Whose Illusion is This? I think We All Know

[Richard Kaufman]

This guy Andy Gross (http://andygrosslive.com/) is doing an illusion whose original idea came from Steve Fearson. The rights (in perpetuity) were purchased by David Copperfield. Then Homer Liwag, Chris Kenner, and David worked on it for several years to bring it to performance level. And David did it both on TV (where he "pranked" people exactly like this guy is doing), and in his live shows.

It was a great illusion. And it still is. I'm just wondering why this guy thinks he can do it when it was created by, and is owned by, someone else. His website even says, "Check out Andy Gross doing his famous split man illusion." "His" illusion?

What do you think?

[Bill Mullins]

Copperfield's version.

The original "apparatus" (for lack of a better word) that allows this illusion was probably patentable. If that had been done, DC would be able to prevent others from building one, and thus performing it. This effect is probably much more protectable than most are.

[jkeyes1000]

I won't pretend to understand the complex intricacies of either Copyright/ Intellectual Property or Marketing and Manufacturing law in this country, but--as for the 'spirit' of Law in general, I doubt that there is any basis for prohibiting the use of a device that is neither banned nor regulated by The Criminal Code.

I suspect that the performer would only be liable if he or she stole the literal premise (i.e. the routine itself), or attempted to sell products based on the design.

The purchase of "exclusive rights" to an illusion most likely does not entitle the owner to prosecute someone for merely reproducing the essential effect.

Correct me if I'm wrong. It's a fascinating question.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Has anyone confirmed that Andy Gross did not seek and obtain permission from DC.
For all I know that could be the same apparatus used in DC's shows.

[Tom Moore]

We don't need to check. David does NOT license ANY of his effects/routines/sequences.

[Richard Kaufman]

The guy did not contact Copperfield.
He did not ask permission.
He just copied a unique illusion that took years to create.

[DooDah]

I doubt the illusion took years to create. Even if it did it appears from the comments that DC wasn't the one who created it either. It was Steve Fearson. Although DC may have a license in perpetuity from Fearson, it is unclear whether it is an exclusive license. Fearson could have granted a license to Gross as well.

With regard to patent law it can protect an idea or invention. However that protection only lasts for 17 years. After that it is in the public domain and is fair game. So if this illusion was patented, which is doubtful due to the expense and time involved in obtaining a patent, it's 17 year run may have expired. Additionally, if Gross is using a different apparatus to accomplish the illusion then no infringement has taken place anyway.

Regarding copywrite law it protects works of visual art(including photgraphs and motion pictures) literary works, and musical works. In other words it protects published works from being copied or performed without permission. There is no music here that has been copied or performed. Likewise no words, such as those in a play or book have been copied or performed. Additionally Gross is not presenting a video of DC doing the act without DC's permission. Instead, Gross is doing his own rendition which is permissible.

To illustrate, two photographers can both photograph the same sunset from the same vantage point at the same time. For all intents and purposes the photographs may be identical. However, neither photograph is actually a copy of the other. Each one is its own work of art and is entitled to its own copywrite protection.

In the case here Gross did not make and distribute a copy of a video of DC performing the illusion. This would have been a copywrite offense. Instead, Gross performed his own interpretation without using any copy writable material such as a musical score, lyrics, script, artwork, video, etc. Thus no infringement has taken place.

[Tom Stone]

I doubt the illusion took years to create. [SNIP] Thus no infringement has taken place.

That's the reasoning of a crook.

[Matthew Field]

Mr. DooDah has chosen his screen name well. He expects us to pay serious attention to his deep legal analysis while he consistently spells the word "copyright" as "copywrite."

Yes, this one-post wonder must have spent years studying the law and doubtless knows all about ethics and magic.

DooDah man -- any relation to Andy Gross?

Matt Field

[Jonathan Pendragon]

First post and anonymous (can't complain about the spelling, my akilles (:-) heal).

[Jonathan Pendragon]

The got separated in the previous post.

I know there have been arguments regarding the use of screen names. I have never liked the practice of anonymity in critique. If you want to write a bad poem (I write them all the time), sure, go ahead and sign it anyway you like, but arguments on ethics require ownership.
In the past many have cited the famous as using the technique in order not to bring undo attention to anything other than content. Ben Franklin's "Silence DoGood" letters are an example, albeit a bad one. Franklin was 16 and couldn't get published, so he contrived the pseudonym to hide his age. Other's fear persecution, that is understandable. But, troll's, self-flatters (those whom post anonymously in order to complement themselves), the mean spirited and those trying to win a dubious argument are far more likely to employee the technique.

[DooDah]

It is true I did not spell the word copyright correctly in my previous post. I also used a silly username as is done on many forums throughout the web. However, neither of these things is an argument as to the accuracy of the analysis. Rather than attacking the messenger and inconsequential things like spelling errors or user names, it would be more productive from an educational standpoint to critique the meat of the analysis. Therefore, if the analysis with regard to the law is incorrect then lets set that straight so that everyone can understand the law and how it works.

One poster indicated that my analysis sounded like the words of a crook. Actually it is just the opposite as I speak as one who had an actual registered copyrighted work infringed. I then went to court in a multi-million dollar lawsuit to enforce my claim and got a thorough education in intellectual property law along the way.

It is obvious from the comments that my analysis is unpopular. Unfortunately, popular or not, that is the law and the protections it affords.

[Richard Kaufman]

The concept which Steve Fearson sold to David Copperfield bears little in common with what was eventually performed. David and his crew work on these things for years, trying to get them just right, before they perform them.

I'll repeat: the guy took Copperfield's illusion and copied it.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Rendition, while perhaps an amusing fantasy - remains somewhat outside the realm of normal consequences for performing someone's trick without permission.

Has anyone made contact with the performer in question?

[Tom Stone]

One poster indicated that my analysis sounded like the words of a crook.

Not really. I actually implied that you were a crook, but I attempted to let you infer that from the context rather than from explicit words.

[Matthew Field]

Rather than chastise you for misspelling, Doodah, I was pointing out that someone who can't spell a word correctly is probably not the person you want to choose to talk to you about that word's meaning.

But rather than focus on that, allow me to note your avoidance of dealing with the other thing I wrote about -- ethics.

Stealing David Copperfield's trick, which he bought the rights to, is just plain unethical.

Matt Field

[JHostler]

Maybe I'm alone in thinking Doodah was responding primarily to jkeyes' post re legalities? From that standpoint, he was fairly accurate (though term of patent shifted from 17 to 20 years circa 1995).

With regard to ethics, Matt, I don't see anyone (including Doodah) defending Gross's actions. Nor should anyone defend Tom Stone's wildly edited misrepresentation of Doodah's original post - unless perhaps Tom knows something about Doodah's true identity we don't(!) And yes, I - like many others on this forum - have had material stolen (copyrighted material) and posted to torrent sites. I have felt the pain.

Perhaps the right way to think about this (in the U.S., anyway) is in terms of damages rather than IP. At least then you've got a shot at the thief's pocketbook. Paging Dr. Farmer...

[Ted M]

I don't think the "damages" angle works on its own. Unless a temporary monopoly granted under intellectual property law has been violated, then any "damages" would simply be viewed as economic competition in a competitive marketplace.

(Btw, let's keep Mr Farmer focused on writing his long-awaited Bammo Ten Card Poker Deal Manifesto!)

[JHostler]

I don't think the "damages" angle works on its own. Unless a temporary monopoly granted under intellectual property law has been violated, then any "damages" would simply be viewed as economic competition in a competitive marketplace.

(Btw, let's keep Mr Farmer focused on writing his long-awaited Bammo Ten Card Poker Deal Manifesto!)

I only suggested damages b/c it's so difficult to prosecute on the basis of IP in the U.S. unless a patent or copyright is clearly infringed. But yes, I agree - Bob's focus should remain squarely on that book of his!

[Travis]

I sent a message to Gross via his website which remains, not surprisingly, unanswered.

I'm sure DooDah is on solid ground regarding copyright legalities, but I don't think the majority here weren't already aware of those things. What we're talking about here is not the fact that Mr. Gross is a lawbreaker, but rather that Mr. Gross is a classless *sshole.

Steve Fearson sold exclusive rights to Copperfield. My understanding is that not even Steve is allowed to perform this under their agreement.

However, the most egregious offense is that Mr. Gross claims that this is HIS creation. He misleads people to believe that he's the one who came up with this, when, in fact, he's nothing more than a lazy copycat.

[DooDah]

I never commented on the ethics of Gross copying DC's illusion. I merely commented on the legal aspects and whether any protections of the illusion existed under the law, unfortunately probably not.

Ethics is actually a much more difficult question to address. I think we would probably all agree that if Gross' actions hurt DC in some way, then those actions would be unethical. However, what if Gross' actions helped DC? Are Gross' actions unethical then? For example, what if Gross' actions brought increased attention to DC's act and increased interest and sales. I'm not saying this is what happened, nor am I saying that this is Gross' intention. Some companies actually don't mind imitation, because they feel the increased exposure actually adds to their bottom line. With this in mind then it seems that the only one who can make a determination as to whether Gross' action were ethical is DC.

Additionally, since it is apparent that this forum doesn't like anonymity I'll reveal my true identity. My name is Chris Wood. Now in this great big world of 6 billion people am I really any less anonymous than when I was simply known as DooDah? Moreover, can you even be sure that Chris Wood is my actual name? Of course not. Internet acquaintances are anonymous by nature regardless of any name used.

BTW- I am all for differences of opinion as have been respectfully discussed herein, but I am quite mystified by the hostility and conflicted ethical values exhibited by Mr. Stone with regard to my comments and this discussion. So here is a little hostility of my own. Evidently Mr. Stone feels it is ethical to snip pieces of someone's post, rearrange the sentences and then try to pass it off as a direct quotation of the original poster's comments. In his mind it is obviously ethical to misrepresent someone's thoughts in this manner, and to call them a crook without any basis, but it is not ethical to copy an illusion. Or, could it be that Mr. Stone feels it is just not ethical to copy this particular illusion, but is ethical to copy other illusions? In this respect the picture of himself that Mr. Stone attaches to all of his posts is telling. I'm sure that everyone knows that young Mr. Stone is the actual person who invented the illusions that produce numerous balls between the fingers, and that he did so in miraculous fashion before he was even born. To have pulled that off he must be a true to life sorcerer!

[mrgoat]

Maybe I'm alone in thinking Doodah was responding primarily to jkeyes' post re legalities? From that standpoint, he was fairly accurate (though term of patent shifted from 17 to 20 years circa 1995).

With regard to ethics, Matt, I don't see anyone (including Doodah) defending Gross's actions. Nor should anyone defend Tom Stone's wildly edited misrepresentation of Doodah's original post - unless perhaps Tom knows something about Doodah's true identity we don't(!) And yes, I - like many others on this forum - have had material stolen (copyrighted material) and posted to torrent sites. I have felt the pain.

Perhaps the right way to think about this (in the U.S., anyway) is in terms of damages rather than IP. At least then you've got a shot at the thief's pocketbook. Paging Dr. Farmer...

Where's the LIKE button?

[baabaablacksheep]

I loved seeing the illusion, I looked at the one in question, two that Copperfield did and two other that were posted on Youtube as well. For sure DC's stage illusion is head and shoulders above the others.

As far as the argument goes, I tend to lean more toward what DooDah is saying then the others. I don't think it is anyone's place other than DC or a member of his team to comment or pass judgement on Andy Gross. And the attacks on DooDah are what really turn me off about the magic community. There is no shortage of people attacking people on the Magic Cafe and the Genii Forum.

Here's some perspective from another industry that has been decimated by theft (of another kind). I was watching an interview of a famous musician who has a really popular song that is covered in concerts by many of today's top performers. The interviewer asked "do you get paid a lot for that," the answer was "not at all." The interviewer said "thank must be frustrating", the answer was "Not at all, I find it to be a complement."

[Richard Kaufman]

Since I've had email with David about it, I feel full capable of commenting that he's not the least bit pleased when someone else cops his work.

[JHostler]

I think we would probably all agree that if Gross' actions hurt DC in some way, then those actions would be unethical. However, what if Gross' actions helped DC? Are Gross' actions unethical then? For example, what if Gross' actions brought increased attention to DC's act and increased interest and sales.

OK, Doodah... I defended your technical/legal assessment, but now you're beginning to sound like the crackpots who defend piracy as a market leveler. Rubbish. Ethics are neither as relative nor as economically based as you propose. Given DC's net worth, and the extent to which both that $$$ and his persona are tied to the impossible, I'd put money on him being really, really ticked off about this.

[Richard Kaufman]

There is nothing in the world that Gross could do that would help David Copperfield.

[DooDah]

JHostler-

Thanks for your support. However, please read my last post carefully. I never defend Gross' actions. In fact, I agree with you that it is probable that DC would be upset by Gross' actions. Unfortunately we don't know that for sure.

Here is something else to think about. We've made the assumption all along that DC owns this illusion and purchased rights from Steve Fearson who thought it up first. Here is my question, how do we know that Steve Fearson was the first one with the idea? Without a copyright or patent, it is difficult to tell. While unlikely, perhaps Gross thought it up first, but didn't develop the illusion. He then happened to tell Fearson about it. Fearson, realizing it was a great idea sold it to DC. If Gross didn't protect his work by registering it, then he is out of luck. But so are Fearson and DC if they didn't register it either. With no one registering for a patent or copyright the only protection DC has is a contract that keeps Fearson from performing the act. Because DC is a large corporation he has the wherewithal to bring attention to the illusion to the masses and to do it very well. Additionally, because his audience reach is so extensive it is very likely that the first time we become aware of a new illusion is because we saw him do it first. However, we need to be careful not to assume that someone was the first to have the idea just because that person was the first one we know of who presented the idea.

This is why registration of intellectual property becomes becomes so important. Registration of a work provides unbiased evidence of who created the work, what the work entailed, and when the work was created. It is what the courts use as a basis for their decisions and why I didn't address ethics and just stuck to the law in my original posts.

[Richard Kaufman]

Doodah wrote, "In fact, I agree with you that it is probable that DC would be upset by Gross' actions. Unfortunately we don't know that for sure."

But you do know. I've just told you.

And there is no way to register an illusion as intellectual property unless you patent it, thereby divulging its method.

So, you're claiming that unless Steve Fearson somehow protected this illusion via some form of legal protection, you cannot claim it is was not created by Gross or someone else. However that form of legal protection likely does not exist.

[Bill Mullins]

I think we would probably all agree that if Gross' actions hurt DC in some way, then those actions would be unethical. However, what if Gross' actions helped DC? Are Gross' actions unethical then?

Yes. Because DC gets to decide, not Gross.

[DooDah]

I guess this is how I would look at registration of intellectual property with regard to the magic business and this discussion in particular. While registration may divulge a trade secret, it also allows you to go to court to protect that secret from unauthorized use. In this respect the magic business is no different from any other business that has trade secrets. Additionally, even though registration may divulge a trade secret people would have to be looking for and find the patent in order to learn of it. Moreover, in this case reading a patent wasn't even necessary. Assuming Gross copied a trade secret, he didn't get it from reading a patent or copyrighted work because evidently there wasn't one. He simply figured it out on his own.

With or without registration the secret was figured out, and not just by Gross I might add. Check out the web and there are videos of others performing the trick as well. Registration wouldn't have divulged any more of the secret than people were able to figure out on their own. Therefore, registration could have only helped.

As it stands now, while DC may be upset that someone is using his idea or trade secret, there isn't anything he can do about it. He can't even prove it is his idea:( I know that there are tricks or illusions that have been patented. For instance, the first couple to do the Quick Change routine patented it. Of course this hasn't stopped the copy cats, and I've seen some on the web. But at least it affords the original creators with an avenue of recourse against infringers and proof to their claim that it is their idea.

[Roger M.]

Gents, Mr. Do Duh is yanking 'yer chains.

The argument he's making would be fine on a general ethics forum, but on a forum for magicians, populated by magicians, and in service to magicians - his is just so much bluster and noise.
His is internet trolling at it's finest.

That there is little protection offered from the law, and that not ripping Mr. Copperfield off depends heavily on magicians acting in an ethical manner speaks loudly enough to drown out Mr DD's trolling efforts.

To engage him actively is pointless, and only plays into his attempts to act the puppet-master and control the conversation with his twisted logic.

[baabaablacksheep]

I stumbled across this when looking at the other videos. I am not sure if it is using a similar method but it is really interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxXfGHMwzjw

[Brad Jeffers]

The first thing that came to mind when I saw this, was the Kevin James version. Different method, different presentation, but the same effect. Who was performing their particular version first, James or Copperfield? Did anyone get upset, or feel ripped off in this instance. If not, then why not?

The Gross presentation (no pun intended) is different from Copperfield's, however it is still the same effect (and seemingly of utmost importance), employs the same method. It's kind of funny that the copying of the method would incur more wrath than the copying of the effect. Aren't we all taught early on, that method is not important. It is only the effect that counts.

Of course, as someone once said, method affects effect. The James version comes across somewhat differently, due to it's alternative method. The denouement of the Gross and Copperfield presentations however, look identical (due to the identical methodology). I should not however, use the term denouement in reference to Gross, as his presentation is merely to jump out from behind a tree. Without any buildup, can there be a denouement? He has taken what in Copperfield's hands, is a grand and mystifying, theatrical illusion, and turned it into a sight gag.

But he is after all, a comedian.

[Matthew Field]

Chris Wood??!! My buddy Chris Wood, or some other, jerky, Chris Wood?

I won't be at the Circle for a while, but I'd love to know.

So I can punch you on the schnoz.

Matt Field

[DooDah]

Matt Field-

I'm not the Chris Wood who you know. So don't punch him in the nose:)

[Q. Kumber]

Matt Field-

I'm not the Chris Wood who you know. So don't punch him in the nose:)

Delighted to read that. The Magic Circle doesn't need another punch up.

[Matthew Field]

Thanks, DooD.

ah.

Matt Field

[lybrary]

So if this illusion was patented, which is doubtful due to the expense and time involved in obtaining a patent, ...

Just wanted to clarify one error here by Chris Wood. It is actually relatively easy and cheap to get a patent. I know, because I have applied and been granted more than 10 patents in Europe and in the US. I have done it alone, with a law firm and through my former employer. Getting a patent is easy. The costly part is DEFENDING it. And if you can't properly defend it then what's the point of getting it?

[Jonathan Townsend]

No comment about copyists and those who use other's material without direct expressed permission as regards artistic merit or personal integrity. However, the practice is ingrained in the magic market - ie it seems to sell product at the magic shop so ... it's business. If you own a set of billards, do "mac aces" ... what's the great complaint about someone else doing a trick you saw on TV?

If DC wishes to make comment on the guy's TV show - let him.

[Richard Kaufman]

The Kevin James trick has nothing to do with Copperfield's "Laser" illusion. The James trick has been copied by Criss Angel, and it goes back to some guy who used to do it with Johnny Eck and his whole brother in the 1930s or 1940s.