We Remember The Magic Café We Remember
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..9~10~11~12 [Next]
The Unmasked Magician
View Profile
Inner circle
If only I didn't have a wife and a kid I would have MUCH more than
1560 Posts

Profile of The Unmasked Magician
Quote:
On Aug 9, 2019, TStone wrote:
Clearly a bad faith actor, with a clear intention of making it more difficult for creators to have control over their work. As if that wasn’t hard enough.


That’s just not true, Tom. Kallix did not have that intention. You made that intention up in your head. If you would read his posts here you would know.

Quote:
Such contempt and disregard for creators and their rights ...


Neither Kallix nor Kissdadookie were feeling or showing contempt. Again, you made that up and assumed it was true. That assumption does however explain your vicious and disproportionately condescending tone of voice.
It would be good to see you apologize to those guys.

Listen, I get that you are very, very frustrated and angry about this issue. And I feel you have every right to be. Just don’t get all paranoid and start lashing out at the wrong people.
Please check regularly if you are becoming the type of magician Jerry Seinfeld jokes about. (This applies to mentalists as well.)
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4816 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On Aug 8, 2019, The Mysterious One wrote:
Wow, I haven't checked this thread since my few meager posts days ago. It is very interesting reading and seeing the opinions from both sides of the debate, a very passionate debate for sure. I am shocked that Ellusionist had the FU video on their Magic Stream, in spite of the objections of Harrison I may add. This puts holes in Lloyd's argument of Ellusionist being professional and mindful to Harrison's previous (and recent) objections to the original FU deck project. I see Tom and Glenn and other valued contributors to the Café making strong arguments on plot on how E shouldn't release FU2 in spite of different methodology, etc., My question is where should the line be drawn if there are releases with the same general plot that use different methodologies?

Keep in mind...I am not trying to get anyone's blood pressure up; I am not trying to cause anger. I am sincerely curious and wanting to understand. I will use the card to impossible location plot as an example. There were various products based on Kennedy's Mystery Box that uses a clear box. First, I remember Regal's Clarity Box following by a bunch of items (Penn's Mystery Solved, Allen's Paragon 3D [an updated to Jon's Paragon], Dobson's 3Sixty) and also other products in opaque containers (Garcia's Mintbox, Kramm's Toibox, etc.) All of these are brillant in different ways; each of these magicians are very creative.

Why wasn't there the amount of outrage when these various products were released? The methodology is slightly different in these releases, but the plot is the same. Is the lack of outrage due to the card to impossible location being a wonderful, older plot that has existed in magic for centuries?

For clarification, I am using these products as an example and not hinting at all that somone should be at all upset at these products, associated magicians, etc.


The BIG difference with most examples like this in magic is that these are all variations of published routines. Once you publish something, you've implicitly given permission to others to work on the idea.
Publishing your subsequent work should still be done with the original artist's consent, and credit.

When you're dealing with independent creation, IF both want to publish, it's generally considered a race to market.
If you inadvertently recreate a signature trick from someones working act, which they are still using and not ready to publish, it is respectful to hold off on publishing until they either retire the piece, or publish themselves. The same goes for any variations you work on.
This is what we saw with FU Deck. E did not have to take it off the market, but they should have, and rightly did.

This is also a similar situation to what we saw with Teller's Shadows. Someone was selling a direct replication of the piece, which was ethically wrong.
Say the same guy now came up with his "own" method to accomplish the same effect, changes it to a cactus instead of a rose and knife. If he then calls it "Shadow 2" and publishes it, it would still be seen as derivative of Teller's unpublished working act and considered "wrong." At least until such time that Teller retires the piece, or publishes it himself.
Some would argue that if he only retires it, it should still remain off limits, but this mentality simply cripples the art, IMO, in a similar way to how broken IP law like the author's death plus an ever growing number of years(thanks Disney) has had many problematic consequences. There is a plethora of unpublished Marlo material that some of his students still consider off limits, even when others independently come up with the same idea. You can see how this line of thinking can be ridiculous, and problematic for creativity in the art.
So while there's some debate over work that remains unpublished after death et al, the rest is generally pretty well established, re. waiting till published by the original artists.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
The Mysterious One
View Profile
Loyal user
259 Posts

Profile of The Mysterious One
Glenn,

Thank you so much for clarifying. Even though I have performed magic and mentalism for a long time, I was confused by the ire with this release. I now have a firmer grasp on why the FU2 release has caused such consternation amongst members of the community (including you and Tom). I am passionate about creativity in magic and mentalism; it is always good to get a better understanding from both sides on an issue (except those larger issues that are undebatable such as racism, sexism, violence, any other types of hatred..saying this due to a horrible, tragic event in my beloved state of Texas..Stay strong El Paso!).

Creators should be compensated and respected accordingly; the Shadows example drove the point home. I remember the whole controversy with that magician releasing Teller's Shadows routine for sale; he was demonized and rightfully so. It was an original plot that is personal to Teller and part of his performance repertoire.

Based on what you said, FU2 is a deriative of FU, which part of Harrison's act. The part in queston is the reveal and the fact that Ellusionist continued moving forward in spite of Harrison's objections. That part came across in the video with them reworking the method. The greater question Glenn is with the guidelines that you outlined (which clarifies the issue at hand about decorum and professional courtesy), why wasn't this adhered to? E is not going to sell that many FU2 decks to ever compensate for the PR hit and ill will created. There is a reason why they are 50% off at one point (almost a week after release). Plus, honestly, one cannot put a dollar sign in terms of integrity and one's reputation. If dollars matter more than reputation, it defeats true organic growth of a company over time.
kissdadookie
View Profile
Inner circle
4062 Posts

Profile of kissdadookie
Quote:
On Aug 9, 2019, The Mysterious One wrote:
Glenn,

Thank you so much for clarifying. Even though I have performed magic and mentalism for a long time, I was confused by the ire with this release. I now have a firmer grasp on why the FU2 release has caused such consternation amongst members of the community (including you and Tom). I am passionate about creativity in magic and mentalism; it is always good to get a better understanding from both sides on an issue (except those larger issues that are undebatable such as racism, sexism, violence, any other types of hatred..saying this due to a horrible, tragic event in my beloved state of Texas..Stay strong El Paso!).

Creators should be compensated and respected accordingly; the Shadows example drove the point home. I remember the whole controversy with that magician releasing Teller's Shadows routine for sale; he was demonized and rightfully so. It was an original plot that is personal to Teller and part of his performance repertoire.

Based on what you said, FU2 is a deriative of FU, which part of Harrison's act. The part in queston is the reveal and the fact that Ellusionist continued moving forward in spite of Harrison's objections. That part came across in the video with them reworking the method. The greater question Glenn is with the guidelines that you outlined (which clarifies the issue at hand about decorum and professional courtesy), why wasn't this adhered to? E is not going to sell that many FU2 decks to ever compensate for the PR hit and ill will created. There is a reason why they are 50% off at one point (almost a week after release). Plus, honestly, one cannot put a dollar sign in terms of integrity.


The effects are however not the same here in comparison to the Shadows effect. So it's a apples and oranges comparison. FU2 and Harrison's effect shares the FU gag, that's it. They don't share the same effect unless the argument is that they are both card tricks in the vein of finding/predicting the selection. That's virtually all card tricks. Using the FU gag has been documented to preceed Harrison's such as the examples mentioned in this thread. Peter MicKinnon's Blackpool Prediction is this EXACT GAG. Let's say Harrison has been doing his routine for 9-10 years. Ok, chronologically it preceeds the Blackpool Prediction... why was their no claim to the theft of his effect back then? How about the example I had previously mentioned, I've used the FU phrase to feign disappointment with not getting the spectator's card correctly only to then reveal in the end that I did get the selection correctly. I'm sure many many many others have done this exact thing for goodness knows how long. Crediting to Harrison is a valid point for the gag but unfortunately the claim made against Ellusionist is that there was a THEFT of an entire EFFECT. This is not the situation that is similar to Shadows. This is EXACTLY why I've pointed out how bits and pieces from other claim situations had to be cherry picked and massaged and pieced together out of context in order to support the defense of Harrison argument.

That's the inconsistencies in the arguments exhibited in this thread. That's what I have major contentions with. It's an example of hypocrisy and it also feels suspiciously of folks projecting ideals and their own firm beliefs into a situation for which those ideals and beliefs do not actually have a part in considering the available evidence at hand. I still think Ellusionist often do some grimy things (looking at you Pyro surprise item scheme!) but in my opinion, just because a company has a history of doing grimy things here and there, you lose your upper hand position when you start lobbing unfair accusations at them.

As for reference, here's the judge order for the Shadows case. Please DO NOT ignore the fact that Teller's Shadows routine is described at length and in detail. There is a reason for this, it is to demonstrate that it's not the idea or concept which has been stolen, but the entire structure or sequence of events which has been taken. That is the key here.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/213767662/Tel......rch-2014

Now, think about this, if we took FU2 and Harrison's effect and give a detailed description such as in the above judgement order, will they be similar? No, the two would be night and day different. Thus this debate is asinine. A argument based on ones projection of justice that excludes the actual facts at hand is not a good argument for anything. That is literally virtue signaling and this is coming from me, a person that most would consider a SJW. LoL.
The Mysterious One
View Profile
Loyal user
259 Posts

Profile of The Mysterious One
Very interesting perspective kissadookie and examples to illustrate your point.

I don't have a horse in this race, and I see both sides of the argument to a degree. I can see where Glenn and Tom are coming from, but then I see the other side of the argument as well that others (including a few talented creators) have stated.

In making an effective argument, one cannot cherry-pick the facts that supports it and blissfully ignore the other facts that counter one's argument (my statement applies to everyone). However, we see this behavior all of the time with politicians throughout the world (Ugh!). I think the anger over this issue is derived from E being hellbent to release FU2 in spite of Harrison's disapproval due to the FU component being a part of his performance repertoire. I still don't understand where was the outrage from the other releases with a FU reveal (as outlined by kissadookie and in Lloyd's video).

I also think that for some, conversing about this topic has gone beyond an earnest conversation about this effect and/or ethics in magic to an emotional, cathartic release of pent up frustration and anger over past wrongs or perceived past wrongs.
kissdadookie
View Profile
Inner circle
4062 Posts

Profile of kissdadookie
Quote:
On Aug 9, 2019, The Mysterious One wrote:
Very interesting perspective kissadookie and examples to illustrate your point.

I don't have a horse in this race, and I see both sides of the argument to a degree. I can see where Glenn and Tom are coming from, but then I see the other side of the argument as well that others (including a few talented creators) have stated.

In making an effective argument, one cannot cherry-pick the facts that supports it and blissfully ignore the other facts that counter one's argument (my statement applies to everyone). However, we see this behavior all of the time with politicians throughout the world (Ugh!). I think the anger over this issue is derived from E being hellbent to release FU2 in spite of Harrison's disapproval due to the FU component being a part of his performance repertoire. I still don't understand where was the outrage from the other releases with a FU reveal (as outlined by kissadookie and in Lloyd's video).

I also think that for some, conversing about this topic has gone beyond an earnest conversation about this effect and/or ethics in magic to an emotional, cathartic release of pent up frustration and anger over past wrongs or perceived past wrongs.


Completely agree with you.

You may also find the following interesting, it's a key paragraph in the judgement order by the judge in the Shadows case (the italics are as per how they are presented in the order, so it's not me italicizing things on my own to make a point):

"Dogge contends that the works are not substantially similar because his secret to performing the illusion differs from Teller's, and because he uses a clear glass bottle instead of a vase in his version. However the court finds that these reaching arguments by Dogge exceed his limited grasp of copyright law. By arguing that the secret to his illusion is different than Teller's, Dogge implicitly argues about aspects of the performance that are not perceivable by the audience. In discerning substantial similarity, the court compares only the observable elements of the works in question. Therefor, whether Dogge uses Teller's method, a technique known only by various holy men of the Himalayas, or even real magic is irrelevant, as the performances appear idential to an ordinary observer."

So why is method irrelevant, because that falls under patents and is why there is a patents system (granted it's been abused thus stagnating creativity and innovation, at least the US patents system has). COPYRIGHT protects the creative work as is presented and perceived. THAT is why for the Harrison vs FU2 situation, it is ABSOLUTELY relevant that we need to understand what the PERCEIVED effect is from the audience and I went with laypeople because that is the demographic for which the effects are going to be performed for (pretty sure Harrison is not performing his routine only for magicians or even mostly for magicians, it's mainly and mostly for lay people and the routine is designed with entertaining an audience of laypeople first and foremost). Plus, the methodology are not similar between the two so that's not even a point of contention.

Now, keep in mind that the judge is not making the order on the basis of concepts and ideas being similar, but on the complete work as a whole being substantially similar. This is why Teller's routine is described in depth (plot summary essentially) at the start of the order.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4816 Posts

Profile of gdw
The flaw kissdadookie is now making is conflating legal culpability, and the nature of IP law, with business standards and ethics in magic.
The legal aspect of Teller's case is fairly unique, and shows the extreme lengths one must go for LEGAL protection.
Magic is, generally speaking, more akin to comedy, and joke theft* in this case. There is little to no legal recourse for comedians, just as there is, usually, no recourse for magicians who don't have hundreds of thousands at their disposal.

Also, once again repeating the reductive attempt to make the only overlap the gag, and again ignoring the concept of effect, plot of trick, etc, to focus on superficial differences, misrepresenting both.

Quote:
On Aug 9, 2019, The Mysterious One wrote: . . .
I still don't understand where was the outrage from the other releases with a FU reveal (as outlined by kissadookie and in Lloyd's video).
. . .


Because it's not about using FU in a card trick, it's about the SPECIFIC use of it in conjunction with the trick.
Neither Sleaze's, nor Sadowitz's, "tricks" involved a prediction being "wrong" only to reveal it was actually right. That's a specific turn in a card trick, and a different turn than revealing a correct prediction upfront. So, again, it's not the use of FU in ANY reveal of a card, it's FU used in the specific set up and reveal.

Just as saying FU in the set-up of a joke doesn't defines the joke, many jokes can set up a punchline with similar words, but rather it's the combination of specific set-up AND punchline that make a joke unique. Similarly saying the same punchline but with slightly different words doesn't make it a new joke. At best, it's a variation. Like "If you can cite your book as proof of x deity, then I can cite comics as proof of Spider-man . . . Charlotte's Web as proof of talking pigs. . . The Little Mermaid as proof of Mermaids" etc. Same joke, despite different specifics for the same punchline.


*Preemptively addressing Harrison's alleged joke theft before it's brought up as a "gotcha"; first, hypocrisy does not negate the wrong of others, and second, we have not seen any evidence the joke was stolen, NOR who did it first, or if it was independently concocted, etc.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
kissdadookie
View Profile
Inner circle
4062 Posts

Profile of kissdadookie
Quote:
On Aug 9, 2019, gdw wrote:
The flaw kissdadookie is now making is conflating legal culpability, and the nature of IP law, with business standards and ethics in magic.
The legal aspect of Teller's case is fairly unique, and shows the extreme lengths one must go for LEGAL protection.
Magic is, generally speaking, more akin to comedy, and joke theft* in this case. There is little to no legal recourse for comedians, just as there is, usually, no recourse for magicians who don't have hundreds of thousands at their disposal.

Also, once again repeating the reductive attempt to make the only overlap the gag, and again ignoring the concept of effect, plot of trick, etc, to focus on superficial differences, misrepresenting both.

Quote:
On Aug 9, 2019, The Mysterious One wrote: . . .
I still don't understand where was the outrage from the other releases with a FU reveal (as outlined by kissadookie and in Lloyd's video).
. . .


Because it's not about using FU in a card trick, it's about the SPECIFIC use of it in conjunction with the trick.
Neither Sleaze's, nor Sadowitz's, "tricks" involved a prediction being "wrong" only to reveal it was actually right. That's a specific turn in a card trick, and a different turn than revealing a correct prediction upfront. So, again, it's not the use of FU in ANY reveal of a card, it's FU used in the specific set up and reveal.

Just as saying FU in the set-up of a joke doesn't defines the joke, many jokes can set up a punchline with similar words, but rather it's the combination of specific set-up AND punchline that make a joke unique. Similarly saying the same punchline but with slightly different words doesn't make it a new joke. At best, it's a variation. Like "If you can cite your book as proof of x deity, then I can cite comics as proof of Spider-man . . . Charlotte's Web as proof of talking pigs. . . The Little Mermaid as proof of Mermaids" etc. Same joke, despite different specifics for the same punchline.


*Preemptively addressing Harrison's alleged joke theft before it's brought up as a "gotcha"; first, hypocrisy does not negate the wrong of others, and second, we have not seen any evidence the joke was stolen, NOR who did it first, or if it was independently concocted, etc.


Actually, no. I brought up the Shadows judgement order (which was PRO protection of a magician's creative work btw, you know, something that you're claiming to be a proponent of in this thread) to demonstrate how that example is night and day different from the Harrison vs FU2 scenario. The fact that you are now trying to twist what I have said every which way in order to portray my posts as being inaccurate (because clearly they are not or else you would be addressing my points rather than wildly reinterpreting what I have posted to then portray what I have post incredibly inaccurately). This is why in your post above you make no mention of the Blackpool Prediction. Nor have you really addressed the issue of joke theft that Harrison appears to have committed. Both these very simple points that you should be addressing in order to validate your position you've very conveniently ignoring and did not address. Why? Likely because your argument completely falls apart if you did.

Ok ok, to be fair you TRIED to address the joke theft and Blackpool Prediction by cherry picking bits and pieces here and there out of context in a heroic effort to rewrite the narrative and muddy the facts that those two scenarios are DIRECTLY MIRRORING the FU2 situation.

Good try but it's not even sophomoric at best.
Craigers
View Profile
Loyal user
293 Posts

Profile of Craigers
Erm, would this thread be a good place to ask if FU2 is any good ?
kissdadookie
View Profile
Inner circle
4062 Posts

Profile of kissdadookie
Quote:
On Aug 9, 2019, Craigers wrote:
Erm, would this thread be a good place to ask if FU2 is any good ?


HA HA HA HA HA HA. Love your post. It's actually quite good (your post) and has me laughing pretty hard Smile

You're basically buying a gag prediction card with video instructions teaching you how to force a card. Is that of use to you or not, that's all you boss.

GDW:

I've also given how I have used the expletive in what I do and it also mirrors how Harrison uses this phrase. I've been doing this for the purposes I have described on the previous page. I've done this going back over 10 years at least. Harrison claims he had his effect for 9 years or so now. My use predates his. Shouldn't I be the one who has been wronged? Pretty sure I'm not the only to use that phrase either in similar situations. Probably predates my use of it by decades. Inb4 you make a post trying to massage my use of it into something entirely different to what I have posted in order for you to explain how my use is substantially different from Harrison's use.
Craigers
View Profile
Loyal user
293 Posts

Profile of Craigers
[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 9, 2019, Craigers wrote:
Erm, would this thread be a good place to ask if FU2 is any good ?


HA HA HA HA HA HA. Love your post. It's actually quite good (your post) and has me laughing pretty hard Smile

You're basically buying a gag prediction card with video instructions teaching you how to force a card. Is that of use to you or not, that's all you boss.

==================================================================================

Hey Kissdadookie, actually I've had a wee chuckle myself reading the contents of the thread. As I've been reading it I can't help but remember PRINCE. I really enjoyed winding him up with "facts" and he bit everytime !! BTW I was wondering why Pegasus has not jumped onboard here. We need more biting sarcastic one liners I think !! Think I will steer clear of FU2. Just spent all my money on "Any Card" and "Deep Clear"
The Mysterious One
View Profile
Loyal user
259 Posts

Profile of The Mysterious One
Quote:
On Aug 9, 2019, Craigers wrote:


===============================================================

Hey Kissdadookie, actually I've had a wee chuckle myself reading the contents of the thread. As I've been reading it I can't help but remember PRINCE. I really enjoyed winding him up with "facts" and he bit everytime !! BTW I was wondering why Pegasus has not jumped onboard here. We need more biting sarcastic one liners I think !! Think I will steer clear of FU2. Just spent all my money on "Any Card" and "Deep Clear"


I actually laughed out loud as well. Genius! Any Card and Deep Clear are both great. Plus, you are supporting two great creators and learning two principles/effects that won't get you in hot water with someone that doesn't like being cussed at...even in jest.
kissdadookie
View Profile
Inner circle
4062 Posts

Profile of kissdadookie
[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, Craigers wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 9, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 9, 2019, Craigers wrote:
Erm, would this thread be a good place to ask if FU2 is any good ?


HA HA HA HA HA HA. Love your post. It's actually quite good (your post) and has me laughing pretty hard Smile

You're basically buying a gag prediction card with video instructions teaching you how to force a card. Is that of use to you or not, that's all you boss.

============================================================================

Hey Kissdadookie, actually I've had a wee chuckle myself reading the contents of the thread. As I've been reading it I can't help but remember PRINCE. I really enjoyed winding him up with "facts" and he bit everytime !! BTW I was wondering why Pegasus has not jumped onboard here. We need more biting sarcastic one liners I think !! Think I will steer clear of FU2. Just spent all my money on "Any Card" and "Deep Clear"


Any Card didn't appeal to me. Deep Clear on the other hand, winner! I didn't pick it up (as you may have seen in that thread, I'm rather attached to the tarot card version of DA, they don't make them anymore sadly). I had I think it was Deep Astonishment 3? Whichever one that Bro put out years ago. I basically went back to the tarot version, liked it much better.
Craigers
View Profile
Loyal user
293 Posts

Profile of Craigers
Quote:
On Aug 9, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:

Any Card didn't appeal to me. Deep Clear on the other hand, winner! I didn't pick it up (as you may have seen in that thread, I'm rather attached to the tarot card version of DA, they don't make them anymore sadly). I had I think it was Deep Astonishment 3? Whichever one that Bro put out years ago. I basically went back to the tarot version, liked it much better.


Just got them yesterday so havn't had a chance to get into them yet. I'll tell you what I think...............but on their respective threads. Don't dare to suffer the wrath of others for trying to hijack the FU2 thread !! Now..........back to the comedy
kissdadookie
View Profile
Inner circle
4062 Posts

Profile of kissdadookie
Quote:
On Aug 9, 2019, Craigers wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 9, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:

Any Card didn't appeal to me. Deep Clear on the other hand, winner! I didn't pick it up (as you may have seen in that thread, I'm rather attached to the tarot card version of DA, they don't make them anymore sadly). I had I think it was Deep Astonishment 3? Whichever one that Bro put out years ago. I basically went back to the tarot version, liked it much better.

======================================================================================

Just got them yesterday so havn't had a chance to get into them yet. I'll tell you what I think...............but on their respective threads. Don't dare to suffer the wrath of others for trying to hijack the FU2 thread !! Now..........back to the comedy


HA HA HA HA HA Smile
The Mysterious One
View Profile
Loyal user
259 Posts

Profile of The Mysterious One
LOL.

Yeah, we need some levity to say the least, but I did enjoy reading the points made from both sides of the FU aisle. Thanks everyone for answering my questionsa and making the day go little faster. I prefer stepping into a magic honest nest than dealing with most of my co-workers!
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
772 Posts

Profile of TStone
Quote:
On Aug 9, 2019, gdw wrote:
The legal aspect of Teller's case is fairly unique, and shows the extreme lengths one must go for LEGAL protection.

Had to go... Teller created the piece in the 70's, before the USA had any proper copyright, and registered it in 1983..Five years before USA signed the Berne Treaty and got automatic copyright. After 1988, things changed.
kissdadookie
View Profile
Inner circle
4062 Posts

Profile of kissdadookie
Quote:
On Aug 9, 2019, TStone wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 9, 2019, gdw wrote:
The legal aspect of Teller's case is fairly unique, and shows the extreme lengths one must go for LEGAL protection.

Had to go... Teller created the piece in the 70's, before the USA had any proper copyright, and registered it in 1983..Five years before USA signed the Berne Treaty and got automatic copyright. After 1988, things changed.


Does not change the reasons for which why Teller won his case. It’s not really the length that Teller had to go through but based on the facts at hand and the elements in contention as a whole. No way in any country would Harrison’s claim be valid. You know it, I know it, we all know it. I can ask the various IP attorneys at my firm if you wish including our European team. That is why folks are claiming that this is an issue of “ethics” rather than discussion this from an objective point of view. Why care about facts and evidence right? Feels versus reals, amiright? LoL.
Martin Pulman
View Profile
Inner circle
London
3054 Posts

Profile of Martin Pulman
Anyone with love and respect for magic -or any basic understanding of its history -knows that the ethics of the art has nothing to do with court cases.

In the history of the Café has so much hot air ever been expelled debating such a terrible trick? It is utter garbage.
false_awakening
View Profile
New user
69 Posts

Profile of false_awakening
Quote:
On Aug 9, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
In the books and films I've noted, the degree for which there is a similarity to be drawn is FAR greater than one would be able to draw between Harrison's FU and FU2. FAR greater.


I don't know if that's true. To take one example, based on info found online, it looks like Bird Box and A Quiet Place differ in several respects. The first deals with supernatural entities which cause a self-destructive psychological response in their victims, the second deals with natural aliens with hypersensitive hearing. I understand the same theme exists: *mortal danger hinges on one of your five senses*, but the mechanism, results, strategy (blind yourself, vs don't make noise) all differ. And of course, as you say, such discussion can devolve into nit-picking elements.
My point is that there seems to be greater room here for variance, compared with magic routines like the one in question.

Quote:
On Aug 9, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
This isn't a stealing of chord patterns (that can be equated to stealing of methodology). Stealing of chord patterns can be defended and that defense can be won in some instances because it has to do with a demonstratable application of a specific sequence. This falls under copyright protection since copyright is protection for a specific expression. It's protecting the details of the expression, such as the sequence of words, the sequence of chords, etc.

Sorry, but I'm confused. It seems you're saying that using another song's chord patterns can be defended (with which I agree in general), but then you seem to say that a sequence of chords falls under copyright protection. What is the distinction here between "pattern" and "sequence"?

Quote:
On Aug 9, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
What arc is there for Harrison's effect compared to FU2?


I have no stake in this issue and defer to those familiar with the material. I noticed this summary from earlier in the thread:

-- Prediction set aside.
Card "selected."
Prediction revealed to be FU gag.
Ha. Ha.
Looking closer, the prediction actually reveals the spectator's card. --

So this seems like the specific arc, the story that the effect follows.


Quote:
On Aug 9, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
It's a card trick, a prediction of a thought of card. That is the actual arc here is it not?


What you're describing is to my mind a general effect, the development/execution of which could follow various arcs. Perhaps some of the confusion in this debate is around terminology.
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..9~10~11~12 [Next]
X
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.64 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