I'm starting to feels lots of love in the room!

The Reverend Mike

Cruise...if it has the gimmick, and no permission, then I retract my apology. You say time is an issue...okay, Steve invents something a long time ago, (and who dicates what is a long time), and now it's okay for anyone to publish ideas with the thing, have the thing made, without consulting or crediting him? Sorry, that doesn't fly with me. Even if Mr. Kranzo gives some credit to Mr. Dusheck (which apparently he does) I do wonder what is so incredibly difficult in the magic community about contacting creators, discussing the use of their creations with them, and if they make a fuss...so you don't put that item on your DVD or in your book. After all if it weren't for the creator, you wouldn't be putting it there, anyhow.

And Mike, you'll learn what this kind of "love" feels like when one of your South American ladies finds out about the other one. Watch out for you eyes!

Why would anyone have to ask for permission to publish an effect using a gimmick that has been sold and/or described in print?

It doesn't seem there are any patents on the product in question. A brief stint over at the U.S Patent web site revealed that. What should young Mr. Kranzo ask permission for? To use something he bought? that's a load of poo. Once you sell or publish the item no one needs permission to use it.

I think 40 years is a fairly long time (then again I'm American our English friends have a much different view on time)

As far as I'm concerned the issue of who invented it is still in question.
Because of that question any subsequent effect should give nods to both Dusheck and Guitar. If you believe one or the other than you should credit that source. Heck maybe Ammar invented the thing!

Mithrandir
I agree with you but I was trying to give kranzo some leeway.

kranzo told me to apologize. I apologize if he actually called up dusheck before he published the dvd and ask for permission. the thing is if he didn't then it just shows what hes made of cuz this aint the first time there is an issue. it don't really matter if he was right THIS TIME because you see how he would be if he wasnt right. you see that he will justify how he takes others ideas and defend it to the end using all kinds of insults instead of saying to dusheck "Im sorry sir I respedt you work but I think you have me confused." what does he do ? He laughs at him. then goes on to insult several others that wondered if the acusation were true. the fact that mr duscheck made a mistake is not all that important to me. its like when you are interviwing for jobs. they ask you questions about how you will deal in a situation and they study what you say. they don't just ask you if you are honest. I think kranzo failed some test here.

Well, ladies an gentlemen, as a young impressionable student, I must say that Watchdog's ethics have had a profound effect on me! Once I buy something, I need no permission to use it.

With this, I announce to the world my company, Tropical Magic, SA will be releasing a series of books some classics like the Magic of Robert Houdin, to newer releases like Card College, all five volumes...heck even Palmer's Translation of Borodin's works.

DVD's will be released as well, starting with Carney, Wonder, and Kam's works, and getting more just as fast as I can buy them.

Why buy from Tropical Magic? We will be charging incredibly low rates for all the above items! Much less money than from the originators.

And my consience is clean, because everything I released, I will have *bought first*! Which means I don't have to ask permission to use any of it!

You are apparently young and ready to argue. Did you not read what I wrote?

Try this take a deep breath and re-read the post. A gimmick is what is being discussed, not a book that has been copyrighted.

Generally a copyright in a book will read (I have edited this),
"No part of this publication can be reproduced without permission of the publishers".
If you reproduce it you are breaking the law. There is no question.

Now lets say someone publishes a routine that uses a specific gimmick. I go out and get that gimmick made then perform their routine. Maybe I change the routine to better suit myself. People begin to ask me if it's published because they really like it. I publish my effect using the gimmick. According to you I need permission from the inventor to do that.
You are either to young to be involved in this argument if you don't understand the difference between what you posted and what I posted or you don't care.

I don't need permission to use a gimmick that was described in print and sold or a gimmick that I buy outright. There are exceptions to this, if it is stated specifically in a contract with the seller that there are rules I must agree to upon buying the item, of course I must adhere to that contract (Kohler's U3F and Holdout are examples of this).
If Dusheck was the only person making the thing and he owned patents on it's design then yes I need to ask permission to use it in certain applications such as publishing an effect with it. Now as far as I know he doesn't have a patent(he can't apply for one now) and if that is true then I do not need to ask his permission to use and/or manufacture the item.
Does it make it right? That is a question of personal morals that I am not willing to debate.

All I'm asking of you mithrandir is to THINK about the subject and all the sides involved. Magicians for years have been having the same trouble. People see something and they copy it. It is human nature. It absolutely doesn't make it right. We magicians will continue to have the same problems until we stop having conventions and public performances of illusions and effects.

I forgot to post a link to some helpful information for the young student.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/iip......otPatent

These things need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. In this instance, the gimmick Steve developed is almost certainly his. And the routines he originally devised and published with it are certainly his. Using these without permission in another product for sale is clearly an infringement. Using it in performance is certainly not, since it is implied in the purchase that you will be using the material purchased.

The gimmick itself has become, by virtue of its' availability, common property. Routines using it are the intellectual property of the "routiners". Copying them is also an obvious infringement of THEIR rights.

Since there is very little, relatively speaking, compensation for original ideas in magic, the one thing we prize, as magicians, is the acknowledgement of our peers for the work we make available. So, credit is a BIG issue. Use, usually, is not such a big deal.

I can't speak for Steve, but people who wish to use my material as a basis for new versions of existing effects are welcome to do so. Leaving me out of the equation is the point at which I get touchy. I want the proper credit for my work, since that peer recognition is really the only compensation I'm likely to receive for all the thought and effort I put into a magic effect.

Steve seems a remarkably bright and able man. I'm sure he expected people who bought his gimmick to apply in ways he'd not yet thought of. And I'm sure he knew in advance that those routines might see print. I doubt that he is trying to control everything that uses a half-rimmed shell! But a credit to him for the concept is certainly appropriate.

This is akin to Busby claiming that you can't sell anything with the Paul Fox name attached because he bought the rights! Imagine Ford telling you that you can't sell your Mustang because they own the rights!

Everyone needs to lighten up a bit here and use common sense and good values when deciding what is right versus what is legal...

Best, PSC

Imagine Ford telling you that you can't sell your Mustang because they own the rights

Or being told you can't sell your hold out!

Mike

So, if someone shows you a gimmmick, you can just go and make your own? or sell tricks that use that gimmick?

or if you see it on tv, can make your own?

let's leave out the jeff busby stuff for now.

It's different. I understand, Watchdog, what I was doing in my post. Being dramtic.

Yes there are differences between a book that has been copyrighted and a gimmick. I'm not strictly speaking of the law here, but rather ethics. Idealism is perhaps QUITE out of place in a forum such as this, however, I'll give it a shot, anyways.

You guys are telling me that ideas can be owned, in some contexts, but not in others. Even Mr. Paul Chosse whom I have great respect for, says that by much use the gimmick becomes "common property" as it were. Who arbitrates this?

Also, forget routines for a moment, let's look at the building blocks of routines....MOVES. I KNOW you fellows are protective of your moves...(though they get stolen as well...nice bunch we magi). So, some vanish, or some pitch, or subetly or whatever, that you come up with, you'll fight for that, you'll want crediting, and you'll want it's uses to be discussed with you! But if you invent some sort of gimmick, you don't care who uses it, for what?

That really confuses me.

Yes, watchdog, I'm thinking. I know magicians have been doing that forever...Richard Kauffman made that clear to me in a post, saying to the effect, magicians have been doing this for hundreds of years...so tough luck.

I'm thinking though, that it shouldn't be hard to bring magic to the ethical AND artistic level that the music industry has reached. Full of pirates and trash, yes. However, they're a hell of a lot better of than we are. Ethics have some meaning, to them, and they're not afraid of artistic expression, and serious exploration.

I've heard magicians talk about audiences thinking that magicians are slimeballs, or entertain for children. Has anyone considered that if you weren't slimballs, and you didn't act like children WITHIN OUR OWN COMMUNITY, you would probably come off better than a second rate entertainer with your audiences?

NO, Mr. Gallo, no on is telling you you can't sell your hold out, and no Mr. Chosse no one is saying you can't sell your mustang. However, if you see a mustang, and you take it apart, and you manufacture a million of the things and sell them, yes, there might be a problem. Not if the guy doing the STEALING was a magician however, evidently.

Lighten up, hell! The attidute, "it's just a coin trick" is part of what causes this stuff. Start taking yourselves seriously, please.

Oh, Jonathan's post got in before mine. Thank you sir!

Also, note on taking yourselves seriously. I try NOT to take myself seriously in most arenas in life, but I fear honor is one which I do. I only ask that others do the same. IT'S SO EASY TO ASK. SO EASY TO CREDIT. SO EASY TO DO A LITTLE HOMEWORK. SO EASY TO MAKE AN ORIGINAL PRESENTATION. SO EASY TO READ. Little things, guys. I'd like to have a Bandleresque halucination. I'd like to see just A LITTLE BIT that would allow me to halucinate that I could respect more than my elders 'chops', that I could respect their thinking, and their honor as well. (and to be fair, this is somewhat general. There are several on this thread whom I do respect.)

-Stuart

Can you imagine what it would be like if everyone who came up with a trick using the Ghost Count wrote to Alex Elmsley asking for permission to publish or manufacture their trick? Mr. Elmsley would be so busy writing letters that he would not have time to create any new effects.
I made my C/S Transpo sliding shell so I could show both sides of the 2 coins at the start of the routine, have the copper coin instantly and visually change to a silver coin and immediately show the silver coin on both sides. Then, without pausing, drop the silver coin on the copper coin in the spectator's hand. This is a great, visual effect - for me. When I made the magnetic set of Slippery Sam coins the instructions included 6 to 8 different effects. But should you be stuck with my ideas that I created for my own use and style? Of course not.
The thought of using my gimmick for a coins across routine did not come to my mind. Perhaps you would find Nate Kranzo's routine more your style. Don't you think Curtis Kam would create several routines more to your liking? What about Jonathan Townsend's handling? I have always had a fear of being boring so most of the effects I create are quick tricks and in many cases the audience actually sees the magic happen. I rarely do routines.
Permission is seldom required when creating a new routine with existing props and moves. If it was there would only be one 4 ace routine and just one way to do a coin assembly or one finger ring to keycase trick. I have often been fooled by magicians using gimmicks I created but with their different handling. That's what makes magic so great and keeps it advancing. Making an identical gimmick with the same instructions is wrong.
Some of you will be glad to know that Nathan Kranzo and I have settled the differences we had. Others might be disappointed to hear we are friends. We were surprised that about half of the people posting sounded like they hated me even though they weren't even born when I created most of my gimmicked coins. The other half seemed to hate Nathan although they never saw his DVD. Since Nathan & I can be friends, the rest of you should give it a try also.
Best wishes,
Steve

Glad to hear you and Nathan are okay. I do not understand the conflict here beyond the question about the gaff's lineage.

I do leave the question as posed about describing a marketed gaff or sleight from one book in another work that uses it. Taking Elmsley's Ghost count as an example, I suspect Vernon asked and got permission to DESCRIBE /TEACH the thing from Alex Elmsley. Similarly, should someone want to describe/teach rather than cite one of my works, I would expect them to seek permission.

I agree with Steve above that getting along is well worth the effort. It makes moving forward more comfortable.

Mr. Dusheck, you mistake me completely. If you have traded some value for the ghost count from a legitimate source, no need for permission to use the thing, or to cite the thing.

To teach it or describe it? Absolutely.

So, if someone shows you a gimmmick, you can just go and make your own? or sell tricks that use that gimmick?


Jonathan, of course you can't make and sell the gimmick. But yes, I do feel you can publish your own routine providing you credit the creator of said gaff. If I'm wrong, then shame on the likes of Geoff Latta, David Roth, even you Jonathan and me for publishing routines using things such as copper/silver coins or shells...we certainly didn't invent these gaffs...and we never gave credit to the inventors. And Mirth...last I heard, you had to sign a consent form for a certain hold-out stating you couldn't expose the secret, perform it under certain circumstances or put it up for re-sale...perhaps I'm wrong about it...but that's what I heard...now lighten up...being this bitter at a young age doesn't do well for the digestive system...really!

Hmmmm. Wise advice Mike, and good point.

Along those lines, does anyone have any info on the origin of the Sun & Moon gaff. I was fairly sure that Albert Goshman was the originator (although, not the original manufacturer), but have heard some differing information as of late. If I'm wrong about that I'd like to know before my manuscript is released... so I don't feel and look like a horse's &$$

Best,

Mike

Mr. Gallo,

I have been educated some about the hold-out thing...enough to apologize, and know I'm not familiar enough about that particular item to have much comment.

As far as bitterness sir, you quite mistake me. To paraphrase, I feel the joy that is so constant that I I have to make an effort to become consious of the existence of any other states of being.

If I were to hedge my bets, or lie to myself, or be anything less than I am, THEN I would end up bitter.

After all, I have very close access to the aformentioned South Americans .

And again, as for lightening up...many people don't take 'magic tricks' seriously, and many of these people are magicians. Someone has to. Perhaps it is because I focus not on what is occuring in my hands, but what is occuring in my spectator. The possiblities in THAT medium, are serious, indeed.

And again, as for lightening up...many people don't take 'magic tricks' seriously, and many of these people are magicians. Someone has to. Perhaps it is because I focus not on what is occuring in my hands, but what is occuring in my spectator. The possiblities in THAT medium, are serious, indeed.

Mirthrandir, Speaking for myself...one of the (many)reasons I got involved in magic was to have fun. There is a point to taking anything to serious where the fun no longer exists (believe me, I'm speaking from experience)...for you and your spectators. And just so you know...I spent about a month in Rio DeJenaro (sp) and another month in San Salvadore. I found the woman there to be some of the most beautiful woman I have ever seen in my life (and I have traveled to 4 different continents)!!! So when I speak of South American woman...it's not in jest...it's a fantasy to one day be fulfilled!

Mike

Jonathan, I do have one question for you. Do you own an expanded shell made by anyone other than Connie Hayden? If the answer is yes, then by your standards, you are as guilty as the party knocking off his origination!

Mike

To clear a few things up, according to LAW you have one year (in the U.S.A) from the first time you publicly present your invention to apply for a patent. If you do not or you are denied a patent your invention is fair game for ANYONE to manufacture and sell. At that point your invention is no longer "New" or "novel" in the eyes of the law. It should be mentioned that patent law is not worldwide. See something you like in America on your holiday? More than likely you can take it back to your home country and go to town with it. Did I mention all of that is LEGAL (note there are always exceptions).

I want to respond to the post about musicians being better than magicians in this arena.
My friend, they are just as bad. Ask any musician that does it for a living.

Jon, I am assuming you are talking about teaching one of your effects in a lecture situation? If that routine was in a magazine published for public viewing the performer does not need your permission, in my opinion. I do think it's polite to at least inform you of their plans to include the item in the lecture.
It can only do well for you for others to be performing your effects to the fraternity.

No advertisement is bad advertisement.

That statement can be interpreted differently depending on your choice of pause or not to pause. It still reads true whichever way you look at it. If someone at a lecture said, "This is Jon Townsend’s trick" and it fooled me badly, I would be more apt to look for other things you are associated with. Good for me good for you.

I want to go on record saying I like the idea of crediting sources. On the other hand it is completely out of control. Every Count, Cut and Subtlety
(Mentzer) has to be credited.
I recently read a manuscript that credited the Swing Cut!
(Card College)
If I come up with a presentation that revolves around the Hundred Year War should I credit England and France?!
(Edward III, England 1337)

I know these are exaggerations but it does seem to be getting this bad.

Have any of you read medical papers describing current treatments for diseases?

Magic texts are getting almost as bland and boring.

I'm sorry the discussion has spiraled out of control concerning the origination of this gimmick. I certainly think that Mr. Dusheck deserves credit for his contribution concerning it. I also believe, perhaps my senility is finally getting the upper hand
(Alzeheimer/Kraepelin 1910), that Pressley deserves credit as well.

people don't HAVE to publish stuff. doesn't it come down to that? if the pages are full of so much stuff that is not original maybe there is no need to publish it. I mean it difrent in magazines. I don't think you should have to do all the crediting in magazines and the editor decides if they shouldnt explain something of someone elses but when you do a book or video you should. I don't agree with people teachine other peoples stuff like Ammar does. its different if the inventor wants you to do it for some reason but just saying "hay Im gonna teach MR X signature trick" is not cool. when you do a book or video it should be new stuff. there is too much junk out there and filler. people publish things that should be in the mags or publish things that don't deserve to be published. people publising other peoples stuff? uh hello. like we need it.

if there is a move like sylvester pitch send them to that video. don't teach the move. if there is a move that is not published then get permision from the creator or don't put out your trick with that move. sometimes people publish "moves" or ideas that aren't very large steps then get angry when someone else published it. how many times have you invented a move cuz you needed it then find out it already exists and is called "yabba dabba dee" move? You think, "hay that's really not worth naming it! its just a tiny variation or adjustment or a small and logical leap from yabba dabba doo"? but some people want to be known so bad they fight over all of it. mostly those people have a billion pamphlets, lecture notes and videos and have not been around very long.

where was it I read someone suggest to wait 10 years of experience to write your first book? I agree. not everyone needs to be publishing things

Re: expanded shell.

I happen to own one. Just one. It was made for me my Connie Hayden back in 1976. He made three for me, and I miss the other two.

I was given to understand that the more modern method of pressing the coins made a clean slate of the gaff.

That aside, I find it dilutes the value of a work to fully describe and teach its contents in other works. This is where my position about teaching works without permission comes from. If I want to learn the Sylvester Pitch, I can go to his works. If the guy okays Michael Ammar to teach the thing in his lectures or in his books, that is up to him.