The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » F.U.2 by Lloyd Barnes » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (186 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4..10~11~12 [Next]
pegasus
View Profile
Inner circle
England
7562 Posts

Profile of pegasus
Poor Harrison Greenbaum will never be able to perform his stage version ever again now because of this release? My heart bleeds purple p@@@. FFS get a grip man. If this is all he has to worry about in life then he’s a very lucky man. Lloyd, best of luck with your release.
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
733 Posts

Profile of TStone
Quote:
On Jul 18, 2019, Lloyd Barnes wrote:
However, David Sleaze, The Punk Magician (real name Greg Travis) performed a card effect where a card is chosen, he reveals it and THEN exclaims **** You to his spectator… in 1989. The year after I was born.

20 years before Harrison’s and 30 years before FU2. Don’t believe me? See for yourself: https://youtu.be/kJiUVp890TY?t=97

Again, although not exactly the same, it is similar.

You're really going to push the narrative that a random dude shouting a random profanity was relevant in the lineage of the piece? You just lost all credibility.
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5708 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Quote:
On Jul 18, 2019, Lloyd Barnes wrote:

However, David Sleaze, The Punk Magician (real name Greg Travis) performed a card effect where a card is chosen, he reveals it and THEN exclaims **** You to his spectator… in 1989. The year after I was born.

Again, although not exactly the same, it is similar.

Actually, it is far less similar than you deceptively let on. The well known 3 1/2 minute act of The Punk Magician has been purposely edited in your post to make it seem that the profanity shouted is integral to the card trick. It isn’t. In fact, the phrase is used at least 13 times on a handful of different “tricks” because it is integral to the character, NOT THE TRICK.

Quote:
Does this mean that Harrison “stole” the idea from David Sleaze? I wouldn’t say those words myself but it’s hard to imagine that he didn’t see this video, especially as a professional stand up comedian who seemed to know a-lot about comedy and magic in our phone calls. And David Sleaze (although before my time as I’m now discovering) is a well known comedy magician. It’s not hard to imagine seeing that and coming up with a card trick that uses **** You in a reveal and being able to claim sole Intellectual Property to it.
You are correct, IF (and that is a BIG IF) it did happen that way, it is not hard to imagine someone claiming IP rights over that phrase being printed on a card in some fashion and it being integral to the trick. Those are details unique unto Harrison’s performance... until you co-opted it.

Quote:
There are 3 effects on the table here and I’ll list the dispute and chronological orders for you. So we can have a better, in depth understanding: 

1989: David Sleaze performs an effect where a card is chosen and revealed, proclaiming **** You AFTER the reveal. Unpublished.

2009: Harrison performs a card trick where a card is named, found in a book, it’s revealed with **** You shown BEFORE and then the card is revealed behind a sticker. Unpublished.

2019: I release FU2, where a card is placed out in the open as a Mystery Card, a card is selected, The card is revealed to have a Joker changed to a Middle Finger and the words **** You in place of the words Joker. The small print reveals the name of the card.

The only thing that we ACTUALLY share here is that ''**** You' is revealed before the reveal of the card.
Again, purposefully, deceptively untrue. What you have in common is the phrase, that it is printed in some manner on the card, and that it is a major element in the “entertainment’ of the trick. The fact you admit openly that you worked at finding a different method for achieving Harrison’s trick puts your IP claim on very shaky ground. But in the end, this won’t go to court. The finance dictates that. So all we have so often in magic is the court of public opinion. When I see someone convolute things so clearly to deceive the public, it makes their position seem VERY suspect.

It is not at all hard to believe that when Harrison says “my trick” he means the original presentation of a card with that phrase printed on it in some manner actually becoming the revelation which he has been making a living with by performing it since he originated it. It is also not hard to believe when you say “your trick” you mean just the specific method ignoring the artistic foundation. So here we are.

One person has created a unique card routine and performed it for many, many years to entertain audiences. Another person has, admittedly, taken the entertainment foundations and found a somewhat different method to utilize them, not to perform and entertain, but to sell as his own.

Is that thievery? I guess we each decide what we feel on such matters.
dooblehorn
View Profile
Inner circle
Pittsburg, CA
1678 Posts

Profile of dooblehorn
Quote:
On Jul 18, 2019, videoman wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 18, 2019, brandon90 wrote:


Only the guilty feel the need to explain themselves.


I have no horse in this race but that statement is such utterly ridiculous rubbish that I could not let it go unchallenged.
I suppose one could also state that those who have no facts to present in order to make their case often proclaim idiotic stock lines as the only defense of their beliefs.


Wow, yes, Videoman, thanks for your response, I totally agree...
scott0819
View Profile
Special user
Toronto, Ont.
737 Posts

Profile of scott0819
You guys are tough. The effect is not for me BUT I feel like Lloyd has been pretty darn transparent about crediting and E’s thinking behind this release.

The similarities between FU2 and Greenbaum’s unpublished effect seem to start and end with the words EFFF YOU on the card. Presentations are not that similar. Seriously, if the card said EAT $#!T would it be the same trick…?
It’s not the same reveal of the selected card.
It’s not the same method.

I do think that FU2 is closer to Jay Sankey’s effect, as the card reveal is in the FINE PRINT. I hope E spoke to Jay and proper credit was given on the project (this is assuming the idea is original with Jay).
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
733 Posts

Profile of TStone
Quote:
On Jul 19, 2019, scott0819 wrote:
It’s not the same method.

That's irrelevant. You evaluate the piece as a whole. If you have to divide it up into tiny articifial components to make your point, it is a clear sign something is off.

Exchanging a free choice with a force isn't an evolution, but a devaluation. That's the obvious approach, and it is very reasonable to assume that approach was both tested and rejected by Harrison in his development.

The way to handle derivative work - when you want to incorporate someone else's work into your own - is to ensure that all permissions are cleared. They already had Harrison's contact info since last time; so why not contact him and obtain his permission, the way any other honest creator would do?
bcstoner
View Profile
New user
24 Posts

Profile of bcstoner
Quote:
On Jul 19, 2019, TStone wrote:
That's irrelevant. You evaluate the piece as a whole.


Um... methods are very relevant. If you want to start evaluating pieces as a whole then I guess anyone who has ever sold a card trick is a thief/dishonest seeing as Giovanni Giuseppe Pinetti was the first person ever to use cards in magic.
travisb
View Profile
Special user
Vancouver, BC
514 Posts

Profile of travisb
Quote:
On Jul 21, 2019, bcstoner wrote:
Um... methods are very relevant. If you want to start evaluating pieces as a whole then I guess anyone who has ever sold a card trick is a thief/dishonest seeing as Giovanni Giuseppe Pinetti was the first person ever to use cards in magic.

a) Tom's post contains a part of the answer to this (within the text that you deleted when editing down the quote).

b) Obviously the method being different is in itself insufficient. Otherwise we could just steal Teller's Shadows (or what have you), change the method and sell it. So yes, we have to look at things as a whole.

c) Sometimes this stuff is a purely subjective call, sure, and it's easy to get lost in the weeds. But I think if we are honest with ourselves, if we act honourably and prioritize relationships over money, then I doubt these rationalizations ("I changed the method! The routine is slightly different!") will satisfy us.

Travis
Kaliix
View Profile
Inner circle
Connecticut
1420 Posts

Profile of Kaliix
If you evaluate it as a whole, it is different. It's a card that says FU when it should have been a prediction. That's about it. I would argue that the concept of an insult in place of a prediction is not original enough to even warrant protection legal or otherwise. Other than that, it is a different effect. As Lloyd pointed out, No freely named card, No book, No indexed deck, No switch, No sticker, No reveal of a normal playing card.

If anything, there's a better case to be made that this is a copy of fine print by Jay Sankey.

Quote:
On Jul 19, 2019, TStone wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 19, 2019, scott0819 wrote:
It’s not the same method.

That's irrelevant. You evaluate the piece as a whole. If you have to divide it up into tiny articifial components to make your point, it is a clear sign something is off.

Exchanging a free choice with a force isn't an evolution, but a devaluation. That's the obvious approach, and it is very reasonable to assume that approach was both tested and rejected by Harrison in his development.

The way to handle derivative work - when you want to incorporate someone else's work into your own - is to ensure that all permissions are cleared. They already had Harrison's contact info since last time; so why not contact him and obtain his permission, the way any other honest creator would do?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel J. Boorstin
Ceierry
View Profile
Inner circle
Europe
1353 Posts

Profile of Ceierry
It’s a card trick. Relax.
10S Star Sign Divination AVAILABLE WITH FREE EBOOK !
info@olivierboes.com
kipling100
View Profile
Loyal user
250 Posts

Profile of kipling100
No one can claim originality for using "FU" in the context of a card trick, but that's not the point. Both FU/FU2 use the same punch line as Harrison's routine. It doesn't matter if there is no book, sticker, or that the method is different. Both routines build up an expectation, and then the expectation is subverted and turned into the exact same joke, and then the joke turns out to be just a cover for the reveal. That particular expression is what should be protected in Harrison's routine, and taking that expression without permission is wrong, in my opinion.

And yes, it's just a "card trick," but when someone's livelihood depends on "card tricks," I think it's important to respect originality.
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
733 Posts

Profile of TStone
Quote:
On Jul 21, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
Other than that, it is a different effect.

Your "but I do it with a blue deck" argument doesn't hold water. This is derivative work, even clearly hinted as such in its title, where the necessary permissons haven't been cleared.
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
733 Posts

Profile of TStone
Quote:
On Jul 21, 2019, kipling100 wrote:
That particular expression is what should be protected in Harrison's routine, and taking that expression without permission is wrong, in my opinion.

Good to see someone who understand the matters at hand! However, no need to add "in my opinion" - it is wrong. Fortunately, the transgression happened in the UK where the creator's rights are much more clear and well defined than in the US.
Kaliix
View Profile
Inner circle
Connecticut
1420 Posts

Profile of Kaliix
Wow, see thank you. A logical reasoned response that can lead to understanding. So taking your routine outline idea further, I submit that there are likely dozens if not hundreds of effects in magic/mentalism where a routine builds up expectation, subverts that expectation into a joke, which then turns out to be cover for a reveal. I would submit that such a basic plotline sequence is in the public domain and not protectable. Assuming that is true, the details matter, as how you create the expectation, what the joke is and how it is revealed matter. The effects are similar no doubt. The do use the same basic insult at the punch line, but the reveal is totally different. The initial framing is similar but not the same. The card choice is not nearly the same. Choosing to force obviates the need for an index and a switch with the advantage being that the prediction can be in full view or even held by the spectator from the start. Not an insignificant choice either because there are pros and cons to each approach. I think the differences matter.

Quote:
On Jul 21, 2019, kipling100 wrote:
No one can claim originality for using "FU" in the context of a card trick, but that's not the point. Both FU/FU2 use the same punch line as Harrison's routine. It doesn't matter if there is no book, sticker, or that the method is different. Both routines build up an expectation, and then the expectation is subverted and turned into the exact same joke, and then the joke turns out to be just a cover for the reveal. That particular expression is what should be protected in Harrison's routine, and taking that expression without permission is wrong, in my opinion.

And yes, it's just a "card trick," but when someone's livelihood depends on "card tricks," I think it's important to respect originality.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel J. Boorstin
Kaliix
View Profile
Inner circle
Connecticut
1420 Posts

Profile of Kaliix
It is not a derivative work. It is the use of a standard basic plotline in which there are similarities, yes, but those similarities don't push it into the derivative category.

Quote:
On Jul 21, 2019, TStone wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 21, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
Other than that, it is a different effect.

Your "but I do it with a blue deck" argument doesn't hold water. This is derivative work, even clearly hinted as such in its title, where the necessary permissons haven't been cleared.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel J. Boorstin
kipling100
View Profile
Loyal user
250 Posts

Profile of kipling100
Quote:
On Jul 21, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
Wow, see thank you. A logical reasoned response that can lead to understanding. So taking your routine outline idea further, I submit that there are likely dozens if not hundreds of effects in magic/mentalism where a routine builds up expectation, subverts that expectation into a joke, which then turns out to be cover for a reveal. I would submit that such a basic plotline sequence is in the public domain and not protectable. Assuming that is true, the details matter, as how you create the expectation, what the joke is and how it is revealed matter. The effects are similar no doubt. The do use the same basic insult at the punch line, but the reveal is totally different. The initial framing is similar but not the same. The card choice is not nearly the same. Choosing to force obviates the need for an index and a switch with the advantage being that the prediction can be in full view or even held by the spectator from the start. Not an insignificant choice either because there are pros and cons to each approach. I think the differences matter.

Quote:
On Jul 21, 2019, kipling100 wrote:
No one can claim originality for using "FU" in the context of a card trick, but that's not the point. Both FU/FU2 use the same punch line as Harrison's routine. It doesn't matter if there is no book, sticker, or that the method is different. Both routines build up an expectation, and then the expectation is subverted and turned into the exact same joke, and then the joke turns out to be just a cover for the reveal. That particular expression is what should be protected in Harrison's routine, and taking that expression without permission is wrong, in my opinion.

And yes, it's just a "card trick," but when someone's livelihood depends on "card tricks," I think it's important to respect originality.


I agree there are certain levels of abstractions that are fairly within generic/public domain. For example, if we abstract any effect enough, it would be nonsensical to say one can protect a trick where someone divines a selected card. But as you add more detail, more specifics, the more protection the expression should get.

In this particular case, I think using the "FU" as the punch line / joke is particular enough that it is taking more than a generic plot line, but the particular expression of that plot line.

I think reasonable minds can disagree, but I've seen much less that has called for proper approval/crediting. It's also weird that they changed the method (which generally deserves little or no protection in the arts), but kept the entire premise. There's very little protection in magic, and it's easy and common to misappropriate someone else's work (even through accidental or independent creation), and I think we should apply higher standards.
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5708 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Quote:
On Jul 21, 2019, Ceierry wrote:
It’s a card trick. Relax.

To you it’s just a card trick. To the person who built it from idea to reality when there was nothing like it, and then worked it tweaked it and reworked it into a finely honed unique routine, and then used that to make their living... it’s much more than “just a card trick”.
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5708 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Quote:
On Jul 21, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
It is not a derivative work. It is the use of a standard basic plotline in which there are similarities, yes, but those similarities don't push it into the derivative category.

Quote:
On Jul 21, 2019, TStone wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 21, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
Other than that, it is a different effect.

Your "but I do it with a blue deck" argument doesn't hold water. This is derivative work, even clearly hinted as such in its title, where the necessary permissons haven't been cleared.

Uh, Barnes already admitted it is a derivative work. He took a known plot, and worked up a different way to do it. It is by definition and admission a derivative work.
hotjacket
View Profile
New user
52 Posts

Profile of hotjacket
Well, I like the Sankey Fine Print reveal, but the "F.U." aspect is not good entertainment IMHO (profanity does not particularly offend me, for what it's worth, it's just pretty weak humor). Maybe for an offensive heckler or drunken audience ... horses for courses I guess ...
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
733 Posts

Profile of TStone
Quote:
On Jul 21, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
I submit that there are likely dozens if not hundreds of effects in magic/mentalism where a routine builds up expectation, subverts that expectation into a joke, which then turns out to be cover for a reveal.

If so, you should be able to name at least ten examples. I can only name three: Asi Wind's "Gypsy Queen", Max Maven's "True Hue" and Harrison Greenbaum's piece. Name some more of all the "hundreds" you just submitted.
Quote:
I would submit that such a basic plotline sequence is in the public domain and not protectable.

No one have claimed it was. We are discussing a specific expression of that plotline.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » F.U.2 by Lloyd Barnes » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (186 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4..10~11~12 [Next]
X
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2019 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.26 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL