It's obvious from just browsing this section that their are plenty of illusions being ripped off, From interlude to the Laser illusion. I'm sure Jim Steinmeyer, Copperfield and others are fully aware of the "chop shop" versions being performed around the world. My question is what are the "big boys" doing about it?

For the most part, it would appear, not too much.

--Jack

Legally not a lot can be done about it. As magicians we have to rely on our professional ethics and common sense to do what is right.

Some legal options are availble. Copperfield was able to stop someone from stealing his flying routine. The guy was in France I think and he was doing a routine exactly like Davids including the same music. Copperfield took him to court and although he could not stop him from performing it he could demand a fee of $6000 each time the other guy performed it. This made it too expensive for the guy to perform.

Speaking of ethics.... they are not as dead as one might think. There are still lots of knockoffs out there but also some happy endings. A friend of mind had a knockoff of a well known prop that he didn't really know was a knockoff. When he learned it was he smashed it to pieces out of respect for the illusions creator.

Another person who was selling knockoffs online recently pulled the item in question when it was pointed out that it was a knockoff. These guys need to be commended but I'll leave their names out of it for now unless they tell me its ok to mention them by name.

Best,

Tim

RIPOFFS
Magicians are amongst the worst in the business for stealing other peoples materials. However over the years I have seen the ethics of the professional magician greatly improve. The magical fraternity today is much more exposed than ever before and indeed the magic Café alone is a great contributor to inform. I admire people like my friend Timothy Drake who fight for the ethics of the magician and discourage the stealing of others material.

In reality the number of magical effects possible can be counted on two hands. The illusion is in fact the effect that is created and not the method used to create the effect. The public not being as concerned as much as to how the trick is done but rather what was the illusion that the magician created in the eyes of the audience. Many non magicians consider illusions like the zig zag and the sawing in half the same illusion. We as magicians know better but the method used to dissect the girl is irrelevant as long as it fools the audience.

The point is that if a magician performs an effect that another magician has done before its only just that...(the effect) that is being stolen as the method is supposed to be a secret. Remember there are only a very few magical effects possible. Levitation, transformation, vanish, appearance, etc., etc. To elaborate on this for a moment, if one magician sees another perform a really cool effect but the method used to create the effect is never divulged to anyone (In other words its not written up in any book or manuscript or the method is not explained on a video or in a lecture then it remains a secret to the creator....doesn't it! If you or I see this illusion performed and figure out our own method of creating the same effect then the question is are we steeling. We are only guessing how we can create the same effect and our method is liable to be somewhat different than the original

Whats bad is when the performer steals the others music, patter and presentation exactly. that's when it becomes unethical. The other possibility is if the particular effect is sold by a manufacture and someone takes the blueprints and designs that have been paid for by the rightful purchasers... then that's definitely steeling and unethical.

I am curious to see what others may think of this somewhat controversial issue.

When you are at the top of your game people will steal your material, no matter what, in the false assumption that they will then be as good/popular as you.

The amount of time, $$$, energy and other resources that would be tied up with going after "them" is truly not worth it. You get on with life, and concentrate your efforts on what you do best. The French performer cited above was a little over the top in the way he copied David's effect/routine etc. and as such had to be put down.

Re: the rip-off chop-shops, the poor quality of the prop, whether it is true to the original, i.e. secret, will disappoint the buyer. 90% of those who buy the prop also, will use it a couple of times and then be disappointed they do not get the response that they were hoping for, and then it just sits, no longer used.
The rest will keep performing it in the hopes that it will lead them to the "big time".

As far as magicians being the worst in the business for copying, I believe it only looks that way because a physical prop may be involved. But musicians ie. the local weekend band, and comedians have to rate right up there also!!! I bet I could go to any local bar with a band tonight and hear them play the most recent pop numbers, with no rights being paid.

Blair Marshall
"ShaZzam!"

Royter, I feel it is unethical to copy someone's routine even if you come up with your own effect. I believe that if the audience could not make the distinction between the two acts then someone has copied the other.

I don't think the "big boys" can really do much. It all falls under copyrights and patents which magic items don't always fall under the legal definition of such. Also, I think a lot of things are not patented so the blueprints aren't public knowledge. I think they go after anyone who uses thier trademarks though.

Sad part is that quite a few sellers basically endorse bad behaviour by selling these knock offs. I have even been to a convention where knock offs where being sold right next to the orignators booth! I do believe that there were also a lot of compliants about FISM and vendors selling items there that were knock offs.

If only more people followed Tim's words :

It was a good point that you brought up in the story of your friend performing an effect which he didn't know was a knock-off, Tim. Sometimes people geniunely don't realise that they are using a prop or performing an effect which would upset the creator. Sometimes all you need to do ask, but you get so caught up in the excitement that the thought of it being a knock-off doesn't even cross the mind,

Diane

Blair, having made a living for many years as a musician, I take exception to your comment regarding "musicians not paying rights". If the club/bar/etc. hires a band, THEY are supposed to pay ALL 'rights' and NOT the band. Furthermore it's not the responsibility of the band to "check" if such rights have been paid any more that it is to find out if the liquor license is up to date.
And although everything has gone up in price from years ago, musicians largely STILL get paid the same. This is why I don't do it full time today.
Just thought I clear things up.

Jack

So if a magician does a "knock off" routine for a corporate client - is the clients responsibility to pay royalty?
A portion of the magician fee should go to the original creator?
HA -
I call foul!!!
It just aint gonna happen and I can not see why it is the establishments responsibility to be responsible for whether or not the band play original tunes or not.
This is why ASCAP fees are paid by performers - not venues.

???????

Are you kidding? ASCAP & BMI specifically licenses venues. So when the restaurant is playing music, its the waiter that turned up the volume that is paying it..not the restaurant?...doubtful, but that's what your logic is saying. Why do nightclubs, restaurants, radio stations, etc have blanket policies? ASCAP & BMI want their piece of the pie and the piece they want is from the gross pie, not your performer's fee pie. They want money off of the gate, not some small honorarium.

Read the riders that are sent out by most of the large & successful tribute bands. It will specifically state that the venue is responsible for making sure their music license is up to date.

Kevin

I stand corrected on the ASCAP thing - I have always been on the side of figuring out fees based on ticket sales and such - never thought the rules were different for the club scene - I guess I dodn't read it correctly !
From ASCAP directly:
"Some people mistakenly assume that musicians and entertainers must obtain licenses to perform copyrighted music or that businesses where music is performed can shift their responsibility to musicians or entertainers. The law says all who participate in, or are responsible for, performances of music are legally responsible. Since it is the business owner who obtains the ultimate benefit from the performance, it is the business owner who obtains the license. Music license fees are one of the many costs of doing business."

After many years of performing the Hotel circuit I knew I was right!

All this from my comments about local "bar bands" not necessarily paying their royalties!

But a question about music, if you are performing a (magic)show, is there not different levels of payments, and do not the copyright holders have the right to disqualify you as a "user" of their music if they desire??


Blair Marshall
"ShaZzam!"

Here is the biggest Rip Off master in Hungary. He is selling from Origami to Interlude to Headmover.

http://trukkmester.ndx.hu/galery4/

and here are his students.

http://trukkmester.ndx.hu/galery3/

Finally click here you can see one of his student.

http://luimagic.hu/video2.php

It is time to someone make a step against this people.

Best,

Las

Here was something in the news today about those royalties:



The article goes on to say they are looking to get 30k per business/violation. I saved the complete article if anyone would like it please PM me. I didn't want to post the whole article as it is a little long.

I believe the public live performance of the music (or use of said material as background music) is covered by a blanket license (everyone pays the same fee, no specific permission is needed, and the venue is responsible for payment). However, should your act be considered for television or another type of video distribution you enter an entirely different realm of licensing and fees are negotiated outside the relative simplicity of a blanket license.

This is based on my face to face conversation with and ASCAP rep many moons ago, to the best of my recollection.

As a side not, if a venue is licensed and paying their fees as required, don't believe for a moment that the money is in fact getting to the musical artist whose works was used that evening, but that's a discussion for another day.

Good topic. I am still a believer that the catch 22 is as follows. Although not right, the rip offs and knock offs come about because most people can't afford the originals. The builders hike their prices up in effort to protect the secret but because of this the illusion is being recreated at cheaper prices and are not being made well. It is a stand off. If the builders lower the price than we will have much more zig zags out there. everyone will be performing it. Then comes if everyone is performing it than they will start to steal the patter, music and whatever. All we can do about it is be no part of ripp offs (props or performance). It takes one person at a time to change the world. This should be no different.

Patrick

BTW - helo to you Jack Murray and Kevin.

Back at ya, Patrick!

I have to wonder about it when folks laud Robin Hood and want to join his merry men...

and then they complain that their forrest is burning and nobody wants to buy their stolen goods or tell them where to find more goods to acquire.

Like the Geico Caveman says, "What?"