Dan Hauss and Jay Sankey

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was shocked when I read this, it was on an e-mail from Jay Sankey to the people who subscribed to the sankeymagic newsletter. This is what it said:



HAUSS THIEF?
Lighting has struck again. A couple of months ago I received emails from many of you asking about a Dan Hauss release called 'SLEEPING QUEEN' which is the exact same effect as my original 'REM' routine I released several years ago. I also included 'REM' (re-titled as 'SLEEPING BEAUTIES') in my HYPERVISUAL DVD, also released several months BEFORE Hauss released his, umm, 'variation.' And now, ever since Blaine performed an effect called 'LIT' (also credited to Hauss) on his recent TV special, many of you have emailed me asking if it is a rip-off of my effect 'FIRE DOWN BELOW' from my book SANKEY UNLEASHED released a few years ago. The answer is: I don't know. Yes, my original effect 'FIRE DOWN BELOW' involves a book of matches transforming into a folded selected card, complete with a couple of rows of matches stapled inside. And yes, 'LIT' is almost the exact same effect. But as for Hauss having 'stolen it,' who can really say? But this much CAN be said: for the second time in a row Mr. Hauss has released a very novel effect that is VERY close to an effect widely credited to me. Thanks SO much for all your concerned emails. I really appreciate you guys
'having my back.'



What do you guys think?
 
Sep 2, 2007
26
0
I want to give Dan Hauss the benifit of the doubt, but it does sound like he is profiting from very similar effects to thoes created by Sankey. I do not have eaither version of the effects discussed so i cannot speak to the similarities. I'd like to hear more about this from others who have seen both.
 
I dont know about anyone else but im pretty tired of sankey whining about every little thing in his newsletters. I unsubscribed. All he does is complain and moan about others ripping off his stuff. Sankey, Shut up.
 
Nov 20, 2007
4,434
6
Sydney, Australia
Ditto with S.Mills, I think that's a very sensible approach. I don't know enough to judge - but I'd like to hear more. I have heard word of the Sleeping Queens one though.

The other thing to keep in mind is that it may simply be better marketing on the side of Hauss, if indeed he happened to create a similar effect - Sankey is well known these days for simply releasing things like a flood, so this one release by Hauss, well, a few implications there...
 
Sep 1, 2007
1,247
1
I gotta side with dizzle. He seems like a stand-up guy, and sankey just seems like a prick.
 
Jun 10, 2008
923
0
Newcastle upon Tyne
From the get go- a disclaimer- I don't own either of the Dan Hauss effects, so my views are the complete outsiders opinion. If my concerns are unfounded, I implore correction.

I would say that Jay is probably concerned about the lack of crediting involved with the productions.
I have no doubt that Mr. Hauss has independently created the effects as opposed to having 'nicked' them (and let's not reduce ourselves to flat out insulting either party here, I don't think that will help diffuse the situation at all).
I would say that while 'sleeping queen' is indeed the exact same EFFECT as the Sankey one, it may well (and I'm not certain as I don't own it) have a completely different method- in which case fair enough. But the crediting issue still remains.
As for the LIT effect, I don't personally think that Jay can say alot about that as the effect has been taken to places that 'Fire down below' certainly never went. But again, the crediting issue for the original conception remains.

I think that Mr. Hauss could well have overlooked the crediting aspect on sleeping queen, but after the uproar on a lot of forums both before and after the release of it, I would have thought he'd be a little more conscientious with the LIT effect.

I do however (even though I'm a massive Sankey fan) find it immature and irresponsible for Jay to voice his concerns over a newsletter as opposed to just speaking to Mr. Hauss and keeping things professional.


CL
 
Sep 2, 2007
47
0
I am positive that neither of these effects are EXACTLY the same. Similar, yes, but not exact. I am almost certain that the methods are different as well.

Still, this example represents a pretty interesting gray area of magic. In my personal opinion, I can't see Jay's argument as being fully justified. Take Wayne Houchin's 'Control' for example. The idea of the pulse stop is not original with him, however he was able to create his own method for said effect. The same may apply to this case.
 
Dec 26, 2007
239
0
This is so funny, seriously I think that this is going to make Sankey look foolish when Lit is released. As the Dude says "this agression will not stand man". Sleeping Queen, new idea applied to a normal playing card. It is a concept not many magi were familiar with and it introduced a principle that you can apply to other effects. Sleeping beauties is pretty obvious how it is done and uses very old and tested methods nothing really new and groundbreaking. Lit is a killer piece of strong visual magic that will go right into most peoples working act. It is so unique and has such a huge suprise element to it that people will be performing this alot. Fire down below is a good trick and not on the same level as Lit not even close. I am sorry but I don't buy that many people were emailing Jay to ask him about sleeping beauties or fire down below because no one emailed me about the origin of the effect until jay sent me an email and even then it was only 2 people. You would think that if a lot of magicians were emailing Jay about it they would come to our site and question us. I think he should give props to Dan for creating some strong magic like many of Jays tricks and give up trying to persue Dan Hauss, Dan White or Papercrane for money that he does not deserve. The thing that sucks about this is that Jay has created some of the best close up effects out there and he is still going strong. His stuff is great what can I say its Sankey I mean the guys a beast when it comes to creativity and marketing.
Quick question has Sankey ever released a variation of someone elses effect?
 
May 13, 2008
544
0
St Albans, UK
People should do their research, credit where credit is due and get on with the magic. Not moan about it in public anyway. Both are creative guys and fantastic magicians and both should sort the whole thing out in private.
 
Sep 17, 2008
197
1
Maryland
To be quite honest, I am sick of hearing Sankey whine about this stuff. It is impossible to create a trick anymore because Sankey released so much (and if you look on E under the clearance section you will find a bunch of his stuff) that there is obviously going to be someone creating similar affects.

Sure give credit where credit is due. But Sankey needs to do this on a non personal level and not bash others through a newsletter to his readers. It is very immature and not professional.
 
Aug 10, 2008
2,051
1
30
In a rock concert
From the get go- a disclaimer- I don't own either of the Dan Hauss effects, so my views are the complete outsiders opinion. If my concerns are unfounded, I implore correction.

I would say that Jay is probably concerned about the lack of crediting involved with the productions.
I have no doubt that Mr. Hauss has independently created the effects as opposed to having 'nicked' them (and let's not reduce ourselves to flat out insulting either party here, I don't think that will help diffuse the situation at all).
I would say that while 'sleeping queen' is indeed the exact same EFFECT as the Sankey one, it may well (and I'm not certain as I don't own it) have a completely different method- in which case fair enough. But the crediting issue still remains.
As for the LIT effect, I don't personally think that Jay can say alot about that as the effect has been taken to places that 'Fire down below' certainly never went. But again, the crediting issue for the original conception remains.

I think that Mr. Hauss could well have overlooked the crediting aspect on sleeping queen, but after the uproar on a lot of forums both before and after the release of it, I would have thought he'd be a little more conscientious with the LIT effect.

I do however (even though I'm a massive Sankey fan) find it immature and irresponsible for Jay to voice his concerns over a newsletter as opposed to just speaking to Mr. Hauss and keeping things professional.


CL

I agree with chris on this one, it would be a good idea if sankey talked it personally with hauss...

On a side note, Didnt Daniel Madison removed a trick from his store because it was like a trick from jay? It was like a card penetration inside the card box.:confused:
 
Jan 13, 2008
1,161
0
Wow, I can't even believe what I'm reading...and it's not what Jay wrote, or what Dan Hauss did. It's the majority of the reactions...it's astounding. Dan Hauss effects are the "it" thing right now, so suddenly Jay isn't entitled to being credited for coming up with an idea for an effect first? That's laughable at best. Whether the methods are the same or not, he definitely deserves credit for the idea. That's like saying Daniel Garcia shouldn't give credit to others who have created rubber band penetration effects, just because his method is original. Or that Houchin shouldn't give credit to those who have come up with pulse stops before him, just because his method is original. Are you kidding me? Credit should be given where credit is due. Even if they just included a slip of paper with their next batch of DVDs with some updated credits on them, at least it'd show that they're concerned about doing the morally right thing. I thought we were a community that's supposed to respect each other, not just try to make a buck.

With that said, Jay saying what he did publicly was a bit much (side note: I don't remember many complaining about Daniel Garcia's outburst, aside from those at Ellusionist--most seemed to be highly in favour of Daniel. It's sad how everything turns into a popularity contest--the most popular becomes the most right. Sad. Very sad). I thought the same about DG, and I think the same here.

Also, for those who missed it, "papercraneproductions" even said that Jay emailed them. Apparently things still went unresolved. So for those who said that Jay should just contact them--he did, it just didn't apparently go well.

I don't know, I'm pretty disappointed with both sides here. One went too far by voicing this publicly (was it warranted due to an unwillingness on the other's part to do anything about what happened? I don't know enough about the situation to answer that), and one is doing too little to at least show a tiny bit of concern (ie. a simple slip of paper inserted into the cases of any newly sent out DVDs with updated credits). Sad all around.

On a side note, I find it funny that someone dissed Sankey for releasing so many effects...as if being that creative was a bad thing, and made it his own fault for someone else having a similar effect. Very laughable.
 
May 8, 2008
1,085
0
Cumbria, UK
Wow, I can't even believe what I'm reading...and it's not what Jay wrote, or what Dan Hauss did. It's the majority of the reactions...it's astounding. Dan Hauss effects are the "it" thing right now, so suddenly Jay isn't entitled to being credited for coming up with an idea for an effect first? That's laughable at best. Whether the methods are the same or not, he definitely deserves credit for the idea. That's like saying Daniel Garcia shouldn't give credit to others who have created rubber band penetration effects, just because his method is original. Or that Houchin shouldn't give credit to those who have come up with pulse stops before him, just because his method is original. Are you kidding me? Credit should be given where credit is due. Even if they just included a slip of paper with their next batch of DVDs with some updated credits on them, at least it'd show that they're concerned about doing the morally right thing. I thought we were a community that's supposed to respect each other, not just try to make a buck.

With that said, Jay saying what he did publicly was a bit much (side note: I don't remember many complaining about Daniel Garcia's outburst, aside from those at Ellusionist--most seemed to be highly in favour of Daniel. It's sad how everything turns into a popularity contest--the most popular becomes the most right. Sad. Very sad). I thought the same about DG, and I think the same here.

Also, for those who missed it, "papercraneproductions" even said that Jay emailed them. Apparently things still went unresolved. So for those who said that Jay should just contact them--he did, it just didn't apparently go well.

I don't know, I'm pretty disappointed with both sides here. One went too far by voicing this publicly (was it warranted due to an unwillingness on the other's part to do anything about what happened? I don't know enough about the situation to answer that), and one is doing too little to at least show a tiny bit of concern (ie. a simple slip of paper inserted into the cases of any newly sent out DVDs with updated credits). Sad all around.

On a side note, I find it funny that someone dissed Sankey for releasing so many effects...as if being that creative was a bad thing, and made it his own fault for someone else having a similar effect. Very laughable.

Fully agree +one!
 

danwhite

theory11 artist
Sep 1, 2007
72
0
Hi Guys,

Just to chime in here and offer some additional insight, LIT is an entirely different effect in presentation, plot, method, and technique than Sankey's creation, and shares no similarities other than the fact that both use matches.

I was not aware that this was posted until alerted this morning, as I believe that matters like this are best handled privately and questions resolved outside of a public forum.

With respect and humility,

Dan White
 
Jan 13, 2008
1,161
0
Dan: First of all, thanks for chiming in! :)

But I have a problem with this...

and shares no similarities other than the fact that both use matches.

...matches that are housed in a case made of a playing card. Kind of an important part of the trick, no? It's this similarity that I think is at the heart of the current matter. The method and presentation don't have to be the same, but when it uses an idea (matches housed in a case made out of a playing card) that is nearly identical to one already out there, respect (in the form of a credit or acknowledgment of some sort) has to be paid to the originator of the idea (and quite frankly, no matter who came up with it first, and no matter how they came up with it, Jay did release an effect containing the idea first). It's disrespectful to Sankey to ignore his contribution of a great idea--so great, that another effect was created that utilizes that idea to a large degree. It's that that is the issue--it has nothing to do with presentation, method, or anything like that. It's the idea.
 
Apr 27, 2008
1,820
2
Norway
SHeez. The way speed of which Jay releases effects is astounding - and it is bound to have issues with other magic producers. I can count 4 now

- d+M's Wrath
- d+M's Bound
- Dan Hauss's Sleeping Queens
- Dan Hauss's LIT

:rolleyes:
 
Nov 23, 2007
623
1
47
NC
as I believe that matters like this are best handled privately and questions resolved outside of a public forum
Classy Dan.

Instead of Jay spewing his issues and whining to all his fanboys in his newsletter to try to stir up hatred towards another artist, why not make a phone call and discuss it privately and professionally.

Signs of Biopolar? Yes.
Genius? Without a doubt.
Whine and cheese consumer? Full fledged.
 
Jan 13, 2008
1,161
0
Instead of Jay spewing his issues and whining to all his fanboys in his newsletter to try to stir up hatred towards another artist, why not make a phone call and discuss it privately and professionally.

...

papercraneproductions said:
no one emailed me about the origin of the effect until jay sent me an email

Contact was initiated. Little was done (including a continued lack of crediting). Jay got angry.

What would you expect Jay to do if trying to talk about it did nothing before? Continue talking to a wall so nothing gets done? He needed to inform the magic community himself, because he certainly wasn't getting any credits on the DVDs being released. Could he have handled it a little more smoothly? Most definitely--he could have informed everyone without mentioning the other creator in such a negative way (although I can see why he'd be angry, Hauss is seemingly taking credit for an idea that has already been released). Is he wrong for getting it out there that he was wronged (by not being acknowledged/credited in some way) and that no solution has been put in place? Absolutely not.
 
Guys i didnt want to cause any problems i just thought this was very interesting and thought everyone should know.
By the way, these are some pretty interesting opinions you guys have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results