Card Warp

[Brandon Hall]

Richard,
Up to that point we had heard Pauls side through his supporteres and heard Michaels side through his supporters.
Paul, made a point of personally, adressing the situation. Until or unless I/we hear directly from Michael Weber that HE still has a problem with this, I will consider it a non-issue.

[Tom Gilbert]

I certainly hope this situation gets resolved in a friendly manner. I'm somewhat quizzed by the earlier post saying that Michael was not aware Paul was using or teaching his ending, but there are a good number of people saying it is Michael's ending.
In the years Paul has been using/teaching the ending, no one ever told Michael what was going on?

[Paul Green]

Hi everyone,

Time for me, once again, to chime in.

Michael Weber and I have been in communication. He asked me what I remembered when he and I discussed Card Warp. I did share with him my recollections. Further, he asked me why I did not consult him prior to releasing the DVD or lecturing on the item. I also addressed that with Michael Weber, directly.

Yes, Michael Weber showed me a display ending for Card Warp. To my memory, it was different then what I developed. Michael Weber, and his loyal friends disagree.

I chose not to consult Michael Weber before releasing the item because I felt that what I had developed was significantly different from what I recall. Aaronson, Bongo, Cervon, & Lewis were contacted because the material I used in my routines was without variation. Michael Weber felt that I should have contacted him.

What we have here is a difference of opinion. Nothing I say will change anyone's mind. I stand by my recollections (I don't think my memory has "failed") and by my actions. I know that both Michael Weber and I are serious about the Art of Magic. I do my best to credit and obtain permission when I see fit. I have apologized to Michael for not contacting him.

Michael Weber and I are communicating. Richard Kaufman, Jon Racherbaumer, Bob Farmer, & Michael Close have high-profile positions within the Magic Community and when they offer their opinions, people listen. I will not attack Michael Weber or his supporters. I don't think that Michael Weber needs to personally post his feelings to clear the air, and I would like anyone that is pressuring him for a response to stop. Can't we all move forward?

I feel as if I am most hated person in Magic (not withstanding J. B.). The loss of friends and reputation is punishment enough.

Respectfully,

Paul Green

[Roger M.]

Having read Paul's posts first on the Cafe before that thread was pulled, and now here, it certainly appears to me that he had no malice throughout this process.

He has displayed nothing but pure class in the face of what's obviously a distressing situation for himself and Michael.

He's spoken with Michael (Not "Ken" as in my earlier post, thanks for the correction Richard) and continues to communicate with him.

When the principals continue to struggle to get clarity on this situation, there seems to be little we as bystanders can offer that can actually help.

[bagelsandlox]

Have they discontinued selling the DVD?

[Richard Kaufman]

The DVD has not been pulled. It seems to be a case that Paul Green forgot how little he changed the original item shown to him many years ago by Michael Weber. He thinks he made major changes, but in fact he has (I'm told) made only the most minor changes.

As someone who saw Weber do this decades ago said to me, "Why is Paul Green putting his version of someone's unpublished handling on the market?"

[Dave Egleston]

The best case, he should follow the precedence set by THEORY 11 and Steve Dusheck concerning the Digital Dissolve - Slippery Sam screw up.

There's nothing else that can possibly clear the error.

Dave

[El Mystico]

It is odd.
Because, agreed, Paul's tone in his emails is gentemanly.
But the fact that the DVD has not been pulled means, in effect, that Paul is calling Weber, and his 'loyal' friends, liars.

[Maurice Newman]

I think your characterization of what has happened and the use of the word liars is a bit too strong. There are always equities on both sides. Not the least of which is that Mr. Green may have ceeded control to the DVD to the company which is marketing it. They and not Mr. Green may be in the drivers seat. I find it much better to ascribe things to someone only when those words come from the person themselves rather than our interpretations of what happened. Mr. Green is a gentleman and so is Mr. Weber. Sadly there are mistakes made or things which could have been handled in a different way. But thats just life. I dont think we should try someone in these forums nor ascribe to them certain tendencies ie to call another a liar.

Respectfully,
Maurice S Newman Esq.

[El Mystico]

You have a point. It would be fairer to say that what Mr Green seems to be saying is that Weber, Farmer, Racherbaumer, and Close have all collectively failed to remember Weber's trick.
Marks out of ten for credibility, anyone?

[Maurice Newman]

Its a real shame you missed the thrust of my post. Its also a shame you seem to want to fan fires rather than to let those involved with them handle it in their own time and manner. It seems to me that these people Mr. Green and Mr. Weber are able to handle this without your handiwork. AFter all what purpose does your post serve save to inflame? This is not a slam upon you but rather an observation.
I hope you take it the right way.
Respectfully
Maurice S. Newman

[Richard Kaufman]

I don't know that anything has been worked out between Michael and Paul. I can understand Paul's position IF in fact during the ensuing 20 years he thought he added more to the item than he actually did. Once the train has left the station, it's hard to call it back. The DVD is out there and selling very well--it's hard to just stop that. I also don't know that Paul feels he has to stop selling it. He seems to be under the impression that what he's selling is different enough to make it "okay" to continue. That's a different situation than the other problem, which is selling or publishing a variation of someone else's unpublished material.

[Tom Gilbert]

Considering how many effects get released on the slightest of variation, whether they know the original source or not... What does it take or how different does it have to be?

[Jim Maloney]

Peer review is generally a good thing. Before publishing anything, it's a good idea to run it by several well-posted folks to get their input. If enough of them are saying "Hey, that's new!", then it probably is. Still, it would only take one person to point out that you've duplicated someone else's work.

This is partially why I'm not too keen on dumping on Paul here -- it's something he's apparently been showing around in person for a long time, and no one seems to have approached him, until now, to say that's what he was doing was exactly like Michael Weber. He seems to honestly believe that he has advanced Weber's idea beyond what Weber did. I don't know, though, as I'm not familiar with what either of them have done here.

I do hope that they continue to talk and can come to some agreement that is acceptable to both of them.

-Jim

[Jonathan Townsend]

Considering how many effects get released on the slightest of variation...

As to openly offering something based upon unpublished works and without permission - that seems incongruent to our culture of secrets, trust and common courtesy.

If someone wants to announce their disrespect for our literature by cluttering it with trivial (linear and unmotivated) variations of explored themes - especially without offering the work in context including its roots - well that seems unproductive to our craft in the long term IMHO.

[Tom Gilbert]

I seriously am not trying to start an argument, but interested in
opinion. What about independent creation. The ending itself isn't so complicated that someone else wouldn't have stumbled on it. Matter of fact a few people have claimed to but didn't think it was that big of a deal. Now on the other hand there's been a release of a Jennings trick using a gaffed card. I haven't seen the dvd, but have read that some believe it's hardly different from the Jennings routine. And there doesn't seem to be much mention of that. Maybe it does pass "that line" where it's considered that it's been changed enough?

[Jonathan Townsend]

I seriously am not trying to start an argument, but interested in
opinion. ...I haven't seen the dvd, but ...there doesn't seem to be much mention ...where it's considered that it's been changed enough?

They X but Y construction tips the troll alert pretty quick here.

Or more simply - why defend the creativity of a photocopier? Very small world we have here where gossip of a discovery can foster it's reinvention by newbies with just a few phone calls and a little nudging.

But you already knew that, right?

[Jonathan Townsend]

Somewhere under the muck of denial is a legitimate question which IMHO merits its own discussion. The question might be phrased as follows:

When does ones handling of a published item merit its own publication and some claim of originality?

[Jim Maloney]

When does ones handling of a published item merit its own publication and some claim of originality?

This is the question that I was attempting to answer above.

-Jim

[Tom Gilbert]

Sorry I phrased it my way Jonathan, and thanks for the troll comment. It appears my honest question didn't meet your criteria.
And Jim, thanks for an intelligent response. I do agree with your earlier post regarding the time frame. Paul has been showing and lecturing on this for quite a while.

[Jonathan Townsend]

... Paul has been showing and lecturing on this for quite a while.

Any feelings about that? Lots of beans spilled over time there, no?

Sorry I phrased it my way Jonathan, and thanks for the troll comment. It appears my honest question didn't meet your criteria.

I don't believe you are sorry or that your text conveys honest and clear intent. It appears (to me) to convey distraction from a fairly straight discussion of protcal and courtesy.

How about that Jennings trick, which specifically? And where do you stand on that one?

[Tom Gilbert]

Jonathan give it a break.

[Jonathan Townsend]

So instead of a discusson of items and specifics we get more distraction?

Jonathan give it a break.

I object to your distracting about basic issues which are at the core of our craft.

It's all about basic respect, like keeping personal dialog in private via email.

I too hope Mr Weber and Mr Green can discuss their matter and resolve it in private. Around here I get the feeling there are some who just don't 'get it' about private and being protective of ones own or others secrets.

[Richard Kaufman]

Rarely is something changed enough so that credit is no longer warranted to the inspiration. What Jennings trick is it? Could be "The Close-Up Illusion." Some guy just put out a one-trick DVD which used Jennings trick and then added one phase at the end. At least it was a good ending, but I can't remember if he mentioned Jennings or not.

[000]

Jonathan, have you decided to make that (delayed) purchase or not?

[Jonathan Townsend]

I purchased the DVD after discussing the matter with Mr. Weber - a matter of protocol. I can see this sort of ending making a fun "reverse mystery" moment where you show them the impossible and let them imagine how a detective might be left to ponder the crime scene in Wonderland.

Adding this in a couple of hours later to share an approach to presenting the trick. What show is it that has the "tong tong" sound when a scene changes? Anyway I was watching the video for Micheal Giles Contortionist and trying to justify the ending when it hit me - the destruction of a card - found it "that" condition as the crime in a murder mystery. Then the card as character from Alice in Wonderland clicked. That led to looking at the trick as a "what if a magician tried to do two tricks at once with his assistant in the same box" or such - and that would be the the simple yet absurd solution to the mystery - left as "and there we have the crime scene exactly as found..." ;)

[bagelsandlox]

Richard, it's the "I Hate David Copperfield Trick" which is "The Close-Up Illusion" ( Louis Falanga's Lake Tahoe Card Magic ). Williams did credit Jennings.

[Gil]

I am probably in the minority on this but these type of discussions are not only silly but ultimately harmful to the magic community. In this case we have a minor variation by Mr. Weber to an effect by someone else. 20 yrs later he claims Paul Green has not sufficiently varied his variation.

Frankly, an important part of a source of progress in any field is playing with and varying that which has gone before. To claim eternal rights for anything is absurd. The goal of protecting these type of things is to promote creativity but when it devolves into this kind of legalism it becomes counter productive.


Gil Scott

[Jonathan Townsend]

Gil, I sincerely hope you are in a small minority as regards the basic premise that our craft advances by monkey-see-monkey-do wanton publishing of other people's work without permission.

By way of counter example I'd suggest looking carefully at Hofzinser's known works - and at Karl Germain's works - and then ask yourself seriously what has been advanced over the last hundred years of playing around.

What sort of person goes around effecting what others believe yet shows no regard for the propriety of a peers work or the feelings of one whose work they wish to explore (much less publish into an open market)?

[Gil]

Jonathan, I ask you to look seriously at yourself and ask how much of what you do has an ancestry. When I look at myself I acknowledge that I am the beneficiary of the long history of the magic community.

Now I do not advocate a "monkey see monkey do" approach, but what I think we should be honest about is that no art is created from nothing but is always based on what went before. We develop our own ideas by starting with the work of others and I can think of no example in which this is not the case in magic or any other field.

To argue that if I come up with a variation it is mine forever is not only silly and elitist but runs counter to the idea of some form of copyright or patent-which is to encourage creativity.

I did not say that there should be "regard for the propriety of a peers work or the feelings of one whose work they wish to explore.." but rather the attempt to stifle others from doing what lead to the idea in the first place (e.g. experiment with an existing idea) is self contradictory to say the least.

[Gil]

please insert a no in front of quote so it reads (NO"regard for the propriety of a peers work or the feelings of one whose work they wish to explore....)

[Jonathan Townsend]

Gil, I don't ask much of anyone beyond being honest with themselves.

Were I to presume upon you - I might ask you to review this thread and note how many here contacted and discussed the matter directly with both parties and of them which take sides on the matter between MrGreen and MrWeber.

On a more positive tact, have you published anything into the realm of closeup conjuring? I'm curious about who you are and ones published works sometimes offer insight.

[Gil]

Well I am really unconcerned about the specifics of the Weber/Green controversy, but what does interest me is the impact of this sort of magical protectionism and its impact on magic.

I am not primarily a writer but rather a performer. I have been a professional magician for over 40 yrs. performing for corporations, trade shows, theme parks and so forth.

I have written a set of lecture notes for a series of lectures that I did several years ago and had an article on this subject in MAGIC May 1993.

I am firmly convinced that if the level of performance by the whole magic community is elevated we all benefit. Therefore I think a free flow of ideas will lift all boats.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Gil, I'm with you on the performing side and encourage all in this craft to explore the larger world of theater to learn as much as possible from doing theater.

As to the "impact of protectionism on magic" - Gil - magic is built from secrets and trust. I sincerely hope no further exposition on those notions or their significance is required. Perhaps a visit to the craphound to read about someone's little brother will inform where I feel I could not.

BTW, where has any magical protectionism impeded the craft? Would folks have really done better if I had betrayed trusts and discussed other folks unpublished material in my published works? I feel this is not the case - really.

Gil- anyone who wants to know anything as they develop new works can usually get to the inventor or their trustee to see about using the state-of-their unpublished works fairly easily. IMHO this effective underground merely stifles the dolts and the secrets collectors - both liabilities to the development of new material in our craft. How so? the attentive reader will be asking. Most simply, if a dolt exposes a principle without working application to our audiences, we lost the impact of that principle when a great application comes to mind from one of our innovators. It only takes a dolt to expose a trick. It takes an artist to find a wonderful way to present a trick so that it serves them and later on can serve others in performance.

Magic as an innovative craft does not "need" anyone in this market. It did fine and will do fine thanks to the VERY FEW who do that stuff.

Magic as a performing art will likewise do fine as there are folks with a theater background who enjoy bringing delight to audiences via proffered mysteries and amusements.

So where does that leave us?

I support your right to explore published themes and develop whatever works you desire for your own audiences. I request you mind the feelings of those whose works you take as inspiration when putting yourself or your works in competition in a retail or performing market.

Tomorrow I will look for intelligent comments about what can be had for free at a place named above as regards the themes of respecting eachothers selfhood and works.

Here's hoping Cory,

Jon

[Jonathan Townsend]

It's a day later. Anyone here get as far as saying hello to Cory?

[Gil]

Jonathan-

I don't think you have advanced the argument here at all. It still seems to me that an important part of developing anything at all is playing with, which includes not only thought but performance, and varying that which has gone before. In so doing I will find ideas and handlings that I like better. What I object to is not this process but the idea that somehow I can close off this process for everyone that follows me. It seems to me that your argument smacks more than a little of an elitist attitude that doesn't want the "commoners" in on the process.

A digression I recognize theatre as having some connection to variety performing but in reality the two are quite different.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Gil, Where have you seen a "close off this [development] process"?

[Gil]

When you inhibit the exchange and flow of ideas by means of this sort of protectionism it seems to be the inevitable result. Over the years I have seen this attitude become more dominant at clubs and conventions. I fear perhaps things will revert to the pre-boom years like the 50's and sixties (when I got started) when the craft was on the edge of extinction.

At what point is a variation of the level that it grants one exclusivity? What does such exclusivity imply but that no one else should work in that direction? I remember a number of years ago Bruce Cervon published a book with the claim that the buyer did not have the rights to perform the effects within.

Gil Scott

[Jonathan Townsend]

Gil, the craft is in no danger of extinction. Also your memory of the nature/intent of the Cervon/Weber restrictions as regards ASKING PERMISSION IF APPEARING ON THE SAME VENUE OR ON TV is a little bit off.

European law has some standards as regards performing exclusivity as does our law as regards plays and scripts.

I have yet to encounter any restrictions as to what I may explore or perform. Long ago I was counseled by some of the underground that were I to be showing material which was not in print or exposing material from very limited distribution books that I might be excluded from further demonstrations of such material - and I am happy to keep other folks works in progress secret.

:)

So again, what's the root of your concern? I hope you understand how odd I find this discussion given my recent exposure to folks making claims upon others works in print. Not so long ago Lee Asher's twisting routine was offered using queens instead of aces as a "novel" item - even though it involved exposing Lee's routine as part of the product :( - or the offering of Steve Dusheck's item and gimmick without so much as a kindly mention of the guy much less his permission ...

[Gil]

No you are wrong about the Cervon issue you are in error, if you wish to check it out there was an article about it in INSIDE MAGIC (the newsletter that precede MAGIC).

This whole "underground" is part of what I find silly, as to specific actual rip offs (eg Lee Asher) sure thats bad-but the point remains.

This paragraph provrd my point-

"I have yet to encounter any restrictions as to what I may explore or perform. Long ago I was counseled by some of the underground that were I to be showing material which was not in print or exposing material from very limited distribution books that I might be excluded from further demonstrations of such material - and I am happy to keep other folks works in progress secret."

This whole attitude of I'm in the in group or underground and you aren't is high school gibberish.

Gil Scott