Marco. We have already said that sleights are generally fair game.

I will say it again. No one, and I mean no one, is saying that you can't use a double lift. No one, and I mean no one, is saying you can't use a top palm.

I think you are the one who is having trouble reading our posts, although I find it difficult to imagine that you really did not realize that we were discussing routines and full tricks. When you said we were hypocrites, every response I gave refered to tricks or routines, not sleights. Since you are obviously playing games, I don't see any point in continuing.

Stuart Gordon "owned/created/invented" the stud double turnover. I have my own approach to the double lift. The earliest mention of a double lift in print is not all that long ago.

Ed Marlo invented some ways to palm a card.

The connection between the notions of proprietor and inventor is one of the major topics of this discussion.

Marco S: I, for one, did read the whole thing.

"Well Open Traveller, how can anybody be the proprietor of a double lift, or a top change, or a top palm?

And how do YOU contact them??? "

Some people create new ways of performing the double lift, top change, and top palm that may be unique to them. That is how they are the creator.


As many have said, as long as the move/sleight/trick is in print by that creator or with permission of the creator, and you own said book/video, then you can perform it as much as you want, without having to contact anyone.

The only situations where you have to either contact the creator or buy his book is when you see the routine done by someone else, and you want to perform it.

"And how do YOU contact them???"

Generally, if it is at a performance or convention, I will ask whoever I saw do it if it was his, and if not, who's it is and if its in print.

I'd then normally buy the book, but if it wasn't, then I'd send off an email or phone call to the creator to see what the current state of it is. I'd try to get permission, but if the creator said "I'd rather not have anyone performing that" then I would respect him and not perform it or try to come up with a minor variation, ect.


If it was on a TV special or I didn't get a chance to talk to the performer, then I'd come to the magic Café, and post a question asking the origins of said thing, and then I'd either buy the book or contact the creator, same as above.


Does this answer your question, Marco?

Do you see the reasoning behind this, and how respecting creators is needed, in order for magic to flourish in the future?

One thing that can beat internet piracy and the digital age is respect and common decency, if we can do that then perhaps the real greats in magic will choose to publish some of their great stuff that we'll probably never see with the way stealing is today.

Thanks for taking the time to read it! I hope it helps.

When I said that you do not generally need permission to do a double, I did not mean for a specific one that a particular magician invented, but in general you don't need permission. You can use your own double to do a trick.

But if you specifically learn someone else's double, that you picked up watching a performance, you should contact the magician or buy his book, etc.

If you see some local magician doing a Vernon double, it is nice to find out where you can learn this (the local magician probably does not have permission to teach it to you) and look to that resource.

Marco may be claiming magicians do not obtain permission to do every sleight they learn. There is probably more of this going on than stealing of effects, and there is more gray than with full effects, but it is still wrong and easy to solve.

Every sleight I use I learned from one of my books or DVDs.

Well Chris and Daegs,if you see a new sleight and know how it works but don`t know who invented it, you refrain from using it because you cannot contact the originator??? No way, buddy. You will use it.

Another example, you know how it works but still don`t know who invented it, but you heard that it might be in a book costing 50 bucks, you are really telling me you buy the book to have a clean conscience and be able to perform the trick although you already know everything about it?????????????

Like I said, Deja Vu all over again.

The answer is that no I do not use it. And yes I do buy it.

Maybe I don't get to see enough magicians to be able to steal their ideas, but every sleight, every effect, every routine I do is from a book, DVD, lecture notes, etc.

Now I will ask you again which sleights, moves, effects, or routines, do you use that you picked up from just watching a magician, or what ever?

You, of course, will answer with, "How dare you accuse me of stealing, blah, blah, blah."

Deja Vu all over again.

;)

Also, you can find references to most common sleights in many standard sources. Seriously, I can't think of any of the basic sleights that aren't on something I own. I am not terribly fancy, but even many of these are found in the standard books, like Expert at the Card Table, Royal Road, AOA, Hamman, Vernon, and many of my DVDs, like Malone, Ammar, Hamman, Vernon, Greg Wilson, etc, all of which I own.

In any case there are many standard sleights that are OK to use. These are the tools of the trade. You can do doubles, and undercuts, and culls, etc without buying the source. If I do pick up some fancy, new sleight, from watching some magician, that he invented and has not published, then I will not use it. I am probably not good enough to figure it out on my own anyway.

Marco,

Let me clarify at least one position for you (mine). I can't lay down hard rules on what to do in every case -- that's not workable. For me, the question isn't "What's the right thing to do?" but "How can I best honor the originator here?" Obviously, if the originator is lost in time (as with the double turnover), then there's nothing I can do, and the move is in the magician's public domain.

But "How can I honor the originator?" is a question that gets different answers depending on who the originator is, the tenor of the times, and other circustances.

So if I see a move done by someone, and I can perceive how it works without anyone explaining it to me, that doesn't entitle me to simply start using it. I may study it. I may research its roots. I may find applications for it. I may even, on a limited basis, try it on a casual basis for laypeople to test it out. But unless I'm sure of whether it's okay with the originator, I won't indiscriminately show it around to other magicians, and it won't find a place in my professional work.

So when you write:


Well, that's not quite true for me. And it's not so hard-lined where I can say I will or won't use it under any and all circumstances. But in general, if the move hasn't already been released to the fraternity, then yes, I will attempt to somehow determine to the best of my ability how the origator would feel about it. On occasion, this involves contacting the person (and in this day of websites and e-mail, contacting someone isn't all that difficult). My experience has been that if I'm sincere and don't come across as someone just wanting to take up their time, most magicians are very gracious about answering questions, particularly when it comes to obtaining permission to use their ideas. Some wholeheartedly come back to me with yes. Some have said thank you, but no. Some have said okay, but with certain restrictions. As far as I can tell, ALL have appreciated my asking.



This generally isn't an issue for me anyway, because there's so much to work on all the time that's out there and free for the taking (or creating). But if I simply SEE someone do a routine that intrigues me, just like with an original move, I may study it, I may explore and research it (and even come up with variations on it), and I may even test it on laypeople here and there. However, it won't find a way into my professional sets and I won't indiscriminately show it around to magicians (if I show it at all) until I'm fairly certain I know how the originator feels about it. If the effect or routine is in a book, sometimes I buy the book (and sometimes not -- and price is not an issue). Sometimes I send an e-mail (and sometimes I don't). Sometimes if I know the person is going to be in a certain place at a certain time and I can be there, too, I make it a point to ask him face to face (and sometimes not).

But what I always try to do is to honor the originator as best as I can. This involves trying to learn what his intent is and how he feels about his work. Failing that, I try to err on the side of extreme caution.

I do this because even though it's sometimes inconvenient and even sometimes difficult (although often not difficult at all), and even though much of the time I find that the originator doesn't really mind or care, I would like my work (as inconsequential as it is) to receive that same kind of respect. I don't want to treat anyone else's work as if it had no value, because to do so minimizes the value of the art and craft in general. I do all this because I strongly believe that to do otherwise (as is so common these days) is killing magic. I also do it because I find that I (as a self-serving prick) feel better about things, and because I've also noticed that it enriches my dealings with other magicians. And since magic flourishes when magicians interact with each other in healthy and beneficial ways, I'm very interested in keeping that going to the greatest extent I can.

Thanks.

I saw a TV program today "Magic". I am very sorry to tell you guys that most of the worlds gratest magicians were in fact thieves who stole from each other. Keller for example stole Maskelynes levitation, then improved it and Maskelyne stole it back. It seems it was common practice and blatent. I was pretty shocked by this news.

The program was very good, I loved it.

And that makes it ok?

To start with, those guys were NOT publishing their stuff in books and claiming to other magicians that they invented it, and had a right to sell it to other magicians.

That was pretty much the wild west back thay anyway. Back then racism was common and there were laws prohibiting a Chinese guy from marrying a non Chinese woman, miscegenation laws they were called. Times have changed and we are doing well in our progress toward general human rights.

If someone is selling something that is derivative or a copy of someone else's work that they could be selling, without permission, they are in effect stealing. What is some complicated about this?

As a corollary, since magic is an economy of SECRETS, if someone is offering the contents of someone else's secrets, they are effectively selling their work as well. Their behavior and words demonstrate their opinion on this matter.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

AMEN AMEN AMEN MAY GOD FORGIVE THEM....


tpdmagic

You are not wrong Jonathan. You are right. This IS an economy of secrets. And secrets are inclusive of presentation, strategy, and method. It's all there.

Magic's success will rely solely on its ability to keep its secrets through performance.

Woe and failure to those who fail to realize this...one...simple...fact.

Choose wisely.

Firstly I did not say it was OK. So don't shoot the Messenger!

Let me try and be clear where I stand. I had great respect for these great magicians but IF it is true that they were stealing other magicians work I have lost a great deal of respect for them.

JT
Sorry, I have great respect for you, but I have to disagree with what you are saying in your last post. To say it was the Wild West, as if to say people had no morals in them days, is wrong. It does not excuse their actions.
The examples you follow with are merely smoke and mirrors.

I also think this is not entirely right and bit beside the point.
"To start with, those guys were NOT publishing their stuff in books and claiming to other magicians that they invented it, and had a right to sell it to other magicians."

These guys guarded their secrets with their lives. Literately in one case. Some of the greats were making more money then than the greats of today.
This was the golden age of magic. Business may have been different but it was still a professional business, possibly, even more professional than today’s business. Some carried around the world 3 tons of equipment for their magic shows. Not to mention many assistants etc. I think it wrong to paint them as cowboys.

The top earner of all the magicians was said to have hated magicians and marinas hated him. He regarded them all as thieves. He said "The more I learn of people the more I love my dog"

Please forgive me if I have misinterpreted what you said. I find it difficult sometimes to understand what you are saying. That is not your fault it is lake of education

Best Regards

Tommy

PS
The TV show is well worth watching, not because of the stealing subject but because it shows some great magic and old and not so old great magicians. .

Tommy,

I respect your opinion and agree with most of it.

I agree that the late nineteenth century was far from lawless and was in fact rather conservative in many ways.

My intention was to suggest that our society is improving its ability to accept its members, and that part of this continued improvement may be a greater respect for the ideas of its members.
Where we may disagree is on the subject of how some ideas in the social norm of one time can justify acts we find abhorent today. My beleif is that most people are creatures of their time and society, and are therefore ethical as per the ethics of the day. When in Rome do as the Romans. There is one well known magician who used to state with pride that "if it is not nailed down, I'll take it" as regards what we call intellectual property today.

Thanks for pointing out where my words did not help my argument.

-Jon

Thanks Jon

You are the last one I would pick an argument with as I respect your views so much. Having reread what you said I understand your point much better.
Our different point of view on the turn of the century might be down to where we come from. I being from England think of it as Victorian and you guys from the USA think Wild West. Victorian, here, is thought of as period of high morals and the Wild West as lawless. In reality the opposite was probably true.

Thanks for your help and understanding.

Tommy

From my understanding it was a dog eat dog world back in those days. Just like it is today.

Kellar hired a magician from Englands home of Mystery that worked for Maskelyne - his name was Paul Valadon. Many magicians think that when this happened he took the secret to the levitation with him to Kellar.

Kellar got rid of Valadon when Thurston gave him money and worked out a deal for Thurston to be Kellar's successor...

Then Carter got it from two people that worked for Kellar...

This was a case of professional performers ripping of effects to use in their shows. Not to re-sell to a magic market. This is another form of magic stealing...

The other forms of stealing are ripping of a magic effect that is on the magic market and then selling it to the magic world when they did not invent it.

Or ripping off a performers magic effect and then selling it to the magic world when they did not invent it...

The one thing that can be said, is that magicians--and thus magic history--have a long memory. There are enough dedicated researchers and scholars that the record is usually set straight--eventually.

Those who steal live with the distrust and dislike of their fellow magicians, and this cramps their lives in magic and takes away much of the fun and fellowship that make magic a both a fraternity and a great profession.

Those who steal from others, whether dealers, performers, or manufacturers are generally remembered as thieves, often long after they are gone.

It is not the way I would like to spend my life in magic, and not the way I would like to be remembered.

I posted this on another thread but I feel that it fits here and I have added a few thoughts...

I remember sitting in my living room with the whole family back in the 60's on a Sunday Evening. We were all around the one TV in the living room watching the Ed Sullivan Show.

It is what we did every Sunday back then.

Back in the old days Dad was on the Ed Sullivan show when it was called Toast of the Town. In fact he was the first magician to appear twice in the same live show... He did the rope tie and produced an anniversary cake that was the intro to a number with the rocketts...

Having Dad on the show in the early Days was a real treat because he know the producer and Ed Himself. So often we were treated to little stories while the show was on. At the time my Father was planning a trip to new york to do his old night club act on the show to give his magic business a boost.

One time we (about the mid 60's) watched a comedy magician and Dad didn't say anything after the comedy magician did his act. After the show Dad asked us kids if we liked the comedy magician and what he did?

We though he was funny... He produced a smashed rabbit from a paper bag. A hat came out of the rabbit. It was funny...

It should have been. It was the act that my Father did at Billy Roses Diamond Horseshow and night clubs across the country...

This copy cat hurt my Father a lot because he was planning a trip to New York again and was going to use the night club act - His act to make a come back to Television. And back in those days had my Father took his act to New York after this copy cat did it on the Ed Sullivan Show it would have hurt my father's magic business.

The Ed Sullivan show was THE MOST IMPORTANT TV show of the time... This show can make or break an act or show.

My father took it as good as you can take it. True he did not say after this guy took his act - "true but he did it so well" - like Leipzig said...

But he took it as well as anyone could... Had it been me I would have been on the phone to Mark Leddy the agent that books the show!

I think copy cats hurt magic more than just a dollar amount! This is a true story!

I also feel that we as entertainers have to live with ourselves when we do things wrong. People may be able to fool the public for a while about who did what first and who took so and so's effect.

The truth has sort of a funny way of getting out...