Https://youtu.be/7AfAab4mBei develope

I developed this Little quickie using the Goshman pinch I call the gosh pien chien

Hi,

Nice idea. Unfortunately it is not new. The idea exists and it is already published. It is called “Lanzagranzas” by Luis Piedrahita. He uses in several routines, in his book he teaches it in a coin production and in a coper/silver routine. Great book with amazing routines, unfortunately it is only in Spanish.

http://www.close-upmagicshop.com/LUIS-PI......HISTORIA

Thanks for the reference Pipo -- maybe it will be translated and become available to wider audience

the more magicians who base effects around a move, the more other magician might use it. I have used a similar move for many decades and never published it. Figured everybody knew it.

Now, with the help of Luis, Vinny and yourself there might be heightened interest in such effects and I will publish mine.

Surely, the creative energy involved is more important than "who published first." The "idea" is probably centuries old.

How to orchestrate an effect that will excite today's audience is the key, no?

Pipo thanks you for that information.... looks like I recreated what I call the gosh pien chien

Of the hundreds of well known magicians I showed this move to none had ever seen it. Te creators name will have to be mentioned in the book.

Vinny

ps: I'm sorry for acting so harsh to you...your performance skills are way superior to mine. You only meant to help not hurt me. Hope we can be friends in the future

You are welcome Vinny. I didn’t want to hurt anybody, that was not my intention.

The idea of propelling the coin from the goshman pinch is great. Congrats. I was looking for some video of Luis performing it but I wasn’t able to find it. He has too many videos I can’t see them all…

I am just a student in magic, I am very lucky to have grown surrounded by masters of the art. One has to be very thick to not take advantage of them. I think I am not too thick and I am very passionate about magic. That’s all.

Sure we can talk and exchange opinions like civilized people

Pipo

Actually, you recreated "Lanzagranzas" by Luis Piedrahita and what you meant to say was "I would like to include HIS move in my book with HIS permission."

Will do so, Tom

thank you
vinny

Hey Tom, just wondering but when did Luis publish this book? I thought it was sorta recently within the past couple years or so?...I do remember it but also that it was only available in Spanish I believe, so it perhaps wouldn't have been a big sell here in the States. Anyway, I was just curious. Happy Thanksgiving to you.

Tenkai's Pinched item

There's some history about how it got into Bobo's book. Curtis Kam and others here have posted on the published history of the concealment.

Tom I've been thinking about it. I came up with the gosh pien chien over 10 years ago and this control is on one of my early dvds ,,,,when was lansgranzas published??/
If my version predates his then he owes me permission and you can also find this move on some of my earlier posts years ago on the Café

vinny

Hmmmmm...

Actually, Ung discovered the move about 40,000 years ago while playing with stones to amuse children. Please give proper credit.

The only permission you need is two hands, some small object and the imagination to ask, "what if..."

Magic is about imagination, isn't it? At least it once was.

Any approach that serves to stifle creativity must be wrong.

I am happy to refer readers of my effects to similar sources so that they can pursue a subject of interest.
I will use a popular name for a sleight I created so as to avoid confusion -- that does not change the fact that I created it independently.
If I am inspired by another's work I will mention that out of respect.
If I quote someone I will give proper authority because I expect the same courtesy.

but, if you tell me that I HAVE to do any of those things you are wrong.

copyright laws protect someone from publishing a body of work and claiming it as their own.

no "idea" is ever copyrighted. No "theme' is ever copyrighted.

Great points funs.

Just wondering Tom's response to this? You never know, on second thought… Wouldn't that be something? Just wondering how something like that would be handled as to "proper credits???"

Again…"Hmmmmm."

No takers now???

It seems Vinny may have 10+ years with this and it might also be on an old DVD he published a decade ago. I hear that Luis Piedrahita may have comparable time with the move that's published in his book, but not exactly sure when the book was published (But I believe much more recently, circa 2012)? It seems that it all might hinge here on who "published" the move first…Is that right?

Maybe Tom Cutts here can lend some more precision as to this? Now let me get this straight…I know people might not be interested in helping Vinny prove anything here, but in the name of truth & fair play…If Vinny can produce a marketed DVD where he uses this move that was published before Luis' book that also included it in an effect, then Vinny wins?

This is ridiculous. Not the fact that Vinnie either invented it or reinvented it. That happens all the time...to almost everyone. No problem there.
Reinventing a move and not knowing a source before or after publication also happens. That can be rectified by going back at a later time and citing the source. No problem there.

Saying things like, "Ung the caveman came up with it and credit should be given to him" is ludicrous. The only thing we are in control of is researching the original published source....and citing it. Other than that we are ****ing on someone's legacy. I do believe you are sincere when you mention citing the original source out of respect. Kudos.

Here is what I take issue with. You mentioned you don't HAVE to give credit to a previous source. Which is the same as saying you will give the original source if you choose to do so. Please correct me if I'm wrong there. If we are talking about respect, how can anyone take you seriously as an author?

Of course no idea or theme is copyrighted. How could it be? That's irrelevant. The topic at hand is about crediting a previously KNOWN source. I learned a very interesting phrase in college called the Standard Average Truth. It basically states that something we know is true until something else comes along and proves the truth as we know it to be wrong. Consider Einstein's Theory of Relativity. If a PUBLISHED source shows that another scientist had the idea before him by ten years, the truth would change. Not to mention cause a huge stir in the scientific community.

How research stifles creativity is beyond me. If anything, tracing anything back to its roots is fascinating and encourages one to be more creative. It may challenge the way one thinks. It may provide clarification as to why someone came up with what they did. How did they use it? What led to that thought? Can you improve it? What are it's strengths and weaknesses?

Is magic about imagination? I don't know. I would be more inclined to ask how much imagination does it take to bring others into a world of fantasy.

In short, get permission from someone if an original move of theirs is not published. If the move is published, cite that. If what someone is offering is close to, a step up or just an all around different approach, site the person who first used it, or inspired it, in that context. For the most part, from what I have seen, Vinnie does this. So kudos to him.

There are plenty of people here that can help with a proper credit when needed. All one has to do is ask instead of being so resistant and argumentative.

To be honest, we've been way past "ridiculous" many times on this forum. It's just when things strike a particular tone with people that they take the time to deliver such "truths?"

I guess you are responding mostly to my post (perhaps from several here?), so I would have to say "No." That's not what I meant or even said.

The only reason I rose the issue is because it became a question to me that wasn't as quickly addressed as other things were here. Not necessarily because it was "ridiculous" but maybe more so because people just didn't want to look any further than they supposed. You're right, it's easy enough to do, as easy to produce as your post but still not produced here.

I agree, just do a little honest research and cite what you can clearly see came before whatever you are offering. Humbly, everyone doesn't do that. I like to give credit to the best of my knowledge (and some trusted others) on things. Not sure who's legacy is being trampled? Trying to make clearer where something might've began seems a good thing, regardless of what people feel about who's being questioned.

I like that you like analogies…:) This sorta reminds me of "A Few Good Men" when the powerful colonel(?) wasn't being questioned as to his actions by the lowly law officer. Eventually in frustration, the old colonel angrily yelled, "You can't handle the truth!" It seems that truth can muddy things when after the seemingly authoritative facts that people accept most. Always edgy stuff to unearth. Seems somewhat relative.

Anyway, appreciate your comments here.

The key here is you mentioning "original source." That implies that just because a similar move was published in the past there must be a causal link to later event -- a logical fallacy.

If a person observes an effect being performed without knowledge of how it is done, they might research for similar effects and /suspected movers or sleights.
Alternately, they might just fiddle around and discover a way of achieving the same result -- that might be different. They check with the performer and he says it is a different handling.
This new creation might be shared with a reference to the first as an inspiration but not credit for the sleight. ID this performer required to search every book and nook to see if someone else did it first? No.
If they later discover an earlier, similar sleight by another person they might mention that in some way -- even adopt the original name if identical, but that earlier mention is not a "source."

When a person creates a new handling just by playing around with objects there is no "source" of that handling at all. The creation is "non-derivative." There is no "tracing back to roots." There are no roots.

You seem unable/willing to accept the concept of non-derivative creativity. Why must a person to go to a "published source" for inspiration? Why not just imagine what might be possible and follow?

When working on my several Masters Degrees I followed a rigor of research and documentation beyond what is expected today. I was attempting to support/prove a Thesis -- what the result is called.

In creating an new magic effect the objective is not to prove anything at all. The objective may be to improve the effect for a particular setting or to enhance the impact from Theatrical to Virtual magic.
The exercise may be just for personal entertainment. In my case I had to deal with ever increasing hand disabilities, so I created new ways of achieving known results a different way.

As an example, In the early 80's I created a sleight that I now call SwayOn. Back then I didn't call it anything -- just did it in tens of thousands of effect over twenty years.
I have shared that sleight with many magicians and not a single one ever said, "Oh that is the XXXX move by ABCD." Finally I mentioned that it might be called a "Flying Point Transfer"
with a reference to Sankey's DVD. I didn't see that DVD until 2012. His move is not the same, but I thought those interested in SwayOn might find his effects useful.

So, should I use new terminology and write Sankey to change his DVD? No! They are not the same, the source of inspiration is not the same and the applications are not identical.

What is significant is that had I know in 1982 about Sankey's work I might never have invented SwayOn -- my creativity would have been stifled.

I will happily share SwayOn with any serious magician as long as they provide feedback as to its impact. I do not need "credit" -- I just want to see better magic that is possible because of its use.

Someday a notable performer may publish a book and claim they invented it. Everyone will cheer and then use it because he has anointed it. I will not care. They do not need "permission."

Thanks for the opportunity to elaborate. Some reader may be inspired to create something new - just for the fun of it.

As for the move I call the Gosh pien Cien I give credit to AL GOSHMAN (or for some the move tenkai pinch and the use of the han pien chien


hense the name GOSH PIEN CHIEN you will also notice that I never changed the name it is combination of tenkai and han pien chein
so this is who I give credit to,,,,,,these moves were around for ever.. not to anyone else and besides I don't reaD SPANISH
vinny

Ok, here we go. I'll try and make this as easy as I can to follow.

If I take the Finley / Vernon DL and technically modify it. Finley, and Vernon get the source credit and I present my offering.
I do this AFTER I make sure my potential offer has not been published somewhere else. If it has give credit and use the move in a routine. Due diligence.

If I come up with something I have never seen before, I ask around and do some research. Due diligence
I go to D.B.'s website. Due diligence
I try my best to find a published source that pre-dates what I believe to be my original creation. Due diligence
If I can't find anything using due diligence, I can claim it.

If I find my "original creation" in a previously published source, I credit it. Crediting because of due diligence
If I find something similar, I credit the source to refer a student to read the similar version. Crediting as a result of due diligence

If I know for a FACT that someone has a move of theirs that is not published (of course using the S.A.T.) prior to my idea I ask for permission.
If he says, "Yes", I publish with the credit.
If he says no. That's the end of it. I don't say that I've come up with something similar to avoid crediting.
By doing that, you may inadvertently have a reader come up with their own "version" that is so close to the original, it may cause the originator to force publish the move to avoid the rule of publish or perish. This actually happened with Ron Bauer and the "Lie Detector".

If, after research, and nothing turns up, I would feel comfortable publishing.
If, after the item is published, someone brings to my attention that the move is already in print, I go back to rectify, amend, etc.

All it comes down to is research. That's it.

I had never seen this move in print and in all my years at the castle and castle library,I had never seen this move in print.
Through the years, none on my magician friends had ever seen this.

This of course doesn't mean it was never in print by someone else ,,,,,,,
I have always given credit to anything I do or who inspired me .......
Many years ago I created what I call the top gun control and it has four phases.
This control was inspired by the erdnase color change ..
In one of the phases of this control I was told that Steve Draun had some thing very similar to mine that he called the draun shift ..I contacted Steve and sent him my work. The third phase, bringing the card from the center of the pack to the top I called a one card pass .. this was exactly the Same aS STEVE'S WITH some minor differences but it was STEVES EFFECT .
He wrote me back and said "Vinny you did more with the thumb slide than anyone else, there is no problem and now I call the move the top gun control aka the draun shift.....with his permission

So I do give credit even if I never saw the other version written in Spanish.....