Whose Illusion is This? I think We All Know

[Diego]

That "guy" who performed his sawing illusion with the Eck brothers, was Rajah Raboid, a well-known successful performer, who made most of his money with stage and radio mentalism, that was the actual main feature/attraction of his show that included magic and illusions.

Those who ask, if magic and mentalism can be combined in a performance, often are unaware that some of the most successful mindreaders of a previous era: Alexander, Mel-Roy, Ralph Richards, and Rajah Raboid, did complete illusion shows with their mentalism performances, without a problem.

[Travis]

Brad, Gross' presentation is not different from DC's. It's different from DC's stage presentation, but go back and watch the entire TV special on which it appeared (Tornado of Fire). There are a couple different street segments, one in which DC walks out from behind a vehicle in severed form, frightening some onlookers and their children. Gross simply mimicked this and did it repeatedly.

Look, if I was David, I doubt I'd waste the effort going after this leach on legal grounds. He's not hurting DC financially, or even as a performer, I'm sure. Even so, it doesn't mean I wouldn't be pissed if I were him. I would. Hell, I'm not him and I'm pissed.

[Roger M.]

The full weight of DC's professional, financial, and legal resources aimed at a rip-off artist like Gross would no doubt be severely and personally withering for Mr. Gross and his like.

But there is also an associated profile attached to such a public thrashing of another artist, a profile which many big stars (like DC) often don't wish to assume.

Combined with the minimal legal support (this is largely, if not entirely based on ethics, let's be frank) it may not be an attractive direction for an extremely well known entertainment figure like DC to undertake.

Having said that, I'd not want to be Gross if DC decided this was where he was going to take his personal and professional stand on folks ripping off his illusions.
Win or lose, it would be painful for the perpetrator.

[Chris Aguilar]

Is this illusion currently part of DC's show?

[Richard Kaufman]

No--it has not been in David's show for years.

[Chris Aguilar]

No--it has not been in David's show for years.

Years ago, I saw DC perform this live in Sacramento, and proper attention wasn't paid to the lighting and angles. As such, the method was very evident to much (if not most) of the audience.

[DooDah]

In his latest post Roger M. makes some insightful points about the public's perceptions of a big name artist going after a small time copycat. I hadn't thought of that before and agree that as a big name you don't want to be perceived as a bully beating up on the small guy even if the small guy is ripping you off. However, I still think it could be a good idea to protect your ideas through the use of a patent or copyright.

If nothing else registration is evidence of who should receive credit for a work as it establishes the date of creation and who owns it. While a big name artist might not want to bother going after the assets of a small time copycat, the mere threat of a patent suit might get the infringer to stop. If not, the patent holder could move the court for injunctive relief if the infringer won't stop.

In another scenario what if the infringer is another big name artist? Or what if a manufacturer is producing and selling the effects of an artist without permission? In these instances A big name artist might want some monetary relief from the acts of an infringer. A patent or copyright offers an opportunity to obtain some relief.

Now think about it from another perspective. What if you were a small time guy with a big time idea? The next thing you know a big time guy has taken your idea without permission and is making all kinds of money with it that should have been yours. Of course you'd be ticked off, but without some kind of proof the creation is yours, there is nothing you could do about it.

Magic can be big business. Unfortunately, the potential to make money with it can be an overwhelming temptation for some people to steal someone else's idea regardless of the magician's code or any other code of ethics. A big time artist might be tempted to steal from another big time artist or from a little guy. A little guy might be tempted to steal from a big time artist in order to make a name for himself. Of course these people don't look at it as stealing. Instead, they rationalize that they didn't actually take anything, they're just borrowing someone else's idea.

So, if you've got a great idea and you'd be really upset if someone stole it or took the credit for it, think about protecting it.

[Richard Kaufman]

I never saw it performed badly, Chris. I loved the illusion because it was so damn bizarre. David wisely played it up as a strange and humorous piece--never super serious. When he kind of hopped/slid down the little slide after being chopped in two it was really weird.

[lybrary]

What if you were a small time guy with a big time idea? The next thing you know a big time guy has taken your idea without permission and is making all kinds of money with it that should have been yours. Of course you'd be ticked off, but without some kind of proof the creation is yours, there is nothing you could do about it.

This is all nice in theory, but practice plays out very differently. Having a patent doesn't mean much. If somebody infringes your patent you need to sue. To sue you need to have a lawyer. This costs money, much more money than the 'small time guy' typically has. So the protection is only on paper but not in reality. As a good friend of mine with more than 100 patents to his name once told me: "Unless your idea is actually worth about 1 million dollar, it makes no financial sense to patent an idea, because your legal defense will cost more than the hole thing is worth."

Patents are primarily useful for companies or wealthy individuals who have the necessary financial depth to actually go through a lengthy and expensive patent or copyright defense. Otherwise it is in general bad advice to get a patent. Yes, a patent makes for a nice certificate on the wall to show your friends. Once you have a few it is also nice to count them. But other than that it makes little sense.

Another dirty secret of patents is that their maintenance fees go up with time. While it is actually cheap to apply and get a patent ($200-$400), the fees to keep the patent in place for the entire 20 years go up over time. Unless your patent generates enough profits you will hardly want to pay $1600 after 3.5 years, $3600 after 7.5 years and $7400 after 11.5 years. So in total $12600. I don't think the 'small guy' would be able to pay maintenance fees, let alone pay the lawyer fees should it come to a real dispute.

[Max Maven]

I am so tired of this conversation, which has gone around in circles ceaselessly for the past century.

There is a difference between what is legal and what is ethical. The laws of intellectual property are necessarily complex, but in the specific world of magicians, the basic rules are simple and established.

Proclamations that suggest that no one can claim originality, because any idea might have been previously invented, are untrue distractions.

In this situation, it's clear:

1. Steve Fearson came up with a new illusion.

2. He sold the exclusive rights to David Copperfield.

3. It became Copperfield's property, to perform or not perform, as he sees fit.

4. A schmuck reverse engineered the illusion, then circulated it on the Internet for his own aggrandizement.

5. The schmuck had no right to do this. He stole property that was explicitly owned by someone else. He deserves no excuses, no support.

Whether or not David Copperfield opts to take legal action, and whether or not such action would ultimately be successful, is moot. And I say this as someone who has had successful results from a legal challenge over my own intellectual property. The larger point is that, with or without a lawsuit, the magic community should hold this thief accountable for his unethical actions.

[Matthew Field]

5. The schmuck had no right to do this. He stole property that was explicitly owned by someone else. He deserves no excuses, no support.

My point exactly. Bravo, Max.

Matt Field

[Q. Kumber]

Magicians will do what they have always done.

Kellar took Maskelyne's levitation and the S.A.M. made him their first Dean.

Why is anyone surprised at Andy Gross? The only real surprise is that it has taken so long.

As Max said, this conversation has been going on for years, and I have no doubt will continue to do so for decades to come.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Ethics, as you may recall, begins by asking "what is the good".
One can argue that the good is that which is rewarded.

IMHO, reading of a letter to Mr. Gross from the Dean of the SAM asking the provenance of the work he showed on TV would have been of interest - as would Mr. Gross's response.

Magicians will do what they have always done.

Kellar took Maskelyne's levitation and the S.A.M. made him their first Dean.

Why is anyone surprised at Andy Gross? ...

Those to take without permission continue to be published, lauded at magic conventions - recieve "credits" rather than scorn and supported rather than censured...

But those who do spend the efforts to make new works are not so likely to want to expose themselves to this madding crowd. What is the purpose of being praised by those who reward their sense of novelty without any moral sense of a works provenance?

Thanks to the internet it can be more readily noticed where and when such acts of taking occur. Similarly it can be all the more quickly detected when a toxic cloud of sophism taints the notions of academic recognition and praise with a hypocritical mention of 'credit' for works that were copied or abducted.

For me the dialog ends when self respect reframes the pattern of "monkey see, monkey do" into a question like: "how does this support my belief that I am somehow more than and perhaps better than a monkey".

[Q. Kumber]

"When men get in the habit of helping themselves to the property of others, they cannot easily be cured of it."
- New York Times editorial in opposition to the first income tax, 1909

[Jonathan Townsend]

"When men get in the habit of helping themselves to the property of others, they cannot easily be cured of it."
- New York Times editorial in opposition to the first income tax, 1909

Have not found a verifiable citation to that line - or for that matter the line attributed to Aesop;

"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office"

[Steve Bryant]

The Gross video was featured on Ellen today.

[Travis]

Ugh.
Ellen is very high profile. I wonder if David will take action, even if only to ask Ellen to correct the record. She's a very big fan of magic.

[JimAlfredson]

Some guy? It was Rajah Raboid. Some guy. -jim

[JimAlfredson]

Sorry, Diego, I didn't read fare enough through the letters.

[Richard Kaufman]

Yes, I wrote "some guy." Now castrate me if you wish!

[Jeffrey Korst]

Yes, I wrote "some guy." Now castrate me if you wish!

I thought your "Balls" were already on eBay.

[Herbert L Becker]

David helped invent and create this routine but does not own a patent on it

[Bill Mullins]

"When men get in the habit of helping themselves to the property of others, they cannot easily be cured of it."
- New York Times editorial in opposition to the first income tax, 1909

Have not found a verifiable citation to that line -

See NYTimes July 8 1909 p 6.

[Tom Stone]

David helped invent and create this routine but does not own a patent on it

You are a crook and no one listens to you. Go away!

[Rick Ruhl]

David helped invent and create this routine but does not own a patent on it

Look what the cat drug in.........

[CraigMitchell]

Continuing this thread ... we now have a South African magician, Johan Yssel, who has also appropriated this piece.



But then adds on his horrific website: "Johan is very keen to share his magic and experience with other magicians and entertainers in the industry. That is why Johan say it is sad that magicians copy him so often without consulting him. "We can do so much better if magicians talk to each other, share and brainstorm to achieve a better end result."

"Often copied by other magicians he remains a proud artist inventing his own magic effects"

[CraigMitchell]

His justification is as follows:

"I have no idea how Copperfield does it. His method gives him much more freedom. I saw him twice performing it live. This is my own method to achieve a similar effect. I don't think it is even close to the same."

Interesting insight into such twisted logic ...

[Timothy Hyde]

Now at just $34.99

http://www.morphsuits.com/sliced-in-half-costume

[Richard Kaufman]

You have to love this part:

"Description
Sliced in Half Illusion Prank - Magic of Rahat Collection
Designed by the Magician Prankster himself and as seen on Magic of Rahat's YouTube channel."

What a sack of sh*t.

[John M. Dale]

Wow, this guy is really creative. He also designed this: http://www.morphsuits.com/falling-head-costume & this: http://www.morphsuits.com/severed-hand-rahat-costume



JMD

[Tim Ellis]

I thought I'd seen it all....

[Richard Kaufman]

Tim, until you've seen the inside of the lid of your urn or coffin, you will definitely not have seen it all.

[mrgoat]

Tim, until you've seen the inside of the lid of your urn or coffin, you will definitely not have seen it all.

Until you've been on set at a porn shoot and seen a girl pretending to be into something and then limping off clutching her fanjita in agony, you've not seen it all.

I promise ya.

[Richard Kaufman]

I guess there's a lot we don't want to see!

[Bill Mullins]

clutching her fanjita

Well, if nothing else, I learned a new word today.

Thanks, Damian