Integrity of Using Effects You Figure Out

[Maaz Hasan]

So we all know that for most major effects released there is a "REVEALED" or an "EXPOSED" video out there. I make it my rule to not to watch these videos, to give respect to the original creators (granted, if I do not know about an effect, and see a video about it, I cannot be blamed, especially since I probably wont find out until much later). This is NOT what this thread is about.

The question I'm asking is this;
Say I were to see someone perform an effect, and as I wonder how they did that, I figure it out (or atleast a method to accomplish the effect). Now, if this is a regular, run of the mill card/coin effect, I generally don't have a problem tweaking the effect and seeing if I like it. However, if the effect uses a gimmick, and I figure it out, should I morally be allowed to go make the gimmick and perform the effect? I only thought of this because I recently saw (again) a very simple, classic effect that always fooled me. The effect only used a gimmick card, and while I was watching a review of a gimmick deck, I caught a glimpse of a card and thought, this is probably how it is done.

So, If I were to see an effect, and figure it out (making my own gimmick if necessary), should I be allowed to perform it?

 

[TylerScottIllusionist]

I think it's okay since you don't know 100% how it's done, therefore it's really your own take on it. Now copying a routine or script beat for beat would be considered stealing in most people's books but I think in the case of figuring out an effect and making it your own you are well within your rights.

 

[Josh Burch]

I'm going to take the extreme position and say it's not okay to use a trick you figure out. That's it.

Example: French Kiss by Wayne Houchin uses classic methods to accomplish the effect. It doesn't fool me at all. I love the effect and it would probably fit me just fine if I performed it. In fact it has been taught by some of the most popular magicians on YouTube. I have not learned the trick through an authorized path and therefore I do not have the right to perform it. In fact, I don't think that anyone who has not learned it through one of Wayne's designated channels should perform it.

Axel Hecklau says that when we purchase an effect we are usually purchasingredients the rights to perform that effect. This means that we are purchasing the method, effect and presentation of the trick.

In order for a trick to be original I follow the outline of Darwin Ortiz and Greg Wilson. There are 3 parts of a trick, the method, presentation and effect, in order to call the trick your own you need to be sure that 2 out of the 3 are original.

So, coming back to French Kiss. If you figure it out from the trailer or the thousand cringe worthy performances on YouTube you should change 2 parts of the 3 before performing it. Even then, it's probably best to purchase the product and support those who inspired you.

 

[ChrisJGJ]

I'm going to take the extreme position and say it's not okay to use a trick you figure out. That's it.

Example: French Kiss by Wayne Houchin uses classic methods to accomplish the effect. It doesn't fool me at all. I love the effect and it would probably fit me just fine if I performed it. In fact it has been taught by some of the most popular magicians on YouTube. I have not learned the trick through an authorized path and therefore I do not have the right to perform it. In fact, I don't think that anyone who has not learned it through one of Wayne's designated channels should perform it.

Axel Hecklau says that when we purchase an effect we are usually purchasingredients the rights to perform that effect. This means that we are purchasing the method, effect and presentation of the trick.

In order for a trick to be original I follow the outline of Darwin Ortiz and Greg Wilson. There are 3 parts of a trick, the method, presentation and effect, in order to call the trick your own you need to be sure that 2 out of the 3 are original.

So, coming back to French Kiss. If you figure it out from the trailer or the thousand cringe worthy performances on YouTube you should change 2 parts of the 3 before performing it. Even then, it's probably best to purchase the product and support those who inspired you.

Can you elaborate more on this? I'm genuinely curious.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the method to french kiss isn't even original, nor is the effect (a transpo). He only changed the presentation (a kiss). Ramsay performs the transpo I'm talking about in the video below at around 1:25. I believe they use the same method. The trick and method is hella old: Switchcraft from Scarne (Someone else more knowledgeable can confirm).

So if that is true, then according to Darwin Ortiz and Greg Wilson, French Kiss isn't even original. I feel like I might be missing something here though. Maybe you can explain it to me more.

 

[TylerScottIllusionist]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the method to french kiss isn't even original, nor is the effect (a transpo). He only changed the presentation (a kiss). Ramsay performs the transpo I'm talking about in the video below at around 1:25. I believe they use the same method. The trick and method is hella old: Switchcraft from Scarne (Someone else more knowledgeable can confirm).

You are absolutely correct. French Kiss is Switchcraft by Scarne. If you know Switchcraft, you know French Kiss. The only thing original that Wayne did was have the spectator put the card in their mouth. Originality, presentations, and ownership in magic is a very tricky subject. Often times there is a lot of double standards as well. It's something I personally try not to mess with. I just like to keep to myself and perform what I like and not step on too many people's toes. If I choose to release a creation, I try to do as much research as possible and credit as many people as possible as well. And if I ever choose to do YouTube tutorials, it will always be my own creations.

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

This is something I've thought about a lot. Here is my philosophy on it: If I didn't come up with the idea for the trick, I owe something to the person who did if I want to use it.

Once you've been in magic for some time, you really stop being truly fooled by most of what's released. Particularly in the realm of sleight of hand card tricks. Most of what comes out is just reworkings of existing tricks or using existing sleights. Very little is truly original in the sense of method.

But sometimes a trick comes out and you go, "Hey, that's cool, I never thought of that." That is the point where I, personally, think that if I'm going to use that idea, it's not mine, I owe the person. I have purchased more than one product which I never even read or watched. I paid for it because I felt I was rewarding the creator for putting that concept out, and the concept helped me.

I want people to keep putting those things out, so that I can keep being inspired to create my own stuff. It's like when you give a spinning plate a little more momentum. Keep it all spinning.

I know there are people out there who released stuff and got super frustrated seeing folks talking about how they watched the trailer over and over until they figured it out, and never bought it. So that person, who created this thing people enjoy, is now thinking, "Well what's the point of putting my ideas out there? People are just going to steal them," and they stop putting out anything they actually value, because it's too frustrating to see it stolen. Because of those people, I always buy anything I think I may use, or anything that inspires me to create a routine of my own.

 

[Josh Burch]

Switchcraft by John Scarne is a great effect with a similar method but a dissimilar presentation and effect. The difference in presentation is obvious, the transpo happens using "sleight of mouth" or a kiss. Usually Scarne uses a snap to make the magic happen, a magic gesture ore the idea that the magician has "quick hands". The difference in effect is clear, 2 cards are signed and they transpose while in the magician and spectator's mouths. This is very different than the Scarne effect; 2 unsigned cards transpose while on a table or in the spectator's hand. The effect isn't just a transpo in either case, the conditions make the difference. It seems nit picky but the difference between using a signed card and not is a big difference in effect. This signed card also adds another layer to the method. There is extra dirty work you have to add if you use a signed card rather than Scarne's version. In my view French Kiss is original in at least two of the categories and somewhat original in the last.

The three categories are helpful but even I'll admit that the division between presentation, effect and method can get foggy.

 

[Maaz Hasan]

So, coming back to French Kiss. If you figure it out from the trailer or the thousand cringe worthy performances on YouTube you should change 2 parts of the 3 before performing it. Even then, it's probably best to purchase the product and support those who inspired you.

Well yeah that's what I mean. Is it ok to figure out an effect and work on it.

Though I would generally stray away from using an effect straight up, espescially if its one I saw ad figured out.

 

[Josh Burch]

Well yeah that's what I mean. Is it ok to figure out an effect and work on it.

Though I would generally stray away from using an effect straight up, espescially if its one I saw ad figured out.

I'd say it was fine to keep working on it. Personally, I wouldn't feel right about performing it without considerable changes.

 

[Josh Burch]

I would just keep in mind, if you are using another magicians ideas in anyway it is always best to give credit, support them with your business and obtaining permission when you do use their ideas.

 

[Maaz Hasan]

I would just keep in mind, if you are using another magicians ideas in anyway it is always best to give credit, support them with your business and obtaining permission when you do use their ideas.

Well of course.

But what I am really after are those effects that everyone does, but few people know who made it. Take, for example, the trick I was talking about earlier.
Its the one where you pretend to pull back on the cards, showing that their are multiple, but when you push them back up, it becomes one card (hard to explain, but it is shown here at 0:12

and here at 0:07)

For whatever reason, that trick has always impressed me, but I've always forgotten about it, until I flat out realized how simple it was.
Should I be allowed to use those types of effects, which are simple and I am willing to reveal to people who really want to learn it (not specifically this trick, but you get the idea)?

 

[RealityOne]

Well of course.

But what I am really after are those effects that everyone does, but few people know who made it. Take, for example, the trick I was talking about earlier.
Its the one where you pretend to pull back on the cards, showing that their are multiple, but when you push them back up, it becomes one card

For whatever reason, that trick has always impressed me, but I've always forgotten about it, until I flat out realized how simple it was.
Should I be allowed to use those types of effects, which are simple and I am willing to reveal to people who really want to learn it (not specifically this trick, but you get the idea)?

The second video shows Aaron's Fisher's Panic. I suspect the first video is a knock off of the effect along with a bunch of other gaff card effects. I'm not aware of any prior effect using that particular gaff. Based on what I know, it would be unethical to teach Aaron's effect because essentially you have figured it out by watching videos based on his effect.

 

[Maaz Hasan]

The second video shows Aaron's Fisher's Panic. I suspect the first video is a knock off of the effect along with a bunch of other gaff card effects. I'm not aware of any prior effect using that particular gaff. Based on what I know, it would be unethical to teach Aaron's effect because essentially you have figured it out by watching videos based on his effect.

Oh. I had never known about Panic before. However, I just watched Aaron's trailer, and it seems like a slightly different effect.

The first video is Just Rick Lax showing some things you can do with the USPCC Gaff deck from Penguin Magic, so I'm assuming he put it into a similar effect.

Would it be unethical to create a similar effect as Aaron's, using my own tools, and my own method (and probably end up with a different result)? After watching the Panic trailer performance, I believe I suspect something different than what he did. And I wouldn't tell my spectators about that specific effect (I'm not even positive I would perform it, and If I did, I certainly wouldn't do it Aaron's way, or the full effect).

 

[Josh Burch]

The second video shows Aaron's Fisher's Panic. I suspect the first video is a knock off of the effect along with a bunch of other gaff card effects. I'm not aware of any prior effect using that particular gaff. Based on what I know, it would be unethical to teach Aaron's effect because essentially you have figured it out by watching videos based on his effect.

Yep, you are talking about Panic by Aaron Fisher. It was actually sold here on Theory11 for a time. The effect is a deck vanish, the general method has been used in other effects in the past but I am not aware of a deck vanish. It's a very popular trick, and it's probably best to just buy the trick from him.

http://www.aaronfishermagic.com/magic-shop/panic/

I feel like gimmicks are a whole different ball game. If you perform a new effect, with a new method and a new presentation but it uses a marketed gimmick then you need to get permission from the creator and manufacturer to use it. Physical objects, inventions and knock offs have legal issues that follow them. Once you move into this zone you can run into big problems with other magicians.

 

[Tower of Lunatic Meat]

This can be a bit of a tricky question.

For me, I'm the worst engineer of...things. So when it comes to gimmicks that one COULD make, I would get the dang thing because no amount of arts & crafts on my end would make a decent, reliable, or aesthetically pleasing gimmick.

That said. I'd wager a bet to say that 99% of you are more daring in making your own stuff.

In the case of 'French Kiss'. You are paying for an 'all inclusive package'. Instructions, gimmick(s), and routine. All of which CAN be replicated, but the routine seems to be the selling point.

I would say that, unless you actually acquire it, you should not do 'French Kiss'.

 

[Maaz Hasan]

Yep, you are talking about Panic by Aaron Fisher. It was actually sold here on Theory11 for a time. The effect is a deck vanish, the general method has been used in other effects in the past but I am not aware of a deck vanish. It's a very popular trick, and it's probably best to just buy the trick from him.

http://www.aaronfishermagic.com/magic-shop/panic/

I feel like gimmicks are a whole different ball game. If you perform a new effect, with a new method and a new presentation but it uses a marketed gimmick then you need to get permission from the creator and manufacturer to use it. Physical objects, inventions and knock offs have legal issues that follow them. Once you move into this zone you can run into big problems with other magicians.

I can get legal issues by doing a card trick to spectators? Because I'm not talking about selling or "exposing" here.

 

[MisterE]

I can get legal issues by doing a card trick to spectators? Because I'm not talking about selling or "exposing" here.

Well the actual answer to your question is a resounding no, however, you can anger some magicians who claim intellectual rights although almost no magician ever has actually patented, trademarked, or otherwise claimed intellectual property rights of their effect since there is the "secrecy" and "hush hush' in the magic community.

Oh. I had never known about Panic before. However, I just watched Aaron's trailer, and it seems like a slightly different effect.

The first video is Just Rick Lax showing some things you can do with the USPCC Gaff deck from Penguin Magic, so I'm assuming he put it into a similar effect.

Would it be unethical to create a similar effect as Aaron's, using my own tools, and my own method (and probably end up with a different result)? After watching the Panic trailer performance, I believe I suspect something different than what he did. And I wouldn't tell my spectators about that specific effect (I'm not even positive I would perform it, and If I did, I certainly wouldn't do it Aaron's way, or the full effect).

Good luck with your effect, I am pretty sure that it is well within legal constraints.

The implications and the various perspectives we hold are very interesting. I myself have seen videos "revealing" or "teaching" (if you can call it that) various effects. Although I have never created an effect, I realize people have spent hours upon hours creating these effects. I strongly disagree with the commercialization of magic. Effects should not be produced with the intent to profit (unless magic is actually your livelihood and you work as a Broadway illusionist or something).

 

[RealityOne]

I can get legal issues by doing a card trick to spectators? Because I'm not talking about selling or "exposing" here.

The only LEGAL constraint is that you can't republish (by posting online or otherwise) other people's videos or books or use other people's copyrighted scripting or choreography. Teaching someone elses stuff without permission isn't illegal but is is unethical. You will see magicians write in books that they are using another magician's method with permission. That is the right way to do it.

Some sleights and methods have become "public domain" presumably because their creator is dead or because they have such widespread usage. Examples would be the pinky break, the double lift, the riffle force, the Houdini / Erdnase change, the Ghost / Elmsley Count, the Jordan Count, the Hammond Count. However, specific variations may not be public domain such as Lee Asher's Diving Board Double. The difference really is a judgement call on how widely disseminated the sleight is.

Generally, plots (as opposed to routines discussed below) are fair game. If you want to come up with your own version of Triumph, Oil and Water, a two card transposition, a stranger card, open prediction, matrix, etc. you can.

Routines should be treated differently. That is someone's idea. Doing and teaching your own version of a two card transposition is fine. There are lots of them out there. Teaching French Kiss which has as its essential element an in the mouth change is unethical without Wayne's permission (even if you purchased the effect). Doing French Kiss without buying it because you reverse engineered it is unethical.

The same really is true for gimmicks. At some point, certain gimmicks are public domain -- a double backer, a double facer, the 52 on 1, the Tree of Diamonds, short cards, the Invisible Deck, the Brainwave Deck, the gimmicked 3 card monte card, etc. Others are not. I think that to use a McCombical Deck you should buy Billy McComb's material. The gaff card you are talking about may be public domain. I know that the publishing of a similar gaff showing a spread of cards is pretty widespread (pun intended).

So it comes down to a couple of issues. Are you using a sleight or gimmick that is proprietary to a magician or is it public domain? If proprietary, then you can perform it if you buy it but you can't teach it without permission. If public domain, you can perform it and teach it without buying it or getting permission. Are you using a routine that is unique based on someone's idea? (e.g. French Kiss being in the mouth and Panic being a dissolving deck / transposition). Then you should buy the effect to perform it and get permission to teach it.

Make sense?

 

[Josh Burch]

The only LEGAL constraint is that you can't republish (by posting online or otherwise) other people's videos or books or use other people's copyrighted scripting or choreography.

If the invention was patented, like the smoke watch from Sans Minds or Pyro from Ellusionist, there are provisions in the law that gives the inventor the right to exclude you from making or using the patented product. (Article 28 of TRIPS)

Can this be a problem with card magic? Sure, here's a card gimmick that was patented by the Nintendo Company.

https://www.google.com/patents/US4013286

Aarron Fisher's gimmick is not patented, as far as I am aware. If it was, he probably wouldn't ever take legal action against someone anyways. I still think the principle still stands. It's probably not a good idea to make a copy of a marketed product.

The magic community is small enough that if you stick around long enough you will be able to meet and network with him. He probably wouldn't love that you made your own knock off version of his gimmick. I would rather have a relationship with him, than chance burning any bridges.

 

[timsilva]

I have often wondered about this myself. I have definitely reverse engineered effects and performed them with a method that I suspected was being used (mostly when it comes to basic card tricks, etc). When performing for lay people, I don't think I have ever explained that "I saw someone perform this effect on a TV special, and I worked out a method that I think they used." It seems odd to give credits when performing, so I tend to simply not go there and focus on them and their experience.

Where I agree that a clear line is being crossed is claiming it as your own creations, and/or publishing it (especially commercially).