Hypothetical: Let's say you come up with an idea for a routine and you think it's just the bee's knees.

Your heart sinks, though, when you discover that someone else is already doing pretty much the same effect.

The routine has been published. So, you purchase a copy and discover that your method is completely different.

To spectators, however, both presentations would still be so close as to be seen as "the same."

Are you precluded from performing your routine without first obtaining permission from the other fellow? Is it okay because you bought his published version anyway? Can you give your version a new name because you do it a different way?

Go and publish that: then get your dose of harsh criticism:

Ethicly speaking you should do it if your feel it. If you came up with your presentation and method in an independent way,
I don't find neccesary to asks permissions.
If you publish your idea and you know about that similar idea, is better to give references for further study.

Are you planning on publishing your version?

if so, then I would send a digital copy of this version to the person who already published their method out of courtesy.

If you do not plan on publishing your routine/method, but plan on performing it, and have purchased the published material. There is no viable reason you are not be able to perform your method.

As for the routining and patter, that is a different scenario. Is it just the theme that is the same or the theme and patter?

if it is the theme, then there should not be so much a problem as well. Themes are not as many are believed.

If the patter is virtually identical, then there is a problem if his published routine included the patter. This is where sending your method/routine out of courtesy is also helpful. If the published author sees no problem with your putting out your routine/method then GO FOR IT!

if there is a problem with the patter, then put out the method only and not the presentation IF YOU FEEL YOU MUST, but make reference to the other's work. And again, send it to the published author and see if they are OK with such a resolution.

The world is small and filled with petty rivalries, complaints, and arguments over things that really do not matter that much. So if being courteous is a way to avoid more of the same, then why not? No?

Besides, I have found in my own experiences that many are quite generous and if able willing to help another if it will add value to the fraternity.

Hope that helps,
my best,
Walter

Ofcourse you have the right to publish it, if your method is genuinely new. It may well be like John Archers Blank Night; a massive improvement upon the old techniques!

Hi Mind Guerrilla,

Unless there were restrictions on performance rights when you purchased the other routine, I can't see any reason you cannot use the routine (even the patter, word-for-word), but use your method.

You would only need to give the routine a different name if you want to publish your method. Otherwise, why would you want to tell your audience what it is by any name?

Regards, Steve

I can see no reason why one should be precluded from performing one's own original effect. IMO the fact that it a layman might not be able to discern any difference between it and a similar effect performed or created by someone else is inconsequential. To most laymen every effect in which a spectator selects a card which is then apparently "lost" in the deck and later found or revealed by the performer is perceived to be "the same trick" despite the fact that we know that there are probably hundreds of different ways, developed by hundreds of different performers, by which it can be accomplished. It is silly to assume that one must seek the permission of everyone who created such an effect simply because to the layman they all look the same.

Well said, and totally logic

I think its simple, if you want to perform it and its been published, go right on ahead - that's the beginning and end of it...

if you want to publish it- send an ecopy to the person who's presentation you use and say "hey, I've got a different method to do it...let's have a quick chat...thanks" then a credit to them in the booklet, and your method...

and there's no harm in saying "this is an alternative method to *insert name and effect*, here's my handling of said effect..."

Are methods copyrighted and effects not? I think that's the point.

To my thinking, a truly new effect is a rare and beautiful thing, and its creator deserves considerable respect. So I would always seek permission from such an originator were I to consider publishing that same effect with a different method. Sometimes a drastically different method can improve a piece considerably (and sometimes it's just different), so it certainly deserves to be published, but the original creator of the effect should always be respected to the extent possible.

A good example of this is the "The Real Thing", from my Stimulacra book. The effect is almost identical to Bruce Bernstein's excellent "Eat at Joe's", although the method is completely different. So I sought (and obtained) Bruce's permission before publishing my version, gave him detailed credit in the book (plus a complimentary copy), was careful not to expose his method, and described in some detail why I chose to use a different one.

Neither methods nor effects can normally be copyrighted (technically speaking, it's possible for the latter, though extremely difficult to defend), but that's not the point. Respect for the art, and one's fellow creators, is.

It comes down to the fact that many props copy the effect in completely different ways. Should Alakazam not market the Stealth Assassin Wallet because there's already a Thought Transmitter floating around out there? Both offer p**ks. But both have completely different operating systems.

Is the "invention" of a new sleight different? A new concept?

New methods are wonderful...new effects are...well.......rare.

My fear is that SO many people have gone before me that the idea I thought of and arrived at on my own may be a thought thunk by someone years ago. The field of magic is so vast...with such history. Who can know everything that has gone before?

David

Lots of things are like that.

What's the problem really?

ACAAN and Book Tests are all like that.

To the Audience, they are the same things.

David wondered:
I believe that this is entirely different. A p**k is not an effect: it is a methodology. I see nothing wrong with people coming up with alternate methodologies; I wouldn't expect them to credit different methodologies, unless there were some specific reason for doing so.


Again, methodologies, so what I wrote above applies.


My point exactly. You should never copy someone's effect without permission. Although we all know that this is all too common in today's market; just because it's legal doesn't make it right.