|
|
Go to page 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
Starrpower Inner circle 4070 Posts |
We are all very proud of ourselves when we discuss our ethics, and how we won't steal someone else's ideas, yada yada yada.
Yet I have seen, in two separate magic publications, pictures and stories highlighting a sketch called "Fountains" that has been performed on cruise ships? Why do we feel it's okay to rip this sketch, then proudly highlight the fact that the stealing was done in our magical journals? Just because it's been done on several different ships? Have we convinced ourselves that it's now become "public domain"? Can someone explain how this sketch is any different than stealing the concept of Origami, just because I've seen it done in lots of different places? Or stealing someone's feature routine, because lots of other magicians have stolen that routine? I really don't see how this is different. The "Fountains" act is not the property of the magicians who performed it at the 2007 Dallas SAM convention. But, they've seen it done, or perhaps even participated in the sketch while onboard a ship, so it's now "fair game"? Why is the stealing of intellectual property okay when it's not a magic trick that's being stolen? This seems a little hypocritical to me. |
|||||||||
JackScratch Inner circle 2151 Posts |
Are you certain any of this was done without permission? Other than that, no it isn't right. It is unethical and I don't know of any magician, or performer who doesn't disapprove of it. That is assuming I correctly understand the action being described. It's a little unclear.
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Well just because it is done does not always make it right. I am not certain that magic publications are the best source to find ethics anyhow.
As for ethics themselvs, I have my own and I make nobody live by them except me. That is all I can accomplish. Teaching a pig to sing and all. the other thing is this. Perhaps it is possible they sold the rights or idea or whatever. Perhaps the right amount of research to be certain what we are talking about is in order first. If it is the case that they did not, then I would not do it myself as I would see it as wrong.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Starrpower Inner circle 4070 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-09-08 11:56, JackScratch wrote: No. So if I'm wrong, then we're not talking about ethics ... we're talking aobut a lack of originality in a presentation presented solely to a group of entertainers. What's worse? |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
And if we are talking lack of originality, that is put forth and worshiped, even worse right?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Tom Fenton Inner circle Leeds, UK (but I'm Scottish) 1477 Posts |
Is it lack of originality or just plain laziness?
"But there isn't a door"
|
|||||||||
JackScratch Inner circle 2151 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-09-09 15:52, Starrpower wrote: The second is quite situational. Do you think it would be unethical to hire a writer to write your performance? Done with the performance writes, it's pretty much the same thing. |
|||||||||
Josh Riel Inner circle of hell 1995 Posts |
Magic is doing improbable things with odd items that, under normal circumstances, would be unnessecary and quite often undesirable.
|
|||||||||
Starrpower Inner circle 4070 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-09-09 16:42, Tom Fenton wrote: Regardless, magicians still worship these guys and will never question the material, but if you or I would do it some self-appointed magic policeman like Obie Obrien or Gene Anderson will come and rip you a new one. Here are few examples that pop into my head: Mac King's "Bag on head" bit was done by Dick Van Dyke and was old then. Jeff Hobson's "Asian Glasses" (besides being racially offensive), was done by Buddy Hackett, and his "slow motion talking" was a popular bit by Robin Williams. Michael Finney's "Card on Forehead" is old as the hills,done by ... pick a name. The "Vanishing Windex" bit that Amazing Jonathan does was ripped from Red Skelton. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-09-11 21:33, Starrpower wrote:...magicians still worship these guys and will never question the material, but if you or I would do it some self-appointed magic policeman like Obie Obrien or Gene Anderson will come and rip you a new one... Is this a question about how some try to discipline the kids and how some kids decided that they don't value honor or so trustworthiness and so the grown ups have given up on them? If so, it's all very simple: Thank those who would keep you from the dark path and feel sorry for those who have lost their way... but YOU get to choose YOUR way. If you choose to look at things from an adult perspective, folks announce their values often and you get to choose how you treat them. Do you idolize someone who's offering magic methods to muggles? Do you buy from them or sell to them or buy from those who would sell their products? Would you trust them with your secrets as you develop new works? Would you trust anyone who's associated with them? It's up to you.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Rory Diamond New user 69 Posts |
I agree with Starrpower! Here are some more "rips off's" in magic that have been done before, and never seem to get challenged: David Copperfield's routine of swapping the duck and chicken heads (I have read of this effect in an account of Thurston's show from the 1920's- not only that, but doing the Sawing in Half and having an audience member/plant yell "move the feet!" which you will see in Copperfield's Death Saw or his Squeeze Box Routine, which is right out of Thurston's Show too-see Illustrated Magic by Ottokar Fischer); Harry Anderson's Needle thru arm (as far as I know, this was first marketed as You Do Voodoo, since when did it become Harry Anderson's?); Amazing Johnathon's knife thru arm (which is from "Discoverie of Witchcraft", however, how did this suddenly become his signature bit?); plus about 20 gags printed in "Encyclopedia of Impromptu Magic" which comprise much of Amazing Jonathon's act; the idea for Peter Gossamer's comedy two person code routine is published not only in a book on clown skits but also in an old Classics Illustrated comic book on magic; Criss Angel's rip off of Rajah Raboids' sawing in half with the "half lady" like Johnny Eck, etc. etc. the list goes on and on. But if you or I tried to do any of these bits, which were stolen anyway, at a magic convention or at the Magic Castle, the self appointed "magic police" would call you on the carpet right away.
Ok, here is another one. What about that Blaney Suspension that Walter Blaney will throw a seizure about if anyone tries to sell something similar? What, he has some legal claim to an Abbott's Super X with step-ladders or saw-horses to hide the gimmick? If anything, Abbott's should be suing him! Check out the Jack Gwynne book by David Charvet where it clearly shows that Jack Gwynne was producing the exact trick as Blaney's Suspension 3000 back in the 1940's. This was also marketed recently by Marshall Brodien/Cadaco as a suspension for a Doll, as a TV Magic Toy- basically the same thing, with little cardboard supports which pull to the rear to hide the gimmick. Did Blaney try to sue them? Of course not, because he would have lost. Not only that, but I have heard from a old, high priced illusion building company on the West Coast that Joe Karson originally introduced the step ladders to hide the gimmick, like on the higher priced version of the Blaney Suspension. Of course, neither Gwynne nor Karson are around anymore to defend themselves, so it is easy to make claims of originality. I am skeptical that Walter Blaney really invented or did much to improve this effect, and feels that if he complains enough, then everyone will agree that it is his. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
If you have done your homework and found something you like in an old book and then done the work to make it work for you in shows... good for you. Bravo! The more of this you do the more you will find support from peers who do the same. And when there are two of you doing something similar at a venue you will likely find much support and good natured discussion about how to make your presentation work better for you.
If you see someone else do a trick and decide to copy them... well you interfering with someone else's brand of entertainment. If you then go on to write up "your version" you may as well be asking for some serious discussion and putting the integrity of our literature at risk. I doubt anyone is claiming any ancient published material from century's old as their own. The students of this craft would laugh if they tried. New and improved is not synonmous for "the author is an arrogant SOB who has not done his home work and the publisher is a greedy creature pandering to the ignorance of the lazy student". I can understand why some "policemen" might voice objections to folks who copy from living performers without permission.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
gardini Regular user Cornwall, Ontario, Canada 158 Posts |
I don't see a problem using material, tricks or routines that are so old that there in public domain. Expressially when the magician honestly trys to make it there own by "improvments"
Is this Wrong? Scott |
|||||||||
JackScratch Inner circle 2151 Posts |
I know Walter. I've seen him perform his suspension live. There would hardly be any point to telling you that you don't know what you are talking about. You have it all worked out in your head, and that is pretty clearly all you care about. No, they aren't the same effect.
The Amazing Jonathon's effects aren't what make him The Amazing Jonathon. Have the "Magic Police" actually said "boo" to you for performing the knife through the arm, and who exactly are these "magic police" anyway? Performing a classic effect in a performance is not stealing and no one is going to call you for performing a classic "public domain" effect. If they do, cite your source and tell them to shut their cake holes. Of course, when you cite your source, you had best do a better job of knowing what you are talking about than you did with the whole Walter Blaney suspension. Rory, you act like you feel the whole magic community is against you, and at this rate, you will be right in no time at all. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-09-12 08:16, gardini wrote: This process of taking old ideas and works from old books (or when personally given by the inventor) and personalizing to suit you and your audiences and venue is EXACTLY what helps our craft evolve. Go for it! Taking something you see in use by another as filler for your show is not so nice.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Rory Diamond New user 69 Posts |
Ok, Jack Scratch, then you explain to me how they are so much different- I have seen both of Blaney's Suspensions (the actual prop) up close, and they are pretty much the same drawing shown on page 266 of the Jack Gwynne book, which is from the 1940's. Sure there are one or two small modifications to it, but any reasonable person would agree it is pretty much the same idea. Of course, Blaney will probably come back and say he knew Jack Gwynne and got his permission to use the idea, but then there you have it, it wasn't his idea to begin with. With Gwynne being deceased, there is no way to verify anything.
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
I wish I knew enough of the mechanical details to have an opinion about the suspension item.
As I recall the super-X is a static goosneck and the levitation Blaney does (i'm told) has a mechanical aspect which permits an ungaffed hoop to pass through the critical area. Is this so? Is this mechanical aspect (again presuming it exists - sorry) the item in dispute here?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Josh Riel Inner circle of hell 1995 Posts |
Rannie does some awesome things with coins. If anyone checks them out they will agree.
He did a really neat effect that was dissimilar to anything I've seen before. I PM'd him and said: Hey, I loved that thing you did! I think I have a method that could accomplish the same thing. Could I play around with it? He said yes, of course. He is phenomenal and very friendly. Another time I bought Daryl's 3 fly III, Daryl mentioned Our Jonathan Townsend. So I discussed it with Mr. Townsend. Well it was just what we are talking about. Someone took Jonathan's idea, and through time pretty soon everybody believed they had rights to it. However, Jonathan said he was O.K. with me using his effect (I asked). Moral to the story: I assume we all work. We don't want to train the guy that's going to take our job, we don't want to work for free. Keep that in mind when you take something someone else has developed. And ask! After you study magic for a while, you can pretty much reverse engineer anything or come up with an alternate method to accomplish the same thing. However, if everyone takes ideas from those who create, eventually they won't create and your stuck with having to be creative on your own...... For most that would be a disaster.
Magic is doing improbable things with odd items that, under normal circumstances, would be unnessecary and quite often undesirable.
|
|||||||||
Starrpower Inner circle 4070 Posts |
Who are the "magic police"? You gotta be kidding?
Ever read a magic magazine? Ever notice it's the same group of people every issue? I know dozens of magicians that are as talented or more than those in the rags; why do we never hear about them? Tons of magicians are better than Silly Billy, but dare say that and the world crashes in on you! Why? Because magicians are, for the most part, suckers. The magazines say that Silly Billy is great, so he's great. The magazines say that Gazzo is great, so he's great. The Magic Emperor has no clothes, but magicians are blinded to it because the "Magic Police" tell them how to think, and they believe it. If Mac King says a line, everyone laughs. If an "unknown" would utter the same line, magicians would remain silent. Why? Because the magazines SAY Mac is funny. Eugene Burger's word is law, and if you dare to challenge him he and his cronies will attack you on all fronts -- except face to face. Yes, there are "Magic Police" and it's all the followers here who choose not to dig deeper or challenge them that empowers them. I think Townsend's post is very telling; he seems to think "personalizing" something is evolution. But try to "personalize" the wrong thing and your sunk as far as magicians are concerned. One guy takes "Tossed out deck" and replaces the "tossed" part with a bucket on a pole, and somehow that's considered "original" -- yet make your own suspension that uses a ladder, even if it uses different mechanics, and you're stealing from Walter. It just doesn't make sense -- unless you're supported by the good ol' boy magic police, then you're on solid ground. |
|||||||||
Josh Riel Inner circle of hell 1995 Posts |
I don't know about a magic police.
But one thing that is certainly true: If Chris Angel blatantly exposes magic that he did not create, the vocal anti exposure folk will remain curiously silent, even defend that exposure. The reason is the names associated with him. Same with Blaine, Penn & Teller etc. If I, being a nobody, expose on T.V. you will See rebuke and fire. If I had several well known magicians working with me on it, or I was a well known myself....... silence. This bothers me. Dig a bit here and you will see several discussions surrounding the magical "Elite" and the defense of their exposure by some of the most surprising folk. I know because I was involved in a couple. Regardless, do the right thing yourself. If you choose to do whatever you want, then do it. If you want someones blessing.... Ask the guys who already agree with you. No one is going to change anyone's mind here.
Magic is doing improbable things with odd items that, under normal circumstances, would be unnessecary and quite often undesirable.
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Is stealing only wrong if it's a magic trick or routine? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2~3~4 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.04 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 < |