|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next] | ||||||||||
mfeld Elite user San Francisco 457 Posts |
I agree that there are some fine lines and interesting questions involved in using other people's existing moves (none of which is an effect in and of itself) in different combinations to create a new effect. I think the lines are a lot clearer, though, if you're just stringing together a series of other people's effects exactly as the originators performed them.
And Justin, if you want to claim the position that it is ethical to take any effect from another magician to teach and sell it yourself as long as it's already been published in a book or DVD, I guess you can do that. But it seems to me that when somebody publishes a routine they're giving implied permission to perform it (to the people who buy the routine), but I don't think they're giving permission to other magicians to teach it and sell it themselves. (that's also the answer to Dman's question above - I think publishing in magic is permission to perform, not permission to take, teach, and sell.) Also, you were eerily silent on the question of permission from Harkey, Apollo, and Kun. What about it? Thanks, Brandon, for the shout out.
Michael Feldman
www.michaelfeldman.com Or follow me on Twitter - @magicianmike And Instagram - @magicianmichaelfeldman Check out my newest book with Ryan Plunkett: A New Angle https://www.ryancplunkett.com/project/anewangle |
|||||||||
Zombie Magic Inner circle I went out for a beer and now have 8733 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-05-16 23:00, mfeld wrote: mfeld, Garett Thomas teaches his version of David Roth's hanging coins on DVD and at lectures. Did he ask permission? Does he pay David? Garrett Thomas teaches his version of The Anniversary Waltz using a DB. Shaun Robison used a DB for the Anniversary Waltz and showed it to Docc Eason in the late 90's. It's on Shaun's lecture notes from 1999. Did Garrett ask Shaun's permission? Does he pay Shaun? Garrett Thomas released Stand Up Monte. Did Garrett ask permission of Keith Bennett who released Kickback Monte prior ( Keith's is done on the table, Garrett does it standing up )? Does he pay Keith? mfeld, if you don't know, could you get that information and report back to us? If you need the contact info of the creators I mentioned, PM me. |
|||||||||
Brandon Sheffield Regular user 147 Posts |
No problem Michael! End for End and Manhattan Opener are both superb!
Brandon |
|||||||||
mfeld Elite user San Francisco 457 Posts |
Zombie - those are good questions. The answer to almost all of them is "I hope so." But payment is not the point. If a creator gets permission to release someone else's material for free, then that is between them. It's getting permission (paid or not) to teach it and sell it that's the important part.
As for how it went down in those particular circumstances, I have no idea. If you have their contact information, why don't you ask them? Then we might discover if the i's were dotted and t's crossed in those situations as they should have been here too. (Though, as a side note, Garrett's version of those example effects you mentioned are actually quite different from the originals in terms of the method taught. As far as I can see from the trailer and atouchofmagic's statements (since he has the download), the phases of Divorce are identical to their predecessors.)
Michael Feldman
www.michaelfeldman.com Or follow me on Twitter - @magicianmike And Instagram - @magicianmichaelfeldman Check out my newest book with Ryan Plunkett: A New Angle https://www.ryancplunkett.com/project/anewangle |
|||||||||
The One Veteran user 325 Posts |
Zombie, could you report back on the additions Garrett Thomas made on "his version" -as you yourself mentioned- of the effects you brought up? It seems to me these rings moves aren't Justin "versions" of their original handlings, but rather "routine construction", as you again put it. But how much "routine construction" does he actually teach here. Is it really what people are paying for? and it is worth the money?
I agree with the point of bringing older effects to light for new students of magic. I think a page showing Justin's performance, with links to the original material, would've been GREAT.
I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end...
I came here... To tell you how this is going to begin. |
|||||||||
Zombie Magic Inner circle I went out for a beer and now have 8733 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-05-16 23:38, mfeld wrote: mfeld, you mentioned permission and payment being made to Garrett Thomas in a previous post. I thought perhaps you'd be interested in finding out what permissions and payments he's made in teaching/selling the material of others. Since you brought him up. |
|||||||||
Rabid Elite user 495 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-05-14 12:50, Michael Peterson wrote: You're a bright shining light aren't you? What exactly has happened to make you so against Ellusionist? And yes, you are missing out as both Divorce and Aftershock are pretty awesome and dirt cheap. Steph |
|||||||||
Sean Giles Inner circle Cambridge/ UK 3517 Posts |
Mfeld, didn't you release a DVD with your versions of classic plots? Is this much different?
|
|||||||||
Xcath1 Inner circle 3052 Posts |
I think, good or bad, Mfelds release is his handling of classic plots rather than a collection of previously released moves. Divorce is more akin to a coin flurry. All of the moves are well documented and someone could fairly ask if there is anything new under the sun but if you feel you bring something novel or rediscovered and you can market it to the paying public then so be it. The question of permission from recent vintage or still living creators remains.
|
|||||||||
mfeld Elite user San Francisco 457 Posts |
Thanks XCath. And yes, Sean, I think they're very different. I released a DVD in which 1 effect is a new plot (Resetting Travelers), and 2 effects were my own takes on existing classic plots: (Chicago Opener and Out of This World)
The difference is that I did not teach other magicians' methods. I taught my own method. Also, even the plots themselves are substantially different than the originals. In Intuition the spectator doesn't have to change which color she's placing in which pile (different from the original) - something you can see from the performance clip. In Manhattan Opener the effect takes place almost exclusively in the spectator's hands (different from the original) - and again, something you can see from the performance of the clip. I also specifically, and in advance, asked permission from Jon Armstrong and Brad Henderson to teach one of their moves in Intuition. So, yes. I think it is much different. I don't see any ethical problem in releasing truly new methods for classic plots, especially when the plot itself changes substantially. But I do see an issue with releasing other magicians' material with the exact same method and exact same plot without their permission. As I've been saying, permission is the issue here: Did Justin ask permission from the artists whose effects and methods he taught. So far, he hasn't mentioned Apollo, Kun, or David Harkey, and he says Garrett Thomas was "fine with it." I'm waiting on the answer to the rest.
Michael Feldman
www.michaelfeldman.com Or follow me on Twitter - @magicianmike And Instagram - @magicianmichaelfeldman Check out my newest book with Ryan Plunkett: A New Angle https://www.ryancplunkett.com/project/anewangle |
|||||||||
Xcath1 Inner circle 3052 Posts |
I think, good or bad, Mfelds release is his handling of classic plots rather than a collection of previously released moves. Divorce is more akin to a coin flurry. All of the moves are well documented and someone could fairly ask if there is anything new under the sun but if you feel you bring something novel or rediscovered and you can market it to the paying public then so be it. The question of permission from recent vintage or still living creators remains.
|
|||||||||
Sean Giles Inner circle Cambridge/ UK 3517 Posts |
That's fair enough. Thanks for the answer.
|
|||||||||
Justin N. Miller Inner circle 2457 Posts |
Just left mfeld a private message with my number, so he can call me and talk on the phone like I did with garrett and others.
Let's see what happens! JM |
|||||||||
Sean Giles Inner circle Cambridge/ UK 3517 Posts |
I don't get why someone would call foul on another performer, without contacting them first. Surely even Miller deserves that much, at least.
|
|||||||||
Merlin Veteran user Palmerton, Pa 362 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-05-17 15:11, Sean Giles wrote: I don't get why someone would call foul on another performer, unless that someone is the actual someone being violated. Phil |
|||||||||
mfeld Elite user San Francisco 457 Posts |
So Justin and I just had a chat.
First of all, (to Sean's point) I did not call foul without talking to him. I posted on this forum (the location for such discussions) and ASKED him what he thought was original and if he had asked for permission. Not knowing whether he did ask permission or not, I did not "call foul," though I did say what I thought the ethical answer should be. I also was happy to talk to him by phone when he asked. After our chat, here's what we've figured out: We have a fundamental disagreement on what is ethical in magic. We agree that there are two points of disagreement (and I'm sure he will correct me if I accidentally misconstrue the conversation): DISAGREEMENT #1 Justin thinks that once a magician publishes a trick in a book, download, DVD, etc., that it basically becomes property of the magic community as a whole and other magicians should be free to build on it, teach it, sell it, or use it as part of a larger piece that he teaches and sells. On the other hand, I think credit and permission are different things - that if a magician publishes a routine, he gives permission to others to perform it, but does not give permission to others to teach it and sell it under their name. It still belongs to the originator. Essentially, if a magician significantly changes a move, effect, trick or routine, he can publish it and credit the original source, but if he's doing the effect, move, or trick in the same way as the originator, he shouldn't publish it (even with credit) unless he's gotten permission. As I said to Justin on the phone, I am glad that he gives credits and I actually think he does a good job researching and noting credit. I just think crediting is not enough when a magician releases effects, moves, or routines exactly as the originator did them. I think, in those situtations, the ethical thing to do is ask permission. DISSAGREEMENT #2 Justin thinks of (a) Ring Thing, (b) the Harkey Snap Back, (c) Object on shoulder, (d) and the ring-through-finger penetration simply as moves like a force, double lift, or palm that can be rearranged into lots of different effects or routines. That's why he doesn't see them as needing permission. On the other hand, I think that all four of these are self-contained effects because a distinctly magical thing happens in each. I see them as different from moves like a palm, double lift, or force, because those "moves" are not self-contained pieces of magic. I see "moves" as incomplete building blocks to create something greater, whereas I see Ring Thing or Object on Shoulder as complete effects rather than a building blocks, which is why I do think they require permission. -- So we agreed that I am not going to be able to convince Justin that I'm right about my ethical position, and he's not going to be able to convince me that he's right about his ethical position. We just have different ethics. Anyone reading this or participating in the conversation is free to decide where they think the appropriate ethical line is and which side of that line they think "Divorce" falls on.
Michael Feldman
www.michaelfeldman.com Or follow me on Twitter - @magicianmike And Instagram - @magicianmichaelfeldman Check out my newest book with Ryan Plunkett: A New Angle https://www.ryancplunkett.com/project/anewangle |
|||||||||
mfeld Elite user San Francisco 457 Posts |
Quote:
Because we are a small community that defines its own ethics, and I think it's important to keep people accountable for ethical behavior. As creators in magic, the community ethical norms are all we have, as a practical matter. Regardless of who it affects, I think we as a community should be concious of what we think is right and what we think is wrong. Afterall, isn't that what a forum like this is for?
Michael Feldman
www.michaelfeldman.com Or follow me on Twitter - @magicianmike And Instagram - @magicianmichaelfeldman Check out my newest book with Ryan Plunkett: A New Angle https://www.ryancplunkett.com/project/anewangle |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Just thought of chime in.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
Justin N. Miller Inner circle 2457 Posts |
Mike, thank you for calling me bro. I really respect that. It shows a lot of class.
I really believe in what I do and what I put out, so I'm in complete agreement with my mind and my conscious. Thank you for everyone who has purchased both effects. JM |
|||||||||
Justin N. Miller Inner circle 2457 Posts |
Mike, thank you for calling me bro. I really respect that. It shows a lot of class.
I really believe in what I do and what I put out, so I'm in complete agreement with my mind and my conscious. Thank you for everyone who has purchased both effects. JM |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » Justin Miller's AFTERSHOCK and DIVORCE (7 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.05 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 < |