The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » F.U.2 by Lloyd Barnes (166 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5..16~17~18 [Next]
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5669 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
755 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.
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
755 Posts

Profile of TStone
Quote:
On Jul 21, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
It is not a derivative work.

Quote:
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.

I suggest you consult a dictionary. The word "derivative" seems to confuse you.
Ceierry
View Profile
Inner circle
Europe
1351 Posts

Profile of Ceierry
3 pages saying the same. Lloyd already explained his version and posted on Facebook, as well as Geraint.

(IMHO, they actually explained too much.. I feel they didn't need to explain more in depth, magicians are going really CRAZY about this.. I actually start to think this is more a personal issue than the situation of the trick itself.. I would love to see the same situation with another creator, I'm sure this situation wouldn't happened.)

Can't we just move along, drink a nice beer, and that's it..? It's not that this trick will actually kill any magician reputation or what so ever right?

Credits are here, trick is here, what do you need more? What do you NEED to stop this situation? Do you need Ellusionist to stop selling this trick? But why? It's not even yours too!! I mean... this thread is really out of control guys..

Anyway, just my 2 cents, I'm not affiliated with E, neither Lloyd nor Geraint..

Have a great day, and enjoy the beach.
10S Star Sign Divination AVAILABLE WITH FREE EBOOK !
info@olivierboes.com
Markymark
View Profile
Inner circle
1519 Posts

Profile of Markymark
When [or if] you get an original idea Ceierry you might care more.
''In memory of a once fluid man,crammed and distorted by the classical mess'' -Bruce Lee
Ceierry
View Profile
Inner circle
Europe
1351 Posts

Profile of Ceierry
Quote:
On Jul 22, 2019, Markymark wrote:
When [or if] you get an original idea Ceierry you might care more.


I know what you mean, and have released products in the past (which has been copied, 1 by a big name in the mentalism industry.. but anyway), but I believe that all of this discussion need to end.. It doesn't benefit anybody
10S Star Sign Divination AVAILABLE WITH FREE EBOOK !
info@olivierboes.com
Kaliix
View Profile
Inner circle
Connecticut
1404 Posts

Profile of Kaliix
Again, thank you for an excellent response.

I agree with you that it is a particular expression of that plot line. I don't believe the general plotline is protectable. Building up an expectation for a reveal is standard stuff, shifting that expectation to a joke then using that for a reveal I think is similarly basic. So is Greenbaum's use of the F*#$ You insult original enough to warrant protection?

I see a case to be made for both sides, I guess in the end, I just don't see telling someone one FU when they expect a reveal is that bloody original. And that is really what we are talking about here. Most everything else is different about the tricks.

Interestingly though, why isn't the prevailing argument focused on calling this a copy of Sankey's Fine Print. The build up is the same, the reveal is the same, the concept is the same. Really the only difference is that instead of the joke being FU, it is the standard magician in trouble joke with the wrong card.

It seems I agree with the Toms in principle, I just think they are focused on the wrong trick.

Quote:
On Jul 21, 2019, kipling100 wrote:
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.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel J. Boorstin
Kaliix
View Profile
Inner circle
Connecticut
1404 Posts

Profile of Kaliix
We are talking about a specific plot line and I believe that you are incorrect. FU is pretty much of copy of fine print, not greenbaums FU effect.

I also believe that if I was allowed to post that question in this forum for people to respond to, I would get dozens of effects from magicians everywhere, particularly if they are incentivized to prove you wrong. The worst I can do is be wrong but that's about it. For you on the other hand...

Quote:
On Jul 22, 2019, TStone wrote:
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 greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel J. Boorstin
Kaliix
View Profile
Inner circle
Connecticut
1404 Posts

Profile of Kaliix
It's weak humor used incorrectly and this trick in particular needs care in choosing exactly when to perform it, no doubt.

Used properly, with the right audience at the right time, it can be funny, even hilarious. But it's not for everyone that is for sure.

Quote:
On Jul 22, 2019, hotjacket wrote:
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 ...
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel J. Boorstin
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
755 Posts

Profile of TStone
Quote:
On Jul 22, 2019, Kaliix wrote:
We are talking about a specific plot line and I believe that you are incorrect. FU is pretty much of copy of fine print, not greenbaums FU effect.


No, we are talking about a specific routine. A specific dramatic expression.
Changing it from an actual free choice to a perceived free choice and claiming it to be a completely new piece is the old "but I do it with a blue backed deck!" argument - the dramatic expression is still the same. It is also a devolution from being fresh and interesting to being trite and predictable. That the devolution also make it more similar to other items, like Fine Print, isn't in favor of Ellusionists claim that it is original work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jIQjr_-gN0
The Fine Print is more along the lines of "magician in trouble" plot. A mistake is made, a prediction turns out to be wrong, but then the error turns out to be the correct in unexpected fashion. I've seen Max Maven and James Randi do more intriguing pieces on that plot, with written predictions that are wrong - but the predictions turns out to be ambigrams, and are correct once rotated 180 degrees.

The mistake is not a part of Harrison's plot. The customized face of the card immediately tells you that there never were any intention to actually succeed. Hence, no "magician in trouble" vibes.

Btw, you claimed there were hundreds of pieces that duplicates Harrison's plot. So far, I have not seen you cite or quote any. So, I guess it is a fair assumption to consider your claim to be wrong?
JCheng
View Profile
Veteran user
309 Posts

Profile of JCheng
Quote:
On Jul 22, 2019, TStone wrote:
The Fine Print is more along the lines of "magician in trouble" plot.

You mentioned Gypsy Queen as being similar to the FU plot (or same class). But Gypsy Queen is also a "magician in trouble" plot just line Fine Print.
Lseeyou
View Profile
Inner circle
1210 Posts

Profile of Lseeyou
@Lloyd Barnes
The force that starts @3:10 in the trailer is not mentioned in the instructions or did I miss anything? Curious about this but can't find where you guys mention it in the instructions...

Thanks in advance
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
755 Posts

Profile of TStone
Quote:
On Jul 22, 2019, JCheng wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 22, 2019, TStone wrote:
The Fine Print is more along the lines of "magician in trouble" plot.

You mentioned Gypsy Queen as being similar to the FU plot (or same class). But Gypsy Queen is also a "magician in trouble" plot just line Fine Print.


Never seen it played like that. In Asi's video, he presses on, like everything happened the way it was supposed to, and are using the resulting puzzlement for the same purpose Harrison use the groan.
JCheng
View Profile
Veteran user
309 Posts

Profile of JCheng
Quote:
On Jul 22, 2019, TStone wrote:
Never seen it played like that. In Asi's video, he presses on, like everything happened the way it was supposed to, and are using the resulting puzzlement for the same purpose Harrison use the groan.


If you see the uncut performance of Gypsy Queen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg-UALCF59A

The spectators at some point are thinking that the magician is in "trouble" (got the wrong card) but obviously at the end the trick goes well (just like Fine Print).
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
755 Posts

Profile of TStone
Quote:
On Jul 22, 2019, JCheng wrote:
The spectators at some point are thinking that the magician is in "trouble" (got the wrong card) but obviously at the end the trick goes well (just like Fine Print).

What the spectators are thinking is irrelevant. You evaluate the work as a whole. There's no error, or acknowledgement of error, in the handling and scripting of the piece. Neither is there anything of that in the performance shown.
The Mysterious One
View Profile
Loyal user
219 Posts

Profile of The Mysterious One
This will play with certain audiences depending up one's character (like David Sleaze, Amazing Jonathan, etc.) and the audience.

Amongst the debate in this thread, what I haven't seen is anyone mentioning the ad copy about this being a heckler stopper. Is it my imagination, but is performing this for a heckler at the first sign of disruption could escalate the issue and turn the audience against the magician? What concerns me are the inexperienced magician thinking that this will endear him/her to an audience and silence a heckler. It may just do the opposite and embolden a heckler to increase the rude, disruptive behavior and turn the audience against the magician. Again, it all depends on the performer, but those that do it well lesrned through experience.
mantel
View Profile
Elite user
463 Posts

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

He took a completely immoral recording of Geraint Clarke, entirely without consent and posted it wholly out of context to support his narrative, in what I can only guess was an attempt to spark rage and out-cry. A grown man did this. Let that sink in.

Well, after doing some searching; Harrison explicitly told us on (this time) a legally recorded phone call (where all parties consented)that the earliest video he has is from 2009 performing it in a show.

Lloyd


You’ve lost me as Ellusionist only cares about morals when they’ve backed themselves into a corner. Also Harrison didn't need Geraint’s consent anyway as New York is one party consent state. What did you expect Harrison to do? Sit back and let Ellusionist profit from what he believes is his intellectual property?

Regardless of how you feel both phone calls were legally recorded.
JCheng
View Profile
Veteran user
309 Posts

Profile of JCheng
Quote:
On Jul 22, 2019, TStone wrote:
What the spectators are thinking is irrelevant. You evaluate the work as a whole. There's no error, or acknowledgement of error, in the handling and scripting of the piece. Neither is there anything of that in the performance shown.


Fair enough.
Harry Patter
View Profile
Loyal user
214 Posts

Profile of Harry Patter
If a trick is close enough to another to cause this thread then I think that speaks for itself.

I watched Tom Stone lecture his Of Mice and Men routine many years ago, (International Magic Convention) I loved the premise, but I wasn't too keen on the method.

I changed it. It uses no dice, I have more than six options, and everyone who joins me on stage gets a go. It isn't binary but the kicker is still Kill.

Can I release it without consulting Tom Stone, I suppose I could in many minds. But I wouldn't, his routine was my starting point, inspiration and in my mind it the same trick. Is using 'Kill' in magic trick protectable, No. But it is morally wrong and it does nothing for our creative art to publish anothers work, punchline, kicker or premise as our own.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » F.U.2 by Lloyd Barnes (166 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5..16~17~18 [Next]
X
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2019 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.32 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