Not too sure where to post this but ethics sounds the most likely...
(don't you just hate posts that start 'I don't know where to post this...', never mine)

Here's the thing, about 2 years ago I bought a packet trick called 'Hustlers Hand' I practiced it until the gaf's wore out. I then spent some time here looking for a way to make my own gafs (all OK so far as I bought the trick I can make replacement gafs) but while I was making the replacements I thought, there's a much better way of doing this.

Some background. The trick is you show there cards, a pair, you close the fan then refan the cards and now they're a flush, again the fan is closed and re-faned and now you have a prial (3 of a kind). It's a simple trick, but I loved it first time I saw it so I brought it.

Anyway with the gafs you need to turn the cards end on end for the trick to work. I figured out a method of making the cards so you don't need to turn them around. I took my idea and made a jig for making the cards and it all works very nicely.

Here's the dilemma. I can't get hold of the original creator of Hustlers hand (magic cavern) I've looked around and such but just can't find them. A couple of friends have asked for the trick and I'd like to let them have sets of 'my' version.

So what do you think of this. I've bought a trick. Then developed it further by changing the gafs considerably which in turn has considerably changed the handling, though the effect is fundamentally the same. Is this 'my' trick now?

This is such a grey area. I've just read the in a flash thread where Jay Sankey has 'borrowed' a known principal and added flash paper to it and that is generally considered 'his' trick now.

?

To begin, the trick is still the inventor's. Like the old Roman law states about finding a ship, putting on new planks and sails... it still belongs to the owner.

Can you obtain more retail versions of the original?

What if they bought the original and then you offered them (for an additional fee) your gaffs and handling?

In the mean time, there are other forums to visit where you might be more likely to find the inventor of the trick and make arrangements directly.

:)

Thanks for the input Jonathan, Any chance you could point a lost soul in the right (forum) direction?

This site sells "Hustlers hand" and other tricks by MAGIC CAVERN PRODUCTS http://www.emagictricks.co.uk/product_in......_id=4719

If I may post without a link just to say this thread is quite refreshing!

If you add to a trick an element that didn't exist before, then clearly you have created something new, and deserve credit. In releasing that 'new' trick you give full credit to the people on which your new version is based.

I always say I am not particularly creative. I often just refine or rearrange existing ideas. For example I put out an effect called 'No Joke'. In advertising it, I state clearly that none of the component ideas involved are original with me. However, nobody prior to me had thought to combine the elements of this trick in the way I've put them together to produce the effect as I have created it. Hence I have no problem with calling it a new trick. In fact I was thrilled when the pieces came together.

Brian Caswell (www.unearthlymagic.com)

Well Danny it was till someone decided that it's okay to sell someones routine with different backed cards and an astrology patter line as a "new trick". Well perhaps you can in a way, so long as you don't explain the other folks tricks from which you built that new trick.

Yes funny how that seems to happen.

It goes from refreshing to disturbing in the blink of an eye.

Quite true!

Can someone please explain to me where the border-line is? Clearly, changing just the patter or replacing a sleight is not changing the trick.
But from when on does an alteration of a trick become a "new", sellable trick? Thanks a lot in advance

This reminds me . . . Elmsley - I think it was on the first of the Lake Tahoe Session tape - said that the ghost count was not more than two sleights put together. I found his modesty remarkable.

Andy

New and salable are two distinct criteria.

new can even be "new to you" as in re-invention.

salable... there is no basic IP protection in magic so you can sell your own manuscript for Vernon's twisting the aces and don't even need to mention Vernon or Elmsley.

You bought the effect. The gaff wore out. You STILL own what you paid for, and if you can cobble together another way of presenting it, IMO you haven't infringed on anything.

However, you may not consider the effect (with your improvement) something you can market. But if your creative solution develops into a different effect using the principle you developed ... well, we'd have something else to think about and a nalyze whether it was sufficiantly your own (would you be merely substituting zodiac signs for hearts/clubs/spades/diamonds?)

This is like saying; Because supermarket (A) sells tomatoes, supermarket (b) can not. Or because "GE" sells light bulbs "Sylvan" Can't. If you have improved a gaff and it works better, of course you can resell it. Who doesn't want a better car, television, house, Etc. there is absolutley "nothing" wrong with it... legal or ethically, so long as you do not use any of the copy or call it the same.

C. Loubard

How many different version of mcdonalds aces have we seen in packet effects and books. all basically the same gaffed cards. just different twists methods. the same thing goes for oil and water...millions of variations. I don't see anyone crying foul when a new version of these effects come out.

if you came up with a totally different gaffed card then it is not the same. I agree with c. loubard.

What a huge gray-zone . . . . .

thanks guys . . .

If you look a bit further back the "ace assembly using gaffed cards" idea goes back a ways further than "macdonald's"

This got interesting again, sorry I missed the recent posts.

The original trick that started this has a different gaffing to the original, this helps with the presentation and IMO makes it a stronger trick. I never did market this as I was unhappy with the gray area of ethics.

Now... With some input from a Café member I have created a new trick (well nearly finished it anyway, just needs a name/patter/video/...). I would be happy to market this once finished, and give credit to Magic Cavern for their base idea.

The new trick is based on a poker hand and has some special gaffs that most people could not easily make at home, unlike the original.

So what do people think about this a a development of an original idea to a similar but different effect (5 vs 3 cards)?

It is difficult to explain further without giving too much away.

Here is my favorite part.

You ask for help, then basically don't trust those you ask enough to allow them enough information to help you.

In general if you have to ask a question of ethics, it is not right.

I just invented a way to make Diamonds in your oven at home from old bits of coal, you just do this [enter detailed explanation of what to do, give up any chance of being able to do anything with this idea as it a public forum and open to Google searches etc]

If this seems a little blunt then I apologise, but I hope I've made my point. I have a new idea. It hasn't been done before and this is a public forum, any Joe can surf by here. I believe I gave sufficient information for people to be able to provide useful input. If you don't feel this is so then please ask for more, don't poke the giant foam finger of sarcasm at me, it's not nice.

I have read many posts of the Café where people have given some information about an idea or method they are working on and others have been respectful and provided their considered input. I always assumed that some would PM to try and help more/get more information but that this would be a 2 way street.

Yes I do trust many members of this forum. I have sought help with other tricks here. But this one is different, as it is based on an existing effect. And this is causing the ethical questions.

And while I can see the reason people say you must also understand that there are times when the question is justified. Ethics are a fluid thing, they are based entirely on a society's beliefs and are constantly changing. Given this it is inevitable that people will as about what is acceptable.

[I intend the tone of this post to be conversational and not confrontational, I add this comment because it is very difficult to get the intent into the words]

If you've settled the matter with the folks who invented the trick you started with and are sure about what you're offering as NEW, ... congrats and let me know when you're offering product.