Recreating your own version

[Maaz Hasan]

A lot of products are on the market that use a gimmick or a tool that you cannot create at home easily and/or cheaply. For that reason, they are are always sold as completed pieces. However, what if someone wanted to create their own own personal version for self-use. Take Odyssey for example, what if someone were to create their own Odyssey gimmick formed to look like a different ring that they might wear, like a wedding band, or just a different ring?

Would it be wrong to recreate one for use for myself (obviously it would be wrong to make them and sell them)? I want to know what you guys think (this is more so a discussion of ideas rather than me looking for an answer).

 

[TylerScottIllusionist]

Not at all. I think it's actually encouraged that way your presentation is unique to you and not a copy of someone else's.

 

[Toby Langdon]

Definitely not. I agree with Tyler and if you know how the gimmick works then you've probably already supported the artist by purchasing the effect so why not recreate it (as long as you don't sell them) to fit you more.

 

[Lord Magic]

A lot of products are on the market that use a gimmick or a tool that you cannot create at home easily and/or cheaply. For that reason, they are are always sold as completed pieces. However, what if someone wanted to create their own own personal version for self-use. Take Odyssey for example, what if someone were to create their own Odyssey gimmick formed to look like a different ring that they might wear, like a wedding band, or just a different ring?

Would it be wrong to recreate one for use for myself (obviously it would be wrong to make them and sell them)? I want to know what you guys think (this is more so a discussion of ideas rather than me looking for an answer).

Of course it is okay to keep a simplied version for yourself...
but I was thinking that one can actually release that method too, if it is satisfactorily different.
I mean, that is how we have so many methods being sold on the market to achieve the exact same effect, right?
Each creator claims to have discovered the simplest and most effective version, which is true until another version is released.
So I think it is okay to release the method too (right?)

 

[TylerScottIllusionist]

Of course it is okay to keep a simplied version for yourself...
but I was thinking that one can actually release that method too, if it is satisfactorily different.
I mean, that is how we have so many methods being sold on the market to achieve the exact same effect, right?
Each creator claims to have discovered the simplest and most effective version, which is true until another version is released.
So I think it is okay to release the method too (right?)

Oh man you are opening up a whole another can of worms with that one.....

 

[C J]

Of course it is okay to keep a simplied version for yourself...
but I was thinking that one can actually release that method too, if it is satisfactorily different.
I mean, that is how we have so many methods being sold on the market to achieve the exact same effect, right?
Each creator claims to have discovered the simplest and most effective version, which is true until another version is released.
So I think it is okay to release the method too (right?)

It would not be ok to share the method without the artist consent. That is exposure and copying. Basically, don't reveal the method to a trick without consent of the person who made it. That's all that should need to be said.

 

[Lord Magic]

I get what you guys are saying, and I was unsure about my views, which was why I followed them with a 'right?'...
But honestly, there are like, a 20 different marketed versions of a simple effect like, say, an ACAAN.
So, that means different methods for the same effect, right?

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

The problem is making sure it's different enough that the creator you're basing the work off of, doesn't feel ripped off.

It's usually no harder than emailing a quick description of the method and asking their opinion.

 

[obrienmagic]

Depends on a couple things:

1 do you have the rights to it? If you purchased the effect then yes you should be able to perform it or any version of it you come up with.

2 What do you plan to do with it? If you create your own version to perform for people it should not be a problem. Creating with intent to sell it is a different story.

3 Purchasing it gives you the right to perform it, NOT to tech it or expose it. For example, I recently saw a lecture where the magician was teaching material that was not his and he did not get permission from the creator to use. This is unethical even if you are not profiting off of it. Another example is posting your "version" on YouTube. Unless the method and gimmick are different you cannot say yours is "unique" just because you made it yourself at home.

 

[Maaz Hasan]

Of course it is okay to keep a simplied version for yourself...
but I was thinking that one can actually release that method too, if it is satisfactorily different.
I mean, that is how we have so many methods being sold on the market to achieve the exact same effect, right?
Each creator claims to have discovered the simplest and most effective version, which is true until another version is released.
So I think it is okay to release the method too (right?)

No, I'm more so talking about taking an effect that already uses a very specific gimmick that is already sold and actually taking the idea and simply adapting it to another look, customizing it to fit you specifically, just for your own performances. Like, for example, replacing the Odyssey gimmick with one you made that uses the same idea, but looks like a ring you wear.

 

[Lord Magic]

Oooh...right then.
I guess for gimmicks the thing becomes more complicated, right? Other than just sleights, gimmicks are just more, I dunno, definitive.
So without a 100% consent of the creator, I guess we walk into murky waters there.
I wouldn't want to constrict the purpose of the thread, but since it IS on a familiar ground, I just wanna know how one asks for permission when say, the creator is dead? I mean, then there is no ''asking for permission'' factor, right? You either credit the creator in the tutorial or video itself, or you don't.

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

For personal use, there is no restriction in my opinion. When you pay for the product, you are paying for the secret and the rights to perform it.

The pre-made gimmicks are included for convenience. As I understand it, there was a time when all magic props were basically hand made by the magician, or they had to hire someone to do that for them.

So if you legitimately pay for something like Odyssey, and you want to create your own version of that gimmick, I say more power to you.

Now I'm wondering about the implications of selling customized gimmicks without selling the secret to them. There's some things I plan to recreate in steel once the weather warms up enough for me to fire up the forge.

Regarding deceased creators - Two things. Either A) It's old enough that it's reached public domain, and you can just credit that creator. Or B) Their estate and rights are owned by someone else, and you have to figure out who that is. A lot of guys will sell off the rights to all their secrets to one vendor or friend before they pass away, or they'll grant the rights to their family. This happens in writing and other creative endeavors as well - Tolkein's children own all the rights to his work, and apparently can be very difficult to work with.

 

[obrienmagic]

For personal use, there is no restriction in my opinion. When you pay for the product, you are paying for the secret and the rights to perform it.



Now I'm wondering about the implications of selling customized gimmicks without selling the secret to them. There's some things I plan to recreate in steel once the weather warms up enough for me to fire up the forge.

Have you seen the "knockoffs" argument in the SME facebook group?

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

I have not. I don't pay attention to the non-product posts.