|
|
Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
magictim Veteran user Lake Charles, LA 396 Posts |
I just got this book. Andrew makes reference that he has some of these tricks on his "to build" list. Has anyone actually built some of these illusions as the author has not built all?
|
|||||||||
MikeJRogers Veteran user Australia 354 Posts |
This may not help. But Tim Ellis here in Australia has built 'Shrink Boy' I'm not sure if he uses it though, I think there was a pickle about 'Shrink Boy' and 'Compressed'.
I have an old online video of him performing it if you would like to have a look. Hope this help, a little, Mike. PS: I'm thinking of building the 'TV Appearance'.
Mike Rogers Illusion Design - Australia - http://www.mikerogers.com.au
"Nothings impossible, the impossible just takes longer" - Dan Brown novel - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
|||||||||
M-Illusion Special user 549 Posts |
I know of someone who used the theory behind Turbo for another illusion. Not worth it.
We built Zig Zag Redux, and with MANY modifications, it became a decent and usable effect. Cyclone has a good impact on audiences, and requires very few modifications from the book to make happen. Like Mike said, there are some creative issues involving Shrink Boy. I wouldn't advise building it without contacting Daniel Sommers first. The same goes for Turbo, to perform the illusion as is would probably raise some eyebrows in the business. |
|||||||||
magictim Veteran user Lake Charles, LA 396 Posts |
Thank you for any input. Can you PM me with modifications for Zig Zag Redux. I don't quite understand what has to be changed. The descriptions seem plausible to me.
Posted: Dec 24, 2003 5:46pm ----------------------------------------------------------- Who owns the rights to compressed? |
|||||||||
MikeJRogers Veteran user Australia 354 Posts |
Dan Summers I think.
IT'S CHRISTMAS DAY FOR ME!!!!! Mike
Mike Rogers Illusion Design - Australia - http://www.mikerogers.com.au
"Nothings impossible, the impossible just takes longer" - Dan Brown novel - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
|||||||||
magictim Veteran user Lake Charles, LA 396 Posts |
Thank you and Merry Christmas down under. I still have 8 hours or so until Christmas.
|
|||||||||
MikeJRogers Veteran user Australia 354 Posts |
That's ok.
Merry Christmas again, Mike.
Mike Rogers Illusion Design - Australia - http://www.mikerogers.com.au
"Nothings impossible, the impossible just takes longer" - Dan Brown novel - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
|||||||||
Tim Ellis V.I.P. Melbourne, Australia 1234 Posts |
For those interested - yes, I have had a 'Shrink Boy' built and I had it made long before I heard about 'Compressed'. I was contacted by Daniel Summers who wanted me to pay him $1000 as a royalty. I found this very weird as I built the illusion from a plan in a book I paid for. As far as I know, Andrew Mayne's book did not say I could NOT build it, so I did. (Though I will admit I changed the plans A LOT as I found Andrew's plans unworkable. To be fair though, Tony Laffan and Brendan Montana both built according to Andrew's plans).
Anyway, my point is that if Daniel Summers has an issue with anyone over the rights to his illusion it should be with Andrew Mayne for publishing the plans to it in a book. However, the book is still in print, still selling, and Daniel has not made an attempt to stop it being sold or to at least have 'Shrink Boy' removed from the text. Is it easier and more profitable to chase people up AFTER they've built it and demand $1000? As far as the SOLO X illusions are concerned, 'Shrink Boy' was the only one that appealed to me. It does get a very good reaction. Be aware that my version actually does crank up and down without anyone inside it - which adds immensely to the theatrical power of the piece. Cyclone I have seen performed, and I've never seen it get a good reaction. Maybe if it was surrounded... I don't know. Most people just think the girl is going behind the prop and not through it. Some Andrew Mayne stuff is good. Some is good in theory, but way underdeveloped. Some ideas are just untried pipe dreams and I don't think he should be charging people money for ideas. Design it, build it, test it out, build it again, fix the bugs and then sell it. Leave it to Microsoft to sell people half finished stuff and then expect them to iron out the bugs for them.. *g* TIM ELLIS See you at the Melbourne Convention in June! Sign up now - it's selling FAST! http://www.magicunlimited.com/magic_convention.htm
www.MagicUnlimited.com
www.timellismagic.com Visit our online shop for instant downloads and ebooks https://shop.timellismagic.com/ Blog - www.magicunlimited.typepad.com |
|||||||||
Starrpower Inner circle 4070 Posts |
Let Dan Sommers patent it and then he can chase you down for royalties. There are some props that have obvious trails to their creator and that should be respected; others are more ambiguous. As for "Shrink Boy", I, too, first saw it in Mayne's book. I'd tell Sommers to take a hike, or at least find a lawyer to show some grounds for "ownership", before I'd pay him a cent for it.
The general concensus seems to be that legal rights to a prop are *very* difficult to obtain, and my guess is the U.S. patent office made the rules that way for a reason -- very likely to encourage free enterprise and the improvement of exising ideas. In any case, royalties paid to magic inventors are usually done so out of repsect rather than any legal "right" to them. And, with a prop like "Shrink boy/Compressed", since the origin is hazy at best, I doubt Dan has a claim (unless, of course, the owner of the prop thinks so, and then he can feel free to pay up.) |
|||||||||
Daniel Summers New user 4 Posts |
Hello Starrpower!
You are correct when you say that royalties paid to magic inventors are usually done out of respect rather than any legal right to them. Many illusions have not been patented as to keep the secret from public scrutiny as well as to prevent the unscupulous builders access to dimentions and illusion details. I must disagree however that the origins of The Compressed Illusion as being "Hazy". It is well documented that my illusion first appeared on the Magic Island stage in Houston Tx in 1994. Well before any publication. In addition, the methodology and concealment principle I employ has never been incorporated in any other magic illusion. I have never had an issue with the books' author because he has never built one and does not perform it. In addition there are many details left out in his illustrations. My design allows the prop to be only 12" deep instead of 36". The difference between an underdeveloped idea and a deceptive and practical device. The author also uses ideas and concepts borrowed from Andre Kole and Harbin that may have been your first clue to do some research. There is a performance License that utilizes a copyright protection attached to The Compressed Illusion. I would reccommend before building an illusion to do your homework, one might consider calling the inventors and professional builders (there are not that many) to see if your idea infringes on anything that already exists. All I can suggest to Tim is to spend your time building your own ideas and concepts and not someone elses. Then as your reputation builds noone can ever accuse you of performing knockoffs. I don't have an issue with Andrew he is out there creating, however I do have an issue with a professional who should know better. Very Best Regards Daniel Summers This letter was sent to WAM concerning Tim's comments WAM, Here is my official response to the letter you were kind enough to forward from Tim Ellis. From my point of view, Tim Ellis has built, and it appears, he is performing the effect I created in 1994, called ‘The Compressed Illusion’. Although it may appear that his prop does not incorporate the complete methodology, concealment principal or use the many subtleties of my original Illusion, the visual effect Tim is trying to accomplish resembles my ‘Compressed Illusion’ too closely. I do see this as an infringement on my illusion now, as I did two years ago when I first contacted Tim and made him aware of my position. I find it ironic that he is still trying to find refuge in a publication when he is, at this moment, aware of all the facts. I know the unfortunate set of circumstances that surrounds this particular event. I do believe Tim when he says he was unaware of my Illusion when his was being built. He had purchased a book with a grossly underdeveloped concept that resembled my illusion. Sadly, that cannot, any longer be used as an excuse. As soon as that book was published and during the time Tim claims to have been constructing his prop. I had placed several paid ads in Magic Magazine clearly stating for the record “‘The Compressed Illusion’ was rights protected”. To date, nearly 50 professional artists have either purchased the performance rights or bought the Illusion through a licensed builder. The past several years I have had to approach only a few uniformed individuals. Most have been part time magicians, although two were professional Illusion builders. Most have stepped up to the plate and did the right thing. His actions are similar to those of Martorona in Italy, as the outcome is identical . No royalties were paid to the inventor, no trade secrets agreement signed, and a sloppy copy of the original is on stage. It may sound familiar because this is exactly what, WAM was trying to prevent. The ‘Solo-X’ book was published two years after my prototype, had been designed, engineered and debuted on the Magic Island stage in Houston, TX. in 1994. Being aware of that fact alone, in my opinion, should be sufficient enough for someone who aspires to be a professional Illusionist and concerned for their reputation to make an informed and honorable decision by respecting the inventers’ proprietary rights. Thank you for your time and consideration, Very Best Regards, Daniel Summers |
|||||||||
Kent Messmer Veteran user Montana 337 Posts |
Why was this sent to WAM? I heard that they disbanded. Something to do with racketeering maybe?
Mr. Summers, you state that your illusion is “rights protected”. I would like to ask, in what way? Is it patented? Did you file any paper to start “rights protection”? I agree that you may have come up with the idea, or are at least the first person to claim so, and that you are due profits from any item you build or have built and then sell or have sold. Beyond that “royalties” are not due in any way. I don’t condone stealing but that’s why they make locks. Yea there are still people that will break the window to get in, but why make it easy for them? I am so tired of people trying to collect on things they have no right to. If you want the royalties etc. then get a patent. Yea they cost something and someone might search them out and try to figure out how they work. But at least then if they build them you have real grounds to go after them and collect. Besides, they are building them without the plans anyway and you won’t, and can’t, be reimbursed for them, right? The other side of the argument is that if “rip offs” continue that the inventors will hold on to their effects and not let anyone have them. It has been said that if we don’t pay these people that they will quit inventing and the magic world will suffer from the loss of these great minds. I think it will force others to come up with their own ideas. Here is another fact about rights, (I’m not a lawyer but this info came from one, a patent one at that). If an item has been on the market for more than a year with no filing, then no one can get one. Not even the originator. I have been told that a patent will cost between $4 and $6 thousand. How much money has been "lost" because the inventor did not want to invest? The Blaney Ladder Levitation sells for $8995.00. There has to be some profit in that. The "knock offs" sell for less than half that and he gets nothing from thoes sales. (No disrespect to Mr. Blaney, this is just one case I was made aware of due to the fact that I had a knock off on my web site (I did not know that it was), never had one physically, and he asked me to remove it. I did.) |
|||||||||
Starrpower Inner circle 4070 Posts |
Dan, thanks for your post -- I remember years ago whey you were performing in the Dells. This is the first time that *anyone* has ever informed me as to the history of this prop. And, yes, I have asked around casually, but having never had one myself, I never really "dug deep" into researching it. My apologies for suggesting a "hazy" origin.
As for royalties, how can someone ask for payment on something they don't own? A royalty is a legal concept, and one cannot collect if they don't legally own it. That's why I mentioned a payment "out of respect" for the originator. Hoola hoops, Frisbees, and even "fast food" have all been "knocked off" -- legally, I might add (and some of these even had patent protection!) Even Jack Gwynn has been taken to court for "copying" the sawing-in-two illusion, and Keller regularly copied concepts, and even made exact duplicates of props. I think the best one can do is state your case to each individual who owns one -- or work a deal with builders who make them. Then, if they decide not to give anything -- and I suppose it's up to them to make that determination, since there is no legal backing that has yet been supported -- I don't think there's much that can be done about it. Sounds like an issue for a new forum heading ... |
|||||||||
magictim Veteran user Lake Charles, LA 396 Posts |
I still have mixed feeling on everything posted. Why is Mayne not charged royalties for every copy of his book made? To me I understand respecting right and paying royalties, but it almost seems a bit wrong to wait until an unexpecting wannabe illusionist builds one (Not someone on forum)to ask for or demand royalties. I also understand you printed an ad in magic magazine but some ameteurs are not suscribed. Maybe responsibility for this should rest more heavily on the first "Knock-off"
|
|||||||||
Tim Ellis V.I.P. Melbourne, Australia 1234 Posts |
I've been through this with Dan before. Two important points:
1 - Andrew Mayne has a book with the PLANS for ShrinkBoy/Compressed in it and sells it to people so they can make the illusion. People buying that are not aware (I certainly wasn't) that Andrew (according to you, Dan) is selling YOUR METHOD. People then build it in good faith and you hit them with a request for royalties. Why not stop it at the source by A: Getting Solo X off the shelf, B: Taking Shrink Boy out of Solo X, C: Adding a note in Solo X saying "Please do not build this illusion". I'm sure if a book came out with the Origami Plan in it Steinmeyer would at least TRY to get the plan removed from it. He wouldn't say "I have never had an issue with the books' author because he has never built one and does not perform it." 2: You say: "Although it may appear that his (Tim's)prop does not incorporate the complete methodology, concealment principal or use the many subtleties of my original Illusion, the visual effect Tim is trying to accomplish resembles my ‘Compressed Illusion’ too closely." Are you claiming originality on the method, the visual effect, or both? Yes, my method is different, for a start the crank really does work without the girl inside. But yes, it looks the same shape as yours because it's based on Shrink Boy, which is (allegedly) based on your Compressed. I'll admit, when I saw your ad in MAGIC Magazine, I thought either YOU were ripping off Andrew Mayne, or you'd paid him for the rights to manufacture the illusion. I did, however, notice that in the subsequent MAGIC ads the design of Compressed changed, and became more like Shrink Boy. Was it modified? Were you inspired by Shrink Boy too? I certainly am against rip offs, and definitely side with WAM and Walter Blaney in most situations. However, as long as Solo X is out there with Shrink Boy plans in it, people will continue to build it (thinking they have the right too do so - which they do) and you will continue to ask for $1000 for each one. If you were serious about protecting Compressed, you would cut off the "rip off" at the source - Solo X - instead of chasing people who want to "do the right thing." TIM ELLIS
www.MagicUnlimited.com
www.timellismagic.com Visit our online shop for instant downloads and ebooks https://shop.timellismagic.com/ Blog - www.magicunlimited.typepad.com |
|||||||||
DaveG New user 28 Posts |
I can find NO FAULT with Tims' position. What we have here is a case of "professional courtesy". Mr. Summers won't go after Mr. Mayne because they both have "names" in the business. He would much rather go after Mr. Ellis, who CLEARLY did what Andrew Mayne expected he would....BUILD A DISIGN FROM HIS BOOK, LEGALLY PURCHASED BY TIM for that very reason!!!!!
This "blame game" has, and will go on forever, all from the perspective of who's going after who, and "who you are". Here is some info from the Dept. of Justice which speaks very much to this topic. I rest my case!!! Dave Before proceeding, please read the following from the "Dept. of Justice, Washington DC. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/div_stats/1638.htm Now upon examining this, you find that competition is good for industry. Most magic shops sell tricks that are almost always improvements upon other tricks. Magic including Illusions have historically have produced the next generation of magic. Keeping manufacturing exclusive to one builder restrains creativity and of course you get the current complaint from magicians that not enough new ideas are being produced. Quit restraining improving and committing anti-trust violations, and you get the new creations. Look at most of Jim Steinmeyer's creations, seen though most magicians assume that they are totally original, that is not the case. Many of his effects are benefits from prior creativity. The first step we need to do is admit this. Then we need to stop interfering with the natural cycle of creativity that made our industrial country great economically. If you truly invent something, then Patent it. Quit saying you want protection you don't deserve. John Gaughan patented the Flying Illusion. Does that mean the whole thing is protected? NO! Only the part he invented and not the prior material also included in the patent called "prior art". It is an expensive thing to get caught committing anti-trust and restraint of trade. It is a huge fine and a federal felony. Enclosed next is a copy of the article from March 1993 Magic Magazine. This one example among many I have is an inexcusable violation of the law and a embarrassing use of term switching. This means taking a term acceptable to law and public, and taking the formidable meaning of the word and switch it for a new meaning. This is unacceptable. Note the part of the article where it says magicians must have it's own rules. Not Government rules , or Lawyer or Patent rules. Well,in context, this means laws. Govenments have laws , not rules. When applied to the context, no other meaning can be assumed. In the article the authors say that part of the new rules would be to violate the laws of anti-trust through exclusive use and restraining trade against competition. Read the article. |
|||||||||
Kent Messmer Veteran user Montana 337 Posts |
I would like to comment about my earlier post in reference to the “racketeering” remark.
I meant it to be placed as a question not a stated fact. I offer my sincerest apology to all those involved with WAM and include anyone that has been offended by my comment. I did have a reason for making the comment and have explained it to Mr. Blaney in a private email. They have not been charged, to my knowledge, with any wrongdoing and again I am sorry for speaking out of turn on this matter. Sincerely Kent Messmer |
|||||||||
Jeff007 Regular user 109 Posts |
I agree with Tim Ellis 100% on this. I too purchased Andrew Mayne's book when it was first published and I too thought that Dan had asked Andrew Mayne if it was alright to market that effect. Andrew's book clearly states that anything within can be built. Dan, you're fighting a battle that you have no chance on winning.
I will also say that although I did not build anything (yet) from Andrew's works, I have closely worked with one of Dan's Compressed. Shrinkboy (Tim's reworkings/modified version) is an improvement in the way that it does not at all have the angle problems as Dan's Compressed has. To comment on something Tim said however, Compressed now also works with the cranks on the sides without anyone inside. We test it every time without anyone inside. If I were Tim, I would not pay Dan the royalties either. I truly feel that there is a misunderstanding between Dan and Andrew. That is their problem, not Tim's, or anyone else's that may build anything from Andrew's Solo-X that completely gives permission to build anything within, but not rights to market for others. |
|||||||||
Tim Ellis V.I.P. Melbourne, Australia 1234 Posts |
Hmmmm.. I wasn't aware that Compressed has angle problems. However, now I re-read Dan's post that says the prop is 12' deep, I understand. Ours is 28' deep and, after the initial "squash", the moment that gets the "ooh" "aahs" is turning the thing around to show it 360 degrees. People afterwards have told me they expected Sue-Anne would be sticking out the back of the thing.
Dan, you mention that Solo-X was published two years after your prototype of Compressed was performed on Magic Island in 1994. That would mean it came out in 1996. The first ad I found in MAGIC Magazine for Solo x was June 1996. The first ad I could find for Compressed was in the July 1996 issue of MAGIC (on page 89 of that issue is another ad for Solo-X), and again in August 1996 for $4500. Then on the back page of the July 1997 ad of MAGIC with a new look at $5000. I see that the prop looks about 12' deep at the top and bottom. The main reason we chose to build 'Shrinkboy' was that it was totally angle-proof. We even leave it outside our dressing room after shows and often discover one spectator inside it while another is cranking it trying to squash the first guy. They don't spot anything and end up even more bewildered. TIM ELLIS PS: Jeff says that "Compressed now works with the cranks on the side".. has the design been modified again? Is it now more like Shrinkboy than the original Compressed was? To try and sum this thread up.... I too (along with Anders Moden) had a trick "ripped off". Healed & Sealed/Soda Resurrection appeared for sale on ebay, Download Magic, and other sites as 'Re-Pop' less than 24 hours after David Blaine did it on his Vertigo Special. Did I contact every 'Re-Pop' purchaser and ask them for $5 royalties? No. Anders and I went after the people who were selling the instructions to our trick! Similarly, the instructions they sold were incomplete and quite poor compared to ours, but they were the source of the rip-off, NOT their customers. TIM ELLIS PS to Dan: You stated: "As soon as that book was published and during the time Tim claims to have been constructing his prop. I had placed several paid ads in Magic Magazine clearly stating for the record “‘The Compressed Illusion’ was rights protected”. I've searched through MAGIC and I can't find the ads stating that claim. However, even if I could and I had purchased Solo-X intending to build Shrink Boy, your statement would mean nothing to me. Perhaps "This is the original, you are not allowed to build Shrink Boy from Solo-X unless you give me $1000" would have been a clearer and more precise warning. I hate to say it Dan, but I really think the people who got ripped off are the ones who paid you $1000 after paying for Solo-X and building their own Shrink Boy. Do you make $1000 profit from each Compressed you make and sell? You get $1000 for sending a letter to them without even picking up a hammer or saw. Seems like easy money... a cynic would understand why you are happy to let Solo-X stay on the market. Don't get me wrong. I DEFINITELY think a creator should be rewarded for their work. But I do take issue with schemes that look like entrapment. Get Andrew Mayne to take Shrink Boy out of Solo-X, or put some CLEAR advertising in MAGIC Magazine so that no-one will fall into the same trap that I and MANY others have, and then I'll be happy to send your inventor's fee.
www.MagicUnlimited.com
www.timellismagic.com Visit our online shop for instant downloads and ebooks https://shop.timellismagic.com/ Blog - www.magicunlimited.typepad.com |
|||||||||
Magical Dimensions Inner circle 5001 Posts |
Mr.Tim Ellis
Well Said! I agree 100% with you. Ray |
|||||||||
Jeff007 Regular user 109 Posts |
I have no way of knowing for sure whether "Shrink Boy" or "Compressed" came first. Was it the chicken or the egg? I do know that I knew of "Shrink Boy" first. However, this is not even the point at all. Even if "Compressed" came first, the fact remains (and has even been proven in a court of law numerous times) that when something like this is improved upon greatly (angle problems), it becomes a new design. The design of how deep it actually is and being able to do this surrounded, or turned 360 degrees around is a HUGE improvement obviously. I don't see the issue or even grounds for a subtle misunderstand here. How much more clear could it be?
On a side note, (FYI for Tim) it is my understanding that Dan does not build "Compressed". He does continue to get royalties when the builder builds it however (understandably). I can understand Dan's point of view on this, as I'm sure most of us do (including Tim). However, the part I do not believe that Dan understands is that although a prop may look very similar, it's effectiveness and major "improvements" (this term is used loosely, since I cannot determine which of the two versions came first) make it a losing battle for Dan. It also is important to note that it is true, "Compressed" does not have a patent, which is the only way to be proven to effectively protect an actual prop by any means. However, there are a few pieces that even a patent hasn't been much help to protect, merely do to the time and money it takes to battle this in court. On the other hand, I also believe that the illusion Tim performs does not have the added addition of being able to open the blind in the middle of the routine to show a "crushed person" with fingers waving. In my honest opinion, I think it is more effective if this is performed the way Tim performs it, as it seems to make the person even more short. Therefore, this is another "improvement" (again, that word used loosely to whether "Shrink Boy" or "Compressed" really came first). I will have to disagree with Tim on his last statement. I still would not be "happy" to send Dan the royalties if he got "Shrink Boy" taken out of "Solo-X" (which Andrew will never agree to, in my opinion), or even if an ad is put in MAGIC Magazine. David Copperfield once put an ad in MAGIC in regards to using a snow machine with a snow effect being performed in a magic show. That ad was a low-blow, and did nothing but add fuel to a relationship with Kevin James (again, in my opinion). This also did nothing to stop people from using snow machines in a show for that effect. This had been something that many magicians did long before Copperfield ever thought about doing it, and for him to claim that it was his idea and he owned the rights to that idea were completely false). I'm not saying that this is the same situation, but I guess I am merely saying that just because someone says something doesn't mean that it is so. If Dan can prove that "Comprssed" was created before "Shrink Boy", and Andrew Mayne took his idea and added it to the "Solo-X" release, then many people would be much more happy to send Dan the royalty of $1000 for this illusion. However, if it were me, Dan would also have to prove that it was still necessary since "Shrink Boy" is an improved version of a previous illusion that makes it much more effective to an audience and can be performed under more conditions that "Compressed" can be. Can it be proven that even Dan used the idea created by Andre Kole for "Squeeze Box"? Sure it can be proven. However, is "Compressed" an improvement of "Squeeze Box"? In my opinion, yes. Do realize that all of my above opinions are that of mine alone. I cannot speak for anyone else, and although I have worked with a "Compressed", I have not worked with the illusion that Tim performs. Any of my comparisons of the two illusions are only my expression that I feel that these illusions are indeed different. It is up to each person to make their own opinion on which is truly better, or anything else for that matter. I do want to add an example. What if a deceptive base for an illusion was "protected" by some means. Then, what if someone created a way to make that base more deceptive? Does this mean that permission or royalties would have to be given? Possibly, but that depends on how much of the actual deceptive base were actually "protected", and by what means it were "protected" by. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Grand illusion » » Solo X? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.12 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 < |