The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Sharpie Through Bill by Alan Rorrison & SansMinds -VS- Timothy Wenk's MISLED (16 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9
kissdadookie
View Profile
Inner circle
3676 Posts

Profile of kissdadookie
TStone:

"Aaron" was a typo. I had meant Alan.

You're also ignoring the points I'm made and repeating yourself on things which I have shown to be false/inaccurate.

Kohler and Fitch holdout they had plenty they were able to patent. There were many components of that hold out which were unique to their holdout. On top of that, the ones you have mentioned that existed before have not been patented so, unfortunately for those originators, they are SOL (previous art exception on patents apply mainly to the blatantly obvious or public domain inventions). So your argument still doesn't hold up. I've explained the likely reasons for that one already, you purposely chose to pretend/ignore the things I pointed out. That's on you.

Like I said, I can go all day with this. Like Alan said, you are entitled to your opinion. The thing is, your opinions are not facts nor are they accurate/correct/sound legal advice.

I would like to see Tim file a complaint to the court. If it was like you described TStone, Tim would have done so or be in the process of doing so. He isn't, what does that tell you? That he's just a nice guy and thus not suing? No, it's going to because of one of or a combination of the things I had previously pointed out.

Again, your argument is the equivalent of claiming that George R. R. Martin can sue anybody that has a dragon, war amongst different families, or incest in their work of fiction just because he has these story points in Game of Thrones. Your argument is the equivalent of my key and lock analogy.
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
703 Posts

Profile of TStone
Quote:
On Dec 21, 2016, Alan Rorrison wrote:
Hi Tom.

Well that is your opinion sir.

It is not an opinion. Wenk's work can be seen in the Copperfield clip. Remove the handling you see there from your release, and there would be nothing left.

I get that you, for some reason, is proud of your sharpie mod. I bet there are dozens of innovative things you can do with it... but instead you've chosen to do Wenk's Misled, while pretending that you are the originator of his work.
Quote:
on the "your not a good person" front. Ive tried to answer anyone concerns as openly and honestly as I can in a respectful manor with out getting heated or resorting to name calling. Its about the best I can do here and thank full people have noticed. Thank you

True, a gentle manner is exactly what is the most important trait in the guy stealing your car....
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
703 Posts

Profile of TStone
I've been fortunate in having met, and occasionally befriended, some of the greatest minds within my field. People who, by their very existence, have challenged me, encouraged me and kicked me forward. Creators who've created works of intricate and complex beauty, encompassing a wide range of creative fields; math, psychology, linguistics, cognitive science, drama, choreography, metal and woodwork... works that makes me breathless and drives me unrelentlessly forward in my desire to improve myself. These are the heros, the frontline, the avantgarde. The guiding lights. Those who makes me proud of being a small part of this art and craft.
...knowing which level we can exist on, if we strive towards greatness, makes me sad and frustrated over the other kind. Those who never even try, but just pretend to be creators, those who takes all and contributes nothing. The ticks of magic.
Kaliix
View Profile
Inner circle
Connecticut
1378 Posts

Profile of Kaliix
You can't copyright the gimmick and you can't copyright the handling. It's just pulling a pen longways through a bill.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel J. Boorstin
kissdadookie
View Profile
Inner circle
3676 Posts

Profile of kissdadookie
Quote:
On Dec 22, 2016, Kaliix wrote:
You can't copyright the gimmick and you can't copyright the handling. It's just pulling a pen longways through a bill.


Dramatic arts man! Weren't you paying attention to TStone's expert legal advice? LoL. Kidding. Smile folks, smile.
Danny Kazam
View Profile
Inner circle
1516 Posts

Profile of Danny Kazam
Does that mean that any magic prop or gimmick that does not have a patent on it is fair game for other magicians to create and market?
Keep your dreams alive. Understand to achieve anything requires faith and belief in yourself, vision, hard work, determination, and dedication. Remember all things are possible for those who believe.
Steven Conner
View Profile
Inner circle
2299 Posts

Profile of Steven Conner
Quote:
On Dec 27, 2016, Danny Kazam wrote:
Does that mean that any magic prop or gimmick that does not have a patent on it is fair game for other magicians to create and market?


I think the following says it all. Copperfield patented his floating effect and Teller won his case in a Nevada court. I'm only giving highlights:

Magic tricks, being in essence ideas, cannot be copyrighted. But the expression of the idea as a dramatic work or performance can be. Trying to protect tricks from thieves by enshrining their copyright inside performances goes back to Houdini, who used pantomimes in an effort to stave off imitators by registering the works with the US copyright office. It was a neat trick, borrowed by Teller, and employed in this instance to great effect. He registered “Shadows” as a dramatic work, with illustrations carefully drawn so as not to reveal the mechanics of the trick, in 1983.

Magic can only be performed by never giving away how it works. This is the literal meaning of occult, or secret knowledge, and to give it away within magic is known as exposure.

“As a magician you have only one job, which is don’t tell people how it’s done,” says Melbourne magician and author Nicholas Johnson, who specialises in card cheating, swindling and short cons. “But due to the internet and DVD piracy those secrets are scattered in the wind now. So it’s a totally different professional game to what it was even five years ago.”

Best

Steve
"The New York Papers," Mark Twain once said,"have long known that no large question is ever really settled until I have been consulted; it is the way they feel about it, and they show it by always sending to me when they get uneasy. "
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
703 Posts

Profile of TStone
Quote:
On Dec 27, 2016, Steven Conner wrote:


I think the following says it all. Copperfield patented his floating effect and Teller won his case in a Nevada court. I'm only giving highlights:

Magic tricks, being in essence ideas, cannot be copyrighted.

I don't know why there are so many ripoff apologists at this place...

Yes, an idea isn't protected - but how on earth do you come to the conclusion that a tangible, fully realized, routined and choreographed piece of work is an idea?
An idea is when you have, for example, the abstract notion of creating the impression that you're cutting up a person. A realized idea is something else, like Selbit's "Divided Lady", Poe's "The Pit and the Pendulum", Harbin's "Zig Zag", Lynch's "Boxing Helena", Harary's "Slicer", Saul Bass's "Anatomy of a Murder"... all these are very specific and exact.

Copperfield did not patent his floating effect - because the effect isn't subject to patents, as it is a dramatic and choreographic work. John Gaughan, on the other hand, patented some gadgets involved in the effect, but the gadgets are not the effect. Read Gaughan's patent papers, and you will find nothing that you can perform. It is like if you got the idea for a tune, but in order to get the sound you imagine, you have to invent a new instrument. The new instrument is not the tune. Whether the instrument can be patented or not is irrelevant from the perspective of the actual work. The song is still the song, regardless if it performed with a new instrument, a piano or a flute.
Wenk's "Misled" is not Sankey&Harkey's "East meets West" even though both are based on the same idea, but "Misled" is still "Misled" regardless if it is performed with a pen or a pencil.
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
703 Posts

Profile of TStone
Quote:
On Dec 27, 2016, Danny Kazam wrote:
Does that mean that any magic prop or gimmick that does not have a patent on it is fair game for other magicians to create and market?

Yes, to some degree. The prop is not the effect. The prop might be considered artistic design though.
For example, with the Misled manuscript comes a little prop that is useful if you want to perform Misled using a yellow pencil. The prop isn't the effect, and people have come up with half a dozen other effects that involves that particular prop. If you also comes up with a different effect that involves that prop, you are certainly free to do whatever you want with your effect, provided the difference isn't trivial and obvious. Like, just changing the object isn't enough. Misled with a piece of newspaper instead of a bill, or with a pen instead of a pencil, is still Misled.
But, let's say, holding up an unsharpened yellow pencil in the air, then swirling it around in the air while fine wood dust flies off the pencil, ending with a perfectly sharpened pencil - that is a completely different effect that just happens to rely on the same prop that comes with Misled. Provided Misled isn't included, the new effect could be marketed if one wished to.
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
703 Posts

Profile of TStone
Quote:
On Dec 27, 2016, Steven Conner wrote:
Magic can only be performed by never giving away how it works. This is the literal meaning of occult, or secret knowledge, and to give it away within magic is known as exposure.

That's nonsense.

Alex Elmsley gave away almost all of his work in The Collected Works of Alex Elmsley vol 1 & 2. Is anyone really suggesting that, because it is published, it is impossible to successfully perform the works within? Are his books really considered "exposure"? If so, it is a silly notion created by amateur magicians who feel they have some kind of imaginary collective ownership of the work of the individual artist.

Magic does not rely on secrecy. It is only badly constructed pieces that need secrecy in order to play properly, works that rely on one single layer of deception. As soon as there are two layers of deception, it plays regardless of whether people know the work or not. If there's three (or more) layers of deception, you can explain the piece in minute detail and then directly perform it and it will still play with no difference. The human brain isn't designed to decipher that many layers in real-time, so the informed react just as strongly as the uninformed - if not more.
Steven Conner
View Profile
Inner circle
2299 Posts

Profile of Steven Conner
Quote:
On Dec 28, 2016, TStone wrote:
Quote:
On Dec 27, 2016, Steven Conner wrote:
Magic can only be performed by never giving away how it works. This is the literal meaning of occult, or secret knowledge, and to give it away within magic is known as exposure.

That's nonsense.

Alex Elmsley gave away almost all of his work in The Collected Works of Alex Elmsley vol 1 & 2. Is anyone really suggesting that, because it is published, it is impossible to successfully perform the works within? Are his books really considered "exposure"? If so, it is a silly notion created by amateur magicians who feel they have some kind of imaginary collective ownership of the work of the individual artist.

Magic does not rely on secrecy. It is only badly constructed pieces that need secrecy in order to play properly, works that rely on one single layer of deception. As soon as there are two layers of deception, it plays regardless of whether people know the work or not. If there's three (or more) layers of deception, you can explain the piece in minute detail and then directly perform it and it will still play with no difference. The human brain isn't designed to decipher that many layers in real-time, so the informed react just as strongly as the uninformed - if not more.


Tom, while you are a very accomplished magician, you are now just acting childish and immature because you think you have to have the last word. We buy magic for the very reasons you mention, the layers if you will. Kuda Bux took his secrets to the grave as well as others. Magicians are very clever in how we do things. People want to be entertained, thus magic is a wonderful way to do it. If there is a battle to be fought, it is between Tim and Alan, not you or me just as it was with Teller and Gerard Dogge. Lets just agree to disagree and move on.

Best

Steve
"The New York Papers," Mark Twain once said,"have long known that no large question is ever really settled until I have been consulted; it is the way they feel about it, and they show it by always sending to me when they get uneasy. "
ricker
View Profile
Special user
Tampa, FL
923 Posts

Profile of ricker
Phase 1 of Sharpie, no phase 2.
Phase 2 of misled.

Sharpie, cannot be examined, bill can
misled, pencil and bill can be examined. (with slight of palming off gimmick)

Click here to view attached image.
devaind
View Profile
New user
37 Posts

Profile of devaind
I am not able to fine MisLed in stock in most of the magic shops. can someone tell me where it is available.
BobSled
View Profile
New user
28 Posts

Profile of BobSled
Quote:
On May 15, 2017, devaind wrote:
I am not able to fine MisLed in stock in most of the magic shops. can someone tell me where it is available.


It's being re-released soon.
john G
View Profile
New user
43 Posts

Profile of john G
Finally back http://getmisled.com/
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Sharpie Through Bill by Alan Rorrison & SansMinds -VS- Timothy Wenk's MISLED (16 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2019 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.17 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL