Greetings,

Can I ethically take a commercially released (or privately known) effect of another performer, revise the handling in one or two places, and release it solo for profit? As an example, consider the earlier Yves Doumergue's "ripped and restored", and the more recent followers "unripped" from Gared Crawford, and Daniel Garcia's "torn".

Remember, the question is NOT which is the better handling; the question is how much of the original need be changed to be justified in releasing it as a solo piece under one's own name. I think this topic for discussion is apropos, given the frequency of such releases, and the ease in which one can, in some form, publish them.

Basically, you should get permission before you release a variation. Losander got permission from Tommy Wonder to use his zombie gimmick principle on his table. Boris Wild pays Ted Lesley a royalty for his marking system.

That sounds like at least two ethical questions in there "Can I ethically take a 1) commercially released (or 2 privately known) effect of another performer,

A commercially released routine tends to be up for grabs. There are many wildcard handlings and Triumph variations in print.

A privately know though unpublished routine is not a good thing to show around magicians, discuss, publish variations etc.

Bill,

That's encouraging to know about Wild and Losander.

Jonathan,

There are many wildcard handlings and triumph variations, but how many were realeased for profit as a solo piece? See, today you can make a variation, and sell it on its own as a single effect or dvd. Therein lies the issue.

I think it is disturbing to think that you could work on an idea for years, publish it for profit, and have someone else come along and take 98% of your work, repackage it with their own 2%, and turn around and release it for profit. Isn't it much more ethical to write up the alternate handling and put it in a magazine, as many respectable magicians have done? One would get thier credit that way, but wouldn't look like they were trying to infringe on the profits of the originator. Better yet, how about writing up the handling and sending it to the originator?

If you want to release it for profit, it would seem to me that, as Bill said, you at least ask first. Perhaps the originator wouldn't mind a $5 or $10 download on your site, or it being released in a book or DVD of 10 or 20 effects. Going back to my original example of "ripped and restored" versus "torn", a friend of mine suggested that if Daniel had worked out a package deal with Meir and Yves so the buyer would get both "ripped" and "torn" DVDs for a special price, there wouldn't have been an issue with Daniel releasing "torn".

If it's released without other material, and without consent, it seems that the motivation behind the release becomes quite clear.

It seems to be an issue of permission and credit, but am I missing something? In developing your own ideas from a foundation of an existing effect, what considerations would you impose upon yourself?

R

A lot of it would have to do with the following factors:
1) is the originator still alive?
2) how widespread was the distribution of the original routine?
3) how long ago was it distributed?
4) how well known is the original?

Let's take a fairly well known example: Bob Read's Penultimate Cups and Balls Routine. Right at the beginning, he tells you that it is the Vernon cups and balls routine. But he has a lot of original lines, and his work on it is so different that there is no problem at all.

However, if he didn't tell you that at the beginning, you would feel that he was cheating, because you would spot it.

Some of my "original" routines are interpretations of material that were published 50+ years ago. And I credit them fully.