(Close Window)
Topic: Sharpie Through Bill by Alan Rorrison & SansMinds -VS- Timothy Wenk's MISLED
Message: Posted by: ricker (Dec 18, 2016 10:33PM)
This is a 100% RIP OFF of Tim Wenk's Misled. Tim has told me that Alan never contacted him to discuss the rights of the effect and even does not give Tim any credit.

Tim is mad Alan, best you contact him asap.

I assume this is just an oversight on your part. If not, I know a lot about intellectual property law overseas, as I own a software company and had someone steal my source code, and have my UK attorney that can look at this for him.

The guy went to jail for theft, since the UK laws are much more strict than US laws.

So I would contact Tim.... like now, when you see this.

Rick
Message: Posted by: Colin (C.J.) (Dec 18, 2016 10:35PM)
Are you Tim's agent/spokesman?
Message: Posted by: stempleton (Dec 18, 2016 10:37PM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2016, Colin (C.J.) wrote:
Are you Tim's agent/spokesman? [/quote]

Tim made a personal note on Facebook describing exactly what the previous poster has commented upon. If you message him I'm sure he will give you the facts of this conflict.
Message: Posted by: Tim Cavendish (Dec 18, 2016 10:41PM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2016, ricker wrote:
Tim is mad Alan, best you contact him asap.

I assume this is just an oversight on your part. If not, I know a lot about intellectual property law overseas, as I own a software company and had someone steal my source code, and have my UK attorney that can look at this for him.

The guy went to jail for theft, since the UK laws are much more strict than US laws.
[/quote]
Magic tricks and program code are apples and bananas.

The written instructions for Misled are protected by copyright. Nothing else about it enjoys legal protection.

Even if it were patented, patents only last 20 years (and they were previously shorter). Any patent on it would have expired by now.

The whole idea behind intellectual property is that creators are granted TEMPORARY monopolies for a LIMITED TIME to harvest the fruits of their creative labor. But that monopoly expires, so one person does not have the power to block further development and/or application of the idea. It's a balancing act, with progress benefiting everyone as the overall goal.
Message: Posted by: Colin (C.J.) (Dec 18, 2016 10:43PM)
Sounds like Wenk won't be able to challenge Alan based on legal precedents.I'm sure they will have a conversation and work things out together.
Message: Posted by: ricker (Dec 18, 2016 10:44PM)
I love the so called lawyers here, yes my UK attorney said he could challenge, different laws in different countries. UK is bad ass on IP.
Message: Posted by: Tim Cavendish (Dec 18, 2016 10:46PM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2016, ricker wrote:
I love the so called lawyers here, yes my UK attorney said he could challenge
[/quote]
Yes, anything can be challenged.

But challenging and winning are not the same.

Either way, the money involved would be peanuts compared to the legal bills. It's just not a practical course of action.

But magicians love to bluster about suing people.
Message: Posted by: Steven Conner (Dec 18, 2016 10:48PM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2016, Tim Cavendish wrote:
[quote]On Dec 15, 2016, ricker wrote:
Tim is mad Alan, best you contact him asap.

I assume this is just an oversight on your part. If not, I know a lot about intellectual property law overseas, as I own a software company and had someone steal my source code, and have my UK attorney that can look at this for him.

The guy went to jail for theft, since the UK laws are much more strict than US laws.
[/quote]
Magic tricks and program code are apples and bananas.

The written instructions for Misled are protected by copyright. Nothing else about it enjoys legal protection.

Even if it were patented, patents only last 20 years (and they were previously shorter). Any patent on it would have expired by now.

The whole idea behind intellectual property is that creators are granted TEMPORARY monopolies for a LIMITED TIME to harvest the fruits of their creative labor. But that monopoly expires, so one person does not have the power to block further development and/or application of the idea. It's a balancing act, with progress benefiting everyone as the overall goal. [/quote]

Hi Tim, you only have half of it right. A Patent can stay inforce indefinitely if improvements are made. However; I think we have come to enjoy professional courtesy which by all standards does not enjoy legality.

Best

Steve
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 18, 2016 10:50PM)
Hello folks. Tim and I had a conversation this evening and I can't lie, I was some what worried/ troubled by his concerns as I have tried my very best to do the right things always.

However we had a conversation. I discovered that he had not seen my method before making his claim so I offered to send him a copy... as the conversation went on he asked for a simple text explination on method which I happily gave.

At the end of this we both agreed methods are different.. however I do feel that he believes he has the monopoly on pencil/pen through bills. In this community we know this simply is not the case... there are many different methods for an effect out there and the method is what makes the effect in the sales market...

I do fully credit Timothy for inspiration but as I said we both agreed methods are different and I even expressed an interest in contributing and assisting him adapting his gimmick to a sharpie. In my opinion what makes this community awesome and moves the art forward is the collaboration of new ideas and approaches being adapted to further the existing effect and take it to a new height.

As it stands the methods are different as agreed. It is simply an option and I have to admit I'm disappointed he didn't contact me first to enquire about it before making public claims. I hope Timothy is willing to further discuss with an open mind and hope we can find a common ground to contribute to magic community.

Meanwhile, enjoy Sharpie Through Bill folks.
Message: Posted by: Colin (C.J.) (Dec 18, 2016 10:51PM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2016, ricker wrote:
I love the so called lawyers here, yes my UK attorney said he could challenge, different laws in different countries. UK is bad ass on IP. [/quote]
Of course he said he could challenge. He wants the cash. No chance of a win though! Alan has put this one to bed. Unlucky Ricker, your attempt to stir the pot has failed on this occasion.
Message: Posted by: magicbyfish (Dec 18, 2016 10:53PM)
I want to make it very clear that this is simply relaying a mesage.
i have no axe to grind with either side on this ,
but alan , ive been asked by timothy wenk to post the follwing as he is not a member here,
all I can say is maybe you two need to have another chat ,
i respect both parties and have no interest in any discussion on this but tim asked me to reply to your
post about the coversation ,

''Can you go on there and report that I said any reports that say I am ok with this, are UNILATERAL and DELUSIONAL.''
Message: Posted by: Colin (C.J.) (Dec 18, 2016 10:54PM)
Why does Tim apparently ask 'others' to post on his behalf? Very odd.

I know both tricks and the methods are different, so no foul. For the record my favorite ptb is by Astor.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 18, 2016 10:55PM)
Thank you for relaying that on Magic by fish. Just for clarity. I simply say that we talked and both recognized the methods are different. And I'd be more than happy to further chat with Tim any time to hopefully find a common ground and contribute to the art together.
Message: Posted by: AndreaMooreMagic (Dec 18, 2016 10:57PM)
I am with Alan on this one. There are so many versions of classic magic. From color changing card to big illusions like cutting a person in half. It's the method that makes the product unique. If the method is different, it's a different trick. No foul at play here. Not sure what some are trying to stir up here.
Message: Posted by: MR Effecto (Dec 18, 2016 10:58PM)
Alan, don't worry about this fool. Your 100% right on this.
Message: Posted by: Doomo (Dec 18, 2016 11:00PM)
[quote]On Dec 16, 2016, MR Effecto wrote:
Alan, don't worry about this fool. Your 100% right on this. [/quote]

Ok... That was a bit on the rude side.
Message: Posted by: Paul S Wingham (Dec 18, 2016 11:02PM)
This method and misled are kind of similar in terms of the illusion they create but equally different enough and certainly not close enough for foul play to be called in my opinion.

Back in the day this would have formed part of a multi trick dvd and like many single tricks released these days; I'm not convinced it represents great value for money as its a simple diy gimmick and a simple method; but its a sign of the times and that's how things get released these days. I'd prefer a return to the old days as multi trick dvds were far better value but it is what it is and I've certainly got less for more so no real complaints. I definitely wouldn't say I am unhappy as it works fine and is easy to make. Plus the use of a sharpie brings the trick a little more up to date. For once I think sans minds have delivered an honest trailer and a solid trick.

If you like the trailer and have a minute to make a very simple gimmick, I think you'll be happy with this. Simple but effective.
Message: Posted by: Steven Conner (Dec 18, 2016 11:04PM)
Does anyone remember Carl Cloutier pencil thru bill on his bill in kiwi dvd. Still fascinating.
Message: Posted by: MR Effecto (Dec 18, 2016 11:09PM)
[quote]On Dec 16, 2016, Doomo wrote:
[quote]On Dec 16, 2016, MR Effecto wrote:
Alan, don't worry about this fool. Your 100% right on this. [/quote]

Ok... That was a bit on the rude side. [/quote]


I don't think so at all. If Tim has a problem with this let them work it out. don't need a 3rd party getting in this.
Message: Posted by: M Pitcher (Dec 18, 2016 11:11PM)
I have both and they are different enough to make it a separate release.
I am with Alan on this one.

Bests,
MP
Message: Posted by: Yuan Moons (Dec 18, 2016 11:12PM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2016, ricker wrote:
This is a 100% RIP OFF of Tim Wenk's Misled. Tim has told me that Alan never contacted him to discuss the rights of the effect and even does not give Tim any credit.

Tim is mad Alan, best you contact him asap.

I assume this is just an oversight on your part. If not, I know a lot about intellectual property law overseas, as I own a software company and had someone steal my source code, and have my UK attorney that can look at this for him.

The guy went to jail for theft, since the UK laws are much more strict than US laws.

So I would contact Tim.... like now, when you see this.

Rick [/quote]

So true. The jails here in the U.K. are full of magicians that tried to release a similar version of another magicians trick. Better sort this out, like now.
Message: Posted by: Doomo (Dec 18, 2016 11:13PM)
[quote]On Dec 16, 2016, MR Effecto wrote:
[quote]On Dec 16, 2016, Doomo wrote:
[quote]On Dec 16, 2016, MR Effecto wrote:
Alan, don't worry about this fool. Your 100% right on this. [/quote]

Ok... That was a bit on the rude side. [/quote]


I don't think so at all. If Tim has a problem with this let them work it out. don't need a 3rd party getting in this. [/quote]
You mean like you?
Message: Posted by: harbour (Dec 18, 2016 11:14PM)
I have also been talking to him and the inventor of MISLED, Timothy Wenk,
"Any reports you hear that I am "OK" or "All Set" re: the Sharpie/Misled dispute,
are unilateral and delusional (AKA incorrect/inaccurate)."
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 18, 2016 11:15PM)
The gimmicks are different. We have inpartial people who own both say so. At this point any on going conversation are a courtesy.

Sure tim created misled I credit him for that openly... I created sharpie through.

That what this thread is about so let's keep magic moving forward and get back on track
Message: Posted by: Colin (C.J.) (Dec 18, 2016 11:18PM)
I said "Tim, why don't you acknowledge Alan's method is different to yours and let it go?".

He didn't reply to my question.

Mind you, I was on my own in the bath at the time.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 18, 2016 11:19PM)
Lets keep it civial lads... we are trying to deal with all this as we go on tims fb page now... lets sort this out..

in the mean time let keep this thread chatting about shaprie through.

you are all awesome
Message: Posted by: WolfgangWollet (Dec 18, 2016 11:20PM)
At Tricksupply.com we considered pulling Sharpie Through Bill from Rorrison/SansMinds from our website but after looking at the actual product decided to continue offering it, we have added the following information for our customers on our website:

“In the interest of full disclosure I am adding the following information: This effect is very close to an effect marketed years ago, under the name “Misled” by Timothy Wenk which was popularized by David Copperfield. Mislead used a pencil for a multi-phase penetration thru bill routine, which left the pencil fully examinable at the end of the routine. The first phase of Misled was very stunning and this release does not easily adapt to the original phase one. The gimmick described here by Alan Rorrison is different from the marketed version of Mislead. Notable is that the Rorrison/SansMinds version does not actually include a gimmick but it is described on the DVD how to make it yourself with relatively little effort. Mr. Wenk claims that his initial idea for Misled used the same working of what is now released by Alan Rorrision and for evidence cites a booklet in which he sort of alluded to the method now disclosed by Rorrirson/SansMinds. Since the booklet is rather vague it is difficult to fully ascertain who is right or wrong. The method of the marketed Misled is different than the one described on this DVD which is why we will continue to carry both (when available).
Rorrison /Sansminds “Sharpie through Bill” in my opinion does not induce the sense of wonder that Mislead achieved (due to it being a multi-phase routine) and I do feel that Mislead is the much better product, the appeal of the SansMinds release is the use of a Sharpie. SansMinds in their demo video is acknowledging Timothy Wenks’ Misled so it seems odd that they would not reach out to Mr. Wenk during the developmental phase of this product
Timothy Wenk will soon re-release the original Misled and I am hopeful that in addition to a pencil version we can also look forward to a Sharpie version by Mr. Wenk which would bring it up to date and which I will fully support when released.
We will review the decision to continue carrying “Sharpie through Bill” as new information develops but wanted you to be aware of the controversy so you can make an informed decision. -Wolfgang Wollet, Tricksupply.com”
Message: Posted by: WolfgangWollet (Dec 18, 2016 11:22PM)
Just to clarify my post....Timothy Wenk is working on re-releasing Misled with a pencil. The part where he would release a Sharpie version as clever as the original Misled is at this point wishful thinking on my part....
Message: Posted by: videoman (Dec 18, 2016 11:22PM)
Misled is the better trick, but the fact that Alan's version uses a Sharpie carries a lot of weight and scores it a lot of points.
You lose the first phase but since it uses an item a lot of magicians already carry anyway that kind of gives it the edge.

Timothy needs to really consider updating Misled to a Sharpie version if at all possible. Pencils are fast becoming like buggy whips and almost seem out of place in a strolling set.
Misled had it's time but you can't live off your laurels forever. Times change and you need to keep up with the times. If you don't wish to invest the time and money in creating an updated version that the market demands then somebody else will and you cannot then claim that they are stealing your idea. You snooze, you lose. That's just how business works.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 18, 2016 11:24PM)
During our conversation I have have stated I woudld love for Timothy to make his up in sharpie both privately and publicly.

I think it would be a fantastic idea. And I'm happy the majority looking at this with a leval head and see the sense in it
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Dec 18, 2016 11:24PM)
The first phase of Misled but done with a Sharpie would make no sense. The first phase of misled is the healing of a hole in the bill. A pencil logical and plausibly can poke a hole through a bill but a Sharpie is logically would not do so in such a fashion.

As for the pencil being out of place in this day and age, people still widely use yellow no. 2 pencils. It never went away and are not harder and harder to find. It's quite recognizable and still appears innocent and organic. It's still very widely used, especially in office environments (I was surprised by this as well assuming we all just use pens now but I've seen them widely used and always stocked at my office).
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 18, 2016 11:25PM)
I'll repost this here.. this is from a rather long post on face book but I out it here for records.

Hello Gentlemen. I have sat this evening and had the pleasure if reading through this rather lengthy thread. First and foremost thank you to Mark and William who have taken the time to look at all the facts and formed an opinion which they did not mind voicing.

Just as a small side note. I did not ask them to do this and I thank them for keeping an open mind

Now lets get on to the matter at hand. I released my version of the sharpie through bill which is topic of this thread. Tim brought up some concerns about it and in his original post stated that it was an exact rip off of his misled effect implying it was the same gimmick and all etc.

I hated the thought that he may think this so I approached him on facebook pm and we had a chat about it. During this chat I realised that he had stated I had ripped off his effect with out knowing the method/gimmick of my own which I felt was a little unfair but I continued with the conversation to come to a happy medium.

which I thought we had after I explained what my gimmick was. He still felt the effect was the same but the gimmick was different. or at least that how the conversation appears. We went on after that to me praising his mislead and even offering to no only promote his if release a version for shapie with his method but help research and develop it.

it is something id love to see happen.

after this we had a second conversation where Tim had then decided that it was no longer a ripoff of his released mislead but now that after some thought it is a ripoff of his unreleased version which he "alludes" to in his notes.

unfortunately his note hints to a method which is like Just Passin' Thru by Russ Niedzwiecki. which again is nothing like the gimmick I have created here. also as Marc has pointed out "alluding" to a method isn't releasing it. especially when you do not state what the method is... it simply was not released so even if it was the same there could be no way I know. I would encourage you to scroll up and check out that conversation as it explains it well and there is no real need for me to go over it again.

So lets get to the point. Upon discovering Tim was not happy tried to have conversations with him about the subject I even offered up a copy of mines to give him all the facts which he did not accept.

at the end of all the conversations and after I invited him to chat with the producers etc. I stated we would give him as much time as we can to help in this situation he stated "There's a chance they'll do the right thing and give me more than time." Which to me implies he simply wanted to try and strong arm us for some money.

So at the end of all this BOTH gimmicks Tim has released and "alluded" to are different from the gimmick I have made here. This gimmick simply could not be made in a pencil.. its impossible. I have also contacted a few impartial third parties and asked there opinions and they all agree this is different so no harm no foul etc but again I am always happy to have a conversation about it.

I happily invite anyone to come and chat to me about it. Im a very approachable man who tried to keep a high standard in my ethics.

I offered to help time make his method workable for shaprie and even praised the idea.. id love to see it. ive simply offered my gimmick which is different and offer people and alternative.. I also highly praise and credit Tim and even though I feel like I have been some what mistreated in this ill still happily credit his. we all stand on the shoulders of giants after all.



Any one is free to contact me and ill do my best to help at any time. I feel I was very respectful to Tim in our conversations and anyone else will get the same respect.


however the last thing I can say on the matter is the gimmicks are different, it is simply impossible to make what I have done with a pencil but I do whole heart idly credit Tim and ill happily stand on any platform and tell people to look at his.. its a great method for this effect after all.

I have posted this and I noticed a few typos. I tried to catch them all but let me apologise if any got through.. with predictive text some times you are fighting a loosing battle.
Message: Posted by: JustJoshinMagic (Dec 18, 2016 11:26PM)
After reading all of the posts made about the situation both here and on fb, and after having a long conversation with Alan, this whole thing is ridiculous. The method Alan used is not the same as misled. that's first and foremost. Second the method that Tim alludes to in his notes, but never directly states, is different than Alans. While the manner of creating the gimmick utilizes similar actions, it would be 100% impossible to perform Alan's method with a pencil. The fact that everything can be handed out is indicative of that, which you would never be able to do if you tried to gaff it similarly with a pencil. I totally respect Tim as a creator, and if the method for this was identical, I would have to agree with Tim. However, this is tantamount of saying that Kostya Kimlat's triumph is exactly the same as Cheek to Cheek because they are the same effect. Many effects share a similar plot, but that doesn't make them rip offs of each other. Just my two cents as someone from the outside looking in
Message: Posted by: BobSled (Dec 18, 2016 11:27PM)
As an owner of Misled I was considering buying this 'update' until I noticed it's less than half the effect, you have to make your own gimmick ($20 and none supplied?!), and it doesn't even come with the blessing of its true originator. I'll save my money for something that's not a poor rip-off, thanks.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 18, 2016 11:28PM)
It's not a rip off bob but thank you for considering.
Message: Posted by: BobSled (Dec 18, 2016 11:29PM)
Claiming something is an "update" to a famous effect when in fact it's a lot worse, and using the fame of the original without consent, that my friend is riding on someone else's coattails and why it's a rip off.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 18, 2016 11:30PM)
This is the Misled effect using the Misled method. Nothing significant have been added.
The difference is on the level "...but I do it with a blue backed deck!"
Or using waxed cards instead of roughed for Invisible Deck.
Or using brass weights instead of lead weights in Chinese Sticks.
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Dec 18, 2016 11:31PM)
I am curious if you have both and if you do, I am certainly curious how other people who say they have both say the methods are different?

I own misled and just bought this effect used on the Café. I now very interested in receiving it to compare the two.

[quote]On Dec 18, 2016, TStone wrote:
This is the Misled effect using the Misled method. Nothing significant have been added.
The difference is on the level "...but I do it with a blue backed deck!"
Or using waxed cards instead of roughed for Invisible Deck.
Or using brass weights instead of lead weights in Chinese Sticks. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Infographicmagicreviews (Dec 18, 2016 11:35PM)
I am still waiting for mine to arrive. Planning on doing a graphical review on it. Having read the posts the methods between two versions sound very different. But TStone's blue backed deck analogy worries me. If the analogy is correct, isn't it basically the same gimmick?

TStone, can you confirm if the original Misled gimmick works on the sharpie? In that case I'll call and cancel my order to support the original before it's too late..
Message: Posted by: MR Effecto (Dec 18, 2016 11:36PM)
Not even close to the same
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 18, 2016 11:38PM)
V.I.P.
2283 Posts
Profile of Alan Rorrison Send Private Message
Post Icon Posted: Dec 18, 2016 08:05 am Alan Rorrison is on-line Reply with Quote Report this post to forum moderator There are no likes for this post.0
I'll repost this here.. this is from a rather long post on face book but I out it here for records.

Hello Gentlemen. I have sat this evening and had the pleasure if reading through this rather lengthy thread. First and foremost thank you to Mark and William who have taken the time to look at all the facts and formed an opinion which they did not mind voicing.

Just as a small side note. I did not ask them to do this and I thank them for keeping an open mind

Now lets get on to the matter at hand. I released my version of the sharpie through bill which is topic of this thread. Tim brought up some concerns about it and in his original post stated that it was an exact rip off of his misled effect implying it was the same gimmick and all etc.

I hated the thought that he may think this so I approached him on facebook pm and we had a chat about it. During this chat I realised that he had stated I had ripped off his effect with out knowing the method/gimmick of my own which I felt was a little unfair but I continued with the conversation to come to a happy medium.

which I thought we had after I explained what my gimmick was. He still felt the effect was the same but the gimmick was different. or at least that how the conversation appears. We went on after that to me praising his mislead and even offering to no only promote his if release a version for shapie with his method but help research and develop it.

it is something id love to see happen.

after this we had a second conversation where Tim had then decided that it was no longer a ripoff of his released mislead but now that after some thought it is a ripoff of his unreleased version which he "alludes" to in his notes.

unfortunately his note hints to a method which is like Just Passin' Thru by Russ Niedzwiecki. which again is nothing like the gimmick I have created here. also as Marc has pointed out "alluding" to a method isn't releasing it. especially when you do not state what the method is... it simply was not released so even if it was the same there could be no way I know. I would encourage you to scroll up and check out that conversation as it explains it well and there is no real need for me to go over it again.

So lets get to the point. Upon discovering Tim was not happy tried to have conversations with him about the subject I even offered up a copy of mines to give him all the facts which he did not accept.

at the end of all the conversations and after I invited him to chat with the producers etc. I stated we would give him as much time as we can to help in this situation he stated "There's a chance they'll do the right thing and give me more than time." Which to me implies he simply wanted to try and strong arm us for some money.

So at the end of all this BOTH gimmicks Tim has released and "alluded" to are different from the gimmick I have made here. This gimmick simply could not be made in a pencil.. its impossible. I have also contacted a few impartial third parties and asked there opinions and they all agree this is different so no harm no foul etc but again I am always happy to have a conversation about it.

I happily invite anyone to come and chat to me about it. Im a very approachable man who tried to keep a high standard in my ethics.

I offered to help time make his method workable for shaprie and even praised the idea.. id love to see it. ive simply offered my gimmick which is different and offer people and alternative.. I also highly praise and credit Tim and even though I feel like I have been some what mistreated in this ill still happily credit his. we all stand on the shoulders of giants after all.



Any one is free to contact me and ill do my best to help at any time. I feel I was very respectful to Tim in our conversations and anyone else will get the same respect.


however the last thing I can say on the matter is the gimmicks are different, it is simply impossible to make what I have done with a pencil but I do whole heart idly credit Tim and ill happily stand on any platform and tell people to look at his.. its a great method for this effect after all.

I have posted this and I noticed a few typos. I tried to catch them all but let me apologise if any got through.. with predictive text some times you are fighting a loosing battle.
Message: Posted by: BobSled (Dec 18, 2016 11:41PM)
Why are you flooding this thread with a verbatim copy & paste of stuff you've already dumped here? Are you trying to bury the comments where so many people are pointing out that your version is an inferior, overpriced, unethical rip off? Coincidence I am sure...
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 18, 2016 11:42PM)
The post address any issues of people claiming it's a rip off it simply isn't. The gimmick I have her is impossible to make in pencil. I thought it might be easy than typing every time.

So it's now inferior? I'm guessing that imply it's different other wise it would be on par?

Which would means it's a different method and simply an alternative?
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 18, 2016 11:44PM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2016, Infographicmagicreviews wrote:
I am still waiting for mine to arrive. Planning on doing a graphical review on it. Having read the posts the methods between two versions sound very different. But TStone's blue backed deck analogy worries me. If the analogy is correct, isn't it basically the same gimmick?

TStone, can you confirm if the original Misled gimmick works on the sharpie? In that case I'll call and cancel my order to support the original before it's too late.. [/quote]
The difference is on the level of changing from a forcing deck to a riffle force in Cardiology. I.e. minute and trivial.
In short, it is a semi-impromptu quick fix to a Sharpie which enables you to do the second part of the revised Misled routine (1990), which is identical to the original Misled routine (1981).
Message: Posted by: BobSled (Dec 18, 2016 11:45PM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2016, Alan Rorrison wrote:
So it's now inferior?
[/quote]

Yes it's inferior, there's less than half the original routine with no build-up and it can't be examined. It also costs more and comes with less, you could have at least supplied a pre-made gimmick to aid your pretence that it has some kind of new value.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 18, 2016 11:47PM)
So Tom, just to be clear here sir. have you went from saying that this is the exact same gimmick as mislead to saying its a different gimmick on a sharpie that will allow for a single phase pen through bill. I don't want to put words in your mouth but id be interested in the change on stance?

the gimmick made here would dimply be impossible to make on a pencil. impossible.

Tim can have it all ways here? at first and with out knowing my method he said mines was a direct rip off. Then after I show him the method he says its a ripp of of a method he never released and invented before I was born.. Im sure you can see the impossibility in that. Then he decided to move on and say ok its different but inferior..


what angel is he sticking to here? he cant have it all ways
Message: Posted by: BobSled (Dec 18, 2016 11:48PM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2016, Alan Rorrison wrote:
he cant have it all ways [/quote]

So you "created" an "upgrade" of an effect that is also at the same time completely different to that effect, but you're happy to ride on the fame and prior success of that effect by quoting that effect - even though you vehemently deny yours is essentially the same effect.

Pot, kettle?
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 18, 2016 11:49PM)
Oh my stance has always been the same. I have never said the effect is different. its the same as many pen through bills out there. the gimmick/method to achieve is what I created. I also don't claim its an upgrade but simply an alternative method to doing a pen through bill.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 18, 2016 11:54PM)
Alan, there's no change of stance. You are hawking the Misled effect using the Misled method. The change you tout as "a different method" is a minor and trivial variation that grants no measurable advantages or improvements. That you refuse to acknowledge this is just crook tactics.
Message: Posted by: BobSled (Dec 18, 2016 11:55PM)
Sans = Without.

SansMinds = Without Minds.

Mindless.

Yep, pretty much sums up the ethics and originality of putting out stuff like this...
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 18, 2016 11:56PM)
Id disagree. the Gimmick allows you to pass a sharpie pen through a bill. If what you where saying was true id be able to make the same thing up with a pencil. That would be impossible with the design of this.

so how can you say its a variant method and the same method at the same time. As a nice gesture also Tom. send me the receipt for your dvd and ill happily refund you. The small point I'm making here is I do not believe you have it. I think you are going of what Tim has advised you. Considering there are customers on this very thread who have both and state they are different.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 18, 2016 11:57PM)
Why would I have a receipt to a Misled ripoff?
The abstracted predecessor in methodology is Winston Freer's Linking Rings, which later was used in Paul Harris's Cardboard Connection. The leap of imagination to apply the same behind/in front idea to a pen & bill penetration is significant, and Timothy Wenk's effect is iconic in both appearance and method. Making a slit in the cap instead of the body is a trivial semi-impromptu solution, especially compared with Wenk's final solution with a moveable slit that allows for further phases than only the original Misled penetration.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 18, 2016 11:59PM)
OK in that vain your saying Tim released a version with he gimmick built into the body of a pencil. Awesome this would leave for a pen that the spectator could not handle which which is a step back. we also know this isn't the case as Tim has stated he created this be for I was born which I think was his main point and did not release it. so again I'm sure you can see the impossibility in it being a rip of there.


with my own gimmick the spectator handles and uses the pen in the routine and the gimmick allows for that.

In Tims released version he has build a shell that will only attach to a pencil and would be rather hard to use other wise. with mine I have bult my gimicks into a section of the lid alwaing it to be in play at all times and allowing the illusion of a pen through bill. the gimmick as I have made it would be impossible to build into a pen.


sure wenks gives you extra phases I make no bones about that and again I highly reccomend anyone check his out... but if you want a pen through bill and you carry a sharpie have a look at mine. its a semi impromptu method for the effect as stated by Tom
Message: Posted by: PRINCE (Dec 19, 2016 12:01AM)
Regardless to this debate - it's not very ethical guys to be exposing methods and gimmicks.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 19, 2016 12:03AM)
That is very true. I have as far as I'm aware only done this on this post. feel free to edit that and
i apologise on that front.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 19, 2016 12:09AM)
Crook semantics, Alan. It is not yours to put your name on. You're trying to highjack the paternity of an iconic effect with a minor and trivial variation. Frankly, if this is the level of "originality" in your other work, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 19, 2016 12:12AM)
We have asked Tim to show us where he made this gimmick. The best he can come up with is that he made it before I was born and never released it. Ergo I could never see it. as for hijacking, well ive directly said a number of Times that times is there. Its awesome and go check it out. by all means. I do not say otherwise at any point. IM not saying Tims is mine now etc and never would.

At this point and as ive stated before as have others in this thread and all over the facebook comemnts. The gimmick is different. it would be like saying a slippery sam gimmick cant exists because a coin shell does. Both have there merit and again ive highly recommended Tims.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 19, 2016 12:14AM)
Still crook semantics, Alan. It shows in your posts here where you make your best to portrait the specific as the generic - as if the Misled effect just were one minor variation of dozens. That's simply not true.
You are doing the Misled effect using the Misled method. The location of the slit is irrelevant in the context.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 19, 2016 12:20AM)
I don't believe I do. I speak form a stand point of someone who obviously has both and can see the merit of both again, as other in this thread have done. Ive not played mislead down at any point I think.. I beleive ive done nothing but talk it up.
Message: Posted by: Tim Cavendish (Dec 19, 2016 12:25AM)
How long do magicians expect to have their inventions protected?

In the real world, a patent lasts 20 years.

Misled seems to have two verions, 1981 (35 years old) and 1990 (26 years old).

Seriously: for how long should a creator be able to block others' use?
Message: Posted by: King14 (Dec 19, 2016 12:26AM)
Guys. In a couple of weeks a 10 year old will expose the whole thing on youtube. And guess what, nobody cares.

If you guys can come up with free energy for the world or even buy a extra Christmas gift for a child that will have nothing at Christmas it would be better than fighting over a bloody magic trick.

Grow Up.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 19, 2016 12:28AM)
Man aint that the truth.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 19, 2016 12:29AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2016, Tim Cavendish wrote:
How long do magicians expect to have their inventions protected?

In the real world, a patent lasts 20 years.

Misled seems to have two verions, 1981 (35 years old) and 1990 (26 years old).

Seriously: for how long should a creator be able to block others' use? [/quote]
According to the Berne treaty: The creator's lifetime plus 50-70 years.
But the paternity rights is supposed to be forever, even after the work has passed into public domain. Even with old greek litterature that is thousands of years old, you are supposed to name the correct author. It is considered bad form to claim that someone else than Homer wrote the Illiad - just as it is bad form of Alan to claim he's the originator of Misled.
Message: Posted by: Infographicmagicreviews (Dec 19, 2016 12:44AM)
Ouch. My order just got wasted because now it's 'exposed' here and my copy is still on its way. TStone I've always have huge respect of your work but what you did here now really ruined it for me. Exposing other's work here is just not cool and not something I'd expect from you. And from what you described and the other messages, I pretty much figured out the difference between both versions. If I am right on this, it's simply impossible to adapt Misled on a Sharpie, which makes the sharpie version original. Again mine is still on the way so I don't know for sure... and I guess I don't need it when it arrives.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 19, 2016 12:54AM)
I never claimed I created mislead... we openly Say Tim did. I created my original gimmick for the same style effect.. Please don't try and put words in my mouth.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 19, 2016 01:22AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2016, Alan Rorrison wrote:
I never claimed I created mislead... [/quote]
Misled is performed in the video trailer that carry your name. So, you are not selling what the video trailer shows?
Message: Posted by: gtx magic (Dec 19, 2016 01:24AM)
First of all can I just say that as reading through all the comments on this thread as a none bias neutral or member of the jury.

The Last comment from TStone more or less clears the matter up for me. But I don,t agree that Alan is a crook, he is a genuine nice guy and means well in his creative contributions to the magic art.

But when TStone mentions "paternity of an iconic effect" I think that what Tom is saying (please correct me if I am wrong) it is like saying that a stepfather to his partners child becomes his father, but he does not because the biological father is the orignal father regardless of the personal politics or implications involved.

Graham
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 19, 2016 01:25AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2016, Infographicmagicreviews wrote:
TStone I've always have huge respect of your work but what you did here now really ruined it for me. Exposing other's work here is just not cool and not something I'd expect from you.[/quote]
I've asked for Wenk's permission to talk in general terms about the methodology in his work.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 19, 2016 01:26AM)
A pen through bill is performet not mislead. I don't use a mislead gimmick. logic is lost there saddly..

gtx that's a very interesting way to look at it. I don't disown the father in that analogy at all
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 19, 2016 01:26AM)
This thread is actualy begining to bring around some good conversation on definitions...
Message: Posted by: Colin (C.J.) (Dec 19, 2016 01:27AM)
Why does Tim keep speaking through others? Seems strange to me.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 19, 2016 01:28AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2016, Alan Rorrison wrote:
A pen through bill is performet not mislead.[/quote]
You still insist on portraiting the specific Misled effect as just any generic "pen through bill" effect. It is classic crook strategy - you are not even original when you steal!
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 19, 2016 01:29AM)
So going by this your saying any pen through bill like just passing through and ae are all mislead? again just looking for defenition
Message: Posted by: PRINCE (Dec 19, 2016 01:30AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2016, TStone wrote:
Just as it is bad form of Alan to claim he's the originator of Misled. [/quote]

What?!?!? Tom, Alan has never quoted, mentioned or implied that he is was the originator of misled. You Tom have a terrible habit of making incorrect statements and quoting false quotes that apparently people have said. I thought you would have learnt when I proved you wrong multiple times on your factory blanks thread of you doing this - stop it please. Also the argument is regarding a phase taken from the original misled routine... so where is all the other negativity towards - Astors new release of this effect/trick, just passing thru etc etc - as all the other versions THAT USE A DIFFETENT GIMMICK BUT LOOKS THE SAME IN PERFORMANCE.
Message: Posted by: emyers99 (Dec 19, 2016 01:31AM)
I've used Misled for years. Great effect and gimmick. Misled used a sliding gimmick. Alan's version does not. The Misled gimmick had to be palmed off for spectator to handle the pencil. In Alan's version, the gimmick can stay on the pen and tge spectator can sign things with the pen while the gimmick is in place without noticing it. That, coupled with the fact that Alan brought this to a Sharpie make this different enough to me. Tim could probably have the Misled gimmick manufactured to fit a Sharpie. I hope he does because the visuals of Misled are fantastic. The differences between a pencil and a Sharpie make accomplishing the same visual effects difficult. Alan has come up with a nice sollution for part of it.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 19, 2016 01:36AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2016, PRINCE wrote:
[quote]On Dec 18, 2016, TStone wrote:
Just as it is bad form of Alan to claim he's the originator of Misled. [/quote]

What?!?!? Tom, Alan has never quoted, mentioned or implied that he is was the originator of misled.[/quote]
Misled is performed on the video trailer that carry Alan's name. I think that constitutes a quote, mention or implication that he think he's the originator of Misled.
[quote] You Tom have a terrible habit of making incorrect statements and quoting false quotes that apparently people have said. I thought you would have learnt when I proved you wrong multiple times on your factory blanks thread of you doing this[/quote]
Ah yes, I remember you now. You were the guy who insisted that it was impossible to perform with Factory Blanks. Since I've performed with it for two years now, your definition of "proved wrong" seems pretty odd.
Message: Posted by: Tim Cavendish (Dec 19, 2016 01:41AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2016, TStone wrote:
[quote]On Dec 18, 2016, Tim Cavendish wrote:
How long do magicians expect to have their inventions protected?

In the real world, a patent lasts 20 years.

Misled seems to have two verions, 1981 (35 years old) and 1990 (26 years old).

Seriously: for how long should a creator be able to block others' use? [/quote]
According to the Berne treaty: The creator's lifetime plus 50-70 years.
But the paternity rights is supposed to be forever, even after the work has passed into public domain. Even with old greek litterature that is thousands of years old, you are supposed to name the correct author. It is considered bad form to claim that someone else than Homer wrote the Illiad - just as it is bad form of Alan to claim he's the originator of Misled. [/quote]

I asked about blocking use of inventions, which is what patents do.

Tom Stone substituted a response about copyright, which is different and protects a particular, fixed creative expression. It doesn't protect a general idea like illusory penetration of a rod through paper, and it doesn't protect the hand manipulations of a magic trick. The only thing copyrightable about Misled is the written instructions. Even titles can't be copyrighted.

What precise aspect of Misled does Timothy Wenk currently claim to be protected?

I've seen him lay claim to the general idea of anything like a pencil penetrating a currency bill, but that can't be owned.

More recently he called his sequence of sleights "choreography," presumably inspired by Teller's "Shadows" case, but Teller (and, notably, a dump truck of money) achieved a one-shot win based on Shadows being registered as a pantomime with artistic merit. It has a narrative, evokes meaningful emotion, etc. Using Eugene Burger's terms, Misled is magic without meaning -- it is merely the adventures of the props in the performer's hands. There will be no protection from the choreography/work of art angle. What other specific claim has he made?

I'm seriously wondering what Timothy Wenk believes is protected, and for how long he deserves control over it?
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 19, 2016 01:41AM)
I perform my version of bill though.. to perform mislead it would need to be the exact same gimmick. its simple logic...
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 19, 2016 01:42AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2016, emyers99 wrote:
I've used Misled for years. Great effect and gimmick. Misled used a sliding gimmick.[/quote]
Read the first page of your copy of the Misled manuscript.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 19, 2016 01:43AM)
The first page that tim has posted. That states no method at all and dosnt even mention pen or lid? would that be correct?
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 19, 2016 01:44AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2016, Alan Rorrison wrote:
I perform my version of bill though.. to perform mislead it would need to be the exact same gimmick. its simple logic... [/quote]
No, you perform Timothy Wenk's version of bill through. You've added or changed nothing of merit. And you are still being dishonest in portraiting the specific as the generic.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 19, 2016 01:45AM)
So this is now becoming an opinion Tom? From some one who dosnt own my own to compare and who has directed some one to proof that states no method or similar?
Message: Posted by: PRINCE (Dec 19, 2016 01:46AM)
Hahaha Tom you honestly get better and better - please please please take the time to go through your factory blanks thread again and if it states anywhere that I've apparently said "it's impossible to perform factory blanks" like you have just stated I did apparently quote that, then will personally give you $50,000 - yes I do have the money. There is no need to be bitter because Alan's effect is a worker and factory blanks is not.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 19, 2016 01:47AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2016, Tim Cavendish wrote:
What precise aspect of Misled does Timothy Wenk currently claim to be protected?
[/quote]
I have no idea. I myself is solely concerned with paternity - that an originator's name is allowed to remain attached to one's work.
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Dec 19, 2016 01:47AM)
It's sharpie through bill versus pencil through bill. Being able to do the penetration on a sharpie is an improvement. It's a sliding shell gimmick versus a cap gimmick is different and arguably an improvement. That the Cap gimmick is examinable in context of routine is different and an improvement,. Sure STB does use the FnB concept of Misled, but that's it and Wenk is credited for that.

The Berne treaty covers copyright. The method for doing something is patentable, which is totally different than copyright, but as stated earlier, the patent is now expired.

So why are we arguing again?

[quote]On Dec 18, 2016, TStone wrote:
[quote]On Dec 18, 2016, Alan Rorrison wrote:
I perform my version of bill though.. to perform mislead it would need to be the exact same gimmick. its simple logic... [/quote]
No, you perform Timothy Wenk's version of bill through. You've added or changed nothing of merit. And you are still being dishonest in portraiting the specific as the generic. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 19, 2016 01:48AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2016, Alan Rorrison wrote:
So this is now becoming an opinion Tom?[/quote]
It is not an opinion.
It is a fact that Misled is performed in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bekqwitaFzU
Both effect and method is very recognizable. Misled is quite different from most other penetrations like Harkey&Sankey's "East meets West", Cornelius "Pen through anything", Yoshio Hirose's "Invisible Hole" from Apocalypse, Vanni Bossi's amazing ungaffed penetration... and it is quite disingenuous to pretend Misled is a generic penetration effect.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 19, 2016 01:49AM)
So from what you are saying there tom in your last statment is that this is the exact same gimmick as mislead? lets be clear.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 19, 2016 01:49AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2016, Kaliix wrote:
The Berne treaty covers copyright. The method for doing something is patentable, which is totally different than copyright, but as stated earlier, the patent is now expired.
[/quote]
You lack understanding of both patents and copyright.
If this had been an *actual* method for transfering objects through paper without breakage, something useable an factory, it would be eligeble for a patent.
That isn't what Misled is. Rather, it is a fictional rendition of what it might look like. The pen doesn't actually penetrate anything. It is fiction. Drama. Art. And as all other dramatic works, it is covered by the Berne treaty.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 19, 2016 01:50AM)
One small addition I never claimed mislead was generic. I said my own was imply a different gimmick that would allow you to do a marker through bill. So by your logic and going on what you have said. For mislead to be performed in my trailer we would need to have use the mislead gimmick. Now I need to presume your are going by what Tim has told you as you do not own mine. so why would tim claim my version has "ripped off" a version he came up with before I was born and never released?

how does that go together?
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 19, 2016 01:51AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2016, Alan Rorrison wrote:
So from what you are saying there tom in your last statment is that this is the exact same gimmick as mislead? lets be clear. [/quote]
Let's be crystal clear.
If you change the forcing method used in Martin Lewis's "Cardiology", let's say from a forcing deck to a riffle force, it is still Martin Lewis's "Cardiology", even though you might claim that the method is completely different. The change is too small and trivial for you to usurp the paternity of the effect.
That's the case here as well. Performing Misled with its slit at the same place but with a minor and trivial change of object does not transmutate it into something else than Misled. It is not enough to claim paternity. For you to claim originality, there must be some significant difference in handling or effect.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 19, 2016 01:52AM)
That's not what I asked tim and dosnt support your prior statement. You are now going round in a circle to try and make your argument fit. Again by that logic a slippery sam cant excist because a shell does which is silly.

so would you like to answer my question and be crystal clear.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 19, 2016 01:53AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2016, Alan Rorrison wrote:
Again by that logic a slippery sam cant excist because a shell does which is silly.[/quote]
No, that's not a correct representation of the logic.
The logic is more: Let's say David Roth have an iconic coin effect using a shell. If you then release the same effect where the *only* difference is that you use a slippery sam instead of the shell - then the difference is to minute and trivial for you to usurp the paternity of the effect.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 19, 2016 01:53AM)
So does the slippery sam make the effect easier or harder or allow the effect to happen in a way it could never work before? or does it do the exact same thing?
Message: Posted by: Infographicmagicreviews (Dec 19, 2016 01:54AM)
Responding to your response to me earlier, your statement doesn't stand as you were exposing Alan Rorrison's secret, which I paid for and still on its way to me, not Timothy's.

And from where the conversation is going, it's very clear that the two versions are completely different. I don't know how you can call this a rip-off if they are clearly two different things. If what you said about copy right and patent are valid (which from my understanding they are far from being valid), it's a simple matter of having Timothy taken this to court and solve this civilly. Just saying..
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 19, 2016 01:55AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2016, Infographicmagicreviews wrote:
And from where the conversation is going, it's very clear that the two versions are completely different.[/quote]
Doesn't surprise me. Rip-off apologists are legio at this place.
Message: Posted by: Matt Chalk (Dec 19, 2016 01:55AM)
Alan is still creating!

Pretty sure I read on three separate occasions...
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 19, 2016 01:56AM)
Does anyone sincerely believe that the main thing that Timothy Wenk contributed was the specific writing implement used? That it became iconic because people were amazed that it used a [i]pencil[/i], and that the effect itself merely was secondary and incidental?
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 19, 2016 01:57AM)
Your now just swerving questions and asking your own expecting an answer again because it suits your argument. so again just to follow your logic path here So does the slippery sam make the effect easier or harder or allow the effect to happen in a way it could never work before? or does it do the exact same thing?
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 19, 2016 01:58AM)
That is already answered:
[quote] If you then release the same effect where the *only* difference is that you use a slippery sam instead of the shell - then the difference is to minute and trivial for you to usurp the paternity of the effect.[/quote]
i.e. the change from shell to slippery sam makes no significant difference.

Just as little difference as between the original Misled
https://youtu.be/RzQLQRaigj4?t=161
and your handling of Misled
https://youtu.be/bekqwitaFzU?t=23
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 19, 2016 01:59AM)
But that wasnt my question tom. Again I'm just going for clarity here.. look let me get to the point. You originated by saying I perform mislead. There is no mislead gimmick for a sharpie pen. IF there was one that's what I would have bought and just used in gigs. I created a gimmick to make a pen melt through a bill that presentation looks like a phase in mislead. It is simply impossible use a mislead gimmick to do wha ti have done here. so the difference in the gimmick is key.

now during this conversation and during all of this debacle it has been claimed it was a direct copy of Tims gimmick by people who do not have it. t. from the people that do have it we know that this is not the case. if there was no significant differance the mislead would be usable on sharpie and it just isnits that simple
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 19, 2016 02:00AM)
Yes yes, you still contest that "doing it with a Blue backed deck" somehow entitles you to usurp the paternity of the effect. It doesn't.

You are not performing something that [i]looks[/i] like Misled, you [b]are[/b] performing Misled.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 19, 2016 02:00AM)
So again by that logic. ive I take a misled gimmick and colour it back I can use it on my sharpie and itll work?
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 19, 2016 02:02AM)
Once again, this is the original Misled
https://youtu.be/RzQLQRaigj4?t=161
and this is your handling of Misled
https://youtu.be/bekqwitaFzU?t=23
The effect is clearly identical.

Both use the same methodology, a slit, agreed?

Here I've made schematic drawings of both versions, and have circled where the work is done. It is accurate, right?
[img]http://file.tomstone.se/pens.jpg[/img]
Are you able to point out which of the two drawings that is "yours" and which is the original?

So yes, according to that logic, it is possible to do Misled with a sharpie, it is clearly evident from your own video.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 19, 2016 02:03AM)
Avoiding the question again Tom? that's becoming a habit. If I take my gimmick and place it on a pencil I would NOT be able to do misled with it. Not in any way shape nor form. In my video I use my gimmick to make a pen go through a bull not a misled gimmick. However if Tim wants to make hos own gimmick in sharpie then id love it. its that simple..

Simply because you say ( some one that dosnt own it) its the same dosnt make it so. unfortunately.

so are we goign to keep going round in circles here?
Message: Posted by: emyers99 (Dec 19, 2016 02:04AM)
Tom's logic has fallen apart. By his logic, every version of the rising card is a rip off of the original rising card. Taking a picture of the final display proves nothing. Misled clearly does not use a "slit" and alan's version clearly does not use a gimmick that looks or functions anything like the Misled gimmick.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 19, 2016 02:05AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2016, emyers99 wrote:
Tom's logic has fallen apart. By his logic, every version of the rising card is a rip off of the original rising card. Taking a picture of the final display proves nothing. Misled clearly does bot use a "slit" and alan's version clearly does not use a gimmick that looks or functions anything like the Misled gimmick. [/quote]
No, every version of rising card is not a ripoff. A Devano is not the same as Britland's Angel's Card Rise and so on. But a Devano is still a Devano, even if the brand is changed from Bicycle to Tally-Ho, or from a deck of playing cards to a pack of Tarot cards.

Read the manuscript. Misled started with a permanent slit, then Wenk figured out how to make the slit moveable and removeable. Rorrison put the identical kind of work in the cap, just at the same spot as in the original.


But according to [i]your[/i] logic emyers99... since the item that comes with Misled fits only a yellow hexagonal pencil, you would argue that if someone made a version that fitted a round black pencil, it would become a completely different trick. Unless I misunderstand you.
Message: Posted by: emyers99 (Dec 19, 2016 02:07AM)
As usual, you DO misunderstand me. I know you like to claim you are the god of intellectual property and you like to bully people into submission, but even you are wrong on occassion. This is one of those times. Move on.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 19, 2016 02:09AM)
[quote]On Dec 18, 2016, Alan Rorrison wrote:
Avoiding the question again Tom? that's becoming a habit. If I take my gimmick and place it on a pencil I would NOT be able to do misled with it. Not in any way shape nor form.[/quote]
It is just as easy to adapt your trivial variation to a pencil, as it was to adapt the original to a sharpie. In fact, you would not even need to make any secret modifications at all:
[img]https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4014/4537557945_0a1dc2e054_b.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: Richard Kaufman (Dec 19, 2016 02:10AM)
I know Alan, and I can't see him stealing anything from anyone.

I've just had a video chat with Alan. Before doing so, I took another look at "Misled" online to refresh my memory. Then Alan performed his version of "Misled" for me and also showed me the gimmick.

First, Alan's gimmick is NOT the same as the one used in "Misled." His version of the trick does not require anything to be added or taken away, and it is examinable at the end.

Second, how many tricks that are versions of other tricks have been marketed over the past 100 years? There's nothing wrong with this and nothing new about it.

"Mislead" came out 15 or 20 years ago: what's the problem with someone else, like Alan, marketing a new version--and it is a NEW version. It is not the same gimmick as "Mislead," which requires that a gimmick be secretly slipped onto the pencil before the trick and then secretly removed after the trick. There's nothing like that required with Alan's version of the trick!

Also, Alan quite clearly credits "Misled" in his product, so obviously he's not trying to steal it!

To Tom and Timothy, I think you really need to actually see the gimmick and compare the two items in person before you make accusations like this. You are the ones who will come out looking like you went off half-cocked.

I repeat: they are not the same gimmick, and Alan's version is a valid variation that he has every right to sell.
Message: Posted by: BobSled (Dec 19, 2016 02:12AM)
I wonder: Alan, would you welcome me making a trivial change to one of *your* signature gimmicks, making it worse, and marketing it as original "because look! it doesn't fit the previous item!"?

Because I just might.
Message: Posted by: BobSled (Dec 19, 2016 02:13AM)
I will of course make sure I mention the original as much as possible in the marketing so that people assume it's at least as good as yours and fully endorsed by you as an "upgrade", so don't worry. It's not like it'll be unethical theft or anything.
Message: Posted by: emyers99 (Dec 19, 2016 02:14AM)
Well said Richard. This entire debate is insane.
Message: Posted by: BobSled (Dec 19, 2016 02:15AM)
Smoke 3.0 by Bob Sled, an original twist on Smoke 2.0. Your spectators will be astounded that the smoke SMELLS LIKE CHERRY. This is a BRAND NEW take on the classic effect, but so much better... only on DVD with full instructions for how to build Smoke 3.0, a completely original take on a modern day classic.

Please note that this is incompatible with Smoke 2.0 because Smoke 2.0 is scentless - adding a cherry scent to Smoke 2.0 would no longer be Smoke 2.0 but Smoke 3.0.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 19, 2016 02:16AM)
Oh well. I can't make my point any clearer than what I've already done.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 19, 2016 02:16AM)
Bob. what you are saying would only hold water if the gimmickes where so close it wouldn't warrnet release. however everyone who has seen its have categorically said it is different and has some glaring difrences.
Message: Posted by: gtx magic (Dec 19, 2016 02:18AM)
Just to chime in again. From my last post I unbiasely sided towards TStone without discrediting Alan Rorinson. But The more I read into it: Then I have to ask...If Alan's sharpie thru bill is nothing the same as Misled Then why did Alan credit/mention Timmothy Wenks Misled.

Graham
Message: Posted by: bunkyhenry (Dec 19, 2016 02:19AM)
The angles on this effect are very poor for a working close up entertainer.
One on one or maybe one on three, with proper management it looks very good.
In a typical strolling gig, this effect is not usable for me.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 19, 2016 02:20AM)
The gimmick is different however the effect is the same and I cant say it wasnt inspired by it so I happily credit him


[quote]On Dec 18, 2016, gtx magic wrote:
Just to chime in again. From my last post I unbiasely sided towards TStone without discrediting Alan Rorinson. But The more I read into it: Then I have to ask...If Alan's sharpie thru bill is nothing the same as Misled Then why did Alan credit/mention Timmothy Wenks Misled.

Graham [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 19, 2016 02:21AM)
Bunky.. if you want I can find some time to have a chat with you and we can see if we cant make it more workable for you
Message: Posted by: BobSled (Dec 19, 2016 02:27AM)
Bunky, maybe my Smoke 3.0 would suit your act better than a Misled variant?
Message: Posted by: BobSled (Dec 19, 2016 02:28AM)
I'll send you full info for how to make it for your advanced review, that OK? The shopping list of parts is surprisingly small and easy to assemble.
Message: Posted by: Richard Kaufman (Dec 19, 2016 02:30AM)
This is really a whole lot of smoke and NO fire.
Message: Posted by: tophatter (Dec 19, 2016 02:31AM)
Years ago many years ago I created the Melting Fork & the Chapstick trick both Great effects . Then all the crap started I copied Guy bavli on his side bend spoon effect . I copied Mark Jenest on his Chapstick effect . First off the effects I created are made better & and are completely different effects but I got BLASTED on the Café just like Alan is right now ! I have 2 new effects I just performed them tonight at a gig I made them just for myself mindblowing & I will never share it here or sell them to distributors at the moment . WHY ? cause it's not worth it others magicians just like members here on the Café stir up an argument ... I really wonder if these Clowns are really out there performing No cause there to busy on this forum trying to figure out who created what trick ! The bottom line is you can penetrate a sharpie through a bill instead of a pencil so get over it !!! if You have a problem with Alan's effect then don't buy it move on & leave it to the real performers that make a living performing ! Nuff said here .....
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 19, 2016 04:36AM)
[quote]On Dec 19, 2016, tophatter wrote:
Years ago many years ago I created the Melting Fork & the Chapstick trick both Great effects . Then all the crap started I copied Guy bavli on his side bend spoon effect . I copied Mark Jenest on his Chapstick effect . First off the effects I created are made better & and are completely different effects but I got BLASTED on the Café just like Alan is right now ![/quote]
A fork is indeed very different from a spoon, as anyone eating soup would attest.
http://www.mystiquemagiccompany.com/products
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Dec 19, 2016 07:56PM)
I still have my side bend. That is one of the best spoon bends to have ever been released. *** I love that thing.

As for the Misled manuscript having explained the slit, I guess I didn't read the whole manuscript carefully because I don't remember it being mentioned.

My question for Alan is if the effect can be performed as per the video representation, where the front and back of the marker sitting in the bill. I remember the Misled to be super dirty from the back due to the way the thing worked.
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Dec 19, 2016 08:51PM)
Tom, you are just incorrect. The invention that we call Misled is an actual device. It passes the five tests for patent eligibility which are, "... the subject matter of the invention must be patent eligible, the invention must be useful, it must be new, it cannot be obvious and it must be described with the particularity required so that people of skill in the relevant field can understand what the invention is, make it and use it without engaging in undue experimentation."

Misled is patent eligible because it is an invention. Real tangible things are patent eligible, not copyright eligible. Anyone can create a method for penetrating a bill sideways like is done in Misled. The front and back illusion is the concept that Mr. Wenk exploited when he invented Misled. The Misled gimmick itself is patentable but is not copyrightable.

[quote]On Dec 19, 2016, TStone wrote:
[quote]On Dec 18, 2016, Kaliix wrote:
The Berne treaty covers copyright. The method for doing something is patentable, which is totally different than copyright, but as stated earlier, the patent is now expired.
[/quote]
You lack understanding of both patents and copyright.
If this had been an *actual* method for transfering objects through paper without breakage, something useable an factory, it would be eligeble for a patent.
That isn't what Misled is. Rather, it is a fictional rendition of what it might look like. The pen doesn't actually penetrate anything. It is fiction. Drama. Art. And as all other dramatic works, it is covered by the Berne treaty. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Yuan Moons (Dec 19, 2016 10:07PM)
[quote]On Dec 19, 2016, kissdadookie wrote:


My question for Alan is if the effect can be performed as per the video representation, where the front and back of the marker sitting in the bill. I remember the Misled to be super dirty from the back due to the way the thing worked. [/quote]

No, that's just the usual Sans Minds trailer stuff. From behind you'd be busted as with Mislead or Just Passing' Thru.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 20, 2016 04:03AM)
[quote]On Dec 19, 2016, Kaliix wrote:
Tom, you are just incorrect. The invention that we call Misled is an actual device.[/quote]
You really believe a proper performance of the illusion is to merely display the gimmick and do nothing else? The arguments of you ripoff apologists are, quite frankly, insane.
Message: Posted by: emyers99 (Dec 20, 2016 07:26AM)
Name calling- the last signs of a failing argument. Way to go Tom. As an actual lawyer, I can tell you that Kaliix is correct on this one. You keep focussing on the visual effect. If your logic were correct, every version of rising card, sawing in half, etc would be a ripoff. Give it up Tom.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 20, 2016 08:14AM)
[quote]On Dec 20, 2016, emyers99 wrote:
Name calling- the last signs of a failing argument. Way to go Tom. As an actual lawyer, I can tell you that Kaliix is correct on this one. You keep focussing on the visual effect. If your logic were correct, every version of rising card, sawing in half, etc would be a ripoff. Give it up Tom. [/quote]
No, I am focusing on the work as a whole. If you had been a magician and not a lawyer, you would also be able to properly evaluate the work in question.
If Kaliix had been correct, using the exact same handling with a black round pencil instead of a yellow hexagonal pencil would constitute a whole new work - which obviously is the wrong conclusion.
Also, if he had been correct, the 5-6 other tricks you can do with Wenk's gaff - those tricks that are not Wenk's and not Misled - would be considered infringements. And that is also an insane claim.
If you think that patent law is what best cover artistic work, I very much doubt that you are an I.P lawyer.
I've done Misled with a wide range of objects, mostly swizzle sticks that have been permanently gaffed in the same fashion as the first Misled prototype that Wenk mentions in his manuscript. Changing the object to a similar object is a trivial change on the level "but I do it with a Blue backed deck." It is still Misled.
And yes, a Devano deck with a tarot deck is still a Devano deck - you might claim otherwise, but you'd be wrong.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Dec 20, 2016 08:37AM)
Should I point out that I don't recall Wenk having applied and gotten a patent on Misled? So this is entirely an ethical matter rather than anything which would stand in a court of law. Should I also point out that the cost of litigation would be ridiculous and end up being a loss loss situation since whatever awards are rewarded in the court, it's surely not going to cover the expenses of the trial.
Message: Posted by: Steven Conner (Dec 20, 2016 08:52AM)
Hey fellows, I think it is time to give it up. If Tim has a problem with Alan, it is up to them to resolve not the community. There are literally thousands of tricks or effects that have been copied, altered, improved, messed up, etc. I personally know at least two impromptu versions of this effect that look pretty doggone good. I combine one of these with another effect and it smokes Misled. As magicians, why not spend all this energy on more productive ideas. I too have been ripped off but its just not worth a futile fight. I go back to the argument about golf equipment that is copied everyday and the big boys can't stop that either. And if you do play golf, how many of you bought copies because you didn't want to spend the money for an original or just didn't have the money. Let's move on to making our magic better.

Best

Steve
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 20, 2016 09:00AM)
[quote]On Dec 20, 2016, kissdadookie wrote:
Should I point out that I don't recall Wenk having applied and gotten a patent on Misled? [/quote]
Dramatic work is covered by copyright, not patent law.
Message: Posted by: Yuan Moons (Dec 20, 2016 09:21AM)
What does the law matter? In the magic community we police ourselves with reputation being the stake.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 20, 2016 10:07AM)
Eric Mead just wrote on Facebook:
[quote] I "invented" or "discovered" exactly this idea of modifying a sharpie cap to do Misled about 15 or so years ago. (It can also be done with other pen caps.) I showed it around to a few magician friends back then, but we all agreed that, while it had certain advantages and appeal, it was a minor change and the disadvantage of tight viewing angles with a thick sharpie outweighed whatever was gained. I showed it to Michael Weber among others who commented, "Lecture Note Item."[/quote]
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Dec 20, 2016 10:28AM)
[quote]On Dec 20, 2016, TStone wrote:
[quote]On Dec 20, 2016, kissdadookie wrote:
Should I point out that I don't recall Wenk having applied and gotten a patent on Misled? [/quote]
Dramatic work is covered by copyright, not patent law. [/quote]

This wouldn't be dramatic work though. We are talking about the mechanical workings of an effect, not the scripting and presentation of said effect.

You also can't claim the idea/concept of physical objects phasing through each other without causing physical damage because there's a ridiculous amount of literary works spanning goodness knows how long of a period to present day that illustrates that idea/concept prior.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 20, 2016 02:24PM)
[quote]On Dec 20, 2016, kissdadookie wrote:
This wouldn't be dramatic work though. We are talking about the mechanical workings of an effect, not the scripting and presentation of said effect.
[/quote]
Are you completely insane? Magic is [b]not real[/b]. It is a [i]theatrical[/i] art. Drama. Fiction. Not reality. We use our craft to present [i]illusions[/i]. There are no mechanical workings of an effect. Remove everything that is our craft from Misled, and you will have nothing left of the work - nothing mechanical, nothing dramatic, no illusion; nothing. Misled is 100% dramatic work.
Message: Posted by: bunkyhenry (Dec 20, 2016 03:38PM)
[quote]On Dec 19, 2016, Alan Rorrison wrote:
Bunky.. if you want I can find some time to have a chat with you and we can see if we cant make it more workable for you [/quote]

Can you PM me and tell me how to perform this surrounded? It should not take long!!
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Dec 20, 2016 05:02PM)
[quote]On Dec 20, 2016, TStone wrote:
[quote]On Dec 20, 2016, kissdadookie wrote:
This wouldn't be dramatic work though. We are talking about the mechanical workings of an effect, not the scripting and presentation of said effect.
[/quote]
Are you completely insane? Magic is [b]not real[/b]. It is a [i]theatrical[/i] art. Drama. Fiction. Not reality. We use our craft to present [i]illusions[/i]. There are no mechanical workings of an effect. Remove everything that is our craft from Misled, and you will have nothing left of the work - nothing mechanical, nothing dramatic, no illusion; nothing. Misled is 100% dramatic work. [/quote]

The METHOD is the mechanical portion and what is being sold and what is being contested here. It is also the only thing that is up for IP protection in this instance. Alan didn't steal Tim's scripting and presentation so your copyright argument does not hold water here. The concept is also not new or unique due to previous art.

Previous art dictates that a pencil passing through a bill is not a new and unique idea warranting copyright protection, due to previous art (solid objects passing through/phasing through other solid objects have been written about and presented in various media for so long that one really would be hard pressed to find when it was first mentioned).

What is being sold is not the concept or idea for the premise of the effect. What is being sold is a mechanical method to achieve the illusion.

You obviously are defending things and speaking on legal grounds without any knowledge on actual IP laws. This also applies to U.K. laws. I work in the industry and we deal with international IP regularly. You clearly don't and you clearly have not a clue as to what constitutes IP protection and what doesn't.

So the real question is if you are insane, trying to argue on a topic you clearly do not have even the remotest grasp of.

As a side note, what is the deal with you Swedes. Your the second one I've encountered on a message board that thinks their understanding (or in this case, clear lack of) is the end all be all on the subject of discussion? Had almost the same issue with one on a fitness board that somehow got it in his mind that bulk supplements sales are international rather than US domestic even after I spent a ridiculous amount of time trying to explain it all in layman terms. LOL. Very reminiscent of you here Tom. Not meant as an insult, just found it amusing.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 20, 2016 05:56PM)
[quote]On Dec 20, 2016, kissdadookie wrote:
What is being sold is a mechanical method to achieve the illusion.
[/quote]
Mindboggling! You seem to lack understanding of what our art and craft consist of.
There is no "mechanical method". There is only the work itself. The object does nothing on its own. Without the Misled handling, Eric Mead's Sharpie solution is just a broken pen.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Dec 21, 2016 03:56AM)
[quote]On Dec 20, 2016, TStone wrote:
[quote]On Dec 20, 2016, kissdadookie wrote:
What is being sold is a mechanical method to achieve the illusion.
[/quote]
Mindboggling! You seem to lack understanding of what our art and craft consist of.
There is no "mechanical method". There is only the work itself. The object does nothing on its own. Without the Misled handling, Eric Mead's Sharpie solution is just a broken pen. [/quote]

Are you out of your mind? What we understand of our art has nothing to do with the law. The law follows precedents and established legislations, it does not care about what we think and understand of our art. Perhaps you wish to go about and create a legally binding Court of Magical Arts Disputes? Because there's not a single country contemporary court of law on the planet which would agree with you.

Ethics and professional courtesy =/= legality. If you're going to speak upon what someone can or can not protect with IP laws, don't all of a sudden disregard IP law and argue about something that IP law isn't going to apply to or protect.

What's mind boggling here is that (assuming you're a grown adult) you don't seem to understand how laws and litigations work yet have the audacity to give what is essentially legal advice when you clearly do not understand any of it.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 21, 2016 05:00AM)
[quote]On Dec 21, 2016, kissdadookie wrote:
yet have the audacity to give what is essentially legal advice when you clearly do not understand any of it. [/quote]
Wait a minute - [i]you[/i] are the one claiming patent law is what's most applicable for magic creations.
Well then... let's say you have a new routine that consist solely of a choreographed sequence of coordinated palms and eye movements.
When you try to patent your hands and eyes as being the "mechanical method to achieve the illusion", you'll be laughed at. Your claim that your routine is subject of patent law will be ridiculed, and they will tell you, in no uncertain terms, that patent law isn't what's covering dramatic work.
Message: Posted by: King14 (Dec 21, 2016 05:11AM)
You are right a mechanical device does nothing on its own,it requires force or in your setting prestation is the force which brings the trick to a successful conclusion.

The laws you are all talking about would not be suitable for this type of trick as it was sold on mass. Laws only come into play if the trick or concept was sold private and not made available to anyone else.

Copyright and patent laws do not last forever. It is provided so the inventor can recoup costs and make money. After that time they have a transfer to the public domain.

To further the art TStone you should give construct advice rather than play with words. You probably are a lonely sod with a big ego that cannot be filled but you can get self help books from Amazon. You need to work on being a person before you can be a great performer.

Now go buy "Sharpie Through Bill By Alan Rorrison" and have a bit of fun. All the best for Christmas and new year.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 21, 2016 05:20AM)
[quote]On Dec 21, 2016, King14 wrote:
"Sharpie Through Bill By Alan Rorrison"[/quote]
By Eric Mead, you mean?
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 21, 2016 05:38AM)
[quote]On Dec 21, 2016, kissdadookie wrote:
What we understand of our art has nothing to do with the law. The law follows precedents and established legislations, it does not care about what we think and understand of our art.[/quote]
It has [i]everything[/i] to do with how we understand our art.
If we had been painters - then someone with your lack of understanding would argue that since emulsions, pigments, canvas and brushes are neither new nor patented by the painter, the painter has no rights to his own artwork, and it can be copied freely.
And then someone with understanding of the art would have to explain what the nature of the art is, and how the work in question relates to it. And then, with some luck, your position would be considered uninformed and wrong.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Dec 21, 2016 09:01AM)
[quote]On Dec 21, 2016, TStone wrote:
[quote]On Dec 21, 2016, kissdadookie wrote:
yet have the audacity to give what is essentially legal advice when you clearly do not understand any of it. [/quote]
Wait a minute - [i]you[/i] are the one claiming patent law is what's most applicable for magic creations.
Well then... let's say you have a new routine that consist solely of a choreographed sequence of coordinated palms and eye movements.
When you try to patent your hands and eyes as being the "mechanical method to achieve the illusion", you'll be laughed at. Your claim that your routine is subject of patent law will be ridiculed, and they will tell you, in no uncertain terms, that patent law isn't what's covering dramatic work. [/quote]

You're trying to twist things now. Choreography falls under copyright. The mechanical nature of an effect in terms of the main method when it involves a gimmick, you patent the gimmick. Your argument only holds any truth if Aaron were to have copied the performance play by play from the Misled manuscript but this is not the case here. Aaron is selling the instructions to build a device. That falls under patents, not copyright as there is a device there for which one applies for a patent in both design and application.

You clearly are aware of this and now trying to play semantics for which I can go at this ALL DAY. So let's hear you justify how all of a sudden the sale of DEVICES and INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONSTRUCTING A DEVICE all of a sudden is something that falls under copyright. If that was the case, there would be NO PATENT system since it would be redundant. However, there is a PATENT system which DISTINGUISHES what falls under patent protection and what falls under copyright protection.

Dramatic work falls under copyright, however, Aaron is not selling Tim's performance, scripting, etc. Aaron is selling instructions to CONSTRUCT A DEVICE for which the application is to achieve a certain illusion. The illusion in question here is not unique and new. Solid objects phasing through each other leave both objects in their original state in the end, that is a concept/idea which has been around so long that you can be sure even before the earliest recorded history the idea has been thought about. Thus it is prior art, not copyright-able. It's public domain. Your argument is the equivalent of trying to claim that George R. R. Martin can sue people for using the idea of dragons or feuding families in a kingdom or the use of incest in a literary work. The only way George R. R. Martin would be able to sue is if someone brought forth work that is without a shadow of a doubt a direct copy of the fundamental basis of his story along with the same or very similar events and situations.

You DON'T under stand copyrights. You DON'T understand patents. You DON'T understand IP law. Yet you are on here trying to essentially give legal advice on IPs?

Inb4 you go round and round in circles and argue that magician ethics ='s legal standing. Oh wait, you already tried to use that argument.

You know where this discussion will inevitably end up? Me repeating to you probably a dozen or more times the same thing I've been explaining to you and you just completely ignoring it and attempting to argue the same points for which I had already debunked several times.

Your argument is essentially the same as if I created a lock and key and if someone created a completely different lock and key, I now can sue them because using that key and turning that lock requires the same bodily movements. You realize how asinine this is right? Because Aaron is NOT selling Tim's presentation thus your argument is the equivalent of my lock and key analogy.

[quote]On Dec 21, 2016, TStone wrote:
[quote]On Dec 21, 2016, kissdadookie wrote:
What we understand of our art has nothing to do with the law. The law follows precedents and established legislations, it does not care about what we think and understand of our art.[/quote]
It has [i]everything[/i] to do with how we understand our art.
If we had been painters - then someone with your lack of understanding would argue that since emulsions, pigments, canvas and brushes are neither new nor patented by the painter, the painter has no rights to his own artwork, and it can be copied freely.
And then someone with understanding of the art would have to explain what the nature of the art is, and how the work in question relates to it. And then, with some luck, your position would be considered uninformed and wrong. [/quote]

You're just pretending to not understand now. Again, the painting has a UNIQUE PRODUCT. It's not a device with an application. It's sole purpose is as art. It falls under copyright and it is copyright for THAT painting, not simply the concept of that painting. Misled has a DEVICE with a SPECIFIC APPLICATION WHICH IS TO ACHIEVE THE ILLUSION. It has a demonstrable purpose for use. For your argument to hold true, ALL SHELL GIMMICKS OF ANY TIME CAN NOT BE MADE EVER AGAIN UNLESS THE FIRST EVER PERSON TO CREATE A SHELL FOR ANYTHING GIVES PERMISSION. Idiotic thought yes? That's how idiotic your argument is.

I'm also not playing Mr. Nice Guy anymore here, you want a confrontation and you have the audacity to attempt to give legal advice when you have ZERO grasp of IP law? People unknowingly reading your post would come away with a completely incorrect understanding of the law.

Let me give you a good example which we are all familiar with because it is within the magic community. Kohler & Fitch Holdout. They didn't patent it likely for various reasons 1) patent documents are public and would reveal the workings 2) applying for the patent and drafting up a patent document likely seemed too expensive for what it was worth 3) they likely would have had to invest a lot of resources and $$$ into researching holdouts because those needs to be referenced in the patent document. What they CLEVERLY DID instead however is have people sign a contract. This sidestepped the lack of a patent issue to protect their work. It was a legally binding and explicit contract. Based on your argument, they would never have had needed to make people go through the process of signing the contract and everything. Why? Because according to your nonsensical argument, it would all fall easily under copyright protection. Guess what? THE LAW DOESN'T WORK THE WAY YOU'VE IMAGINED IT TO BE IN YOUR MAKE BELIEVE LAND WHERE THERE'S SOME SORT OF MAGICIANS LAW.

Note: On the Kohler & Fitch Holdout, I'm pretty sure they applied for a design and utility patent but unsure if they were ever awarded the patent.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 21, 2016 03:49PM)
[quote]On Dec 21, 2016, kissdadookie wrote:
Choreography falls under copyright.
[/quote]
Yes, finally you say something sensible!
[quote]
Dramatic work falls under copyright,
[/quote]
Yes!Finally!
[quote]
The mechanical nature of an effect in terms of the main method when it involves a gimmick, you patent the gimmick. Your argument only holds any truth if Aaron were to have copied the performance play by play from the Misled manuscript but this is not the case here. Aaron is selling the instructions to build a device. That falls under patents, not copyright as there is a device there for which one applies for a patent in both design and application.[/quote]
Who's Aaron?
Don't be silly. If you created an innovative routine that involves a shiner, you would try to patent the mirror?
And why do you say that the claim isn't the claim? The handling [i]is[/i] copied exactly. What you call "device" isn't what is in question. You can do half a dozen tricks with Wenk's movable & removable gaff that [i]isn't[/i] Misled, and Wenk has no claim to those. The permanent version (the prototype) is of a completely different nature, which should make it clear that the look and shape of the gaff is incidental and that isn't what is in question; the handling is. Anyone is obviously allowed to do what they want with their sharpies - but if they do Misled with it, á la Eric Mead, they shouldn't pretend that it isn't Misled.
[quote]So let's hear you justify how all of a sudden the sale of DEVICES and INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONSTRUCTING A DEVICE all of a sudden is something that falls under copyright.[/quote]
If Rorrison's instructions had stopped after detailing what you call a "device", there would be no problems. But it doesn't stop there, it goes on to describe how to perform Wenk's "Misled", and that is what is being questioned.
[quote]The illusion in question here is not unique and new.[/quote]
Yes it is. Do your research, and you'll find that the closest predecessor for the illusion is Paul Harris's "Cardboard Connection" (1977). The leap from that to Wenk's first version two years later (1979) constitutes a significant difference far above the threshold of originality. If you are able to find a different lineage that shows Misled to be old hat, I would be greatly impressed and humbled.

[quote]Your argument is essentially the same as if I created a lock and key and if someone created a completely different lock and key[/quote]
No, it isn't. My argument is that if you create a dramatic work that makes use of a lock and key, and someone else copies that work, it is still a copy even if they've painted the lock and key red.

You are dishonestly trying to portrait the specific as the generic.

Let's compare with other work that have a similar appearance.
Let's subtract Wenk's Misled from John Cornelius's "Pen through Anything", and Cornelius's work will be unaffected since it duplicates [i]nothing[/i] of Wenk's work.
Subtract Wenk's Misled from Paul Harris's "Cardboard Connection", and Harris's work will be unaffected since the similarity is conceptual, not specific. It contains [i]nothing[/i] of Wenk's work.
Subtract Wenk's Misled from Harkey & Sankey's "East meets West", and Harkey & Sankey's work will be unaffected since it contains [i]nothing[/i] of Wenk's work.
Subtract Wenk's Misled from Johnny Hirose's "Invisible Hole", and Hirose's work will be unaffected since it contains [i]nothing[/i] of Wenk's work.
Subtract Wenk's Misled from Vanni Bossi's Pencil through Bill, and Bossi's work will be unaffected since it contains [i]nothing[/i] of Wenk's work.
...
...
Subtract Wenk's Misled from Eric Mead's Sharpie through Bill (what Rorrison is selling), and all you have is a broken pen.

[quote]Let me give you a good example which we are all familiar with because it is within the magic community. Kohler & Fitch Holdout. They didn't patent it likely for various reasons[/quote]
Misled is an effect, a routine, something you can perform.
The example you give here isn't applicable. The Kohler & Fitch Holdout isn't an effect. It isn't a routine. You can't perform the Kohler & Fitch Holdout.

Still, surely you know why they didn't patent their gadget? Because they had nothing to patent! The gravity hold-out is Jack Miller's. The hold-out lock is Tommy Wonder's. They could have tried to patent the specific design of their hold-out lock, but then they would need to research all other forms of line locks and I sincerely doubt they've managed to invent a new kind of line lock.
What remained, that was 100% their own contibution, was the wing that prevents the hold-out from turning - and that's pretty minor in the context.
Their real contributions was the routines! And remember, this was [i]before[/i] Heer vs. Klok and Teller vs. Dogge. The copyright status of magic routines in the US was still pretty unclear back then, even though it was clear in Europe. A contract was an experimental measure to overcome the vagueness of US copyright.
Remember, Rorrison is Scottish. As stated by the Berne convention, it is the legislation of infringing party's country that is in effect.
Message: Posted by: ku7uk3 (Dec 21, 2016 10:48PM)
I feel the need to clarify a few things.

1. The promo computer graphic of the trick / cover shows the grey part of the pen going through the bill. This is a LIE and its only the tip of the lid that passes through.

2. The trailer conviently edits out the sneaky part where you put the top back on the pen (after they sign the bill) and it magically teleports itself inside the bill. There is a clear logic jump at this point which the host poorly tries to justify.

3. The signing and defacing of legal tender with pernament ink is a requirement for this effect. You will be breaking the law. Furthermore, they have to sign the note at that awkward angle while you hold the note. Its unnatural as they will want to lean on something and hold it flat.

4. They will see the gimmick if you hand it them to be examined. But will probally not understand it anyway.

5. You could do a normal pen through note routine prior to this effect, but then you will have a hard time justifing the signing of the note 3/4 through the routine. Its a bit late.

6. Its an entirey different method to Tim's and there is no comparison.

Its a good idea, but the misleading sansmind trailer and promo material hurts it.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 21, 2016 10:49PM)
I'm sorry you feel that way about the promo image or material. We do try and paintithe effect in the best light. In the video you do see ano honest representation of then melt through.

The legalisty of signing money is different in most countries and to be honest it has never been issues with 90 of the bill effects released.

I have handed this out over and over and had no one catch it thankfully bit if you think it's an issue let's start a Facebook group to dicuss presentations to help.
Message: Posted by: makeupguy (Dec 21, 2016 10:51PM)
I don't' care for this trick as it's seemingly ripped off from Tim Wenk... but that's an ethical detail to be worked out with the creator and the guy that ripped him off..

however.. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO WRITE ON MONEY!!!!! The only time defacing money is illegal is if you're doing it to change the value to a higher value bill.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 21, 2016 10:52PM)
OK there are 2 points there... let's adress both..

One.. it's not ripping off tim. Both me and all of the largest magic companies says so..


Legality... well it's. Illegal to rip write and mess with a bill in some companies... untill now it wasn't an issue... so where is your line there
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 21, 2016 10:52PM)
[quote]On Dec 21, 2016, Alan Rorrison wrote:
OK there are 2 points there... let's adress both..

One.. it's not ripping off tim. Both me and all of the largest magic companies says so..[/quote]
Well, yes you are. Subtract Wenk's work from your release, and all you have is a broken pen.

Your modification is trivial, and a step backwards in evolution - akin to the guy who "improved" Don Wayne's "Top Ten" by doing it with playing cards, which only reverted it back to the original McCombical Deck. You start dirty, end dirty and you are only able to do the original part of the extended routine.
That your modification is trivial is evident because you're not even first with it. Others have done the exact same, for example Eric Mead who recently wrote:
[quote]I "invented" or "discovered" exactly this idea of modifying a sharpie cap to do Misled about 15 or so years ago. (It can also be done with other pen caps.) I showed it around to a few magician friends back then, but we all agreed that, while it had certain advantages and appeal, it was a minor change and the disadvantage of tight viewing angles with a thick sharpie outweighed whatever was gained. I showed it to Michael Weber among others who commented, "Lecture Note Item."[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Dec 21, 2016 10:53PM)
It's not a step back. It is a step forward. It is not a rip off, and we've tried to explain to you why, but you don't care about the facts, just about you own completely wrong opinion. Wenk's invention and his gimmick are in the public domain and free for anyone to use, modify or improve.

You can't copyright the gimmick and you can't copyright the handling. It's just pulling a pen longways through a bill. Go back to the right and wrong section if you want to have this discussion.

[quote]On Dec 21, 2016, TStone wrote:
[quote]On Dec 21, 2016, Alan Rorrison wrote:
OK there are 2 points there... let's adress both..

One.. it's not ripping off tim. Both me and all of the largest magic companies says so..[/quote]
Well, yes you are. Subtract Wenk's work from your release, and all you have is a broken pen.

Your modification is trivial, and a step backwards in evolution - akin to the guy who "improved" Don Wayne's "Top Ten" by doing it with playing cards, which only reverted it back to the original McCombical Deck. You start dirty, end dirty and you are only able to do the original part of the extended routine.
That your modification is trivial is evident because you're not even first with it. Others have done the exact same, for example Eric Mead who recently wrote:
[quote]I "invented" or "discovered" exactly this idea of modifying a sharpie cap to do Misled about 15 or so years ago. (It can also be done with other pen caps.) I showed it around to a few magician friends back then, but we all agreed that, while it had certain advantages and appeal, it was a minor change and the disadvantage of tight viewing angles with a thick sharpie outweighed whatever was gained. I showed it to Michael Weber among others who commented, "Lecture Note Item."[/quote] [/quote]
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 21, 2016 10:54PM)
[quote]On Dec 21, 2016, Kaliix wrote:
It's not a step back. It is a step forward.[/quote]
You'll have to delineate the progress you claim have been made.
Because I fear the progress you see is purely imaginary.

1: Misled (original prototype) - permanently gaffed, start & end dirty.
2: Misled (final version) - Non-gaffed, start & end clean.
3: Misled (Eric Mead's Sharpie version) - permanently gaffed, start & end dirty.
...That's a step back.

1: Misled (original prototype) - Just one phase, the original Misled effect.
2: Misled (final version) - Two phases, three effects (punch through, rip and the original Misled effect).
3: Misled (Eric Mead's Sharpie version) - Just one phase, the original Misled effect.
...That's a step back, and no original handling is contributed. The handling is 100% Wenk's.

1: Misled (original prototype) - permanent gaff, not useable anything else.
2: Misled (final version) - The moveable & removable gaff can be used for half a dozen other tricks that isn't Misled.
3: Misled (Eric Mead's Sharpie version) - permanent gaff, not useable anything else.
...That's a step back.

Add to that, a thicker object makes the working angles more limited, so it is also a step in the wrong direction when it comes to practicality.
All in all, Rorrison's release adds nothing, removes plenty and the small trivial modification he touts as 'significant' isn't even original with him, but is preceeded by Eric Mead.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 21, 2016 10:55PM)
Hi Tom, it's a pleasure to see you here again. First and for most and just as a point. The original mislead by Tim's admission was never ever released. There is no way I could have known about it but again you already know own this...

Let's move on to the start and end dirty comment... basicaly what ur saying is there is nothing to ring in and ring out which for me is a positive and through the years of performing thjs I've never had a spectator notice the gimmick. Again a positive.


On to Eric mead. I spoke to him a few days ago and this subject just didn't come up. We where talking about something rather geeky and unrelated but I'm sure if it was an issue for him he would have said something.

Now I do believe we have a thread where points can be discussed and in a hope this thread dosnt have to be split by Steve again wasting his time. Can we keep that conversation there please


That's kinda you
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 21, 2016 10:57PM)
Small important adition


[quote]On Dec 21, 2016, Alan Rorrison wrote:
Hi Tom, it's a pleasure to see you here again. First and for most and just as a point. The original mislead by Tim's admission was never ever released. There is no way I could have known about it but again you already know own this. Also even if it was the gimmick is different ..

Let's move on to the start and end dirty comment... basicaly what ur saying is there is nothing to ring in and ring out which for me is a positive and through the years of performing thjs I've never had a spectator notice the gimmick. Again a positive.


On to Eric mead. I spoke to him a few days ago and this subject just didn't come up. We where talking about something rather geeky and unrelated but I'm sure if it was an issue for him he would have said something.

Now I do believe we have a thread where points can be discussed and in a hope this thread dosnt have to be split by Steve again wasting his time. Can we keep that conversation there please


That's kinda you [/quote]
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 21, 2016 10:58PM)
[quote]On Dec 21, 2016, Alan Rorrison wrote:
Hi Tom, it's a pleasure to see you here again. First and for most and just as a point. The original mislead by Tim's admission was never ever released. There is no way I could have known about it but again you already know own this...[/quote]
Yes, there is a way you could have found that out - if you had acted ethically and obtained Misled from Wenk, instead of plagiarizing and reverse engineering it from video performances. The evolution of Misled is described in the manuscript.

[quote]
Let's move on to the start and end dirty comment... basicaly what ur saying is there is nothing to ring in and ring out which for me is a positive and through the years of performing thjs I've never had a spectator notice the gimmick. Again a positive.[/quote]
Sure, you can revert to the original Misled prototype and gamble that the audience doesn't connect the pieces. It is still not a step forward, but backwards in the evolution.

[quote]On to Eric mead. I spoke to him a few days ago and this subject just didn't come up. We where talking about something rather geeky and unrelated but I'm sure if it was an issue for him he would have said something.

Now I do believe we have a thread where points can be discussed and in a hope this thread dosnt have to be split by Steve again wasting his time. Can we keep that conversation there please
[/quote]
It wasn't an issue for Eric Mead - he just mentioned it on Facebook; that he preceeded you and that he considered it to be a trivial modification of Misled.
And sure, we can keep the discussion in [url=http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=631823&forum=177]the other thread[/url], if you refrain from insisting here that your theft is ethical and that your ripoff isn't a ripoff.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 21, 2016 10:59PM)
Hey Tom.

I owned the original misled. At no point in the book does he describe my gimmick.again even Tim has said this.


On the evolution aspect. This gimmick allows you to do an effect with a shaprie and a bill that the original misled did. not. I'd consider that an evolution but that's purely an opinion.


It's a shame Eric never released it. It would have ment I could have performed it this way sooner. Just to tip in the theft comment etc..

This gimmick was my own. It wasn't released before me and if anyone else had the same idea and decided to do nothing with it then there is no way I could tell have known about it etc. At that point it would be impossible to call it a rip-off or to call myself a thief... I'm sorry you feel that way mate but that's just how it is.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 21, 2016 11:00PM)
[quote]On Dec 21, 2016, Alan Rorrison wrote:
This gimmick was my own. It wasn't released before me and if anyone else had the same idea and decided to do nothing with it then there is no way I could tell have known about it etc. At that point it would be impossible to call it a rip-off or to call myself a thief... I'm sorry you feel that way mate but that's just how it is. [/quote]
If you remove Wenk's work from your release, all you is left with is a broken pen. You've added nothing and taken away plenty.
You are not a good person, Alan.
Message: Posted by: Alan Rorrison (Dec 21, 2016 11:01PM)
Hi Tom.

Well that is your opinion sir. I don't agree with it but its your opinion and you are entitled too it.

small side note and more of a trivial point. The pen isn't broken, its still looks and functions as a normal pen. I believe "adapted" or "gimmick ed" may be a better word to use but again that is just my opinion

on the "your not a good person" front. Ive tried to answer anyone concerns as openly and honestly as I can in a respectful manor with out getting heated or resorting to name calling. Its about the best I can do here and thank full people have noticed. Thank you
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Dec 22, 2016 12:16AM)
TStone:

"Aaron" was a typo. I had meant Alan.

You're also ignoring the points I'm made and repeating yourself on things which I have shown to be false/inaccurate.

Kohler and Fitch holdout they had plenty they were able to patent. There were many components of that hold out which were unique to their holdout. On top of that, the ones you have mentioned that existed before have not been patented so, unfortunately for those originators, they are SOL (previous art exception on patents apply mainly to the blatantly obvious or public domain inventions). So your argument still doesn't hold up. I've explained the likely reasons for that one already, you purposely chose to pretend/ignore the things I pointed out. That's on you.

Like I said, I can go all day with this. Like Alan said, you are entitled to your opinion. The thing is, your opinions are not facts nor are they accurate/correct/sound legal advice.

I would like to see Tim file a complaint to the court. If it was like you described TStone, Tim would have done so or be in the process of doing so. He isn't, what does that tell you? That he's just a nice guy and thus not suing? No, it's going to because of one of or a combination of the things I had previously pointed out.

Again, your argument is the equivalent of claiming that George R. R. Martin can sue anybody that has a dragon, war amongst different families, or incest in their work of fiction just because he has these story points in Game of Thrones. Your argument is the equivalent of my key and lock analogy.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 22, 2016 02:46AM)
[quote]On Dec 21, 2016, Alan Rorrison wrote:
Hi Tom.

Well that is your opinion sir. [/quote]
It is not an opinion. Wenk's work can be seen in the Copperfield clip. Remove the handling you see there from your release, and there would be nothing left.

I get that you, for some reason, is proud of your sharpie mod. I bet there are dozens of innovative things you can do with it... but instead you've chosen to do Wenk's Misled, while pretending that you are the originator of his work.
[quote]on the "your not a good person" front. Ive tried to answer anyone concerns as openly and honestly as I can in a respectful manor with out getting heated or resorting to name calling. Its about the best I can do here and thank full people have noticed. Thank you [/quote]
True, a gentle manner is exactly what is the most important trait in the guy stealing your car....
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 22, 2016 03:06AM)
I've been fortunate in having met, and occasionally befriended, some of the greatest minds within my field. People who, by their very existence, have challenged me, encouraged me and kicked me forward. Creators who've created works of intricate and complex beauty, encompassing a wide range of creative fields; math, psychology, linguistics, cognitive science, drama, choreography, metal and woodwork... works that makes me breathless and drives me unrelentlessly forward in my desire to improve myself. These are the heros, the frontline, the avantgarde. The guiding lights. Those who makes me proud of being a small part of this art and craft.
...knowing which level we can exist on, if we strive towards greatness, makes me sad and frustrated over the other kind. Those who never even try, but just pretend to be creators, those who takes all and contributes nothing. The ticks of magic.
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Dec 22, 2016 08:58AM)
You can't copyright the gimmick and you can't copyright the handling. It's just pulling a pen longways through a bill.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Dec 22, 2016 12:36PM)
[quote]On Dec 22, 2016, Kaliix wrote:
You can't copyright the gimmick and you can't copyright the handling. It's just pulling a pen longways through a bill. [/quote]

Dramatic arts man! Weren't you paying attention to TStone's expert legal advice? LoL. Kidding. Smile folks, smile.
Message: Posted by: Danny Kazam (Dec 27, 2016 11:50AM)
Does that mean that any magic prop or gimmick that does not have a patent on it is fair game for other magicians to create and market?
Message: Posted by: Steven Conner (Dec 27, 2016 02:29PM)
[quote]On Dec 27, 2016, Danny Kazam wrote:
Does that mean that any magic prop or gimmick that does not have a patent on it is fair game for other magicians to create and market? [/quote]

I think the following says it all. Copperfield patented his floating effect and Teller won his case in a Nevada court. I'm only giving highlights:

Magic tricks, being in essence ideas, cannot be copyrighted. But the expression of the idea as a dramatic work or performance can be. Trying to protect tricks from thieves by enshrining their copyright inside performances goes back to Houdini, who used pantomimes in an effort to stave off imitators by registering the works with the US copyright office. It was a neat trick, borrowed by Teller, and employed in this instance to great effect. He registered “Shadows” as a dramatic work, with illustrations carefully drawn so as not to reveal the mechanics of the trick, in 1983.

Magic can only be performed by never giving away how it works. This is the literal meaning of occult, or secret knowledge, and to give it away within magic is known as exposure.

“As a magician you have only one job, which is don’t tell people how it’s done,” says Melbourne magician and author Nicholas Johnson, who specialises in card cheating, swindling and short cons. “But due to the internet and DVD piracy those secrets are scattered in the wind now. So it’s a totally different professional game to what it was even five years ago.”

Best

Steve
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 28, 2016 09:01PM)
[quote]On Dec 27, 2016, Steven Conner wrote:


I think the following says it all. Copperfield patented his floating effect and Teller won his case in a Nevada court. I'm only giving highlights:

Magic tricks, being in essence ideas, cannot be copyrighted.[/quote]
I don't know why there are so many ripoff apologists at this place...

Yes, an [i]idea[/i] isn't protected - but how on earth do you come to the conclusion that a tangible, fully realized, routined and choreographed piece of work is an idea?
An [i]idea[/i] is when you have, for example, the abstract notion of creating the impression that you're cutting up a person. A realized idea is something else, like Selbit's "Divided Lady", Poe's "The Pit and the Pendulum", Harbin's "Zig Zag", Lynch's "Boxing Helena", Harary's "Slicer", Saul Bass's "Anatomy of a Murder"... all these are very specific and exact.

Copperfield did not patent his floating effect - because the effect isn't subject to patents, as it is a dramatic and choreographic work. John Gaughan, on the other hand, patented some gadgets involved in the effect, but the gadgets are not the effect. Read Gaughan's patent papers, and you will find [i]nothing[/i] that you can perform. It is like if you got the idea for a tune, but in order to get the sound you imagine, you have to invent a new instrument. The new instrument is not the tune. Whether the instrument can be patented or not is irrelevant from the perspective of the actual work. The song is still the song, regardless if it performed with a new instrument, a piano or a flute.
Wenk's "Misled" is not Sankey&Harkey's "East meets West" even though both are based on the same [i]idea[/i], but "Misled" is still "Misled" regardless if it is performed with a pen or a pencil.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 28, 2016 09:33PM)
[quote]On Dec 27, 2016, Danny Kazam wrote:
Does that mean that any magic prop or gimmick that does not have a patent on it is fair game for other magicians to create and market? [/quote]
Yes, to some degree. The prop is not the effect. The prop might be considered artistic design though.
For example, with the Misled manuscript comes a little prop that is useful if you want to perform Misled using a yellow pencil. The prop isn't the effect, and people have come up with half a dozen other effects that involves that particular prop. If you also comes up with a different effect that involves that prop, you are certainly free to do whatever you want with your effect, provided the difference isn't trivial and obvious. Like, just changing the object isn't enough. Misled with a piece of newspaper instead of a bill, or with a pen instead of a pencil, is still Misled.
But, let's say, holding up an unsharpened yellow pencil in the air, then swirling it around in the air while fine wood dust flies off the pencil, ending with a perfectly sharpened pencil - that is a completely different effect that just happens to rely on the same prop that comes with Misled. Provided Misled isn't included, the new effect could be marketed if one wished to.
Message: Posted by: TStone (Dec 28, 2016 10:02PM)
[quote]On Dec 27, 2016, Steven Conner wrote:
Magic can only be performed by never giving away how it works. This is the literal meaning of occult, or secret knowledge, and to give it away within magic is known as exposure. [/quote]
That's nonsense.

Alex Elmsley gave away almost all of his work in [i]The Collected Works of Alex Elmsley vol 1 & 2[/i]. Is anyone really suggesting that, because it is published, it is impossible to successfully perform the works within? Are his books really considered "exposure"? If so, it is a silly notion created by amateur magicians who feel they have some kind of imaginary collective ownership of the work of the individual artist.

Magic does not rely on secrecy. It is only badly constructed pieces that need secrecy in order to play properly, works that rely on one single layer of deception. As soon as there are [i]two[/i] layers of deception, it plays regardless of whether people know the work or not. If there's three (or more) layers of deception, you can explain the piece in minute detail and then directly perform it and it will still play with no difference. The human brain isn't designed to decipher that many layers in real-time, so the informed react just as strongly as the uninformed - if not more.
Message: Posted by: Steven Conner (Dec 29, 2016 08:07AM)
[quote]On Dec 28, 2016, TStone wrote:
[quote]On Dec 27, 2016, Steven Conner wrote:
Magic can only be performed by never giving away how it works. This is the literal meaning of occult, or secret knowledge, and to give it away within magic is known as exposure. [/quote]
That's nonsense.

Alex Elmsley gave away almost all of his work in [i]The Collected Works of Alex Elmsley vol 1 & 2[/i]. Is anyone really suggesting that, because it is published, it is impossible to successfully perform the works within? Are his books really considered "exposure"? If so, it is a silly notion created by amateur magicians who feel they have some kind of imaginary collective ownership of the work of the individual artist.

Magic does not rely on secrecy. It is only badly constructed pieces that need secrecy in order to play properly, works that rely on one single layer of deception. As soon as there are [i]two[/i] layers of deception, it plays regardless of whether people know the work or not. If there's three (or more) layers of deception, you can explain the piece in minute detail and then directly perform it and it will still play with no difference. The human brain isn't designed to decipher that many layers in real-time, so the informed react just as strongly as the uninformed - if not more. [/quote]

Tom, while you are a very accomplished magician, you are now just acting childish and immature because you think you have to have the last word. We buy magic for the very reasons you mention, the layers if you will. Kuda Bux took his secrets to the grave as well as others. Magicians are very clever in how we do things. People want to be entertained, thus magic is a wonderful way to do it. If there is a battle to be fought, it is between Tim and Alan, not you or me just as it was with Teller and Gerard Dogge. Lets just agree to disagree and move on.

Best

Steve
Message: Posted by: ricker (Jan 1, 2017 07:12PM)
Phase 1 of Sharpie, no phase 2.
Phase 2 of misled.

Sharpie, cannot be examined, bill can
misled, pencil and bill can be examined. (with slight of palming off gimmick)
Message: Posted by: devaind (May 15, 2017 11:59PM)
I am not able to fine MisLed in stock in most of the magic shops. can someone tell me where it is available.
Message: Posted by: BobSled (May 16, 2018 02:23PM)
[quote]On May 15, 2017, devaind wrote:
I am not able to fine MisLed in stock in most of the magic shops. can someone tell me where it is available. [/quote]

It's being re-released soon.
Message: Posted by: john G (Jun 27, 2018 01:34PM)
Finally back http://getmisled.com/