Hypocrisy?

So there is this question that has been bothering me for a while now and my assumption is the answer is that there is just a lot of hypocrisy within the magic dealer industry. My question was why is it okay for some artists to be able to "re-release" ideas that already exist without crediting, permission, etc. while others are turned away from major magic companies since the idea already exists even if permission is given from the original creator? I think it comes down to what kind of a name and following you have in the industry. Here are a few examples.

It's no secret that the exact method for Switchcraft by John Scarne (also used by Ted Anneman) is the exact method of French Kiss by Wayne Houchin. The only difference is where the signed cards are placed but that's basically the same justification as taking Daniel Madison's Angle Z principle and making the corner appear in another location. Sure the idea of where it ends up is unique but the whole method and idea behind it is still Madison's Angle Z. What makes French Kiss different from someone releasing the Angle Z corner in a lighter?

Or take Divorce by Justin Miller and Reflex by Patrick Kun. They literally teach the same ring pops off finger move in each of the projects. My research shows that Divorce came out first so what gave Patrick Kun the greenlight to rerelease basically the same move as one of the moves he teaches in Reflex? Again, I think it's solely because he has marketable name recognition and a following just like Wayne Houchin.

There are many other examples of idea, technique, and plot re-releases but the newest edition I have seen is Abyss by Lloyd Barnes. Anyone that knows Twilight Angels by Paul Harris and Stone Frixion Fire by Jeff Stone would know how to perform this effect. The angel on the lighter is not a new idea, the paddle move is not a new method, and the angel reappearing under a flame is not a new idea/method either. In fact, the plot itself is basically Twilight Angels just using Stone Frixion Fire ideas sprinkled onto the ending. It's a great way to make Twilight Angels your own effect to perform but is it justifiable to re-release all these old ideas and make money off of it? Once again Lloyd Barnes has the following behind his name and thus it's marketable to do this.

All major magic dealing companies have a rule in essentially in the same idea listed before you have submit an effect. I'll use Theory11 as an example: " Your creation must be approved by the theory11 crew to ensure it abides by these simple, fair guidelines. Don't use any copyrighted music you don't have the rights to, and make sure your effect is unique and original!" And yet even though all major magic dealing companies have this rule, I have seen them break it for artists with a big and marketable following. It appears that they give up their ethics to make money.

But when it comes to the guys with a smaller following, then it's okay to start enforcing this rule. An example of this was when I was first releasing Doubting Thomas with penguin magic. My plot, method, and overall presentation is different from Greg Rostami's Stuck. And yet, even though it was different, I still had to get his permission to release it (I guess that way Greg wouldn't complain to Penguin). The only thing that was slightly similar was in my impromptu handling but it's still not the same method nor the same presentation. I continued this trend of crediting and asking for permission with my next release No Pressure. I asked Eric Ross if he was cool with it even though my method and presentation is different from his Crush release.

I'm curious as to what you guys think on this. I know some people will get mad if you figure out an effect without buying it and will say "You are stealing from the creator!" but isn't this "creator" stealing an idea from someone else whom I've already bought their original idea from? And it's not stealing if I'm not using their presentation and just using the methods that I learned from the original creator of the idea. The only thieves in my opinion in this situation are the artist who re-released the idea and the company that greenlit the option for that person to do so.
 

Gabriel Z.

Elite Member
Apr 26, 2013
1,997
2,358
39
NY
www.youtube.com
Well put Tyler, I think personally that if you stumble onto creative territory, it should be first man there claims it. I don't think it's as much hypocrisy as it is a double-edged sword. People are going to profit off others..... Rubbing two sticks together to make a fire is no longer trendy. It's always been about who comes in first place, then again who wants to be runner up or even scarier third place. Moreover, this kind of behavior on the part of the artists makes room for competition thus adding to the great competitive nature of human beings.(I don't think you'll find this form of thinking typical in the magic community only). The breaking the rules part applies for everyone I think. I have placed copyrighted music in some of my videos and come away clean... A perfect example is my thread on the Neil Patrick Harris thread which has over 13,000 views. Not a grand example, but an example nonetheless. I don't have a large following so I can't speak on behalf of guys like Daniel Madison etc... Hope this makes sense.:)
 

obrienmagic

Elite Member
Nov 4, 2014
1,469
1,422
Orange County, Ca
www.obrienmagic.com
I think as long as you do you due diligence then they have nothing to get you for. Major companies are allowed to pick and chose what goes on their site as it is their property, but at least no one could say you stole anything or get yourself in drama.
 

willtupper

Elite Member
Apr 28, 2009
283
335
One of my all-time favorite simple card effects is "Turnover Card" from Mark Wilson's Complete Course in Magic.

Which is, of course, the exact same effect as "Circus Card Trick" from The Royal Roard to Card Magic.

So, where does it end? What is appropriate? What isn't?

If we stand on the shoulders of giants, isn't it important that we credit the shoulders of the giants we stand upon?

I think about this a lot.
 

Josh Burch

Elite Member
Aug 11, 2011
2,966
1,101
Utah
To clarify, Miller gave Kun permission to release reflex because they came out very close to one another.

All do respect, Miller credits Kun in his download. Miller saw Magick Balay perform the trick and adapted it. Patrick Kun saw Alex Ward do the trick and adapted it. I think Alex is the originator of it if I'm not mistaken. I'm not aware of a similar move by another creator before him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gabriel Z.

Josh Burch

Elite Member
Aug 11, 2011
2,966
1,101
Utah
Everyone has a different criteria for originality. For instance, it is much harder to publish material on Theory11's Marketplace than it is on Penguin. Every company has a different approach.

The criteria that I follow personally is the criteria put forth by Darwin Ortiz. Each trick has 3 parts Effect, Method and Presentation. If you change 2 of those parts, you have a new trick.

Who popularized this piece of magic? In the case of Wayne Houchin and French Kiss he single handedly revitalized an old trick that many magicians took for granted. Now everyone and their dog performs the so called "kissing card trick". It is thanks to the handling changes of Wayne Houchin that the trick is so popular. Switchcraft is an old trick, it's basically public domain. He released his handling of a classic effect and his changes were significant. If his changes weren't all that significant than why is it that everyone uses his exact handling? It was his idea to sign the card and put it in a pretty girl's mouth, now everyone is doing it.

The context of the first time he released the trick has become muddled over the years as well. He originally released the trick as part of a compilation of magic from many different artists. He performed a Jay Sankey effect and a Paul Harris effect with permission, on that same DVD. It was never meant to be a collection of original magic.

With the example of Angle Z. Jay Sankey, Justin Miller and Jesse Feinberg all have created effects where they change the location of the vanished corner. Miller does it to the spectator's hand, Sankey does it to the inside of the selected card, on the back of a lighter and stapled to a business card in the spectator's hand. Feinberg does it as a repeat torn and restored.

Who is the best teacher for this piece of magic? This is another piece of the puzzle. There are pros like Jason England or Michael Vincent that are complete experts. Maybe they release a tutorial on the Erdnase color change. Learning the change from these guys would be great, so we get some duplication of classic effects.

In the case of your and Greg's routines, you shared your effect with him as a professional courtesy. It was different from his routine but had some obvious similarities. You didn't have to share it but you probably gained valuable insight from sharing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gabriel Z.
To clarify, Miller gave Kun permission to release reflex because they came out very close to one another.
All do respect, Miller credits Kun in his download. Miller saw Magick Balay perform the trick and adapted it. Patrick Kun saw Alex Ward do the trick and adapted it. I think Alex is the originator of it if I'm not mistaken. I'm not aware of a similar move by another creator before him.
My point in that paragraph wasn't that proper crediting wasn't given. Miller does credit Kun and I think Kun even refers to Divorce in the Reflex download. My point was that the essential same move was taught and profited by both so why is it that some plots/methods should be released while others are discriminated against for being too similar to an existing plot or method? It just seems to me that magic companies hang up their ethics when there is a buck to be made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gabriel Z.
Everyone has a different criteria for originality. For instance, it is much harder to publish material on Theory11's Marketplace than it is on Penguin. Every company has a different approach.
I see where you are coming from this but I believe it highlights my arguments even more using these examples. If you take the example of the Marketplace, theory11 strictly enforces the originality and unique policy. Note that most of the Marketplace is comprised of smaller, independent creators that do not have the following as some of the major releases available in the trick section of the site. But most of my arguments of effects that are in my opinion not original or unique are available in the magic trick section rather than the Marketplace. Thus it demonstrates that the whole part that bias is shown to those with a bigger marketable following that in those instances rules can be overlooked since more money is to be made that way. I also think Penguin does try to follow the unique, original, and credited rule, especially for independent creators, but I think there review team is comprised entirely of Shaun Dunn which is too much of a task for one man to handle.
I think as long as you do you due diligence then they have nothing to get you for. Major companies are allowed to pick and chose what goes on their site as it is their property, but at least no one could say you stole anything or get yourself in drama.
It is true that magic companies haven't broken any laws and are perfectly within their rights to release whatever material they want as long as it doesn't violate any copyright laws. With that being said, their decisions do create a reputation for themselves. At magic conventions and at magic lectures I have heard significant performers that a lot of working professionals respect, complain about this particular issue. I don't want to name names or say what they said about a particular site but a good joke was had on the behalf of a particular company.

The most recent lecture of Franz Harary really spoke to me about how awful this industry really is. Magicians have a reputation of being con artists but I would change that to being rip off artists. In the example of French Kiss, who do you think honestly financially benefited more from the method of Switchcraft, Scarne or Houchin? Keep in mind that Scarne didn't have the power of marketing that is available today with magic companies. In fact, his method has pretty much been released for free online in releases like Switchcraft Outdone and others. It just really sucks because Scarne was the first to come up with the method and benefited way less than another guy that decided to stick a card in a woman's mouth. I believe for this reason a lot of creators have decided to quit releasing ideas to the public since they in no way will benefit from the full potential of their own creation that they spent months to years of their life on.

Once again my main issue is with the apparent hypocrisy that exists with magic companies today. They all preach this idea of having ethics and "standing on the backs of giants" but that is all buzzwords to me since I see their actions speak a different message. I think the rules do not apply to you if you are famous since you can make yourself and a magic company quite a bit of money. As Michael has stated that is perfectly within their rights but I don't want to hear them preach their ethics at us anymore. I almost find it comedic when they get really upset when someone like Jibrizy steals a plot or concept from them and then later they go on and promote a product that does the same thing they were whining about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gabriel Z.

Josh Burch

Elite Member
Aug 11, 2011
2,966
1,101
Utah
It doesn't suck for Scarne. He profited a ton from his creations while he was alive. He released a ton of magic to the public and magicians. He was one of the first great promoters of magic secrets.

Don't get me wrong there are thieves out there and rip off magicians but Houchin doesn’t fit that description in the view of most of the magic community.

When Houchin published his handling the trick was virtually in the "public domain". It was an old trick that he modernized. His addition was significant. If it was not then we'd see Stuart Edge, Jarek, and Dan White performing the Anneman handling. They don’t perform the Anneman handling, they perform the Houchin handling.

What gives Houchin in the right to publish his version? Time is a significant factor but he has also made a big change.

There are companies out there that don't care about crediting if they get a big name to perform. Here it's probably more of a buisness move. When money's involved sometimes morals slacken. I don't believe this is the case most of the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gabriel Z.
Jan 26, 2017
2,173
1,338
23
Virginia
I think some effects are sold for the ideas behind them.

And some effects genuinely are remixes of older effects that are actually better variations of them. There is a difference between copying an effect and bringing back an effect from an old book no one can read and introducing new theory and such behind the effect and presentation.

Now if someone were to just open a book, pick an effect, and teach it, that's wrong. But if the new effect is generally different, there is a place for it (and the original author is almost always credited, if known). Those have a place and a time.

And I am sure that all the stuff we have read in books didn't come from the author. I'm sure even greats like Marlo and Vernon borrowed ideas and moves from somewhere at sometime.

P.S. the Divorce and Reflex statement is kind of inaccurate. First off, both projects were in design around the same time, one just released a month or so before the other. Second, the handling is slightly different. Kun used a backwards variation he developed with the help of the creator of the original effect to do the move backwards, and the actual movement behind it is different, though the action is the same. Finally, (and this is just going off of a post above), Miller said it was fine for Kun to release it.
 

Josh Burch

Elite Member
Aug 11, 2011
2,966
1,101
Utah
One of my all-time favorite simple card effects is "Turnover Card" from Mark Wilson's Complete Course in Magic.

Which is, of course, the exact same effect as "Circus Card Trick" from The Royal Roard to Card Magic.

So, where does it end? What is appropriate? What isn't?

If we stand on the shoulders of giants, isn't it important that we credit the shoulders of the giants we stand upon?

I think about this a lot.

Hugard and Braue were notorious rip off artists. Enough time has passed that what they did had lost its drama.

Then again, some tricks are old enough that we don't know who created them. Some tricks or moves are old enough that we can't ask permission to publish it.

If I want to publish Dai Vernon's triumph who do we ask permission from? Who do I pay royalties to?

If I want to publish Twilight Angels I know I can ask Paul Harris and pay him royalties but who gets the royalties if I want to teach the classic pass? Who do I credit?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gabriel Z.
His addition was significant. If it was not then we'd see Stuart Edge, Jarek, and Dan White performing the Anneman handling. They don’t perform the Anneman handling, they perform the Houchin handling.
I disagree with this argument. Stuart Edge and Jarek seem more like the type to not even know who Anneman is let alone pick up a book and read about magic. The reason why they perform it and every other YouTube magician is because theory11 made a flashy and epic trailer for it and they wanted to be able to do replicate that epicness so they clicked add to cart and learned how to do it through video. Had French Kiss never been released, they wouldn't have ever been performing it at all. Case in point, I've never seen Jarek or Stuart Edge perform an effect that was taught solely in a book and not in a DVD/download. But that's a great point for my argument because these types of ethics go full circle. A magic company will create this flashy, stylistic trailer where pretty girls are freaking out and the magician looks like a god among men. This appeals to guys like Stuart Edge and Jarek who know it will benefit their image on YouTube to all the twelve year olds that look up them and so they buy it, learn it, and make videos that appeal to their fanbase with it. Then the fan base wants to know how it's down and so they will capitalize on it even more buy teaching it and making millions of views off of it. Then the magic company gets pissed off because now they will make less money off of it since it's now taught for free on YouTube and there is nothing they can do about it since the YouTubers are technically doing everything within their legal rights just like how the magic company was perfectly within their rights to re-release it under a different name.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think that Houchin is in a category of thieves like other people in this community. He gives credit where credit is due. What I would have preferred though is if he made French Kiss his own handling of Switchcraft and left it at that. I hear all the time that we are not supposed to copy other people's styles but instead put our own take on it. But there are so many people that think that since they put their own take on something they should profit off of it. Well they can by doing paid performances but I don't think they should release it to magicians. In fact, I have made more money off of paid performances than magic releases and I assume that is the case for most people plus it gives the added benefit of being a unique performer.If they want to share the idea with other magicians than they can explain where they can learn the method if they don't mind other people using their routine. Instead they release it as a flashy trailer for the method to be exposed all over the bowels of YouTube.
P.S. the Divorce and Reflex statement is kind of inaccurate. First off, both projects were in design around the same time, one just released a month or so before the other. Second, the handling is slightly different. Kun used a backwards variation he developed with the help of the creator of the original effect to do the move backwards, and the actual movement behind it is different, though the action is the same. Finally, (and this is just going off of a post above), Miller said it was fine for Kun to release it.
You clearly did not read my response to that comment since I already addressed that. Again, you guys are making a strawman argument out of that paragraph that I'm pissed about the crediting. No where in that paragraph do I mention the crediting. What I'm upset about is why did their need to be two releases of the same move at almost the same time? Do you think if I decided to pitch an effect to theory11 about covering an angel in erasable ink that can reappear under a flame they would want to publish me? No, because Lloyd is already doing it even if I put my own twist on it. But if Dan White wanted to you bet they would have the trailer out in no time. My whole point of this post that seems to be getting rabbit holed and sidestepped into specifics on effects (okay there are better examples than French Kiss and Divorce, they were just some of the ones off the top of my head that I could quote the original methods behind). The main point is the hypocrisy that is created for those that are famous amongst the magician community since there is more money to be made. I guess a better example would be Jibrizy with Pierce compared to Skycap by Luke Dancy. And I know for a fact Luke Dancy was pissed about the release of Pierce.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gabriel Z.
Aug 25, 2017
172
93
Pittsburgh, PA
Throwing in another aspect of this....

Something I have always found frustrating is the ability to market things that aren't actually "tricks" and then claiming ownership over something that the person in fact did not invent....such as math.

Take Toxic for example. Toxic is a very basic principle of math. Math has always been one of my favorite subjects. As such, I used to do "toxic" to my friends in high school...almost identical to the way it's presented now. I did not read the concept in a magic book, or anything like that. I simply learned math in school and thought "hey this would be cool." I just used common basic math. Today, if I were to teach how to do it, I'd have to give "credit" to someone (Bob King...no disrespect here) who people are essentially claiming to have invented multiplication by claiming he "invented" this lol. This is something that frustrates me as a magician and a writer. Even the presentation is nothing new, since there are really only a handful of ways to use the outcome. For me, this would be similar to showing someone how a doorknob doesn't turn when it's locked...."but watch what happens when I unlock it! OMG it turns!!" It's just something that has always been and always worked and always existed. It is interesting to note that even King himself doesn't claim that he invented it but rather it was shown to him by a mathematician.

I believe, as Josh Burch has said, time plays a significant role. As time goes on, the generations that knew about someone doing an effect first, tend to be gone...and the effect becomes new again when the next generation sees it presented even slightly different. The only thing I would have to disagree with you on Tyler is that credit is of utmost importance here. One cannot enforce a rule if they are not aware of anyone previously performing an effect to whom it can be credited. In this aspect, credit is not purely the act of publishing someone's name as the creator or giving a nod to them. Credit is used a bit more broadly to determine whether or not the effect is original. If it cannot be credited to anyone previously, then by all intents and purposes...it is original.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gabriel Z.
Jan 26, 2017
2,173
1,338
23
Virginia
You clearly did not read my response to that comment since I already addressed that. Again, you guys are making a strawman argument out of that paragraph that I'm pissed about the crediting. No where in that paragraph do I mention the crediting. What I'm upset about is why did their need to be two releases of the same move at almost the same time? Do you think if I decided to pitch an effect to theory11 about covering an angel in erasable ink that can reappear under a flame they would want to publish me? No, because Lloyd is already doing it even if I put my own twist on it. But if Dan White wanted to you bet they would have the trailer out in no time. My whole point of this post that seems to be getting rabbit holed and sidestepped into specifics on effects (okay there are better examples than French Kiss and Divorce, they were just some of the ones off the top of my head that I could quote the original methods behind). The main point is the hypocrisy that is created for those that are famous amongst the magician community since there is more money to be made. I guess a better example would be Jibrizy with Pierce compared to Skycap by Luke Dancy. And I know for a fact Luke Dancy was pissed about the release of Pierce.
Ok well sorry.... All I was saying is that it wasn't the best example.

Also, you have to take into account the fact that when 2 of the same effects are published at the same time in the major market, chances are the 2 creators bounced ideas back and forth between each other (and it was probably produced well in advance, waiting for things like Market period and hype to change to an ideal time).

Also, it is really hard to take into account every single effect that has ever been released. I mean, penguin alone has 3 or 4 things released daily.

You also have to take into account the fact that a lot of stuff produced on the Marketplace also has some level of "copying" in it (intentional or not), but because less people see it, and the original might have been more "rare".

Are you talking about people copying the effect or method? Or both?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gabriel Z.

Josh Burch

Elite Member
Aug 11, 2011
2,966
1,101
Utah
There is a level of trust in a creator.

When I worked with Penguin to release my DVD Electro everything was produced by Penguin. They marketed it, they filmed it, and they edited it. When it came to doing research they expected that I had done it. They (Shaun Dunn and Mandy Hartley) looked at it and saw that it mostly looked new and they basically took me at my word that it was original. As it so happens I have a few pages on crediting and permissions on the magic included on the DVD.

I think this happens a lot, and when it comes to big names, there is a respect thing that goes on. Dan White is mostly well respected in the community. He has released magic in the past and hasn't run into issues. If he brings an idea to the table the company looks to see if the idea is marketable. Just him being who he is makes the trick more profitable; it is totally possible that the dollar signs cloud the companies judgement. If someone else without the track record of Dan brings an idea to the table they have an up hill battle to show the company that their trick is new and a good idea.

Also, I think another good barometer for originality was mentioned in Franz Harrary's lecture. He says that Jim Steinmeyer says that: If your trick is original it can be included in the same show as its predecessor and nobody would notice.

I think that Houchin's trick fits this barometer, I don't think that Jibrizy's trick fits it.

Then again there are exceptions to this. The classic pass and Lee Asher's Losing Control for example both have merit, but they can be presented almost identically.
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results