|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
stephane_arnow Loyal user 283 Posts |
Hi
another thing that I know: It seems that few magicians in INDIA are doing a cutting similar to Copperfield (without the escape - with the same system - but not the same table design of course), and photos seems a bit old, before the 'death saw' in TV from Copperfield. I think (I suppose in the middle of the 70 's or beginning 80's) SORCAR JR I think, and another one but I don't remember his name. |
|||||||||
ERIC Inner circle New Jersey 1188 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-05-31 18:59, BYUDAD wrote: 1969 puts David at about 13 years old. At that time he was going by the name Davino and Genii did NOT do an article about him and illusions at that time! Get real! |
|||||||||
Magic4You New user 39 Posts |
Here is a new one for you. On my site I have a picture of Silvan doing a Sawing with a Mirror box but the same principle as the Rakshit (Copperfield) Sawing.
Check it out: This is From July 17, 1990 National Enquirer http://jldmagic.com/jld_magic_site_003.htm |
|||||||||
reynold Elite user Puerto Rico 490 Posts |
Jeff: I got that clipping also. But I think the girl here starts already on the table. David added the box so he can get into position in front of the audience.
Thanks, Reynold |
|||||||||
RVH Magic Special user 877 Posts |
Silvan uses the version that is published in illusionsesame.
Copperfield doesn't claim he came up with the system. He did however redesign the table, came up with the box that hinges open, created a very theatrical presentation in combination with the dropping saw (tower). If we look at the first picture at Jeff's web-site we see an almost identical table to Copperfields and a box that hinges open (like David's version). Since David spent a lot of time and money on this he has all the rights to claim and to protect his idea's. Too bad some people have been misdirected to some old pictures of a sawing that has nothing to do with Copperfields sawing (except for the basic working/position). |
|||||||||
MagicErik Loyal user Sneek, Netherlands 284 Posts |
The one thing you SHOULD not copy is the overall design of Copperfields Death Saw. Using the same music, the same clothing, the same gestures etc... The illusion is not patented. Copperfield never had legal rights... So you can make your own. But!!! Just because you could does not mean that you should. Please make it your own magic, no matter what you do. Don't immitate but innovate!!!!!
The same I believe for Copperfield's Laser.... As far as I know it is not patented and there are no legal rights. And what about the 'losing your head' illusion, where your head falls down... Legally you can make your own version. Ethically is a different story. EVI |
|||||||||
RVH Magic Special user 877 Posts |
Magic shouldn't rely on patents!
The origami patent didn't stop anyone from building copy versions! And now people are saying we can build them anyway because the patent is expired??? That's just b"""sh"" ! We should respect our art more and stop stealing the intellectual property of creative magicians. If you come up with a different look / design (system) to a existing effect - great, go for it. If you have any doubts, just contact the inventor/creator and he will tell you what you can or can't do. Otherwise leave that effect where it belongs: in the hands of the creator. It's as simple as that ! |
|||||||||
stephane_arnow Loyal user 283 Posts |
All magicians who tried to copy exactly the same routine as copperfied (escape, scenario identical, box looks similar as Dominik versions or else) are using an apparatus not so good as Copperfield. I've never seen the same quality of sawing like the perfect illusion (in proportions if you see what I mean, and on others different points). Never. It looks like a big joke . Like an exposure...
The other system with mirror box seems more practical and less expensive, for an effect of sawing similar. I agree that the magicians should not copy the escape idea. Dany Lary used one with this system (but it seems that he has a little proportion problem too. Not too bad but not perfect). There is another system which is interesting: The Dobson sawing. But Mendoza never replyies to the questions (prices, delay of building) with any answer. Maybe busy ?... Jeff Davis sell a version very different than Copperfield (one with a similar table, but others totally different). Even if someone is not agreeing with him and his point of view, this is a clear point. |
|||||||||
illusionman2 Special user 991 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-06-01 14:40, stephane_arnow wrote: Just because something does not look as good does not make it a knockoff (does anyone have the money Copperfield does)??? |
|||||||||
Magic4You New user 39 Posts |
El rafael
Your forgetting one thing: You said "If we look at the first picture at Jeff's web-site we see an almost identical table to Copperfields and a box that hinges open (like David's version)." My sawing pre-dates Copperfields. SO I guess that argument goes down the drain. Second, Copperfield claims he invented the whole thing. He didn't. HE combined the two preveously published illusions. Unfortunately, that does not create Intellectual Property nor does it give him the right to threaten to sue others, nor does that give him the right to interfere with my business of selling my own version created before his. Mine was first made for Brad Zinn and I have a video. Copperfield was not the first to have a box with moving panels on an illusion. We need to get the facts straight please. Jeff Davis |
|||||||||
Laszlo Csizmadi Special user From Hell 868 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-06-01 12:45, el rafael wrote: Dear Rafael, Sorry but I disagree. Every illusion should have very strong protection. Once an illusion is protected it should last forever and not 10, 14, 20 or 100 years. Not even one illusion should be Public Domain. Only that person should perform an illusion that got written permission from the inventor or if he/she died then who inherited. Personaly I would give 5 year jail to the person who performs a protected illusion without permission and I would go after them. That should be International law and people would think twice before they steal. If the police would go after the illegal performers then no more rip off. With today techniques it would be easy to get proof from the illegal performers. People steal because they can. Actually they don't steal because of the weak and poor law. People make some modification or combine and claim the illusion and that is wrong. Magicians say that “I found out a new illusion” and all they do is change one already existing illusion a bit. The Cut in Half (covered with box) was first then came the Thin Model. Those should be counted as one illusion but in the magicians mind are two. The audience sees the same (someone gets cut in half) only magicians know the differences. What I mean is "Who came up with the thin model?", should say "I just improved the Cut in Half illusion" and give the credit to the original inventor. The Decapitation illusion was performed by lots of magicians. Well the original inventor was Professor Joseph Vanek somewhere in the 1850s. If you don't believe me ask Bill Palmer. It doesn't matter who, where and how did the head off illusion (El Rafael, Marvey, Richiardi, the japanese girl Kawakami Ikuko, Cyril or Simon Drake) the credit should belong to Professor Joseph Vanek because he was the first who separated the head from the body. None of you invented anything. Is it sad but the Decapitation Illusion is Public Domain either and anyone can perform the same way as you or anyone else do. Here you can see the pictures and read an article from an old Sphinx magazine. Click on the pictures. http://home-and-garden.webshots.com/album/560047784yfvZKX Best, Las |
|||||||||
mark2004 Loyal user UK 215 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-06-02 01:48, laci200 wrote: So if things worked according to your view then we would never have had the performances by El Rafael, Marvey, Richiardi, Kawakami Ikuko, Cyril or Simon Drake because they didn't have permission from Prof Joseph Vanek. In fact you would sling all those people in jail for five years. I really don't want to live in this tyrannical state you propose - Police who decide what entertainement we can watch, jail sentences for entertainers who put a new twist on an old trick - It makes North Korea seem almost liberal. Even if the courts and police systems worked well there would be an awful lot of complicated disputes about the true origins of effects and methods. Things are just not as clear cut as you seem to think - Almost all illusions have evolved from prior effects and the true origins of a lot of magic is simply lost to history. I disagree with your view that there is no value in any improvement to a pre-existing illusion. Some of the great stage illusions have been created by combining old effects into something new. I doubt Prof. Vanek's ideas were entirely original -It's just that we aren't told where he got his inspiration. In fact most "new" ideas result from some insight derived from what has gone before (that applies in magic as much as in science or literature or business). This is one of the reasons why intellectual property only lasts a finite time - because if anyone is able to restrict an idea or invention for too long it will stifle innovation more broadly, and that would stifle the progress of civilisation. The sensible (and indeed ethical) compromise is that when someone comes up with an innovation they get a monopoly on it for a fixed period. During that time they get the chance to make enhanced profits thanks to that monopoly. But eventually the idea becomes public property. There are many reasons why ideas should eventually become public domain. For a start, the probability is that if an idea is good then it is inevitable that various people will independently arrive at it (or something equivalent) eventually. There are plenty of examples in patent history. If someone comes up with a great illusion why should they be prevented from ever gaining any benefit from their efforts just because it then turns out that someone else had a similar idea independently a bit earlier? And what happens if someone comes up with a brilliant invention but decides, for reasons of their own, to never let it be used. By your way of thinking society would be denied the benefit of that invention forever (and it wouldn't make any difference if someone else later came up with the idea independently). That has to be counter to the greater good of humanity. |
|||||||||
Laszlo Csizmadi Special user From Hell 868 Posts |
Mark,
Reread my post and maybe you'll understand. Inventors should get paid a certain amount fee or they will never release anything in the future. And yes whoever is performing protected illusions illegally should be punished. You doubt that the decapitation is Professor Vanek's illusion? I put up proof. Or you think the magazine lie? I have on file a lot more proof. He was the only one who performed the illusion no one else. Richiardi and the others did it much, much later. Even today no one knows how he did the decapitation illusion. In his time he was one of the best. I have his whole life history. Why don't you ask Bill Palmer before talking? I think he knows a bit more about magic and history than you do. |
|||||||||
Dixie Loyal user 219 Posts |
Hi Las,
I hope you do not drive a US car. Otherwise please stop that, because I do not remember that the German Mr. Nikolaus August Otto ever gave his agreement to any US company to build a four stroke cycle engine, which he patented in 1876 as Otto-Motor. According to your suggestion, this patent should never ever have expired and you better get a bicycle. Although.... thinking about that, you better get a horse, because it seems that the bicycle was invented either in France or also Germany and later improved by British. In any case it seems that there was no US creator involved. I just imagine how you arrive at your next performance on horse back with a huge cart also pulled by horses which contains your original and 150% ethically aquired props. :) |
|||||||||
Laszlo Csizmadi Special user From Hell 868 Posts |
There is a huge different between cars and horse. We are talking illusions when they change a bit and they want to get the credit for it. It looks like you guys are happy with the free illusions. I'm not. Someone worked hard for that invention. I would like to see if you invent something and someone takes the credit for it or just steal it is what you would say.
|
|||||||||
RVH Magic Special user 877 Posts |
Hi Laci,
What I mean with 'magic shouldn't rely on patents' is that we should be able to protect our creations without publishing everything on a site that is accessible by the lay public. (It is proven that even with a patent you can't protect your creation - Think origami.) I think that more respect for each others works amongst magician is a better solution that a patent! Concerning Joseph Vanek decapitation - his version has very little to do with the head drop (simular effect but different look and method. it's like saying that Selbit should get credit for Fearsons/Copperfields laser illusion...) |
|||||||||
leoillusion New user Atlanta GA 96 Posts |
I think Rafael has a point, but the bottom line would be who allows who to perform what?
|
|||||||||
Laszlo Csizmadi Special user From Hell 868 Posts |
Hi Rafael,
That would be the best is if every illusion would be protected and people would pay a small amount fee to the inventors. In that case the inventors would come up with more illusions but if people just take it why should they? Even if now someone builds an origami I think Jim should get some fee. But that's only me. I knew someone will bring up the Laser. In the Selbit version the assistant lies on a table while Steve version the person walks and that is a huge difference. Yes, you are right but at least if someone who improves an illusion should mention the originators name. I love Andre Kole but in the example in this video all he did was combine the illusions. It is a smart move but not that magical in my eyes. Still he took the illusions from other inventors and improved. http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=E8Nf7M_JfxI |
|||||||||
Banester Special user 669 Posts |
Quote:
And what happens if someone comes up with a brilliant invention but decides, for reasons of their own, to never let it be used. By your way of thinking society would be denied the benefit of that invention for ever (and it wouldn't make any difference if someone else later cameup with the idea independently). That has to be counter to the greater good of humanity And I think that is the problem with patents and magic. When has a Zig Zag or Death Saw improved humanity? When was the last time a levitation improved our quality of life? Sure the illusions are mechanical in nature, but they don't change the way we live or can live.
The art of a magician is to create wonder.
If we live with a sense of wonder, our lives become filled with joy -Doug Henning- |
|||||||||
Dixie Loyal user 219 Posts |
Hi Las,
Does that mean we have to accept two things now? First that we have an ethics code which is developed by some individuals but valid for all, except (according to some statements here) those who had been successful enough with their rip offs to be above the ethics. Second that it is a "lex magica" which is only valid for those things which you want to have protected because it is an advantage for you, while other things go unprotected if that is better for you? I wonder what may come next. But it may not be too important anyway, because this whole discussion seems to be purely theoretical and not linked to reality. Or how should I otherwise interpret the fact that people see rip offs everywhere? If that is true and rip offs are everywhere, then the question might be valid. What have all these dicussions ever changed? Obviously there seems to be a need of some new intelligent solution. Dixie |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Grand illusion » » Death Saw illusion (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |