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.
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.