere in this business, and make a name for yourself, you have to play the game right... otherwise you're just another amateur ripping off someone else's act. Why take a Chance... get it ...what's up Chance...

Steve

Speaking of Chance..the improvements made to the Square Circle are amazing... I finally got to play with one. I'm pretty sure the Square Circle falls into public domains as with many other effects and older illsions.. that's a whole other topic....