I have this little pet peeve that always creeps up every time I see a magician on a talk show or the sort, and they do tricks invented by other magicians. For example: Kieth Barry was on Ellen and he did Oz Pearlman's 21st Century Phantom.

Now I have no problem with a magician who has his own show (Angel, Blaine, ect.) performing effects that they didn't create, because there's no way that they would be able to keep on creating enough (good) effects to keep up with the show. BUT, IMO a magician who is being interviewed or just appearing on live/talk show TV, and will only be doing two or three effects, should perform something he/she created. I mean if they are basically "showing off" what they can do; why should it be something they didn't create. If you are good enough to make it onto TV, then show YOUR magic, not someone else's.

Televised rights aside, do you think a magician should use use another magicians effect? I feel that the show host and the audience thinks that he created it, when really another magician should be credited.

Just my $0.03

Anybody feel the same? Differently?

If Copperfield followed your suggestion he wouldn't have had enough material for one special let alone twenty.

Sinatra wouldn't have had enough material for one album. Neither would Elvis.

Ridiculous suggestion IMO

As Futureal stated. It is a ridiculous suggestion, why would a magician want to perform his on material on television? So that other less creative magicians can rip them off.

I said that I was referring to magicians on talk shows and the such who only do two or three effects. NOT magicians with their own shows who have to do hundreds of tricks, IE: Angel, Blaine, Copperfield.

There's no problem with doing things they didn't create, as long as it is "public domain" stuff. Even then, the performer should put his own "spin" on it and make it his own and NOT copy the presentation of someone else.

Just my .02 cents.

Mark.

If you applied this to football, horse racing, ballet, or rock concerts; there would not be any!

Bob

"I said that I was referring to magicians on talk shows and the such who only do two or three effects. NOT magicians with their own shows who have to do hundreds of tricks, IE: Angel, Blaine, Copperfield."

So what your are saying, a magician that does not do an illusion show should be held to a differant standard that one that does do an illusion show. I have seen cooperfield perform standay of the shell material while being interviewed. I have seen the late Harry Blackstone Jr perform the Brainwave deck on television. I even saw Don Allen on the tonight show perform "Glorpy" created by Bob Madblood.(this effect is now marketed as Hiaram the Hunted hanky and is not made as well)
The problem with performing your own close up effects on television is that some jerk is going to steel your material, next you will have a bunch of geekie little brats try to do it on you tube, then you will have more geekie brats exposing how it works on you tube. Once an effect if published or sold in a magic shop, it is fair game for those who have PAID FOR IT TO USE IT.

Well...welcome to the world of magic! That also goes for everything else in the world.

I'd suggest just having fun and not getting too tied up with all the other stuff. If you're that concerned, patent it prior to using / performing it. Even then, that won't stop someone from copying it.

So...get out there, perform whatever makes you happy, have fun while you're at it and everything else will work itself out.

Mark.

Any magician doing an occasional TV appearance should know that there ill probably hundreds of magicians out there watching who will not hesitate to find some way to perform any effect that appeals to them on the tV. Therefore he/she would be very foolish to reveal his own secret work. On the other hand if he has purchased commercially a particular trick together with performing rights I think he would be doing the originator a favor as the wireswould be buzzing concerning the origin of the trick and many will be sold, This free publicity for the inventor very. Why else wouod the creator market the effect.
I notice that more and more tricks and DVDs try to restrict the buyers rights
to exclude TV performance rights. Is this a legal right?
drjeb

Not to revive a dead post, BUT...

I am frequently troubled and bothered by this predicament, and to expand it, when TV magicians perform tricks that are available on the market period.

I cannot count how many times I read Café members claiming we each have a duty to be original and not copy, etc. So when David Blaine performs an effect, does it become off limits? I can see how a race between big magicians can ensue to be the first to televise an effect. With so much magic on TV, are we really expected to remove an effect out of our repetoire? I am at a loss. I want to be original, but I also don't want to limit myself. I suppose viewing magic specials as catalogues from which to borrow effects is ethically frowned upon, but does anyone else feel deflated when a favorite trick is performed on a large scale? Are we simply to live by the words, "live and let live?" To each their own and magic is open to perform (within the bounds of the law)? However original we wish to be, we should be? I was planning on putting some routines on YOUTUBE. This problem has kept me from doing it. One solution is providing a credit section to discuss the names of effects and magicians who have performed it. Does that kill the magic? is it exposure?

Puzzled.

As a different topic, I posted the above post as its own topic in the Magic Names and Media Section

Here's my $0.03
I think that any magician under any circumstances should only perform what fits their character and style. If I see another guy in a glittery shirt do the zig zag, I'm going to puke. Ideally, I think they should write their own routines and be as original as possible, but I also recognize that sometimes there are routines that already fit (or with minimum alteration.) As far as 3 tricks on a talk show, I would hope a magician on such a show has 3 original routines. Whether he is using original effects, that gets tricky. Then you could argue that he should be using original sleights, and gimmicks. I think what matters most is the audience's perception. I have very little material, if any material that is 100% original, but it's something the audience won't recognize as someone else's trick because I'm using it under a completely different context.
What do you think?

Here's my $0.03
I think that any magician under any circumstances should only perform what fits their character and style. If I see another guy in a glittery shirt do the zig zag, I'm going to puke. Ideally, I think they should write their own routines and be as original as possible, but I also recognize that sometimes there are routines that already fit (or with minimum alteration.) As far as 3 tricks on a talk show, I would hope a magician on such a show has 3 original routines. Whether he is using original effects, that gets tricky. Then you could argue that he should be using original sleights, and gimmicks. I think what matters most is the audience's perception. I have very little material, if any material that is 100% original, but it's something the audience won't recognize as someone else's trick because I'm using it under a completely different context.
What do you think?

I do agree with you. I also believe that we should strive to make our acts as unique as possible but ultimately, we are entertaining people (our number one concern).

Most appear on talk shows to promote their other shows and seem to pick tricks that fit a time frame and make viewers want to see their live show. I didn't see the Barry appearance, but what sets his performance apart from the trick's originator would/should be the presentation.

For talk shows or things like that, you have to show your best material. If you feel like you have better material than you have created, use the better material.