I'm nto sure if this should be in this forum b/c it's not a direct question about maknig props but here goes:
I was in another forum and asked a question about the M5 system b/c I'm planning on making one. I was told that I was wrong to call my creation the M5 as that name is Chuck Leach's alone. I agree that it is his, but for clarification is it wrong to call your homemade props by their well-known names? I think not, but this other forum doesn't have many active memebers so I would like more opinions.

Ethics have been covered heavily on this board, so I would do a search to get your other opinions that you require.

However I will quickly say this...

Just because you have built the product and are only performing it rather than selling it, does not give you the right to do it. Thats what perfromance rights are in place for. As a magic inventor with copyrighted effects, I will agree it is hard to enforce prosecution against those outside of North America who are building unauthorized versions of illusions and selling an inferior product to other magicians for less. However what people don't realize is that the performer who has bought, or built himself, for his own use is still strickly prohibited by law to perform the illusion without written consent from the inventor, or without proper documentation of the performance rights. It is like you have stolen another musician's song and trying to pass it off as your own on your album. You can get sued. Again, I agree it is also hard to enforce this law against performers who only perform the illusion off camera, and for non paying gigs. But if you do perform an unauthorized copy of a NONpublic domain illusion, not only is it unethical, and usually of inferior quality(possiblly giving the illusion a bad name) but against the law, and if your not careful you will get caught! Unfortunately the unexpecting buyer or homemade builder is sometimes unaware he will have legal restrictions when performing an unauthorized illusion.

All of our illusions that we build come with performance rights and each illusion is permenatly tagged and numbered. This tag cannot be removed without damaging the prop. Allowing us to trace the illusion's history, to keep unauthorized versions from being performed. Our customers also appreicate this almost perfect system, that really makes it more trouble than it's worth to try and rip us off.

I hope this helps answer your questions a little better.



P.

Where is the line between what is considered a "version" of an illusion. For instance, "Buzz Saw" Illusion. There are numerous versions including Cooperfields version.

Now if I wanted to create a "Buzz Saw Illusion" where is that line from performance rights, copyright and ethics. It appears to be individually determined. How much difference must I be from Copperfield's version before I can call it my "Buzz Saw" Illusion?

What I would consider unethical, is not what other might consider unethical. Were is that line "legally" and "morally"? Are we living in a world where something looks like a snake, kills like a snake, therefore, it must be a snake? (Even though it is called electricity.)

Since Fitzkee in his "Trick Brain" spells out the basis for all illusions, can we then say any trick "invented" used his principles therefore violate his copyright?

There are no "new tricks" or "new illusions" only variations of other tricks or illusions which may be done slightly different. A "vanish is a vanish"...it's just that we come up with a way to do it and call it our own. I don't think there is any trick on the market that somewhere in the history of magic we can't find something similar to it.

How many versions of Hippy-Hop-Rabbits are there? It seems like many dealers come up with their version.

What about 20th Century Silks? One puts a picture of Santa inbetween, another puts a ghost silk inbetween, a rainbow silk, another puts a Happy Birthday Silk, it's still 20th Century Silks. Are they rip-off or variations, or different tricks altogether?

What about the twister illusion, how many variations are there of this effect? They all do the same thing but they each have a different paint job.

Are there really any "correct" answers? Legally, a slight change in a hammer and a hammer can be called a John's hammer. This basic premise can be applied to illusions. A different variation may be an improvement on an origional concept, therefore, it is OK, yet others would diagree.

The only correct answer is to spend thousands of dollars to prove a point and the only winner is the lawyer.

Doh! Here we go....

Well see it how you wish I guess! But I think it is up to the magician to realize and respect those differences in the methods made by magic inventors. As with the example you pointed out regarding the Buzz Saw in comparison with DC's Death Saw, was not a good example. Sure they both use a saw and a table, and the effect may appear slightly similar to the audience, But the audience has nothing to do with the ownership rights of an inventor! If you as a magician cannot see the huge differences between those two illusions, then Houston we have a problem. Even in presentaion there is a Big difference, you can not seperate the person in half with the Buzz saw, just for example, but anyway....

I do agree with some of your examples, however, again I think it is up to the magician to realize when something of value has been created and credit should be givin when due. It is unfortunately a problem, and alot of magicains don't understand or share the same ethical points of view. Creating magic is not easy and is in it's own category when it comes to inventing and legalities, and unfortunately this is the big problem, and a problem that has led to rip off builders copycating illuisons. Its too bad because I think it has slowed down the rate that new illusions are released into the market. Because of this only certain people have access to new illusions being built by todays popular ethical builders.

I personally know of two builders who have approached me and a selected few about new illusions they have come up with. You guessed it, they don't want every joe blow magicain to know about it because they don't want it ripped off. Now everyone who might not have the same relationship with these builders are going to lose out on the oppourtunity to get something new that might really work for them. Its getting sad, it really is too bad that the ones who abuse the system or have different ethical points of views or none at all, ruin it for everyone else that does!

P.

Peter,

I respect and understand what your saying. In the magic business there are no written standards or code of ethics. (per say...SAM does but it does not cover this problem)

Religion has been dealing unsuccessful related to ethics for centuries, although they do set a "moral standard". (And, that is not followered by the masses.) So I don't expect the magic industry to solve this problem. It's an individual choice on how far one can go before another classifies it as a rip-off.

I looked at Owen's Disembodied Princess, Lance Burton's Disembodied Illusion, and Abbott's Disembodied Princess and they are all "technically" are designed the same way, (Missing middle). Now supposingly, Carl Owen created it for Howard Thurston. Owen states on his website, "Owen Magic is the originator of this......nt." What I am puzzled by is Abbotts's version, and Lance Burton's version? There is a definate "look" difference in each, but the "how-to" principle is still the same. None of them supply presentation. I can see intellectual presentation rights such as DC Buzz Saw and LB "Princess" by the performer. Is there a line here? I don't see it except for the legal defination of differences in design.

Based on the previous above post legally defined "hammer" example, each are significantly different from the origional. (A paint job and some significant other design such as height, width is necessary to qualify as different.) Computers fall in the same category, a slight change such extra memory, a new name, and your in the computer business. It happens all the time around us every day with just about every product. Why is the Magic Industry any different?

My question is quite simple, if the "big guys" are "doing it" then how come the "little guy" gets blasted for building his own version of an illusion he saw if it's within the legal guidelines of "different".

The moment something comes to market, it is ripped off by someone and it is not limited to magic and illusions. Big Business has it down to a science. The likelyhood of a copy depends on greed. The more likely money can be made from it the more likely it is going to be ripped off. (Where's the religious moral ethics teachings here?)

I experience this completely. I had an exclusive business, and within a year there were 5 copy-cat similar businesses. In this situation it's called competition by the lawyers. Some of them even boldly copied my material with the copyright on it and distributed it, as their own. Others removed the copyright and produced it even with my typos. So I know 1st hand about the legal avenues, and infringements.

It would cost me more to fight it and prove it then worth the effort. No matter want we say or how we feel, it will continue as long as someone can make money doing it.

You're absoultely right that it is wrong and it may be a relief to get it off our chest or we may die from stroke or heart attack keeping these Penned up feelings inside.

I was told that Dante put all his illusions in his back yard so the elements of weather can destroy them rather then sell them. It was his way of dealing with the situation.

Good luck in trying to prevent something that is unpreventable.

Thanks for your post, I too understand what you are saying.

As far as design, or the appearance of an illusion goes, just making that change yet keeping the method the same to me is a blantant rip off. But you are absolutely correct when you say it is unpreventable. I can't change this on my own and never expected to, However I have taken the neccesary legal precautions with my products that if someone was to make millions or even thousands, performing or selling my ideas without written consent, You better beleive that I will get most of or all of that money they profited returned.

Thanks Dennis!

I hate this subject, it really is too bad that this is the way things are in our trade.

P.

Well, I'm fine with making my own version of an M5. To me, the idea of using "this method" in magic is not new nor is it Chuck Leach's. I guess I won't call mine an M5 since it technically isn't.