talkmagic.co.uk

Mandrake wrote:

Nic Castle wrote:Performing is about making soething your own and putting part of yourself into it. This is especially true with magic.

Whixch is exactly why magic tricks and routines used to be sold without instructions or routines. The magish had to figure it all out themselves and put together their own presentation.

That is great and would mean people would have to learn the basics first. What would happen with RRTCM would you get a pack of cards and a book with descriptions of the effects and no explaination. (Only joking) It would leave people who just go out and buytricks with a conundrum on their hands.

Mandrake wrote:

Nic Castle wrote:Performing is about making soething your own and putting part of yourself into it. This is especially true with magic.

Whixch is exactly why magic tricks and routines used to be sold without instructions or routines. The magish had to figure it all out themselves and put together their own presentation.

That kind of puts the old " Your not buying the prop, your paying for the secret" argument to bed doesnt it?

daleshrimpton wrote:That kind of puts the old " Your not buying the prop, your paying for the secret" argument to bed doesnt it?

Absoflippinlutely!

I know that some people will say (perhaps correctly) that you shouldnt copy the moves/routines/acts etc. of other performers. But as a beginner, what choice do you have? It's natural to want to emulate someone (i.e. a performer) or something (i.e. a trick) you admire. Surely copying is an essential part of the learning process, before you improve and then develop your own style and effects?

Yeah, i didn't read all the answers but it really is simple. If you purchased the method you also purchased the right to use that method. If you use it, you will change it over to your style without you even realizing it. I learned an effect a long time ago and I swear I was going strictly by the instructions. When I went back to show somebody I realized I had over the course of years made very subtle changes that really changed the whole shibang.

I think people know when they are stealing. I think if you have to ask the question then it has already been answered for the most part. I think that is true of most ethical questions.

cc100 wrote:I know that some people will say (perhaps correctly) that you shouldnt copy the moves/routines/acts etc. of other performers. But as a beginner, what choice do you have? It's natural to want to emulate someone (i.e. a performer) or something (i.e. a trick) you admire. Surely copying is an essential part of the learning process, before you improve and then develop your own style and effects?

That is ok to a point, but personally I think it is a little sad when people dont just copy an effect but also the patter, manerisms etc. surely Even beginers wanting to perform want to be themselves. I guess the alternative is to call yourself a tribute act. Some tribute bands make a good living. I cant bear the thought of Blaine, Chris Angel etch tribute magician acts being very popular. I feel originality is part of performing

Yeah you're right, there's no point copying exactly from someone else because it probably wont appear natural or suit your own mannerisms and personality. Having said that, I can see why people would want to copy a performer that is very charismatic and engages the audience well. Derren Brown is probably a good example, and I think perhaps if someone watched loads of his programmes and then decided to get into magic, then it's hard to imagine any other way of performing than what you have seen. I'm not saying copying is a good thing - clearly it isn't, and yes, it does appear quite sad if taken to an extreme. But perhaps it's just part of the learning process. You possibly develop your own style through taking what you perceive to be the best qualities of the different performers you watch, so it might not be quite as simple as just 'being yourself'.

So, somebody is wanting to steal Piffs act.

The trick performed is VDP, Johns own effect which is marketed. Anyone who buys the DVD is allowed to perform it.

The hand flasher is a dealer item. Anyone who buys one is entitled to use it.

Piffs "Tacular" is basically the Harbin folding table. This is a dealer item and anyone who buys it can use it.


However, using those props in the exact same order as Piff, with the same gags etc is technically theft. Unfortunately though thats the problem with any performance. Once its been performed, it's liable to be nicked by someboday. Just the way it goes!!

Mark Waddington wrote:However, using those props in the exact same order as Piff, with the same gags etc is technically theft. Unfortunately though thats the problem with any performance. Once its been performed, it's liable to be nicked by someboday. Just the way it goes!!

If you physically took the table, props from piffs possession thst could be theft because they are actual physical objects that are under his ownership.


The order and performance of his act can't be stolen.

This is the definition of Theft is

The dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intent to permenently deprive them of it.

There are various defenses, but hopefully this helps clarify it.

As for copying the exact performance of the act. It can't be protected in the uk. It comes under what would br the "Moral and Ethical Code of Magicians"

It has already been said by a variety of people on here already, I hope this just clarifies it.

You know, I've been thinking about this recently, and you can go insane trying to split the difference. Some people seem to live to show off their superior knowledge of magic by pointing out obscure prior art, but ultimately, you have to let it go or the art stagnates. Blatant rip-offs notwithstanding, everything is based on something else, whether we know it or not. There are, after all, only 92 naturally occurring elements.

Tomo wrote: There are, after all, only 92 naturally occurring elements.

I'll not stand for this kind of blasphemy in our temple! Get ye the F### Out! (and maybe to a pubbery)

Lawrence wrote:

Tomo wrote: There are, after all, only 92 naturally occurring elements.

I'll not stand for this kind of blasphemy in our temple! Get ye the F### Out! (and maybe to a pubbery)

OK, there are just air, water, fire an the other one. Can I go to the pub now?

Tomo wrote:OK, there are just air, water, fire

Wrong!!! There are http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S8ZrQG0y6g and I just lurve their jim jams!

Mandrake wrote:

Tomo wrote:OK, there are just air, water, fire

Wrong!!! There are http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S8ZrQG0y6g" target="_blank and I just lurve their jim jams!

Good gravity, I'd forgotten about them!

Tomo wrote:
there are just air, water, fire an the other one.

Also talking and electricity.