Let's Talk About Stealing

Jun 18, 2019
540
293
20
West Bengal, India
A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to attend a lecture by Cyril Takayama. It was amazing! But I found something out that was news to me. Cyril created this routine:


Justin Willman gave Cyril permission to perform one of his routines, and Cyril gave Justin permission to perform this. They traded. Then Justin gave Cyril permission to teach this effect as part of his lecture.

Well, if you have been in magic for very long you know that many people have performed that routine without Cyril or Justin's permission.

Then there's this:


This was created by Daniel Martin and Brent Braun and used with permission by Justin Willman and Nate Staniforth. Maybe you've seen a few people do it without permission?

I'm sure you have seen this:


Yeah, Dan Harlan used this in his show first, and David Copperfield asked for Dan's permission to do it in his show. Dan then taught David how to do it...now everyone does it!

This last week a friend of mine posted a routine of my own creation without my permission. I wasn't totally bothered by it but it rubbed me weird. On one hand, I was flattered that he liked a trick of mine enough to do it (he flashed a little but it wasn't awful). Then there was part of me that felt like he had just figured out my trick and decided that was enough for him to perform it. I wish he would have talked to me about it first!

I think it's clear we have an issue with originality in the community. I feel like we should do away with, "NEVER REVEAL THE SECRET" and move to "NEVER PERFORM AN EFFECT WITHOUT PERMISSION". I think nailing down the ethics when it comes down to performing others material is a vitally important conversation to have.

Apparently, professionals like Justin Willman, Cyril Takayama, and David Copperfield have ethical considerations they take into account that the hobbyist or semi-professional magician is unaware of.

What do you feel are the ethics in using another's piece of magic?

(Let's not bring FU, Ellusionist, or Adam Greenbaum into this discussion)

There's no real way to control theft. I think the emphasis, then, should be on proper crediting.

But then as to how many thiefs are so moralistic, I have no idea.
 

RealityOne

Elite Member
Nov 1, 2009
3,744
4,076
New Jersey
There's no real way to control theft. I think the emphasis, then, should be on proper crediting.

But then as to how many thiefs are so moralistic, I have no idea.

I would suggest that explaining the ethical reasons people should not steal other people's effects / methods / presentations and encouraging people to act ethically can reduce theft. Also, magicians ostracizing other magicians who steal effects / methods / presentations would go a long way.

Crediting doesn't work. If you take someone's effect / method / presentation and use it as your own, I'm pretty sure that crediting is out of the question -- "I sole this routine from Mohana Misra, so I hope you like my performance." o_O
 

Josh Burch

Elite Member
Aug 11, 2011
2,966
1,101
Utah
In my view, there are three components to a magic presentation piece: the effect, the method and the presentation. The effect is what the audience sees; the way the plot progresses. The method is how it is done. The presentation is what is said and what is acted out. The following relates to unpublished effects and presentations:

The effect needs to be defined in terms of what happens (plot) and how it happens (conditions). Object vanishes is a basic plot. Make the object a coin and have it vanish when put into a glass with other coins is more specific because it includes other conditions. A routine with multiple phases also adds to the plot of the effect. I think it is fine to copy a plot (assistant vanishes on stage) especially in card magic where there is often multiple ways to do the same thing (spectator cuts to aces, selected card is sandwiched between two other cards). However, when you copy conditions is when you get in trouble (e.g. copying a linking bicycle tire routine or copying the vanish and reappearance of a duck). Making small changes doesn't work in this instance (e.g. using tricycle tires or a goose). Simple question, if a spectator saw both routines, would they say they are the same (recognizing that spectators simplify routines in their mind and are not aware of subtle differences)? A lot of this goes to the essence of the routine - at its most basic, what is the routine about.

The method is how it is done. If the method is published by someone other than the performer (e.g. in Tarbell or the Jinx) in another context, you can use the method for a different effect than the performer's effect. You can't use the method for the performer's effect without permission. Figuring out that specific application of the method required the performer's efforts and you are not entitled to the benefit of that effort without permission or compensation (e.g. you buy the performer's book or download). If the method and effect are published, you can perform it but not use the performer's presentation (assuming that presentation is unique and not the same as in Tarbell or the Jinx). With a method you figure out, I think you are able to use that method for a different effect with a different presentation. However, I think you would not be able to publish that method without consulting and requesting permission if the method is the same.

Presentation is what the performer says and does during presenting the effect. If the performer just uses say-do-see patter (saying what they are doing, doing it and telling the audience to "see" what happens), well, they are essentially describing the effect and the rules above for the effect apply. If the presentation is unique (e.g. playing "Chariots of Fire" while doing a slow motion fake reveal of the effect) the answer is no. Don't copy it. Don't take any lines from it. Even if they are really good or really funny. This applies even if the effect and method are published but the performer has a unique presentation. The performer put in their effort and you are not entitled to it without their permission or compensation. Again, presentation is not just the words. Take a look at Jeff McBride's Miser's Dream and Kalin and Jinger's Sawing in Half - there is a lot of nonverbal presentation going on there. The effect and methods for those effects are public domain, but the presentations (especially the interactions) are unique.

The question ultimately becomes are you using the results of someone else's efforts without permission or compensation?

This is it, I agree with this. All of this is gospel as far as I am concerned.
 

Josh Burch

Elite Member
Aug 11, 2011
2,966
1,101
Utah
There's no real way to control theft. I think the emphasis, then, should be on proper crediting.

But then as to how many thiefs are so moralistic, I have no idea.

It's a problem in magic culture that many believe that once they know the secret they have the right to perform a trick. This does not exist in other artistic endeavors such as comedy.

I think this should change.

We can get to the point where it's okay and acceptable to take a magician aside and say, "That's so and so's trick" and the magician removes it from his act.

I'm rereading The Glorious Deception right now, and it makes me wonder if the prominence of theft in the magic community comes as a by product of the cut throat antics of past magicians.
 
Jun 18, 2019
540
293
20
West Bengal, India
This does not exist in other artistic endeavors such as comedy.
Well, I get it, but maybe that's because magic as an art form is so different from others.

There's the artistic presentation AND the ingenious method, which doesn't really exist for other art forms, where the presentation is the only thing in concern, thus when the presentation is copied, everybody knows somebody is copying another singer (provided that the original singer is that popular). In case of magic, if the presentation is changed, nobody knows better, except of course other magicians.

And sometimes not even them...(?)
 
Jun 18, 2019
540
293
20
West Bengal, India
Crediting doesn't work. If you take someone's effect / method / presentation and use it as your own, I'm pretty sure that crediting is out of the question

Point.

Also, magicians ostracizing other magicians who steal effects / methods / presentations would go a long way.
That's happening pretty well, but as we see today, some don't even CARE if the ENTIRE magic-community is ostracising them (or almost the entire-magic community, whatever).

I would suggest that explaining the ethical reasons people should not steal other people's effects / methods / presentations and encouraging people to act ethically can reduce theft.
Again, not to be a negativity-bomber all over this place but... does this really work?

Then Global Warming would vanish by now, and what was happening in Brazil (and other parts of the world, all over the world) would've never happened.
 

RealityOne

Elite Member
Nov 1, 2009
3,744
4,076
New Jersey
Your Steinmeyer is showing! Haha!

Sorry, I've been brainwashed.

It's a problem in magic culture that many believe that once they know the secret they have the right to perform a trick. This does not exist in other artistic endeavors such as comedy.

The confusion of whether you can do something and whether you should do something. That is the textbook definition of ethics.

We can get to the point where it's okay and acceptable to take a magician aside and say, "That's so and so's trick" and the magician removes it from his act.

I think we are at the first part and the second one is what we need to work on.

In case of magic, if the presentation is changed, nobody knows better, except of course other magicians.

See my comments at the bottom of the first page. I think laypeople can recognize an "effect" as being one they've seen before - most likely on television. However, I acknowledge that they can't determine whether the effect is public domain or who is copying who.

Again, not to be a negativity-bomber all over this place but... does this really work?

I think it does. It sets an ethical standard. Most people will behave ethically if they know the standard - they want to do the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing. Another group will behave ethically if they know there are negative consequences - they will do the right thing if doing otherwise will cause them to be social outcasts. And yes, there is another group that will do whatever they want because they perceive the benefit to outweigh any potential consequence. The goal is to increase the first two groups and decrease the last group.

In addition to the negative ("don't do this...") we can also focus on the positive by encouraging people to develop and perform original magic. That is, why copy someone else when you can come up with something that is entirely your own?
 
Jun 18, 2019
540
293
20
West Bengal, India
I think it does. It sets an ethical standard. Most people will behave ethically if they know the standard - they want to do the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing. Another group will behave ethically if they know there are negative consequences - they will do the right thing if doing otherwise will cause them to be social outcasts. And yes, there is another group that will do whatever they want because they perceive the benefit to outweigh any potential consequence. The goal is to increase the first two groups and decrease the last group.
Yeah but (again, sorry...) like we all know that its pretty unethical to say, download pirated applications, movies, don't people do it all the time, and even talk about it publicly?

I mean, humans can throw away their plastic cup on the roadside while watching Different World by Alan Walker (sorry, I'm a bit obsessed with climate change right now, lol). How far does ethical teaching go?
 

RealityOne

Elite Member
Nov 1, 2009
3,744
4,076
New Jersey
Yeah but (again, sorry...) like we all know that its pretty unethical to say, download pirated applications, movies, don't people do it all the time, and even talk about it publicly?

I mean, humans can throw away their plastic cup on the roadside while watching Different World by Alan Walker (sorry, I'm a bit obsessed with climate change right now, lol). How far does ethical teaching go?

Step 1: Commit yourself to behaving ethically regardless of what others do.
Step 2: When you see people behaving unethically, encourage them to do the right thing without shaming, blaming or flaming them.

Will it solve all the problems? No. Will it make an incremental difference? Yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MohanaMisra
Jun 21, 2016
53
9
When your own personal choices are morally and ethically right, you may feel better as a person, and you will be making a difference, no matter how small it is.
 

Josh Burch

Elite Member
Aug 11, 2011
2,966
1,101
Utah
How far does ethical teaching go?

It can go as far as, "don't reveal the secret" has gone.

The vast majority of magicians don't reveal the secrets of magic. Some do but they still know and understand the "don't reveal the secret" maxim.

Even if they don't follow the guideline they still know that it's there and that there is a pervasive argument for keeping the secrets of magic.

I'd like, "don't steal magic" to become as pervasive and well known faux pas as "don't reveal the secret".
 
Apr 26, 2013
37
21
In instances where we can draw direct connection between one performer’s unpublished work to another’s unasked use of it I agree with Josh and RealityOne and others where who find that behavior unethical. That feels blatant. Instances were described where the unethical performer knew they were taking and using another’s unpublished work, or work period.

But I do have a question when the situation lacks the blatant copying. What would the group say to the situation where two performers clearly independent of each other develop the effect and method parts to a piece they perform (if we are going by Josh’s two out of three parts being different enough line)? There have been several instances this year where products have come out and have been said that they have been performed for the last 10+ years, but (and I must have been living under a rock) I sure have never seen the performance, let alone even heard of the performance. How then does the situation get handled when, as Josh says we are brought to a knowledge that someone else is doing the same thing? Let’s say they follow the guideline and ask permission to keep using material they created but happens to be quite similar to that of another performer. And let’s say the other performer isn’t as friendly and supportive so now our independent creator has to give up performing what they honestly created without knowledge that it had been developed priorly. I know this is a kind of corner case scenario here, but it is one one I feel could happen.

Not everyone in magic is as connected either personally or has access to the collected knowledge out there. I understand the circle of magic is “small” to some extent and professional performers tend to know about others, but there are folks like me on the casual side I’m sure who are not versed in the knowledge of who performs what, especially when you get away from the mainstream names.
 

RealityOne

Elite Member
Nov 1, 2009
3,744
4,076
New Jersey
But I do have a question when the situation lacks the blatant copying. What would the group say to the situation where two performers clearly independent of each other develop the effect and method parts to a piece they perform (if we are going by Josh’s two out of three parts being different enough line)?

This issue typically is not that frequent and when it is, the situation is handled with some level of grace and dignity. Multiple magicians can perform the same effect (what the audience sees) with a different presentation and it will look different. The problem arises where one person has performed the effect in a very public venue (television, FISM, etc.) or has repeatedly performed the effect in their professional act and then, someone else starts performing the same effect with a very similar presentation or if they try to market the same effect with the same or similar method. That crosses the line.

There have been several instances this year where products have come out and have been said that they have been performed for the last 10+ years, but (and I must have been living under a rock) I sure have never seen the performance, let alone even heard of the performance. How then does the situation get handled when, as Josh says we are brought to a knowledge that someone else is doing the same thing? Let’s say they follow the guideline and ask permission to keep using material they created but happens to be quite similar to that of another performer. And let’s say the other performer isn’t as friendly and supportive so now our independent creator has to give up performing what they honestly created without knowledge that it had been developed priorly. I know this is a kind of corner case scenario here, but it is one one I feel could happen.

I think the line here is performing vs. selling. If you independently develop something, it is unlikely the effect, method and presentation will be the same as someone else. To an audience it will look different. As you acknowledge, your fact situation is an outlier. Most of the time, the person is using the same jokes and it is obvious that they are copying.

When you sell something, I think it is your responsibility to make sure you confirm that what you are selling is original. In that instance, the rights to sell an effect or method goes to the first person to develop it - even if someone else develops the same effect and method independently. Why? Because it is impossible to prove that the second person really did develop it independently. So if the first person can prove their effect predates the second (by performance or publishing), they get the marketing rights.
 
Nov 3, 2018
542
427
There's another question I've asked earlier, but got a little buried. Let's say we aren't talking about performances of tricks, but techniques, the stuff the spectator isn't supposed to see? My example from earlier on: Steve Forte demonstrates 52 unpublished (!) techniques on his GPS, but doesn't teach them. If I figure out one of the moves, am I allowed to use it in a trick?
As the move is never actually seen, I'm not quite sure how the ethics of using a technique is.
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results