Agreed about "it depends".

Would you provide a "for example" so we can discuss?

For a while now I have felt like Alice and Wonderland since this topic appears to have an ulterior motive and directed toward me. In blog land, evidently, its "First the verdict, then the evidence!"

It is amusing to some extent to see the puffery and somber "ethical reasoning" of these blowhards. They act like tough, no-nonsense critics of others, with all the masculine strutting and posturing and lots of abusive foul language, when they are simply for the most part a bunch of mean-spirited, gossipy old women.

We have been involved in an attempt to resolve these things amicably with Doug Bush, but that, unfortunately, has become impossible. Partly, we are convinced, because of those who have inserted themselves into the affair for the sake of their own agendas.

Things have changed, and I am now at liberty to tell our side of the story. It will be pretty long and detailed. I am tired of watching anonymous bloggers write the most irresponsible things about a situation they know nothing about.

It is obvious that most of them have not even looked at the material in question.

Sometimes two very different versions of a story can both be true, as seen through the eyes of two different people. I am sure Doug Bush believes what he is saying, and from his point of view, his animosity seems well-founded. That doesn't make his viewpoint the whole story.

It will take some time to get it all together, but as soon as possible I will publish the story on this thread.

Please reserve judgement until you have listened to the story from our side as well. Then you can upbraid me if you think I did something wrong.

I would love to see this thing worked out to everyones satisfaction. Things like this are painful to even see discussed on these boards. I cannot imagine that any malice is in play here. At least on the part of the SFS. Please get this resolved guys (both sides). This is the kind of stuff that really hurts what little bit of "community" that we have.

This stuff really isn't the business of parties not involved. But when the accusations start flying on public forums then it gets ugly for everyone. People choose sides and start tearing each other down. Its sad really. I'd like to see this issue (if it is an issue) be cleared up and put away.

Good Luck Guys.

Vandy

Agreed. Also, starting a discussion or thread in order to sharpen an axe is hardly constructive.

Well, I haven't heard any cries of "Get a rope!" yet, but believe me, it wouldn't be a surprise. I will post the story with the various supporting info as soon as I can get it done.

I am not doing this to respond to the blogs and those who have tried to assassinate my character and derail my business, but rather to my friends, colleagues and customers who have been confused by the many unwarranted accusations that have been flung at Bob Sheets and myself.

Most of the people on this board are unaware of the controversy because so few actually read the more obstreperous magic blogs--the ones whose idea of humor is on a par with those who write anonymous attacks on bathroom walls.

What motivates people to such behavior is a mystery to me, but I would rather let them rant on in their blame fest, than entangle myself in a fight with a such a tar baby. They have made their judgements already, anyway, and nothing will probably change minds such as that.

I am not concerned with the opinions of those with such arrested development.

But I do care about how other professionals, my customers, and my friends here at Magic Café think of me. For their sakes I will explain the controversy and the various charges that are being leveled at School for Scoundrels.

Most of these nameless and faceless ankle-biters have pretty high moral expectations for scoundrels such as us, and we may never be able to rise to the level they expect. I don't think I will ever convert those who hate me because of my hat.

We want to tell our side to those who are less quick to pass judgement before hearing the evidence.

At least here we can offer up our defense before the hanging and not after.

No hatin'.

Nice hat, Whit.

I don't see what's wrong with using a trick and simply putting credit on it. For example someone said to use Vernons effect you should contact the Vernon estate, but if you were them would you want phone calls day in and day out asking if they can use your effect.

There's nothing wrong with publishing these effects in DVDs. There are plenty of books that do the exact same thing, so if it's ok in a book what makes a dvd different? It comes down to opinion. Ellusionist for example credits it's tricks so I don't see anything wrong with it.

Since very few people seem to contact them, I don't think they would mind the occasional phone call. Don't forget the mail. Remember mail? It's that stuff the letter carrier drops in that box on your porch. Seriously, when someone asks permission to use someone else's material it is simply the right thing to do. You may not agree.

The statement that there are plenty of books that do the exact same thing doesn't make it right not to do it. Plenty of people make "rolling stops," but that doesn't exempt them from tickets.

As I mentioned before, Fun, Inc. got permission from the Vernon estate to use his cups and balls routine. Brett Sherwood got permission and an endorsement from the Vernon estate to have his cups engraved in a design that wasn't even exactly like the one on the Vernon cups. He didn't have to do that. But Brett is that kind of guy.

The Verners are not exactly low profile people. They are accessible if you know whom they probably have been in contact with. Simply looking at the publications that were done about him near the end of his life will give you a hint.

Other people are much more difficult to find.

Jonathan used the word "magicdom"

What exactly is "magicdom" and who is or isn't included in it?

Our legal system has a aspect called "discovery".

Were a magic case to go to court, all pertinent "secrets" would be made public for review by the lawyers, judge and associated parties.

Welcome to muggledom.

The question folks are scared to face is the matter of how to enforce decisions without recourse to muggledom. More simply, how might magicdom enforce it's code of ethics?

Assume if someone took the time to write, edit and publish a work they spent the 30.00 to register it. Even if they didn't they can go register and then sue you. Why not follow Scarne's example and ask permission give credit and do a nice write up of the magician and his work. If your trying to sell cd's on ebay of other people's work, it's not going to work. Had this problem with a pirate selling a program I wrote for about a 10th the price. I shut him down in 3 days and voided the auctions. Ebay has an intellectual property program and to keep from being sued by the galaxy they just ask for an affadavit of your claim the other side has no say in the matter. The pirate also sold his own program through paypal along with mine, I complained to them and he wasn't able to use paypal to collect legitimate payments. He doesn't sell on Ebay anymore. Then there is the Millenium Electronic Copyright Act which besides making violations a civil offense can land you in jail or doing ads for Pepsi. From a business sense it just doesn't add up. Don't do it.

Jon, that was exactly what I was saying, what I was trying to get across. Maybe I needed to expand on it a bit.

Most of the questions and arguments on this subject aren't really about who owns things; that's not the bottom line. We're not a bunch of real estate title companies or county clerks who just want to establish and record ownership. People who ask these questions have another motive: they want to use the material.

Establishing who owns the material does not address the real issue, which is how to use someone it properly. Establishing ownership is only part of the process for answering the question. We can, and have, gone around and around in circles debating ownership without ever addressing the issue of how to use the material.

If I see you doing a trick, and I like it and want to use it, common courtesy and common sense dictate that I talk with you about it. Back when I was starting in magic in the late 60's, this was a no-brainer in the magic community. Sure there were exceptions, but they were few and far between and we managed to take care of the offenders ourselves. Then again, the community was a lot smaller in those days.

Nowadays, with the internet and the number of magic forums out there, it's easy to ask about material. Common sense and common courtesy dictate that we do.

On the other hand... maybe our goat has been gotten again:

I'm tending to agree with Frank that some of these threads on generic "what if" questions may have been started by people wanting to amuse themselves at the expense of others. And it's especially suspicious when the thread is started by someone who uses a username, has no photo, and has only a few posts.

Anyone out there care to do a search for similar threads?

Last time I looked it was $80.00 per title to copyright a work. If a work is written before a certain time and published without any notice of copyright, it is very likely in the public domain.

Regarding jimtron's question about Dover -- they specialize in publishgin public domain material. Sometimes they pay an editor a fee for putting it together, other times they just publish the book in a slightly smaller format. You may wonder about the copyright on Modern Coin Magic. Well, it was one of those books that fell into the cracks. Magic, Inc. acquired the copyright from the Carl Waring Jones estate. When they published The New Modern Coin Magic they forgot that the old version needed to be renewed. They didn't do it. Dover snapped it right up. Hay Marshall's comment was "Hey. I messed up. I wish I hadn't. I don't know what I was thinking." But he just let it go.

Bill:

Are most or all of Dover's magic titles in the public domain?

Bob Sheets and I had been planning our DVDs for quite some time. We had all of the material we wanted on the first DVD (Introduction to the Shell Game) planned out, but I was looking for a good basic routine that we could teach, and then could layer over all the improvements in methods and ruses that we had come up with, both together and independently.

The Gary Ouellette routine—based on the work of Eddie Joseph—makes a good basis for a great beginner routine, but it had already been used as a starting point in Kohler’s routine and in Phil Cass’s routine, and we wanted something different.

I had been looking at routines from the works of Eddie Joseph, Jack Chanin, and Tom Osbourne—all very simple and usable, and short. These three are the only truly seminal writers on the shells. All are of course, in the public domain.

Bob suggested that we use the Dr. Beaumont routine. This was something I was not familiar with, and in all the years of intense research on the shells, had never come across.

Bob showed me the pamphlet of the routine. This was in October, Just a month before we were to begin shooting for the DVD.

It was a very clever routine, with simple phases and simple, standard moves. It had solid and well-thought out ways of handling the outs, and it had a good and entertaining introductory patter that Bob had massaged into a wonderful performance piece.

Bob said that he had bought the 14 page manuscript in 1975 at a magic shop in Atlanta, but he couldn’t remember the name of the shop.

He had learned the shells from that routine, and had used it ever since, even though he had other much more involved routines that he used in performance, he liked this routine for working “one on one,” as you would in a trade-show situation—not wanting to “blow the whole wad” before more people gathered.

I loved the routine, but was worried about how to get permission to use it. Bob said that he had started teaching the routine in his lectures about four years earlier, and had been looking for the author ever since.

Bob said he had talked with everyone he knew in magic in Georgia and surrounding states, including Charles Pecor, Doty, Dan Garrett and many others. Bob may chime in later with a more detailed account of his earlier attempts to locate the author.

He had found out the real name of the author (which at that moment he and I were discussing the issue, he couldn’t remember), but no one knew what had happened to him. Several had told him that they thought the author was dead or had gone into hiding from creditors, and no one could remember having heard of him since the late 1970’s. Bob had called the home of the only person with that name in Atlanta and never got anything but “no answer.” No answering machine, nobody home.

I talked with our lawyer, and showed him the manuscript. He said that in his opinion, the whole manuscript was in public domain the moment it was published.

This is because it was published pseudonymously before 1978 (when new copyright rules came into effect) without any kind of copyright notice, date of publication, or publisher's name or address.

We were convinced that the document was published before 1978 because Bob had bought it in 1975. As it turns out, Doug D. Bush has since confirmed that it was published in 1975.

Anything published before 1978 without at least a "c" for copyright notice was considered immediately public domain by the rules at the time. Anyone can publish such a document at any time, rendering it practically valueless for sale.

There was one notice rubber-stamped on the back of the front cover of the document. It read:

“Sales Officer
Allstate Products
222 Hillcrest Road
Box 394
Middleton, GA 30059
Phone: (404) 941-3245”

We have since been able to locate only one other copy of the Dr. Beaumont document on the internet, and it is in the collection of an English magician, and he has sent me scans of the document showing that it also had only the contact info listed above, and also no date of publication or copyright notice.

Bob had called the number many, many times and never got anything except a “no answer” signal. No answering machine, just the ringing of the phone. An internet search of the business name and of the address turned up nothing.

We were told by our lawyer that we were perfectly in the clear to use the material any way we saw fit. The document had been abandoned to public domain thirty years ago, and had not been re-published since.

Bob and I decided that even though we did not need permission to publish the routine, we still wanted to locate the author, and pay him for his work. We thought that was only proper, since we felt that it was a good piece of work, and would become an important part of our DVD.

The lawyer recommended that we go ahead and publish, saying “that way, he or his heirs will be sure to find you.”

I put up notices on both Magic Café and Genii forums, requesting any information about “Dr. Henry Beaumont.” Dan Garrett responded, giving me the name Doug D. Bush, the name that had slipped Bob Sheets mind. There were no other responses.

I did an internet search, and came up with about ten Doug Bush’s in Georgia. The only one in Atlanta was listed as Doug Bush, Jr. I called that number every day for a week or so during November, but never got anything but ringing. No answer machine. Nothing.

We eventually decided to go ahead and publish the routine, and if we were able to locate Doug D. Bush or his heirs later, we would pay them for the use of the material, even though it was not legally necessary.

I wanted to make sure that Doug D Bush got all the credit for everything he had created, and was worried that if Bob taught Doug’s routine, Doug would not get all the credit for everything he had created—especially since Bob had made a few slight alterations in the routine and patter in his very recognizable style.

People might assume that Bob had created some of the moves or some of the patter, etc.

The only way to make clear what was Bob’s and what was Doug’s was to also publish Doug’s entire manuscript, along with the video instruction. This is what we decided to do.

We placed this credit in the rolling credits of the video part of the DVD:

“The patter and routine for the ‘Basic Routine’ are adapted from a wonderful routine created by Doug D. Bush and published in a pamphlet entitled ‘The famous 3 Shell Game as presented by Dr. Henry Beaumont of the Great Southwestern Medicine Show and Tent Revival.’"

On the pdf file which consisted of a scan of the entire Dr. Beaumont pamphlet, we put this notice:

“Doug D. Bush: The Real Dr. Henry Beaumont

“The School for Scoundrels believes that this document has been abandoned to the public domain. We believe it is an important contribution to the literature on this subject, and believe that it should be preserved and are therefore including it here.

“The author, Doug D. Bush, owned a magic shop in Atlanta, GA in the 1970’s.

“We have spent several years looking for Doug D. Bush without success—through Internet people search, talking to his old friends and acquaintances, checking with magic societies and magic web forums, etc.

“We have not given up however. If you know Doug D. Bush or his heirs please have them contact the School for Scoundrels at http://www.SchoolforScoundrels.com "

We were not looking for Doug Bush or his heirs to ask permission. We did not need that.—we wanted to give them a fair amount of money for the use of the material.

We felt that we were saving a long forgotten routine, long out of print, from oblivion. We wanted Doug D. Bush to get the credit for this fine routine, as well as to preserve this work for the future and those to come.

We also thought that it was one of the better and most complete of the basic routines available in print. We decided that if we located the author or his heirs we would offer them $2,000 for the use of the material--what we would have offered had we been able to contact Doug Bush and get him to perform and teach the routine as a part of our video.

In our DVD, “Introduction to the Shell Game,” the performance and teaching of this starting routine took up just over ten minutes of our hour and a half video, and the publication of the original pamphlet, just 14 pages of our more than eighty pages of pdf files on the shell game.

The majority of the DVD is concerned with the original ideas, moves and concepts from Bob Sheets and the School for Scoundrels that form the basis of our combined methods of performing the shell game.

This new way of looking at the shells, and the new moves and ruses that are created to accompany it, are in our opinion, the first truly groundbreaking new ideas for the shell game published in the last fifty years.

This rather lengthy history is just the start of the story. I will deliver the complete story of what happened after the publication of the DVD in my next post.

Whit, thank you for posting this. I am sure that there will be some who will still have problems with what you did, but it is clear you were not acting hypocritically nor did you steal anything.

Whit, I know some argue that, "It is always unethical to publish a routine under any circumstances if you cannot contact the author."

I think in this case you were in the right, but how would you answer that charge?

I am not here to answer charges. I am here just to state what happened as clearly and honestly as possible.

Everyone can make up their own minds about whether Bob and I acted honorably or not.

I don't want to get into an unwinnable ethical debate, but simply to state the facts, and let others decide the merits of the situation.

I can not change the way things happened now, anyway.

So wrong or right, the above will tell you what happened and why we did what we did.

The case has already been decided against us by many others, anyway. Here are the facts from our side--for the sake of the fair-minded who have waited for these before making their decisions.

There is much more to the story than I have published so far. The real story begins after the publication of our DVD. That is what I will deal with in my next lengthy post.

So far we have heard some from Whit about his and Bob's actions.

Hey, speaking as someone who had a rumor around that I was dead... at least from one side we see an intent to honor and some efforts made to provide a clear citation to the original work. While I was supposedly dead, some took it upon themselves to publish some of my ideas without so much as a memorial mention. Those who did such a thing have still not come forth and appologized. In this case I see evidence of some intent to act with honor from Whit and Bob.

BTW I met Bob Sheets in CT earlier this year and got a good feeling about the guy's value system. There was not so much as a flinch when he mentioned the scarab shells and how good an idea the routine is. In retrospect I have the feeling that if the earlier booklet was available, he would have been offering them for sale at his table. That's just my feeling.

I see no benefit in taking sides on this yet. We have not heard what the other side wants. Expressing anger and frustration is one thing, asking for what you want is another. State your case. What happened from YOUR side and what do you want from them and from the rest of us?

All of their reprints are in the public domain. The Karl Fulves series are not in the public domain. They were written especially for Dover.

Magic is not the only field in which Dover does this. They have republished The Cactaceae by Britton and Rose, which is the "Bible" of cactus collectors and The Child Ballad Collection by Francis Child, which is the "Bible" of folk song collectors. There was at one time some talk about them reprinting the original Greater Magic but the estate of J.N. Hilliard still had a legal claim to it.

They also have a huge library of musical works that are in the public domain.

Posted: Sep 12, 2005 12:02am
Let Whit finish the story. It's very interesting.

After the publication of our DVD in the early spring of this year, we were beginning to plan for our next release.

As I said in the other post, we were under the assumption that at some point, either Doug Bush or his heirs would find out about the DVD and contact us.

We wanted to give them a fair price for the use of Doug’s manuscript, something we felt we owed and were bound to do morally, even if not legally.

After all, anyone else, including our competitors could also publish the manuscript without paying anything for it, thus reducing the value of our product and at the same time being able to publish with less “overhead.” We still thought it was the right thing to do.

In June, out of the blue, Bob Sheets received this e-mail:

From: "Douglas D. Bush"
Date: June 1, 2005 10:32:13 PM EDT
To: Bob Sheets
Subject: Doug D. Bush

“I am very much alive. I see you are teaching my routine. Many others have had no problems "finding me"...why you?
Douglas Bush”

Even at the time, we wondered who the “many others” had been. We were surprised that he was alive, and both happy and a little apprehensive about the tone of his communication.

Bob responded with an enthusiastic e-mail saying how glad we were to have found out that he was alive and to have located him.

Doug D. Bush never responded to Bob’s return e-mail.

On August 15th, an article appeared on Steve Pelligrino’s blog http://www.magicentric.com that used me as an example of well-known and well-liked magicians who get a free ride on ethics violations because of their standing in the community:

“I’ll give you an example from the 3 Shell Game. On Whit Haydn’s new shell game DVD, a PDF file is included - ‘The Famous 3 Shell Game as presented by Dr. Beaumont’. This was included on the DVD without the permission of the creator Doug Bush. Why? Because Whit stated he couldn’t find him. He apparently tried to find him, but since he couldn’t find him he chose to put the PDF on the DVD anyway.

“Where is the uproar about this? There is none and will be none. Why? ‘We’ like Whit and, well, he tried.

“Now if he wasn’t so well liked in the community, there just might be an uproar. If Whit can do this, doesn’t that that open the door for other people to do the same thing. I tried to contact so and so to get their permission, but couldn’t. It’s the perfect excuse for taking whatever you want and you have the example of Whit Haydn to back you up. ‘Take a chance now and ask for forgiveness later.’”

The point of this essay was to express the uselessness of any community consensus about violations of the community’s standards that were not fixed in law through copyright, patent, and trade name regulations:

“Companies like Magic Makers are not the problem. The problem is with the entire magic community. Companies like Magic Makers are in business and seem to be doing very well because there are dealers who buy their items and customers who buy from the dealers. The standards for what is “ethical” are never consistent, never have been consistent and unless magic retail goes away completely, this will continue to be an issue - long after we’re gone.

“People go into business because they identify a need and fill it. It is up to them to protect their products by whatever legal recourse is available to them. An ethical argument is only started by an individual who hasn’t protected their product adequately before releasing it to the market.”

This essay on Steve’s blog was brought to my attention by a friend shortly after it was published.

I was surprised for several reasons which I will go into later. I had no clue as to why Steve Pelligrino would be aware of this issue at all, or what could have brought such an obscure situation within his purview.
Even more surprising, Doug D, Bush located the Pelligrino article the very day it was published, which in my mind immediately raised questions, and responded with this:

“Whit or Sheets must not have tried very hard to find me. I have been listed in the phone book here in Atlanta for 40 years. What he has done is called “Theft of Intellectual Property”. Believe it, I am looking at this. Those in the magic arena, who are still alive and know me, also know that I never bluff.

“I wrote and published the Doctor Beaumont Routine in 1975. I have some of the orginals.

Regards,
Doug D. Bush
Atlanta, Georgia”

The next day, Doug Bush put up another post which ended with:
“…It would have indeed been simple for Haydn or Sheets to contact him (Joe Turner) perhaps about locating me.

“I have waited a while before jumping into this stew with both feet because I am well known as someone who likes to have the best of it before placing any bets.

“I have also seen Harry Anderson using the dialogue in his card monte routine on some episodes of the now defunct “Night Court”.

“This dialogue was created by me, written by me, and is mine alone. No one likes to see the brilliance of a piece of work purloined by ‘johnny come latelys’. We will see what the future brings.

“Thank you for the action on your website.

Regards,
Douglas Bush
Tucker, Georgia”

Bob Sheets responded on Aug 18th with this e-mail to Doug D. Bush:
“Doug- Since your E mail in June I have not heard from you? I was a little disturbed by some postings a friend e mailed me. I haven't talked to you yet so I admit I was a little surprised.

“I believe we can resolve this before it turns into a lot of bad feelings. Not my intention I assure you. As I stated in my last e mail I am a big fan of yours and I would very much like to work out a satisfying solution for everyone.

“I left him my number back in June and here it is again <phone number removed>.

“Please E mail or call me and I will call you back at my expense.”

We received from Doug D. Bush a terse e-mail asking us to put our offer in writing and send it to him by US post.

Bob and I talked things over, and realizing that Doug did not know his work was in public domain, we decided not to tell him our findings on that but to proceed as if he did have a valid copyright.

We did not want to make him defensive, but rather wanted to let him know who we were and what we had done, and try to make him accept what was actually a very generous offer. We felt that any attempt to convince him that his ‘intellectual property’ was public domain because of his own carelessness in publication would only raise his hackles and make it more difficult to get him to agree to accept the money we were offering.

We had anticipated that he would pose a counter offer, and that at that point we would be able to negotiate something reasonable, even if it were a little more than we had originally decided to offer—it would be worth the extra $1000 if we could make him happy.

We felt that if his counter were way too high, we could always explain that we did not feel his work was still in copyright and negotiate him back down to a reasonable level. Unfortunately, none of this went as planned.

I sent him this e-mail:

From: Whit Haydn
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 3:48 PM
To: dbush
Cc: bob@bobsheets.com; whit@whithaydn.com; chefanton@chefanton.com
Subject: School for Scoundrels

“Doug:

“Just to let you know that Bob and I and Chef Anton will be contacting you next week to work out a deal that you can be comfortable with. In the meantime, we will be sending you copies of the DVD “Introduction to the Shell Game” which includes your work so that you can see how respectfully we treated your routine, and with what care we credited everything. We will also be sending you our other DVDs and booklets on the shell game, fast and loose, and three-card monte so that you have a better idea of who we are and what we do.

“It was a serious mistake to publish your stuff without permission, and of course it leaves us very vulnerable to a lawsuit and the sort of ethics bashing that you have seen on Steve Pelligrino’s site. We would never have put ourselves in this position had we even suspected you were still alive. There is no upside that would justify this.

“Bob and I have been fans of your routine for many years. He first learned it in the mid 70’s when you published it. We feel it is an extremely entertaining and well thought-out routine. It is the perfect way for a beginner to learn the shells since the patter is very entertaining, the moves are simple and extremely deceptive, and you managed to create the necessary outs to make the routine foolproof. We don’t know any other routine that packs so much value into such a small space.

“Bob wanted to include it in a DVD for many years, and searched for you. He asked everyone he knew in magic from Georgia, and was told that you had died, that you were “in hiding” from creditors, and other such nonsense. It’s amazing what people will come up with when they don’t know anything. But Bob kept asking around for you and trying to find you in phone books, etc.

“When Bob suggested we include it in our DVD, it was my idea to include the original document. I wanted to make sure that you and not Bob or I got the credit for everything in the routine, and couldn’t figure out any other way than to include the original source. I was afraid that no matter what disclaimers we might make, some might assume that the patter, or the moves, or the outs came from us and not from you. We credited you and your routine in the video itself, on the rolling credits, and in the document.

“I assure you there was no desire to take any credit away from your work.

“I started out as a street performer and three-card monte guy on the streets of New York City in 1968, and have made a living at magic full time ever since (I am 56 and have never had a real job). I was also, like you, a friend of Frank Garcia’s from 1973 until he died. My best friends in magic include Johnny Thompson, Billy McComb, Terry Seabrooke, and Mark Wilson—all of whom will vouch for my sincerity and integrity.

“I have a great love for short cons such as the shell game, three-card monte, and fast and loose. I have performed and studied all of these and their histories for many years, and teach a class about them for pro magicians once a year at the Magic Castle called “School for Scoundrels.”

“The School for Scoundrels was started in 1996 as four week masters class at the Magic Castle. Mark Wilson, who runs the Magic University at the Castle, requested that I teach a seminar on my days as a street performer and hustler. I thought there would be a lot to learn from studying the techniques of the short con. My partner in the School for Scoundrels, Chef Anton, is also an avid student of these games, and the two-time national trick shot champion at pool. We are not out to make a quick buck at all, and the School for Scoundrels and the books, DVDs and props we produce are a work of love more than money. Bob Sheets, Chef and I are full time professional performers, and the teaching and lecturing and selling of these products is a sideline for us.

“We want to preserve the history and techniques of the actual street swindles, and want magicians to find in the street hustler a better performance model than the card mechanic which has been the main model for close up magic for over a century.

“Sheets, Chef and I are entertainers and performers and not armchair critics and move monkeys. This will be evident to a pro like yourself when you see our work.

“We are going to also send you our books and DVDs on the three-card Monte, fast and loose, as well as the shell game. We want the work we do to last for a long time, and are usually very careful to get every kind of permission and apply every proper credit we can.

“To tell you the truth, you were not easy to find as Steve Pelligrino suggested, although he and Andrew Pinard may be much more adept at computer searching than I am. I called Dan Garrett and many other magicians from the Atlanta area, and got the same sort of results as Bob Sheets.

“I checked out three different web engines, and the web white pages and only got one Doug Bush, Jr in Atlanta, and it wasn’t you. There were some ten or so Doug D. Bush’s in GA, and I probably should have called all of them, but didn’t. I was by that time I guess, convinced that you were no longer with us. I put up requests on the two largest magic bulletin boards, and after several months got not a single reply.

“Bob and I wanted to preserve your work, and make sure it got the recognition it deserved. We should have been more diligent, I suppose, but I dropped the ball. Had we located you, we would have wanted to try to buy the rights to put it on the DVD, and certainly would have loved to have presented you performing it. We still hope that we can get you to perform the routine on our next DVD if we can work things out to your satisfaction.

“Anyway, we mainly want you to know that we did not mean to step on your toes, and are very sorry to have used your work without permission. We want to make a financial arrangement that you will be happy with, and most importantly, we would like you to think well of us. As I said earlier, we are all students and fans of yours, and would like nothing better than to be able to call you a friend.

“Whatever slip-ups I may have made in my desire to preserve this routine and bring it to a wider audience, there was no lack of respect for you and your work involved, and no attempt to take any credit away from your creations. This will be very apparent when you see the DVD.

“Here are our web sites, so that you can have some idea of who we are, and we urge you to ask around about us. We are true performers like yourself, and not magic convention hawkers and sellers who make their livings off the work of others or off of other magicians. We care about our products and our names, and are deeply embarrassed for, and apologize for having not been able to find you. You are better at invisibility than you may realize.

“Anyway, we look forward to talking with you next week. Here are some web sites for you to look at if you want to find out more about us before our talk:
Whithaydn.com
BobSheets.com
SchoolforScoundrels.com

Sincerely yours,
Whit Haydn”

After sending Doug a complete set of our books and DVDs on the shell game, fast and loose, and three-card monte, along with a set of our street shells, we sent him by mail our offer of $2000.00. This was what we originally had planned to pay him if we located him, and we had been willing to negotiate upward slightly.
After not hearing a response for two weeks I sent this:

“From: Whit Haydn
To: dbush7
Cc: 'Bob Sheets'
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 6:26 PM
Subject: Bob's letter

“Dear Doug:
“I have not heard from you concerning our offer.

“Bob sent you our offer in writing more than a week ago.

“Did you not receive it? I left a message on your answering machine, and it was not returned. I do not understand why you will not talk with us about this on the phone or discuss your position with us via e-mail.

“We want to be fair with you, and we have tried to be up front and above board.

“We want to resolve things in a way that will make everyone happy.

“We will not leave this offer on the table indefinitely.

“Please respond as soon as possible.

Sincerely,
Whit Haydn”

This is the answer we received:

“To: Whit Haydn
Bob Sheets

The particulars and correspondence relating to this matter are in the hands of Russell M. Racine, Attorney at Law, of the firm, Dougherty, Clements & Hofer.
Suite 300
1901 Roxborough Rd. Charlotte, NC 28211
Phone: 704-790-3600
Fax: 704-366-9744
Email: blank

Any conversations, letters, or emails should be directed to Mr. Racine and not to me.

Sincerely,
Douglas D. Bush”

To this I replied as follows:

“Dear Mr. Bush:

“I am so sorry to hear that you are unwilling to discuss the issues involved and are not interested in our generous offer.

“We have promoted your work and your name and are fans of the routine you created.

“We are sad that we could not offer you something that would enable us to become friends, because that is what we had wanted.

“It appears that you have chosen an expensive and what we believe ultimately will be a fruitless lawsuit rather than the possibility of negotiating like gentlemen what would be a satisfactory solution for everyone. Our lawyers believe that the royalties you might win in court over a DVD that has sold less than a thousand copies will be considerably less than the settlement we wanted to offer you.

“But you have refused to talk with us, or to negotiate with us by e-mail or post. We have no alternative but to take our offer off the table and await contact from your attorney.

“I am personally very disappointed at not being able to reach an accord, because, as I said, I believe your work on the shells to be very good, and I am glad at least that this controversy has brought attention to it and kept it from being forgotten and lost.

“Wishing you all the best,
Sincerely,
Whit Haydn”

At this point, we are waiting to hear from Mr. Bush’s attorneys, and assume that he is serious in his course of action and plans a lawsuit.

We believe that the original person who by luck, dogged perseverance, or superior research abilities was able to locate Doug Bush, used that opportunity to spin the situation for him in such a way as to make it impossible for us to talk with Doug and reach an amicable agreement. We know this from a common-sense look at the situation and the statements of the parties, but also from some third person sources.

The whole affair could have been a “tempest in a teapot” had it not been for the self-insertion of others with no real knowledge of the situation, and at least a couple with vindictive agendas of their own to pursue.

We can’t imagine any other reason for Doug’s persistent refusal to even discuss the issues with us. This was exacerbated by the outrageous charges and hateful musings of many of the bloggers whose sites were linked to Pelligrino’s, and their postings noted where it would be easy for Bush to find them.

For someone who has been so completely out of touch with the magic community for so many years, the numbers and vehemence of the invective leveled at me must have seemed to represent the voice of the magic community itself. It may well have affected his judgement of the situation, and his feelings of universal support among "the magicians on the web."

We believe this situation was engineered by a competitor whose name we will not mention, and that this whole “scandal” was orchestrated with the intent to damage our business and disrupt our sales for someone else’s personal gain. This is in effect what has happened.

We must suspend the manufacture of our DVD “Introduction to the Shell Game” until the matter is resolved. Even though we are fairly certain of our legal ground, we will have to wait to see if a lawsuit is filed, and what the merits of that case might be.

So the persons behind this, if they meant to do harm to our reputation and livelihood, have succeeded, at least temporarily.

We will be forced to wait, perhaps for years, to manufacture any more of our DVDs.

If there is a civil trial, the upside will be that we will be able to discover and prove the actual identities of the strangers who have insinuated themselves into this situation, and can pull them out from under their rocks and into the light of day. At least then, the magic community can know who they are.

That is all I have to say about this at this time.

Bob, Chef and I want to thank all of our friends, customers, and colleagues who were good enough, and patient enough, to wait to hear our side of the story before passing judgement.

I don’t feel that we did anything illegal or unethical, but that is really for the community to decide.

We are deeply sorry that Doug D. Bush, whose work we respect and whose legacy we meant to insure has been so hurt and angered that any attempt at reconciliation has been rebuffed. That is not what we would have wanted, and we are sorry more than anything about that.

That is our side of the story. Please excuse us for taking up so much space on the board. We owe Steve Brooks a debt of gratitude for offering us a place to state our case.

This is our case.

Make of it what you will.