talkmagic.co.uk

Hi guys,

I quite often see a presentation and work out a method for doing it, and then find out that the effect I saw uses a different principle.

For example I worked out a method for the hummer deck effect using a certain principle that the advertising assures me it doesn't use. Another example, I was looking at Bang On and worked out a method where you can produce *any* named card from your wallet, 100% accuracy, and show both sides. (Although this one might be a little impractical in fact).

My question is: Would it be ethical / good sport to attempt to sell my alternative method?

Or should I keep it to myself and try to come up with something entirely original?

If I did go ahead and try to produce something commercially, I would absolutely purchase the effect I was mimicking to make sure I'm not too close to the original method. But should I not release anything until I have created an effect that's all my own, or is it OK for my first (few) release(s) to be alternative methods for existing effects?

My background: just an amateur with a newly-discovered knack for seeing how things could be possible.

Many thanks in advance for your input

In my mind, it depends in part how original the original effect is in terms of script and premise.

There are countless methods for doing a 'Coins Across' routine, for example, and nobody would complain if a new approach was published.

But if the idea you're reverse-engineering is completely novel, you might want to think about your own script, change its context and make the presentation new, as well as the method.

In general, though, I doubt anyone could complain about you publishing an alternative way to reach a particular goal - so long as it is genuinely different!

Pete

I agree with pcwells.

I'd add something else - don't bother unless your version is at least as good. No one needs inferior ways of doing something that's already out there. It doesn't have to be better. For example, a version that doesn't require a gimmick, but involves more work, could be OK.

you have to remember that there are only a finite number of magical effects in existance, and that the diversity comes from the methods used to achieve those effects.

If you have been inspired to create an effect, from somebody elses work, you should

A... research all existing methods, as its possible that somebody else has come to the same solution as you,

and

B... if you find nobody Has come up with your method, then make sure that you credit the original source of inspiration, and any other versions that come close to your effect.

Agreed - research and crediting is the key.
I often find effects that I like that simply aren't suitable for my working environment and set out to create a version which is - often times the restructuring ends up as so radical that just the premise of the original remains. Probably stems from being a kid who couldn't afford props working out how advertised effects in magic catalogues were done and then making them up for my own use, half the time ending up with something completely different. However, that said, my ungaffed chop cup routine on S&D was deliberately created to look as much like a regular chop cup routine as possible.....
To me, the key thing in regard to releasing effects for publication or sale is to try not to accidentally rip somebody off by checking as many sources as possible and preferably also by running it by a knowledgeable friend or two first. If the effect itself is what's unique then it's probably best keep your version to yourself until you're sure.

Part-Timer wrote:don't bother unless your version is at least as good. No one needs inferior ways of doing something that's already out there.

I would agree there isn't a need, but have you looked through some of the [eh hem] "underground" forums out there; there certainly seems to be a want for it
There is certainly a market for 'completely impractical in the real world' methods

There is certainly a market for 'completely impractical in the real world' methods

cough...Youtube...Cough

Lawrence wrote:I would agree there isn't a need, but have you looked through some of the [eh hem] "underground" forums out there; there certainly seems to be a want for it
There is certainly a market for 'completely impractical in the real world' methods

I agree, but as with the research and crediting point (which I originally covered in my first post, but deleted), I decided to assume that user24 was a decent person, and not simply someone who wanted to churn out rubbish methods for the gullible to buy.

I suppose this lead to another point: if you're just an amateur, how are you going to make sure that your method actually works in real world situations, or are you just going to be one of the people bringing out impractical effects? Of course, you might be an amateur who performs lots!

Thanks so much for the discussion on this, it's very helpful, and in-line with my own thoughts, so that's reassuring!

I'd like to address a few points:

1) I would always give credit for inspiration and related work; I've had the attitude of proper referencing and giving attribution drilled into me during the course of studying for two university degrees, it's something that is just second nature to me now. Plus it's simply a nice thing to do.

2) If I were to go ahead with trying to produce something commercially, I would create a personal prototype to my own satisfaction, then I would approach professional working magicians and hand out copies of the prototype in return for their feedback to ensure it's practical, impactful and audience-tested. I don't see the point in attempting to release something that's unworkable.

And you're right, part-timer, I don't personally have the experience to determine what works in the real-world. However by using tried and tested principles in new configurations, I think I can be pretty confident that a method will work. But certainly I would want to get feedback from the community before I even started to market anything.

I think the feeling that I'm getting is that:

1) Make sure it's a practical method. While there may be a market for impractical effects, that's not why I'm interested in creating effects, and it's not going to help anyone.

2) Make sure it's an original method. Otherwise it's just stealing, even if independently conceived.

3) Ideally, create an original presentation as well as the method.

Thanks again, all your advice is (and continues to be) greatly appreciated

However by using tried and tested principles in new configurations, I think I can be pretty confident that a method will work.

Get used to disappointment.

If we made a rule that any new publication had to have been performed under fire at least one hundred times before it hits the marketplace 80% of the new magic sold would vanish.

We can but hope...

IanKendall wrote:
If we made a rule that any new publication had to have been performed under fire at least one hundred times before it hits the marketplace 80% of the new magic sold would vanish.

We can but hope...

A principle worth striving for when I publish then

user24 wrote:Hi guys,

For example I worked out a method for the hummer deck effect using a certain principle that the advertising assures me it doesn't use.

I have nothing to add regarding research and ethics. The only question that sprang to mind when I read the post was the sentance in the above quote. If the Hummer effect is "....using a certain principle that the advertising assures me it doesn't use." Then why are they using that in the advertising is this other method is already commonly used or some other reason.

I wasn't sure if I had missed something in your post.

Nic

Nic Castle wrote: If the Hummer effect is "....using a certain principle that the advertising assures me it doesn't use." Then why are they using that in the advertising is this other method is already commonly used or some other reason.

I wasn't sure if I had missed something in your post.

I'm not suggesting that the hummer deck does use the principle that I do. I'm sure my method is quite different (though I would make absolutely sure before proceeding with any commercial prototype).

For example imagine an effect where you have a handful of pennies, and then you wave your hand and they all become £1 coins, and the description for the trick says "this astounding effect requires no pk, no thread, no stooges" and I had come up with a way of producing the same experience for the spectator, but my method does use the pk principle. The point is it's the same effect and presentation but with a different method.

And in my imaginary coin example and in the case of the hummer deck where all cards are blank expect the chosen one, it's a fairly unique effect and presentation.

I wasn't meaning to suggest that the Hummer deck was being misleading in their advertising. Just that I'd thought of a different way to achieve their effect.

I suppose it boils down to: When you buy a trick, what are you paying for, the gimmick, the method, or the effect. And it's going to be a little of each of course. Copying the method is to me obviously not OK, the gimmick less so but still a little off, but just using the same effect I'm not sure if that's out of bounds ethically speaking.

Of course the safest option is to produce something entirely original - but failing that?

I don't see the big deal with all this 'selling effects'

If I make something amazing - I'm gonna use it for as long as possible until I let anyone else have it.

Maybe I'll release some small things, now and some other stuff later, but I'm not gonna make something and give it away right now, they are my routines, my handlings, my personality.

Jing wrote:I don't see the big deal with all this 'selling effects'

If I make something amazing - I'm gonna use it for as long as possible until I let anyone else have it.

I'm not a professional performer, I just enjoy learning tricks, researching effects and performing casually to friends now and then. I take the point that it will therefore be difficult for me to create an effect suitable for working pros, but I feel it's not impossible if I bear that shortcoming in mind.

If I, as a hobbyist, 'make something amazing' then what am I going to do with it? Show it to my mates once in a blue moon? Or work out the kinks and produce something which I can release for the community to benefit from?

Maybe that's due to my background in computer science where open sharing of ideas is encouraged. I've written and given away software which others would have sold (check out my website!). It's the way I am, I like to share.

But I also like to be paid, once in a while, if what I create is good enough