Stevens Magic Emporium

Discuss the latest news and rumors in the magic world.
Bill Mullins
Posts: 5916
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Contact:

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Bill Mullins » July 28th, 2002, 4:03 pm

Originally posted by Jim Riser:
traditional P&L style (rights owned by Bob Keyser) with an extended taper.
To what extent can the rights to any style of cups be "owned", when none of the designers/ inventors take the trouble to patent or trademark their efforts?

If the proprietary features of a given cup are functional, they may be patented. Otherwise, trademark and/or copyright law may offer some protection. Has any magician ever taken advantage of existing law to obtain legal protection for his cup design?

Jeff Busby tried to make a case that the design of Paul Fox-style cups was his, but apparently all he owns the rights to is the Paul Fox name, applied to cups (and maybe not even that . . .).

I guess it's a bit of a peeve of mine that sometimes magicians will claim "rights", expecting others to honor them, but won't take the available legal steps to establish their ownership of said "rights", when existing law provides an avenue to do so. The fact that it is expensive to file and obtain a patent should only be of peripheral relevance -- if magicians won't patent their inventions, copyright their routines, trademark the parts of their "look and feel" that could be so trademarked, it seems unrealistic that the rest of the magic community should be obligated to respect their claims.

Intellectual property is a two-way street -- society at large grants privileges (the ability to own, sell or otherwise control ideas or expressions of ideas) to creators in return for the creators having established and explained the idea through codified procedures (filing copyright, filing patents, etc.).

User avatar
Scott
Posts: 114
Joined: July 30th, 2008, 4:54 pm
Location: TX

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Scott » July 28th, 2002, 5:01 pm

Thank you Bill. That's the post I was waiting to see. It sums up what I kept thinking while reading this very interesting thread. I can't believe that someone is so into the "I created it" mentality. Truth be known, no one knows who created which sets of cups 1st, since it's been around for 1000's of years. I think it's pretty short sighted to think that 1000's and 1000's of variations of the cups have been made by craftsmen around the world for 2000 years and somehow, someone thinks they "invented" some cup design. Truth be known, no one knows. You could very well be copying some set someone made in India 500 years ago, and depriving generations of poor people the cash for the cups their ancestors designed.

A bit over the top, but you get my point.

This is meant for the cups statement. I'm not talking about the chairs. Clearly someone knows the timeline on that one.

Patent it or lose all rights to claim it as your own is the only way to go.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27058
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Richard Kaufman » July 28th, 2002, 7:08 pm

You guys obviously have no idea what a "patent" is and what it protects. In order to obtain a patent (a very expensive and lengthy process) you must not only create something that does something no other item has done before, but you must also prove that no one else has done it before. In the process, assuming your patent is granted, you must explain in detail the way in which your mechanism operates. Patent papers are public documents, and anyone can read them.
People don't patent things so their secrets remain "secret."
There is no way to patent or copyright the design of a particular style of cup for the cups and balls. Even if it were possible on an intellectual basis, patents costs tens of thousands of dollars to research.
Last I heard, Paul Fox's family was looking into legal ways to keep Jeff Busby from ILLEGALLY using the Paul Fox name, something which, rumor goes, he never properly paid for.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Guest

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Guest » July 28th, 2002, 9:57 pm

The reason for the "I created" mentality in cups seemed strange to me until last week.
I was given several chop cups and regular cups to look at. There IS a difference. Both in cosmetics and feel. Some have 3 ribs, some have no ribs, some have a more tapered bottom, some more rounded. It was really amazing but I never had the oportunity to compair so many at once.
My point is all cups are not created equal and for someone to say "Paul Fox cups" or whatever w/o proper authorization is not only screwing the person who has the right & the person whos name they use but also the end customer that want's a particular set of cups for a particular reason.
Just my opinion....... :p

Jim Riser
Posts: 1086
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Jim Riser » July 28th, 2002, 11:40 pm

Bill and Scott;
FYI - Bob Keyser does own the legal trademarks for P&L items. Therefore, he owns the rights to the P&L Cups. I do agree that the "rights" situation in magic is ridiculous. One particular dealer claims the rights to whatever is currently being discussed - what a joke. Busby isn't worth talking about. He would lose in any court. People who do the development and creative thinking in magic or any field deserve proper credit and financial reward. This idea is very difficult for people who can not or do not create to comprehend. It goes far beyond an ego thing. There is the financial aspect involved in creating anything. There is the sacrifice of time in the development process. Most people would not be willing to make the time nor financial committment it takes to create quality and original magic apparatus. As an example, I can tell you that it cost me over $10,000 to make my first spun cup. This cost must be included in prices of apparatus, as well as, the income not earned on the cash invested. This is a big reason why creators are concerned about "the rights" to their creations. They have invested their lives and fortunes in the creation of magic. The non-creators certainly want to be paid for their time. Rights are a real concern for many of us who care. If the creators of magic are not rewarded for their efforts, they will go elsewhere with their creative minds.
Jim

User avatar
Scott
Posts: 114
Joined: July 30th, 2008, 4:54 pm
Location: TX

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Scott » July 29th, 2002, 3:33 am

Richard, I do know what a patent is and you proved my point exactly. It's expensive and can't be done for the cups because no one's "creating" anything that is patentable (is that a word?). Sure, people are creating variations, and I appreciate that, but again, prove me me that YOUR variation wasn't created in the middle east 500 years ago. Oh, that's right, it can't be proved, therefore it must be o.k. to say "IT'S MINE"!

Hats off to those who create because some of the cups are sweet, but I think it gets out of control as far as who can do what. It's a piece of metal, and there is nothing that prevents me from looking at your cup on a web site and then creating my own, from memory. You might not like that I could do that (physically, I can't, so it doesn't matter), but it's nothing you can do legally to stop me(or anyone else).

Hanno
Posts: 42
Joined: March 24th, 2008, 6:46 pm
Favorite Magician: Ricky Jay, John Gaughn, David Copperfield, Norbert, Ferré,.....
Contact:

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Hanno » July 29th, 2002, 11:28 am

lets move from magic to the real world. I am working for an international pharmaceutical company. I could tell you a lot about copyright, patents etc. Richard Kaufmann was absolute right, that it will be impossible to get a patent on magic tricks, which will be out of discussion. Its also not possible - with acceptable costs - to protect anything from copy. Thats why we are discussion and complaining here. When we come to performance and pattern it is even more complecatet.
So its an ethical question.
Wo what are our weapons in this situation?

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5916
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Contact:

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Bill Mullins » July 30th, 2002, 8:50 am

First of all, it is entirely possible to patent magic tricks. See, for example, U.S. Patent #'s:

5,354,238 -- a method of simulating levitation invented by John Gaughan (review this the next time you see David Copperfield soaring)

6,174,241 -- Mark Setteducati's Magic Book

5,409,420 and 5,445,565 -- two more inventions by Mark Setteducati

5,605,508 -- a guillotine by Alan Wakeling

4,565,364; 5,551,921; 5,549,515 -- assorted Tenyo patents

5,886,956 -- Lubor Fiedler's Phantom Clock from Tenyo

These were found with only a few minutes searching on the US Patent Office Database -- there must be more.

The argument that "Patents are expensive" is true. So what? If you aren't willing to take available steps to assert your rights to your creativity, then don't complain if someone else uses your work. If you invent something and put it into the marketplace (even the small magic community) without patenting it, you are placing it into public domain, and you lose your rights. That is settled law. It seems unethical to me for a magician to call those who use public domain materials a "thief".

Yes, you must disclose the method to get a patent. Again, so what?? This is just like hiding an effect by publishing it in a book. How many lay people at Copperfield's show think, "I bet I can find the method to flying by going to the Patent Office's database"?? zip, zero, none

Geno Munari claims the rights to Page's routine. Fine, I'll grant that magic works better and is advanced as an art form if we as a group respect signature acts. But what is a routine? how much patter must I change before I've made it mine? What if I drop one of three phases, and insert a new one of my own invention? Is the routine 2/3rds Page's then? Because routines cannot be objectively quantified, arguments about their ownership will always be just that -- arguments. The good magicians will either creat their own routines, or take existing work and personalize it until it is their own. Jamy Ian Swiss said it best in a Genii book review a couple years back -- the best reason not to steal a routine is not that it is ethically bad, but that it is theatrically bad.

From Jim Riser: "Bob Keyser does own the legal trademarks for P&L items. Therefore, he owns the rights to the P&L Cups." What Keyser most likely owns is the right to use the P&L name and hallmark in association with cups (or other magic items). Your own web page shows that the basic design and salient features of the P&L cup predate Petrie and Lewis by some time -- their cups, while optimized and refined, aren't new.

Likewise, the most Busby can claim on PF cups is the right to use the Paul Fox name and logo, not their basic design.

Another point -- in, most of the spats I see about who is stealing what, the one making the accusations is asserting his right to _someone else's_ creativity. Not always, but often. This seems odd as well.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27058
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Richard Kaufman » July 30th, 2002, 10:01 am

No one said you can't patent a magic trick, but it has to physically do something in a way that no one has ever done before, and it is extremely expensive and time consuming. Patent searches take years and cost a lot: where's the motivation? You can't make that much money on most magic tricks.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

User avatar
Q. Kumber
Posts: 1851
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Tom Whitestone

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Q. Kumber » July 30th, 2002, 11:18 am

With all the talk on patents, isn't it true that after 25 years a patent has run out and can be used by anyone?

Guest

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Guest » July 30th, 2002, 11:24 am

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
No one said you can't patent a magic trick, but it has to physically do something in a way that no one has ever done before, and it is extremely expensive and time consuming. Patent searches take years and cost a lot: where's the motivation? You can't make that much money on most magic tricks.
That's exactly what design patents cover: items that are not functionally innovative, but new and original in appearance. "The Patent Law provides for the granting of design patents to any person who has invented any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. A design patent protects only the appearance of the article and not its structural or utilitarian features." - WWW.USPTO.GOV

Names of products (such as "Paul Fox Cups") are intended to be protected by trademarks.

Guest

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Guest » July 30th, 2002, 11:29 am

Originally posted by Quentin Reynolds:
With all the talk on patents, isn't it true that after 25 years a patent has run out and can be used by anyone?
20 years for utility patents granted after 1995 (it was 17 before) and 14 years for a design patent.

CHRIS
Posts: 678
Joined: January 31st, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: las vegas

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby CHRIS » July 30th, 2002, 12:25 pm

Let me say here a few words from hard learned experience. I have a patent where I did everything myself, no lawyer, no nothing. It is indeed very cheap but time consuming. So the notion that it is expensive to file and get a patent is wrong. The whole thing cost me less than $200.

I also have patents which I did with lawyers. This is much more expensive but relieves you of some work and can add to your chances of getting a patent. Someone with experience can word your application much better. We are talking anywhere from $3000 to $10000.

However, what is very very expensive is to defend your patent. And this is what most people don't get. A patent is nothing but a license to sue. It is nice to have your patent certificate framed and hanging on the wall. It is nice to show your grandkids or brag and impress some friends with. It also can be very good for a resume and job search. But if the whole idea is not worth $1Million or more it makes no sense to try to defend it if an infringement should happen. So unless you have the necessary change a patent is useless from a legal and economical point of view.

Chris Wasshuber
magic ebooks

User avatar
Brad Jeffers
Posts: 1221
Joined: April 11th, 2008, 5:52 pm
Location: Savannah, GA

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Brad Jeffers » July 30th, 2002, 5:23 pm

To pick up on something that Jim Riser said - "... it cost me over $10,000 to make my first spun cup ..." - I've heard this before. It is used to justify the high cost of a set of cups these days (not that anyone who manufactures a good set of cups has to justify anything to anyone). It just seems to me, that someone could make a good quality set of cups, sell them at a reasonable price, and still make a nice profit. I bought a set of Paul Fox cups from Danny Dew in 1975, which he was selling at that time for $17.50 a set. Of course manufacturing costs have gone up since 1975, but certainly not enough to necessitate prices of $300 or more! You can buy beautifully engraved sterling silver kiddush cups for around $75 apiece. Of course the quantity that you are able to sell, effects the individual price, but even if your first cup costs $10,000, what does the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th cups cost? To me, its sort of like a business buying a car to make pizza deliveries with. That 1st pizza could be said to have cost $20,000 to deliver, and mabey they should charge $100 per pizza to make up the cost ;) I will admit this is a somewhat silly comparison, and the pizza shop will certainly sell a whole lot more pizzas that anyone will ever sell finely spun metal cups, but I still think that cups are overpriced. But you get what you can, and I guess there is nothing wrong with that. I recall Dai Vernon telling the story of how some magicians who admired his engraved set of cups, contacted Tiffanys in New York to see how much it would cost to replicate them, in sterling silver with matching engraving. They were informed that it would be $100 per cup, which they deemed to steep, and so declined!

User avatar
Pete Biro
Posts: 7124
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Hollyweird
Contact:

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Pete Biro » July 30th, 2002, 6:30 pm

You can get a set of my copper cups (Jumbo Galli Galli on the Stevens website) for $195.00 and they are as close to those Dew Cups (the big ones) as you can get. I feel the price has to be reasonable to sell any and enough to make a humble profit.

Sure the first cups cost me just under $1,000 and I was willing to take the risk. It took awhile to break even, but I have. ;)
Stay tooned.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27058
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Richard Kaufman » August 1st, 2002, 12:41 pm

I received the following long fax today from Flip in Holland, which should put to rest any questions about the Topsy-Turvy Nesting Chair routine.

Dear Richard,
There's some fuzz about a "Topsy-turvy Chair? routine, credited to Peter Pit and manufactured apparently without his permission by some dealers. One has stopped. Maybe your readers are interested in my side of the story.
Somewhere in the seventies, maybe 1974, I stayed at the Magic Castle, Hollywood. Peter Fit, member of their board of directors, being Dutch like me, wanted to hear the magic. gossip from Holland
During our conversation I showed an interest in the interior design of the Magic Castle, having been a designer myself. Peter invited me then to his apartment to see his Art-Deco collection. Against a wall stood a chair. I said; "Peter, That chair doesn't look quite like pure Art Deco, does it"?" "Right", he answered, "It's a Thayer (or Owen's, I don't recall) nesting chair, a chair with a shell. I don't know yet how to use it".
"Jeez", I remarked, "That's interesting, nesting chairs seem to be very rare, but I happen to have had a triple nesting chair!" Then I told him I bought mine in 1968 from the legacy of Balsamo, a well-known Dutch magician. It might have been of German origin, Bartl or Willmann. That same year I did a routine with it as a climax to a competition-act at our national magic convention (Yes I won a prize).
I had seen the Kalanag Magic Revue as a youngster, and remembered him splitting one chair into three, as a gag. Although surprising, upon reflection it was clear to me that they must have been nested. When I got the chairs myself, I thought what a pity to use such a good principle and such well-made chairs for just a throw-away gag. So my solution was to make it into a good trick. The act was all about the use of "magic salt" and the chair had been used to sit on and put things on. Near the end of the act the chair should vanish with help of the salt, but needed to be isolated.
I showed a four-sided screen, which I placed around it in form of a square tube. Some salt sprinkled into it. Looking inside, apparently nothing had happened, wrong location maybe. So I took the chair (first shell) out and placed it to the left. Took the screen away to put it again around the "chair", but to my surprise I discovered a second chair. Well, screen placed around this one, salt sprinkled, to no avail. Second shell taken away, placed to the right, screen taken away: a third chair! Help! Looking in despair at the saltshaker I remarked; "I?m sorry, wrong salt, have to go back to the magic salt shop, see you next time,? and exit.
For years I heard magicians in Holland talk about FLIP and his chairs. In 1973 I used them for the last time with a slightly different presentation in a show I did with a male partner who played in travesty the very bored female partner of a lousy magician (to be honest, the show wasn't that good, because of not enough creating and rehearsal time), Every time I announced I was going to make the chair vanish with the salt, "she", unbeknownst to me, secretly took a chair out and placed it silently out of sight, but every time I opened the screen to show the chair was not ready yet to be vanished. When the third chair was taken away, I finally sprinkled the salt, opened the screen and indeed, and off course thanks to the salt, the chair had vanished!
So if by chance you own a triple-chair, now you now how to use it.
Then the chairs, being old, became wacky and full of woodworm and I decided to give them to Bob Driebeek (Aenigma) for a magic: museum he planned to make (It never came so far). I had played with the topsy-turvy idea already, so I might have hinted to Bob at that.time. I don't recall. When I met Peter, maybe that same year, maybe later, in his home, I told him of my chair-production presentation variations and some more. possibilities I thought they had, one of them doing a topsy-turvy trick with the chairs, using a square tube instead of a screen.
Other ideas included having two sets and two tubes and doing a sympathetic topsy-turvy chair routine, and with triple chairs, producing six chairs at the end filling the stage, following the line of his multiplying bottles finale. (One stack of three reversed on the seat of the other stack, to save space in transportation).(And that's how I came upon the idea!).
What I claim also is to have given Peter Pit the concept of the topsy-turvy chair as a trick. Presentation and realization was his. I didn't give it to him as an exclusive: some other people before me could have found the same an well. Although, when in the early eighties as partner in one of the oldest magic shops in the world (1881) that still exist (El Rey de la Magia, Barcelona), I had access to very old magic catalogue (De Vere, Dickmann etc.) and old magazines and discovered ads for nesting chairs, but nowhere the upside-down idea.
When I met Peter a couple of years later and asked him if he already had used the chairs in a show, he told me he was working on a top-secret routine that would knock the socks of the magic community. Even I wasn't to get a clue, Many years later I saw him do his routine in a Paul Daniels TV-show, and was quite, but also pleasantly, surprised to see my basic idea beautifully performed.
A couple of years ago now, not long before his death, Peter happened to be in Holland, at a one-day convention near Eindhoven, where his family lived also. Bob Driebeek, who still had the set I'd given him sea many years before, had made his own elaborate typically "Aenigma" routine with the Topsy-Turvy idea, had planned to do it at that convention but it wasn't ready. In his innocence he told Peter about it. Peter then threatened him (I believe like he did to some other people as well), to take legal action if Bob indeed had done it. I tried to contact Peter there to tell him he had no right as far as the trick concerns and wanted to remind him where the idea in the first place came from. Couldn't find him, he had left already.
Writing a letter to him to settle the matter I postponed, and then, sadly enough, he died. In January this year I walked by Billy McComb to tell. this story to Pete Biro and Jay Marshall as well..
Now the well respected German manufacturer Harold Voit makes these chairs Because of negative rumors about ownership of the concept he contacted me. I told him my story and gave him permission to use it whole or partial in his publicity for and explanation of the trick.
I hope that with this clarification the turmoil of accusation against same people can come to rest.
Flip Hallema (FLIP)
e-mail: fliphallema@flipmagic.myweb.nl
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Guest

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Guest » August 2nd, 2002, 8:39 am

The message of Flip says what I already mentioned in an earlier post. Namely that he mentioned the idea to Peter. Peter took Flip's suggestion as a starting point. As Flip states himself in his fax, Peter made his own routine. And that's a crucial thing.

Certainly Flip stood at the cradle, but did he labour? Absolutely not!

The facts are:
Flip never worked out the routine,
Flip never performed the rouitne,
Flip never made the routine famous,
and quite essential here as well, Flip never made the routine a viable dealer item.

We all know why the chairs have become a viable dealer item.
It'Peters work, his honing, nurturing, making it a success. As even Harold Voit stated, Peter Pit achieved world fame with the routine. So I suppose that even Harold must then agree that it is Peter who has brought it to the attention of many magicians.

And what is Flip's contribution?
All Flip has done was brainstorm magic with Peter. He planted a seed, but no nurturing, no honing, no making it world famous. He has never done anything whatsoever with the topsy turvy chair concept.

Who's work made it a viable dealer item? And who should then profit from that fact?
You decide.

I know I'll think twice before I ever discuss magic with Flip again!
God knows what he may claim ownership for later ( much later!) on.

Robert Kane
Posts: 227
Joined: September 3rd, 2008, 1:24 am

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Robert Kane » August 2nd, 2002, 9:51 am

Dear Mr. Wonder:

I appreciate the contents of your post and wish to share my thoughts about it, but I do so only with the greatest respect to you and your wonderful work as a magical entertainer.

While I understand the gist of your comments about Flip's most recent post, I think you may wish to reconsider the long term consequences of your stated position.

Here is my thought: Conceivably someone could purchase your wonderful Zombie Ball-type levitation system and then nurture, hone and perform a successful and profitable version. A "Signature Showpiece" so to speak.

If I am correctly following your argument, then it would follow that credit and ownership of both your original magic concept and routine would revert to the new performer even though you, Tommy Wonder, had the genius to create an original magic concept (in this case the Wonder Levitation System). That would be a terrible possibility within the construct of your argument.

You also write about inventive genius in Vol. 1 of the Books of Wonder. I believe that you note that this inventive genius is one of the highest levels of the magic art form.

In essence, Flip had the inventive genius to develop a new Topsy-Turvy concept. Peter Pit then went on to use the concept to develop an entertaining routine.

Therefore, I think your argument has a weak point. If Flip invented the Topsy-Turvy concept, then credit should be given where credit is due, even if Peter Pit developed a very entertaining routine using Flip's Topsy-Turvy concept.

I would agree that no dealer should be selling a performer's routine without permission, but I see no problem if a dealer is selling a magical concept/apparatus with permission from the inventor. It is then up to the buyer to develop their own routine.

I hope my comments make sense and, again, I share them with great respect and admiration for your artistic genius. I do hope that my thoughts are received in the positive and friendly spirit in which they are shared.

All the best and regards, Robert Kane :)

Bob Coyne
Posts: 717
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Charlies [sic]
Location: New York, NY

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Bob Coyne » August 2nd, 2002, 10:37 am

Or to take another example. The Beatles take the Isley brother's song "Twist and Shout" and make a huge hit out of it. Bands around the world, for decades after, make it a staple in their repertoire, usually doing it in the Beatles' style. But the Beatles didn't write that song, so they don't get the royalties. The credit and rights don't go to the popularizer/embellisher but to the originator. So following the same logic, Flip (not Peter Pit) should decide who sells the chairs or not.

User avatar
Pete Biro
Posts: 7124
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Hollyweird
Contact:

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Pete Biro » August 2nd, 2002, 10:43 am

I believe Flip has decided who sells the Topsy Turvy concept. I don't think anyone is marketing Peter Pit's routine, patter, handling.

:cool:
Stay tooned.

User avatar
Q. Kumber
Posts: 1851
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Tom Whitestone

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Q. Kumber » August 2nd, 2002, 3:31 pm

I don't see how having a concept for a trick is the same as inventing and perfecting it. David Devant asked for effects and he would develop the method. GW Hunter suggested handkerchiefs changing colour as they passed through a tube. Devant then invented the trick, worked out the handling and developed a full professional presentation.

I can say to a scientist that there should be a cure for Parkinson's Disease. If he finds a cure I cannot be called the inventor just because I came up with a concept.

Geno Munari
Posts: 633
Joined: January 30th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Las Vegas/Del Mar, CA
Contact:

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Geno Munari » August 2nd, 2002, 4:39 pm

Quentin......forthright!

Guest

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Guest » August 2nd, 2002, 4:47 pm

Dear Mr.Kane,
I do receive your thoughts in the positive way they are intended and I appreciate them.

In your example, I do not agree completely. It is not that one day I only mentioned the idea I had for making zombie move better and look more floating. I definately experimented with it, worked it out, I performed it and still do, I had succes with it and still have. The first time I ever performed it for magicians at FISM, it got a standing ovation in the middle of my act...so, I think I have done some nurturing and honing there as well. I did do a little more than just saying "let's change the gimmick this and this way!" and be done with it.

Sure the initial idea, the special gimmick and the way of hiding it, is essential, but it is not the only thing which goes into creating a succesful piece of magic.

There is a risk involved working on an idea. At first one does not know if it is worth your time, if it will be a good piece. Working out the idea does have a value too. Proving it through sucess has its value as well. And that part was done by Peter.

Or the example of Bob Coyne, didn't the Isley brothers work out the melody, the text, all the things which go into making music? For sure there must be a little more than an initial idea, because the initial idea is not music yet, is it? Didn't they prove their song to be viable?

There is 'some' work involved to turn an initial idea into a finished piece.

The point is that only mentioning something in a brainstorm session, does it make you the owner? Somehow, it does not feel completely correct to me. To me it is about half correct.

And the sales. Is there really someone out there who is convinced these sales are totally independent of Peter's work? Even if officially it is not sold with his routine? Is there really justice done to all who have contributed to whatever the success of these (now finally 'corrected') sales will be?
What gave the initial impetus to start selling the thing? Does Peter really not come in the picture there?

Oh technically, yeah yeah, all very correct.

still, I would not feel happy about selling something this way.
I feel something is missing here in this equasion.
What is it.
Is it love..?

Bob Coyne
Posts: 717
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Charlies [sic]
Location: New York, NY

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Bob Coyne » August 2nd, 2002, 6:39 pm

It certainly seems like this is an example of shades of gray and having to draw the line somewhere. To Tommy Wonder, the reason I picked the example with the Beatles interpreting and popularizing the song Twist and Shout was your criteria that:
Flip never worked out the routine,
Flip never performed the rouitne,
Flip never made the routine famous,
and quite essential here as well, Flip never made the routine a viable dealer item.

In my example, it was the Beatles who worked out a new presentation, made the song really famous, and gave it value in the future (made it a "dealer item" so that other bands would want to cover it too). So they deserve much of the credit, just as Peter Pit does. My only point is that from a legal/ethical point of view, someone has to be assigned ownership and that would seem to be the originator of the core idea (either the melody/words of the song or the key concept and basic effect of the trick). Not totally satisfactory or fair, but at least consistent.

Robert Kane
Posts: 227
Joined: September 3rd, 2008, 1:24 am

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Robert Kane » August 2nd, 2002, 7:06 pm

Dear Mr. Wonder:

Thank you very much for your kind and informative response. I now better understand your comments and am in agreement with the majority of points
that you have shared. I think you are right that it is a matter of love and that we can't be overly technical in our analysis. I do believe that Flip, Mr. Pit and Mr. Munari all deserve proper recognition.

Perhaps Mr. Munari, Flip and Mr. Voit can work out an amicable resolution? I hope they eventually communicate in a positive manner.

Also, in my previous post, I did not mean to infer that you did not work hard to hone and develop your fabulous levitation system and routine. I merely used it as an example with reference to your comments and I apologize
if I gave any offense. None was intended.

Thanks again for sharing your good thoughts. I really appreciate your constructive approach.

Let me also take this opportunity to thank you or all that you give to the art of magic.

Best regards,

Robert Kane

Geno Munari
Posts: 633
Joined: January 30th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Las Vegas/Del Mar, CA
Contact:

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Geno Munari » August 2nd, 2002, 7:22 pm

A note to the Flip issue:

As Tommy Wonder said....Flip never did anything in the way of the routine or presentation. He also has no rights to sell or give.

Guest

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Guest » August 3rd, 2002, 5:36 am

In a regular court case Flip could not claim anything.
he has no proof whatsoever that he gave Peter the initial idea.

Some things work against Flip.

When Peter performed the chairs in Holland in the mid 80's, Flip made no comment that the routine was his. ( Flip is always quick to mention when someone performs something which is coming from him, as anyone in Holland can testify. Why not in this case?)

Peter never mentioned anything, at least to me, that Flip had anything to do with the routine.
( Sure Peter may not have been a saint either, but it does seem rather strange)

He never took Peter to task about it, although he had at least 15 (!) years of time to do so.
( according to his fax he planned to send a letter, but he postponed it. Why? It would have been better if there was indeed such a letter. When Peter was in Holland just before his death, Flip wanted to talk to him personally, but, (coincidence ?), he couldn't find Peter anymore?)

Flip only started mentioning the routine was his, after Peter's death.

So.
Who's telling the truth here. We cannot ask Peter anymore unfortunately.
But the case at this time is ALL based on the word of one man. A man who has never taken Peter to task, only says that he planned to do so.
I cannot and will not say Flip is lying, but at the same time I cannot and will not say Peter was hiding that the trick came from someone else.
Who is to be believed. The two do not add up together very well.

Why is Flip believed without a shred of evidence?
Why do we assume that Peter then, by implication must have been hiding the fact that the idea came from Flip?

In a real court. It would be very short case indeed.
Mr. Hallema, do you have evidence you gave this idea to Peter? No?
Bang goes the hammer. No evidence, no case.
Propriatary rights belong to Peter's heir.
Case closed.

User avatar
Pete Biro
Posts: 7124
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Hollyweird
Contact:

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Pete Biro » August 3rd, 2002, 10:38 pm

Tommy... as Devil's Advocate... what part of it belongs to Peter Pit's estate?

The Pit Sit Patter and Presentation?

The Topsy Turvey effect?

Sadly, if the chairs are sold... which is happening... many will do what they want, right or wrong.

Frankly, if I was doing the kind of act that the chairs would fit... I would think about buying the prop... but, and you know me... I would try to develop an original way of doing something with them.

I think the prop is a brilliant idea. :genii:
Stay tooned.

Guest

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Guest » August 4th, 2002, 12:25 pm

Hi Pete,

You are right, it is sad that many will do what they want anyway.
And the prop is a very interesting thing.

The Pit Sit patter and presentation, of course belong to Peter's estate.

The idea to do a topsy turvy effect with the chairs, Flip says it is his,
but Peter, through his threats to Bob Driebeek said the concept belonged to
him. If Flip cannot supply definite proof that the concept is indeed his
then, legally, also the concept to do topsy turvy with chairs also belongs
to Peter's estate. For Flip to just say the concept is his will not cut it
in a court case.

Flip says he intended to talk with Peter, but did not. He intended to send a
letter, but did not. Zero action, only good intentions.
There is a road somewhere paved with that.

Because he did not claim it then, I do not see how he can claim it now. He
forfeited his right, pityfull as that may be, by remaining silent when the opportunity was there to
set the matter right. Flip just passed his chance. And now, unless he can
supply proof, he is too late because it cannot be discerned anymore.

It's like that sentence with marriages. "Anyone having objections,
should say so now, or forever remain silent".

Flip never did a topsy turvy routine with the chairs. I wish he had. Because
then no doubt Peter would have spoken up, in the same way he spoke up to Bob
Driebeek. And then they could have worked out the matter. Had Peter not
spoken up against Flip when he did the routine, then it would be clear that
Peter felt that the concept came from Flip. But all this we will never know.
Sure Flip can now say he intended to do the routine, but unfortunately for
him, in over 25 years(!) he never got around to actually doing it.

If it is really true that he gave the idea to Peter, then he has bad luck.
Not nice may be, but by remaining silent at crucial moments one can loose
things.

Unlike Flip, Peter did not remain silent a few years ago when this also played. We all
know what would have happened if Peter had remained silent back then. One
must defend one's properties, or accept they get lost. If someone empties my
house and I don't react to that..then I agree by implication. I lose my rights that way.

For me Flip has (through implication) agreed that Peter was the owner of the
concept.

So, in my view and I think also legally, the concept also belongs to Peter's estate.

Guest

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Guest » August 9th, 2002, 2:38 pm

Dear Richard,
For a while I had no access to a computer so I had to hear from Tommy Wonder that my story about my part in the Topsy-turvy chair was already on Internet and that it created a stir-up. In a second call from Tommy Wonder, my friend of the Magic Ethics Police, he was so fair to tell me the content of his comment he put onto Internet, from which one should draw the conclusion that Im an unethical moron.
Mistakenly thinking my story would settle the matter of the chair-dance, I feel obliged now to clarify some things better. I got the idea for a topsy-turvy effect with a chair in1973 when after one of the last nights of a show that flopped, and we were talking with the only three or four spectators we had, my partner remarked that it would have been nice to produce a stage full of chairs instead of the three I did every night, so he, myself and our pianist could sit on three of them and mirror the entire audience! I thought: Yes! Great! But where do I get another set of three, and besides that, how to save space in transport. Stacking one set reversed on top of the other off course, like I saw the theatre-personnel do to be able to clean the floor!
Than it occurred to me that one could do an upside down effect with the chairs and I immediately tried it, with the four-paneled screen i had. A screen was not so handy, so when our run was over, i experimented with the idea at home, taping the free sides of my screen together, so I got a square tube (I still have half of that screen, decorated for another purpose). In a very short time I discovered I could not only take a shell out, reverse it and replace it into the tube, lift the tube and the chair seemed to be upright again, but also reversing the tube, which had to be done with care, I could make the chair right itself twice more, then take out the upside down shell and replace it properly over the other, so I could lift the tube and show everything normal.
If you give a nesting chair and a square tube to a moderately intelligent magician and ask him to find out a topsy-turvy chair sequence, probably within five minutes he will have find out it. Theres only a very limited amount of possibilities.
When in Peter Pits apartment, I SHOWED HIM my idea/concept with his own chairs (I remember his double chair was heavier than my triple set had been), off course without a tube.
Tommy Wonder says, I planted just a little seed in Peters mind. Not so! I CLAIM THE CONCEPT IS THE BASIC ROUTINE, this routine is limited. Not a two-person brainstorm-session: I told and showed.
In my previous story I wrote, the idea/concept was mine, the routine/presentation was Peters. So here I will restate: THE CONCEPT/BASIC ROUTINE IS MINE, the ROUTINING (solving the manual details, etc.) resulting in a certain presentation, might have been Peters.
If Paul Curry for instance had shown Dai Vernon his Out-of-this-world trick, without having published it and Vernon would show the trick to everyone, albeit with the Vernon Touch, it still would be Paul Currys basic routine. UNLESS CHANGED OR IMPROVED UPON BEYOND-RECOGNITION! Which is not the case here.
Tommy Wonder says I never performed it in public and didnt make it famous. Okay. Of course I could have had my feeble set repaired, but at that time I didnt think of that solution, because I wanted to give it to Bob Driebeek for personnel reasons. Bob liked the chairs so much, he wanted to someone make copies in polyester, and I would get a set as well. This never worked out. For years I looked for another set, only once I saw a double, nor a triple chair, it was sturdy, but didnt look nice, so I didnt buy. If I had found what I sought, I still would do the combination of the topsy-turvy chair with the production of three.
Talking about ethics: (I have to repeat my previous story) when I asked Peter several years after I had shown him my concept if he ever had done something with his set, he answered: Im working on a top secret routine that will knock the socks of the magical world. And he didnt want tot tell me what it was! You can understand my surprise when another several years later I see him do my basic routine, worked out in a beautiful presentation. My first reaction in such a case is: Gee, that looked good!, and then I would be dumbfounded: why did he never told me (or as far as I am aware, to other people) that he used what I gave him (not in exclusivity). I am not a Tommy Wonder who yells: Fire! when he (rightly) is convinced that somebody took something from him for profit without permission.
I remember telling Peter, if you want to use it, be my guest. His claim to be the inventor of the topsy-turvy chair trick is not just. Being not ethical in this respect, for me he had lost the right to prevent any other magician performing or producing it, except for his personal presentation. Paul Daniels did not invent the chop-cup and its possibilities, but he rightly claimed property of his presentation, otherwise he would sue you.
So, as the IDEA-CONCEPT/TRICK or whatever you want to call it, is mine, I think I have the right to keep it a secret or tell it to anybody I want. I didnt invent the multiplying chair, but indeed I hit upon the idea to a topsy-turvy one using the same principle. If Harold Voit and Joe Stevens are clever, they just sell a multiplying chair. And then, one day a kid from Missouri or Yokohama who has never heard of Peter Pit or FL!P will hit upon an original possibility: A topsy-turvy chair!
Some people asked me why I didnt contact Peter earlier. I tried, when he was in Holland, but missed him. After that, I wanted to write him, but didnt for two reasons. First, I heard he was very ill, and second, I doubted if it would have any result. Although, when we met he was always nice and helpful, and I respected him for his talent, organizing capability and all the good things he undoubtedly did, and probably with integrity too, I couldnt help being on my guard because of a horrible remark he once made in my presence how he wanted to reach his goals in showbusiness I was afraid he would just flatly deny my claim.
My stepping in into this troubled matter comes from reading the ad in Joe Stevens catalogue. There it says: Topsy-turvy Chair. Popular in the early part of the 1900.s. Long unobtainable. Leading magicians performed this miracle then and todays leading magicians will perform it again.
This was misleading information. Multiplying chairs, yes, but a topsy-turvy chair probably not (otherwise I might have seen Kalanag do it). It was in my interest to find out, if indeed somebody before me had used the idea, so I wanted to call Mr. Harold Voit. By accident Ted Lesley made Harold Voit call me instead. Hence my reaction as sent to Mr. Voit and Mr. Kaufmann (for publication in Genii).
As a rather creative person myself, Im sensitive to correctness in handling ideas, be they mine or of others. How could Peter Pit sell performing rights? Tommy Wonder himself told me recently, somebody can try to sell you the Eiffeltower, but does he have the right to do so?
I trust to be convinced by Harold Voit (whom I wrote he may use my ideas, although nesting chairs are free), and by Joe Stevens that they will take the right and decent steps necessary, regarding publicity, giving credit and ownership of presentational details.
My only aim in this has been to set the record straight, not material gain over somebodys dead body (Tommy Wonder, in his angry call to me: I hope you make a lot of money with this!).
My final words in short, directed to Tommy Wonder, whom I considered to be a friend and who posed as the chair-man in this matter. Without me, there would probably be no Topsy-turvy chair trick. I DID give Peter permission to use it. So why should I have a PROBLEM, and act upon it, if he performed it all those years? It would indeed have been nice of HIM to tell me he used it and mention my name to others. But I did NOT give him permission to claim it as his own invention. And I only heard he did so some time AFTER the problem with Hank Lee (of which I heard rumors, and thought was O.K.) was settled; THEN I decided I would talk with Peter when I had a chance, which never happened.
So Tommys argument I should have spoken up when Peter performed in Holland in the eighties is not valid, supposing Peter at that time didnt have a quarrel over selling or performing rights, of which I have no knowledge. Its none of Tommys business too. By the way, that performance must have been during the 88 FISM-convention in The Hague, where he m.c.-ed a gala-show. Part of that show I missed, due to physical problems. Maybe he did the chairs in that time, I dont know. If I had seen it, for sure I would remember!
You may leave your chair now, Tommy Wonder.
Flip Hallema (FL!P)
P.S. And if Harold Voit once makes a triple chair, maybe I finally have the possibility to do my own combination routine!

User avatar
Scott
Posts: 114
Joined: July 30th, 2008, 4:54 pm
Location: TX

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Scott » August 9th, 2002, 6:09 pm

Fascinating thread that's taking us through the history of an effect.

One of the best things I've ever read on Genii.

Guest

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Guest » August 9th, 2002, 7:16 pm

Lots and lots of words Flip, but...unfortunately still no proof you gave the concept to Peter.

Peter's proof that he knew the concept is his performance. Your 'proof' is only because you say so.

And eh..you say your aim was not material gain? Come on Flip. Then why did you ask Harold Voit for a free set of chairs? ( which he was more than happy to give you, you told me.)

Mark Jensen
Posts: 373
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Juan Tamariz
Location: Murphy, Texas
Contact:

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Mark Jensen » August 11th, 2002, 12:43 am

Hello to One and All,

This long and informative (though not necessarily conclusive) thread has been very interesting. It has also brought some questions to mind:

1. What constitutes Ownership of an effect? Creation of the method, presention or both?

2. I have heard that the Topsey Turvey Chairs belong to Peter's Estate. Once again, what part of this belongs to the estate and based on what. Did Peter patent, copy right, publish, etc any part of this?

3. I think that it has been established that the gimmick of the Multiplying Chairs was around for many years prior to the Topsey Turvey effect. Did Peter modify the function of the gimmick in any way to create this effect or did he just use an existing gimick in a different way?

4. If Peter modified the gimmick, then I can see a case for his creating it as used in the Topsey Turvey Chairs. However, assuming that the gimmick is just used in a different way, I'd say that he didn't have any claim to the gimmick. The big question here is, does being the first to use a existing gimmick, without any modification, in a new way grant any type of ownership over how the gimmick is used?

4a. This leads us to the concept of the Topsey Turvey Chairs. The first question here is did the concept of a Topsey Turvey effect exist prior to this effect? If this were the first instance of a Topsey Turvey effect I'd say a case of ownership might be able to be established. However, since I believe that the effect did exist prior to the Chair effect, what we now have is an application of the effect to a different object. So the big question is does the application of an existing effect to a new object constitute ownership of the "new" effect?

5. Finally, we come to the presentation. And isn't this really the most important part as far as a
truely successful magic effect
is concerned? Assuming Peter's presentation was unique, then I would say that he owned it, but only as he presented it. If another performer took the effect of the Topsey Turvey Chairs and presented the same basic effect, but in a totally different way I would think that would be acceptable both legally and ethically. Thoughts?

I think there are two separate issues here.

First, from a historical perspective, how was the Topsey Turvey Chair effect created and who deserves credit (both for creating it and making it popular)?

Second, based on the answers to the above questions, exactly what parts of this effect can be legally owned by someone and who owns those parts?

Best Regards,

Mark Jensen

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5916
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Contact:

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Bill Mullins » August 11th, 2002, 10:32 am

Mark raises some question, to which the unfortunate answers can be summed up thusly: There are no standards, it's all subjective, and no matter how you define your opinion, there is someone else who can make a good case to the contrary.

Geno Munari
Posts: 633
Joined: January 30th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Las Vegas/Del Mar, CA
Contact:

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Geno Munari » August 11th, 2002, 10:31 pm

Flip:

You are a joke. Your letter is inconsistent with the facts. You are another waste of DNA.

Guest

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Guest » August 12th, 2002, 10:04 am

Tommy,
You are going too far now! The conversation/agreements I had with Harold Voit are MY business, NOT YOURS. What I told you privately about this was essentially different then what you now publicly suggested in your last note on Genii Forum and YOU KNOW IT!
You betrayed my trust.
FL!P

Guest

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Guest » August 12th, 2002, 12:36 pm

(this post is not from Veronique, but from Tommy Wonder. I am at het office at this moment)

Ho, ho. Are you suggesting you did NOT ask Harold for a free set of chairs? Instead of making these insunuations., I defy you to actually write; "I never asked Harold Voit for a free set of chairs."

Write it Flip, write it. That is if you can live with actually writing you did not ask Harold for a free set of chairs.

(And while we are at it, why don't you start another topic in which you state the claim you made a week ago concerning my work. Show the world how claimy you are.)
Tommy Wonder.

John Pezzullo
Posts: 455
Joined: March 16th, 2008, 5:19 am

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby John Pezzullo » August 12th, 2002, 5:21 pm

I have two brothers. An elder brother and a younger brother. We've had our fair share of quarrels and arguments over the years but we've always remained brothers and continued to support, respect, and love one another.

I sincerely hope that FL!P and Tommy Wonder, two wonderfully creative and experienced Dutch magicians, reach an amicable resolution in their current dispute and become 'brothers' once again.

Hanno
Posts: 42
Joined: March 24th, 2008, 6:46 pm
Favorite Magician: Ricky Jay, John Gaughn, David Copperfield, Norbert, Ferré,.....
Contact:

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Hanno » August 13th, 2002, 11:32 am

When the discussion about the Matinka Chairs began here, I got the impression, that selling this prop is unethical. In the meantime we heard, that it is not the prop but the concept of the Turvy Chairs.

Then Stevens Magic was accused to sell this without permission. In the meantime we know that they have the permission from Zauberzentrale Mnchen, which have the selling rights from Flip

Then the German dealer Harold Voith was accused say that Peter Pit liked his chairs.
In the meantime we heard that this is not true just the website of Harold Voith was wrong translated into English.

I think we are very quick with words in forums, without knowing the truth.

When I read the last comment from Geno Munari (waste of DNA) I hear words I have last heard from the Hitler Regime. I think its not the kind of discussion we should accept.

Flip has told his story. He and Peter Pit know the truth. I have no reason not to trust his words.

Hanno Rhomberg

Geno Munari
Posts: 633
Joined: January 30th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Las Vegas/Del Mar, CA
Contact:

Re: Stevens Magic Emporium

Postby Geno Munari » August 13th, 2002, 2:53 pm

Dear Hanno:

I guess you just do not understand all the facts in this issue, yet quickly agree with the Voit/Flip side. Sorry but you are wrong on all counts. I guess your culture plays by a different set of rules than ours. The issue is pretty clear. Now I know why many European countries do not adhere to our copyright and trademark protection laws. You guys just do what is convenient.


Return to “Buzz”