|
|
Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
Thomas Wayne Inner circle Alaska 1977 Posts |
OPINIONS REQUESTED:
The question I pose is this: If a magician figures out how “Dis-Armed”, “Interlude”, “Origami” or “Zig-Zag” is done, should they be allowed to build it? I would like to hear the opinions of interested readers regarding this issue. To keep things simple and civil, I would also like to ask that the responses be kept to approximately 100 words or less, and that those responses ONLY address the poster’s own opinion without criticizing or commenting on the opinions expressed by other posters. I’ll start it out: Until a trick, illusion, or routine has been published or sold, with the intention [of its creator] that it be available to other builders it should be considered off limits. The fact that we can copy doesn’t mean we should copy. It’s so easy to ask the original creator for permission to expand on his ideas; pity so many magicians not only don’t ask, they don’t even think they should have to ask. TW
MOST magicians: "Here's a quarter, it's gone, you're an idiot, it's back, you're a jerk, show's over." Jerry Seinfeld
|
|||||||||
Frank Tougas Inner circle Minneapolis, MN 1712 Posts |
If we figured out the secret formula for Coca cola should we make it? The answer is no but the question is why not? Well the Coca cola Company would have a herd of lawyers trample a way to your door, over your head and into your bank account. They wield power so of course no one, short of an idiot would try it.
My point? Just that most would not do it not because it is wrong or is the property of another but because of the high price one would pay for doing it. There is PUNISHMENT behind such a move. In magic there is no such power. It still should not be done - because it is wrong, is the property of another and breaks any sort of code of ethics. But no punishment means many will do just that, make it and use it. This is not so much a business issue as a moral issue. And those who will cheat, will cheat and those who do not will cry foul (which is almost like wishing you could cheat but knowing you shouldn't). And those who invent will one day cease to invent. Frank Tougas
Frank Tougas The Twin Cities Most "Kid Experienced" Children's Performer :"Creating Positive Memories...One Smile at a Time"
|
|||||||||
BarryFernelius Inner circle Still learning, even though I've made 2537 Posts |
I agree with Thomas about illusions that are clearly the property of their creators. If you've purchased the rights to build one of those illusions from its creator, then it's OK to build one. If not, those illusions are off limits. And in most cases, I'd love to see the rip-off artists prosecuted for their theft.
Let's consider a more interesting case. Let's suppose that I decide to adapt Erdnase's patter for a four queen assembly (The Exclusive Coterie), and the method for the trick is the same principle as the MacDonald's Four Ace assembly. Is that OK? In theory, this should be OK; after all, I own Expert at the Card Table and More Inner Secrets of Card Magic. Unfortunately for me, Ricky Jay uses this presentation with this method as one of the mainstays of his show. I'd maintain that although I COULD use the same combination of presentation and effect, I SHOULDN'T do it because it's already established as one of Ricky's signature pieces.
"To achieve great things, two things are needed: a plan and not quite enough time."
-Leonard Bernstein |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Taking Barry's example, I have a question ...
If someone came to consider the trick on their own, with no exposure or knowlege of Ricky Jay's work, would that be okay?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Payne Inner circle Seattle 4571 Posts |
I think that the laws and traditions that govern other industries should be looked to for guidance.
It is not feasible for most creators of magic apparatus to obtain and protect a patent. We should however treat it like they do posses one and refrain from knocking off a product until the requisite time has passed. I believe a patent expires in 27 years. Effects and illusions like the Professors Nightmare and Zig-Zag should be thought of in the public domain and thus reproduce-able and improved upon by whom ever wishes to but props like Losanders Floating Table and Origami should be thought of as re-producible only with the creators permission. We of course know that the chances of this occurring are zero as there are those who will knock off anything to make a buck. This is true in all industries not just magic.
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Not sure about those examples. The zombie is pretty much public domain, while the recent innovations of Tommy Wonder and Loasnder are available as products. The Zig-zag is an item in Harbin's Illusions book and very much exclusive to that book. It gets even more strange when we get to presentations. The "invisible deck" is a presentation, while the gaffed deck is kind of public domain as of the Hull stuff back long ago. On the other side we have the Ramsay and Hofzinser stuff which is all about presentation. Complicated thing here.
In general... perhaps it is simply not so good to copy other magicians.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Josh Riel Inner circle of hell 1995 Posts |
No, Anymore than it would be O.K. to develop a copy of Windows XP just because you had the ability to do so.
And this is only the second post that was 100 words or less. I am some sort of genius. (Not the good sort)
Magic is doing improbable things with odd items that, under normal circumstances, would be unnessecary and quite often undesirable.
|
|||||||||
Josh Riel Inner circle of hell 1995 Posts |
I am working on copying Coca Cola, I just need battery acid maple syrup and rusty nails (for the color)
Magic is doing improbable things with odd items that, under normal circumstances, would be unnessecary and quite often undesirable.
|
|||||||||
EdwinWise New user Austin, TX 3 Posts |
If you are looking to industry (patents) for guidance, note that you can patent an execution of an idea but not the idea itself.
Even if you re-invent something with no knowledge of the existing, patented, execution -- you are held accountable to the patent. However, if you come up with a new execution for an existing idea, it's yours... and patentable (in theory). So given this framework, how does that fit with magic? The catch is that patents are open and it's possible to search for infringements. Magic is closed so it's hard to know if you are infringing. |
|||||||||
BarryFernelius Inner circle Still learning, even though I've made 2537 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-03-31 15:35, Jonathan Townsend wrote: Jonathan, That's a very interesting question. Although some will disagree, I think that if someone were to come up with Ricky Jay's happy combination of patter and method completely independently, it would be OK. But how on earth would someone prove that this was the case?! Once the person with the parallel invention discovers that Ricky came up with the idea first, that person would be wise to drop the item from his/her repertoire and come up with something else. (Sigh) Ignorance sometimes is bliss...
"To achieve great things, two things are needed: a plan and not quite enough time."
-Leonard Bernstein |
|||||||||
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24312 Posts |
There is an interesting situation with Origami. If you purchase the rights to it, you still MUST have it builr by a builder who has the right to build it. At least, that's the way the original license read. At the time it was originated, the only "licensed" builder was a fellow on the coast.
This caused no end of trouble for a friend of mine who purchased said license, then he flew his assistant out to the proper workshop to have her measured for the illusion. A deposit was also made. A few months went by. No illusion. Phone calls -- "Well, we had to do some special work for that S & R Special." More time went by, "Well, we had to do some things for Henning or Copperfield or whoever." So he had the illusion built by a knockoff illusion builder. Then he demanded his deposit back. It got nasty. I was hoping it would go to the courts, because at some point, there was a violation of fair trade practices. This might have snapped a few people into line about making promises they couldn't keep. Note that the names of the people involved are not listed. That's to keep peace in the family.
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
|||||||||
Dennis Michael Inner circle Southern, NJ 5821 Posts |
This brings us to the historical "Hammer" court decision. Look at the different types and kinds of hammers. As long as the hammer has a distinct difference or purpose, it is not a copy.
A Hoop that is not a copy of the Blaney Hoop qualifies as being different. A levitation or suspension which is origional in design (not a copy) also fits this qualification. (Visually from the audience it's the same) If the method of the illusions described above are significantly different and not called the same, then it is "legally" OK. Remember the Barney and McDonald's versions of "Run Rabit Run". They trampled on the Trademark names hence Bakery Bear was created. Trademark names are more winable in court than a close copy of a product. I like Chance Wolfs concept elsewhere on the Café, Ask permission (premission given) and make it siginificantly (30%) different.
Dennis Michael
|
|||||||||
Scott F. Guinn Inner circle "Great Scott!" aka "Palms of Putty" & "Poof Daddy G" 6586 Posts |
I would have to say no, as I did not think of the design. If I had my own method, I still didn't come up with the idea for the effect, and how do I know it's a different method if I don't have the original for comparison? If, on the other hand, something in an effect gets my imagination going about a totally different effect, I think it's OK to build that, although I would still give credit for the inspiration.
"Love God, laugh more, spend more time with the ones you love, play with children, do good to those in need, and eat more ice cream. There is more to life than magic tricks." - Scott F. Guinn
My Lybrary Page |
|||||||||
Peter Marucci Inner circle 5389 Posts |
If Magician A does card tricks, does that mean that no other magician may morally do card tricks?
Nice thought, but . . . |
|||||||||
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24312 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-03-31 15:51, Payne wrote: It doesn't take much to look up the patent law. Patents are good for 20 years, generally speaking. However, part of what we have with a magic trick has to do with the performing aspect of it -- it's a little different than, say, a car radio. What gives anyone the right to say that "Professor's Nightmare" or "Zig Zag" is now in the public domain. I don't think you can arbitrarily make that judgment. Even though both are more than 20 years old. What has happened with both items is that they have been knocked off to the point that nobody can really track them any longer. Zig Zag was printed in the Harbin book 33 years ago. The Professor's Nightmare has been around longer than that. But that does not make them fair game. I'm not saying that products should not have a useful life, but the situation is different in magic than it is in, say, widget making. The situation with proprietary characters in children's tricks really came to a head with "Fraidy Cat Kermy." Jim Henson had let the Big Bird trick and Run Monster Run slide, but when Hank Lee came out with Fraidy Cat Kermie, Henson said, "Kermit was the first Muppet. I can't let this happen." and he nailed Hank. The Barney thing was a no-brainer. The Barney trademark is awfully broad, though. Read it sometime.
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
|||||||||
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24312 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-04-02 14:28, Peter Marucci wrote: Nobody is saying anything like that Peter.
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
|||||||||
Peter Marucci Inner circle 5389 Posts |
Bill Palmer writes: "Nobody is saying anything like that Peter."
Strange. That's EXACTLY the way I read it. |
|||||||||
George Ledo Magic Café Columnist SF Bay Area 3042 Posts |
My apologies to Payne . I just wrote a post (on another thread) suggesting that we look at other fields and see how they handle ripoffs, only to discover that he suggested the same thing four days ago. Yikes. Mea culpa for not seeing this thread before. May my woofle dust clog up in my pocket and may my doves start to coo inside my jacket.
That's our departed buddy Burt, aka The Great Burtini, doing his famous Cups and Mice routine
www.georgefledo.net Latest column: "Sorry about the photos in my posts here" |
|||||||||
Craig Ousterling Special user 585 Posts |
I just got through yelling at my sister for attempting to put on the classic children's play Peter Pan with her first grade class. I mean I can't believe she was going to actually use the lines from the original script! Heck she's even trying to copy the costumes!?! It's anarchy I tell you. I asked her if she knew that it was copy righted by Johnny Depp and Warner Bros. she said ya but.. but.. and I told her she was just asking for a law suit.
I heard the NFL copyrighted the words "Superbowl Sunday" (that's just pathetic) So now I'm supposed to feel bad like I'm doing something illegal for using those words on my party flyer for the Superbowl? I might get sued and lose my house??? O.k. change the flyer... there's a football par- wait is "Football" copyrighted too? Can I even say football now? Or am I going to jail for that one? Wait.. no.. It's not jail. But I could be sued for everything I have? (For those that aren't sure.. I'm being sarcastic. and no.. I didn't really yell at my sister... I haven't a clue if she's putting on a play or not) Now for a really relevant discussion: I would like to think that I came up with a new effect. here's the pitch- Magacian states his magic is so powerful he can project thoughts into spectators minds. Two spectators are chosen/volunteered. You state to spectator number 1 that you have placed 4 cards with four different symbols on them in a closed envelope. The symbols match the markings on the outside of the envelope. (ESP Symbols circle, plus, three wavy lines, and a square) The magician tells the spectator that one of the cards is facing up while all the others are facing down. The magician puts the closed/sealed envelope onto the palm of the spec. asks the spec to put other hand on top and concentrate and the symbol will come to them. Spectator 2 now has the same procedure repeated. Back to spec 1, "Which symbol do you think is on the card I placed face up in this envelope?" At this point they can name ANY symbol... it will be the face up symbol and the only face up card in the envelope. Same with spectator number 2. After testing many variations of patter - this is the one that garnered the strongest reactions. that's the jist of the effect. I haven't published this... and I'm not selling it... but am I to understand that I'm a bad person for not beating my brains out looking to see if this has been done before? And I'm utterly EVIL and going to hell if it already exists? Heck... the effect idea came from a question asked here on the Café. Someone asked about an ungaffed B-wave. So now I guess I'm going to be sued by Goldstein cause I'm doing his effect. Wait, no, I'm not doing his effect... it's been changed... it doesn't use the same little 'something something' that you have to buy b-wave to do b-wave. And it's not even a prediction effect anymore due to the patter. But Elmsley and Jordan are coming after me for using their slieghts? Hideo Kato is going to sue me for using the same order of the cards he suggests on that same thread as the original asker? Even though I thought of it before reading his post I guess it's his because he typed it first? (Hideo if you read this I mean absolutely no offense and I don't really even think you care... anyone else who wants clarification of this previous thread search for "ungaffed b-wave") And that whole point went moot as soon as I threw out the use of playing cards and changed them to double blank cards with ESP symbols drawn on them with a sharpie. Great, now Sharpie is going to sue me for mentioning them and using "THEIR" tool to build a prop for my routine. Is Avery corporation coming after me for copying a folding design they use in envelope manufacturing? Cause I had to MAKE envelopes that fit four cards nicely (darnit all). I couldn't find any to buy. Is the ESP symbol creator (I can't for my life remember his name right now) going to sue me for using those symbols? And last but not least... whoever claims they already created this trick is going to hunt me down and kill me for performing it? You know... after thinking about it I have finally come up with a name for this trick... "RENTALLY MENTARDED" You aren't going to be able to buy it, but you can rent it for a mental amount of time. Thanks for listening- I mean this to be directed at NO ONE SPECIFICALLY. I'm not 'retorting' to any comments here. I'm not trying to pick a fight and I'm not trying to argue with anyone. It's just food for thought and my psychologically disturbed ramblings. P.S If you feel that this is you're trick and you came up with it and I'm now ripping you off... you should know that: 1) I didn't know you even existed. Or if your famous and I have heard of you, I didn't know you invented THIS trick. 2) I'm not selling this trick. (but now I'm contemplating renting it out to mental patients) 3) I haven't made a dime doing this trick. The most I've gotten is a free beer for doing it at the local pub in my town in an effort to mess with the drunks. ~Craig |
|||||||||
Thomas Wayne Inner circle Alaska 1977 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-04-04 02:47, GreyGhost wrote: Any discussion can descend into muddiness if enough exaggerated "analogies" are piled on (see above). But this particular discussion is about the imitation of specific,known effects being imitated by a magician who 1) Has seen the original effect performed 2) Has figured out the way (or “a” way) to do the effect 3) Does not have the permission of the originator So the examples of your sister’s [imaginary] play and your little card trick don’t really fit those criteria (that’s sort of like a “check list”, Craig). Regards, Thomas Wayne
MOST magicians: "Here's a quarter, it's gone, you're an idiot, it's back, you're a jerk, show's over." Jerry Seinfeld
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » Prop Building Question (revisisted) (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.06 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 < |