The Genii Forum

I just added Volume 5 to L&L's website -

http://www.llpub.com/zenshop/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=2647

Excerpts from the ad:
Bruce Cervons Castle Notebooks Volume 5 the final volume includes a complete index of all 5 volumes.

Volume 5 containing Cervon notebooks 12 and 13, composed from 1967 through 1986 403 pages is now available in a limited edition just 500 copies will be sold! A must-have for the serious student of fine, advanced, close-up magic. $200

If you subscribe to L&L's newsletter, you will be getting all the details shortly. As with past volumes, you will have the opportunity to request a specific number if you're looking for all of your volumes to have the same number.

I was just made aware of the fact, so perhaps this is news to some of you as well (though probably not Steve :) ), that the index is available on-line as a pdf here:

http://www.brucecervon.com/Media/Index.pdf

Now that the Notebooks are (almost) all out, I am wondering whether there are plans for a DVD of selected effects from them?

I'm not saying that I would be interested in such a thing but, in this day and age, that would seem to be the logical next step.

It's only a logical step IF L&L owned the rights to make a DVD of the material.

The only rights they likely own at the moment are those to make a DVD of Cervon's material and no one else's.

The notebooks exist as what they are. No DVDs should be made from the material.

Bruce left a huge pile of videocassettes with his own material after he stopped taking written notes. Those are ripe for the picking and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them start appearing from L&L in the near future.

Richard Kaufman wrote:The notebooks exist as what they are. No DVDs should be made from the material.

Why not? What's your reasoning regarding this?

How can they not own the rights to perform and videotape material they have published and if the creators are all long dead? It doesn't make sense, and certainly there would be no legal impediment, unless you mean it wouldn't be right. But that would be a subjective judgment.

:confused:

What's my reasoning? If you knew ANYTHING about the law you wouldn't ask a question like that.

It doesn't matter if the creators are dead. They didn't have permission to publish Vernon's material, Jennings' material, or Tony Giorgio's material when the first volume of the Castle Notebooks was published. As far as I know, permission to publish Giorgio's material was never granted.

You don't know squat about the law, so why don't you just keep quiet. Just because Bruce wrote stuff down in a notebook doesn't mean that any material other than Bruce's can be published in any form without the written permission of the other people involved or their estates. Bruce's widow doesn't own the right to publish any material other than Bruce's.

Owning the electronic or digital rights to material is an entirely separate matter, and owning the rights to turn the material in a book into a "performance" is yet again an entirely differment matter. It's not a subjective argument, it's a legal argument, long settled by the law.

Interesting, I've seen lots of stuff published as "inspired by" or "a classic" and ... well you know. And the long standing defense for doing such is "so what, everybody else did..."

so what makes this different?

Then we get to the right to perform and to video those performances - and YouTube ... though hopefully not tutorials on open videos.

In Jennings 67, there are Vernon's handing for Re-turned Touch turn, Vernon's Professor's Princess (almost!), Vernon's Creeping Reverse and Dad Stevens Other Shuffle.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not complaining, I'm delighted they are there, but - did you have permission to print them?

Irrespective of what anyone has done in the past, to know something is wrong and continuing the practice, just because someone else did it before, is no excuse to do something wrong again.

If you did something without understanding the full implications, and learned later you had wronged someone, should you continue to do it?

Self evidently the market in magic says "yes" and vigorously defends it's right to continue to do so.

Next question - is the ability to disrespect others a trick we value above entertaining audiences? Just what sort of magicians does that make us?

Anyway - back to the Cervon notebooks (and possible Jennings items discussed) - I hope folks are not going to quote those works without permission. Still curious about the performing and interpretive rights as that seems a sore issue for some here.

Richard Kaufman wrote:It doesn't matter if the creators are dead. They didn't have permission to publish Vernon's material, Jennings' material, or Tony Giorgio's material when the first volume of the Castle Notebooks was published. As far as I know, permission to publish Giorgio's material was never granted.

That's interesting. The way I read this, you are saying that permission to publish was in the end granted from the estates of the creators involved (with the possible exception of Giorgio) but in some cases after the fact. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

I am not at home to look up the exact quotes. In Bruce's books published while he was alive he expressly states that he reserves all rights to the material for any filmed purposes, TV, movies, etc.

If he had stated this in works he oversaw and he had never intended to publish his notebooks, it is a fair estimation to believe he would have wanted the same protection for any material of his published.

Not having the ability to receive written permission from all possible parties may be one of the reasons Bruce never published his notebooks.

Larry, neither Hofzinser nor Germain wanted their tricks around...and so what? Did Braue ask permission to publish the tricks in Expert Card Technique... and so what?

And even if so, what prevents the usual "independant discoveries" and "inspired works" from propigating via less scholarly works and without peer review?

I love Michael Close's "That Reminds Me".
But, while he credits the people who told him the jokes, there is no attempt to credit the originators. If this were a book of his favourite magic tricks, he would be pilloried.
But jokes, like tricks, are the work of someone. Often more than one. Yet I've not seen a joke book that gives credit to the writers.
I don't mean any judgement - just commenting that, for some reason I don't really understand, jokes are not like magic.

Richard Kaufman wrote:What's my reasoning? If you knew ANYTHING about the law you wouldn't ask a question like that.

It doesn't matter if the creators are dead. They didn't have permission to publish Vernon's material, Jennings' material, or Tony Giorgio's material when the first volume of the Castle Notebooks was published. As far as I know, permission to publish Giorgio's material was never granted.

You don't know squat about the law, so why don't you just keep quiet. Just because Bruce wrote stuff down in a notebook doesn't mean that any material other than Bruce's can be published in any form without the written permission of the other people involved or their estates. Bruce's widow doesn't own the right to publish any material other than Bruce's.

Owning the electronic or digital rights to material is an entirely separate matter, and owning the rights to turn the material in a book into a "performance" is yet again an entirely differment matter. It's not a subjective argument, it's a legal argument, long settled by the law.

Well that was a rather ill-mannered response to a genuine question.

Regardless of your lay interpretation, your view remains untested regarding magic tricks and anyone who has been in magic long enough and followed these arguments regarding the IP of magic tricks knows there is no serious recourse if you think your property rights have been infringed.

Cervon's notebooks are themselves an act of creativity - he authored them and the descriptions are expressed via his own creativity - and therefore the descriptions are copyrightable even if he didn't think of the concepts behind the effects. The card tricks themselves don't garner any protection but the unique expression of them does. I'm not defending that, I'm merely rationally stating the facts as they apply to this discussion. You might also try and be more rational and less emotional in responding to reasonable comments, especially as you know nothing about my legal credentials.

Jonathan Townsend wrote:Self evidently the market in magic says "yes" and vigorously defends it's right to continue to do so.

Next question - is the ability to disrespect others a trick we value above entertaining audiences? Just what sort of magicians does that make us?

Anyway - back to the Cervon notebooks (and possible Jennings items discussed) - I hope folks are not going to quote those works without permission. Still curious about the performing and interpretive rights as that seems a sore issue for some here.

There's release page in BCCN Volume 1 similar to the permission page in Steinmeyer's Modern Art.

It grants permission to the original purchaser to perform any or all of the tricks one time for their personal use only.

permission to the original purchaser to perform any or all of the tricks one time for their personal use only.

A license to perform a trick only once and for themselves only?

And then what... they need to buy another copy of the book?

I hate to ruin the love festival going on in here but does anyone know if L&L will issue a slip case for all 5 volumes to go in? A short answer should suffice, then you can get back to your discussion on intellectual property and the like.

It doesn't matter what Cervon recorded or wrote. He doesn't own the tricks or ideas that are not his own creation and therefore his heirs had no right to publish notes written by Cervon that record any ideas other than his own. Permission was sought for the Jennings and Vernon material only after volume 1 was published. No permission has ever been sought for the Giorgio material and Tony was plenty pissed about it last time I spoke to him.

Mike Carr wrote:There's release page in BCCN Volume 1 similar to the permission page in Steinmeyer's Modern Art.

It grants permission to the original purchaser to perform any or all of the tricks one time for their personal use only.

I'm looking at a copy of BCCN Volume 1 now, and I cannot find such a page. I may be overlooking it somehow ... do you recall where it appears?

I'm looking at a copy of BCCN Volume 4 now, and I notice that the note by Linda Cervon thanks Patricia Pasternak. Does anyone know how (if?) she is related to Joe Pasternak (the Hollywood producer from years ago)?

And if someone can answer that, can you tell me how or if Harley Pasternak (fitness trainer to Hollywood stars) is related to either?

My interest in the Pasternaks arises out of my purchase of an autobiography by Joe Pasternak, purchased in an auction of the Jay Marshall collection.

absoulute wrote:I hate to ruin the love festival going on in here but does anyone know if L&L will issue a slip case for all 5 volumes to go in? A short answer should suffice, then you can get back to your discussion on intellectual property and the like.

I have not heard that a slip case is being planned. If anything changes, I will let you know and post it here.

Richard Kaufman wrote:It doesn't matter what Cervon recorded or wrote. He doesn't own the tricks or ideas that are not his own creation and therefore his heirs had no right to publish notes written by Cervon that record any ideas other than his own. Permission was sought for the Jennings and Vernon material only after volume 1 was published. No permission has ever been sought for the Giorgio material and Tony was plenty pissed about it last time I spoke to him.

Then Mr. Giorgio should take it up with L&L. He has never been shy about protecting his interests via the court system.

I would challenge any publisher to produce signed documents from every creator/inventor/magician whose intellectual property has appeared in books by other individuals than the originators.

It appears to be sour grapes that L&L has published a series of books at a premium price and has sold out every volume.

appreciate it Steve.

Is it just me or is it pretty cool to actually have access to Bruce's views and takes on magic via his notebooks. Isn't this the way to inspire and produce better magic.
copyright issues are, at best, in a state of complete shambles in this day and age and the entire system needs overhauling.

Given the lack of much organized benefits for magicians in dire need, why not set a mandatory percentage to a trust when there are issues like this.

The entire series is probably available online as a torrant download. Magic is a highly collaborative business and defies easy pidgeonholing.

absoulute wrote:I hate to ruin the love festival going on in here but does anyone know if L&L will issue a slip case for all 5 volumes to go in? A short answer should suffice, then you can get back to your discussion on intellectual property and the like.

No slipcase on the board but there is a deluxe set with slipcase possibly in the works.

I guess 1000$ for 5 books isn't enough for 'deluxe' printings? I am sorry but that is complete [censored]

Mike Carr wrote:

absoulute wrote:I hate to ruin the love festival going on in here but does anyone know if L&L will issue a slip case for all 5 volumes to go in? A short answer should suffice, then you can get back to your discussion on intellectual property and the like.

No slipcase on the board but there is a deluxe set with slipcase possibly in the works.

Well if that's true, ignore my previous post. That just shows you how much I'm in the loop at L&L!

If the deluxe set is indeed a possibility does that mean I'll have a chance to get Volume One!!?! I sure hope so. I could kick myself for not acting on it when i first saw it.

absoulute wrote:I guess 1000$ for 5 books isn't enough for 'deluxe' printings? I am sorry but that is complete [censored]

yes for limited editions of a set to then have a 'deluxe' set released is pretty much a kick in the nuts.. limited means.. or should mean. limited.. not we'll release another set with a different nicer binding or slipcase, or we'll pop in a signed card/page (essential dai vernon)

will be very disappointed in L&L if they reproduce more notebooks with the same material in a deluxe edition...

Mike Carr wrote:There's release page in BCCN Volume 1 similar to the permission page in Steinmeyer's Modern Art.
It grants permission to the original purchaser to perform any or all of the tricks one time for their personal use only.

David Scollnik wrote: I'm looking at a copy of BCCN Volume 1 now, and I cannot find such a page. I may be overlooking it somehow ... do you recall where it appears? . . .

I just looked at my copy of BCCN, Volume 1. Such a page does not appear in my copy. It also does not appear in any of the other volumes that I can find.

In addition, the release page in Modern Art does not restrict the performance of the material therein to a "one time" use. In fact, Mr. Steinmeyer's book states: "Purchase of this publication grants permission from the inventor to build (or have constructed), and perform the effects described." Mr. Steinmeyer just reserves the (commercial) manufacturing rights.

(The confusion here may be due to the more restrictive release page in "Ultra Cervon")

If you check back, Mike Carr's postings here have tended to be of a humorous nature. I have a feeling his two postings on this thread may be of a similar nature.

Agreed . . . if they issue ANY of these 5 books in ANY other form . . . then the release of only 500 of each of the 5 volumes only became a marketing scam. :-( That would only speak volumes of any company's ethics. I certainly hope this doesn't "all" come down to money!

Another release of the Cervon Castle Notebooks would certainly not be without precedent by L&L. There was a deluxe edition of all four volumes of the Vernon Chronicles, plus Inner Secrets of Card Magic and the Dai Vernon Book of Magic. Yet all of those books have just been re-released in combined editions, both regular and deluxe. I don't see much difference here.

Mike Carr wrote:. . .there is a deluxe set with slipcase possibly in the works.

Just as an FYI: I just received an email from an L & L Customer Service Rep. They stated: "This rumor is NOT true".

erdnasephile wrote:

Mike Carr wrote:. . .there is a deluxe set with slipcase possibly in the works.

Just as an FYI: I just received an email from an L & L Customer Service Rep. They stated: "This rumor is NOT true".

excellent... thanks erdnasephile...

erdnasephile wrote:

Mike Carr wrote:. . .there is a deluxe set with slipcase possibly in the works.

Just as an FYI: I just received an email from an L & L Customer Service Rep. They stated: "This rumor is NOT true".

But no denials about a DVD being in the works?

Insert wink and smiley face.

erdnasephile wrote:

Mike Carr wrote:. . .there is a deluxe set with slipcase possibly in the works.

Just as an FYI: I just received an email from an L & L Customer Service Rep. They stated: "This rumor is NOT true".

Got this information straight from the "horse's" mouth.

What would you expect a publisher to say?

"Well, yes, we are planning to publish a leather bound set, all five volumes sharing a common slipcase at a price point ~ $1500/$2000."

"This rumor is NOT true" my Ά$$. (Greek letter Alpha w/tonus and two dollar signs)

Well, garsh! Iffen a rep said so it must be true! :D

Mike Carr wrote:Well, garsh! Iffen a rep said so it must be true! :D

So you are calling them a liar?

What a publisher decides to do with their published material is their business.

If they did decide to leather bind the volumes at a set price and are able to get that price, so what?

As one who has purchased the previous 4 volumes and waiting to receive #5, I would not have an issue with it.

If anyone has a question/problem with L&L's business practices, call Louis and discuss it with him. Blathering on a public board behind his back is pure cowardice.

Mike Carr wrote:

erdnasephile wrote:

Mike Carr wrote:. . .there is a deluxe set with slipcase possibly in the works.

Just as an FYI: I just received an email from an L & L Customer Service Rep. They stated: "This rumor is NOT true".

Got this information straight from the "horse's" mouth.

What would you expect a publisher to say?

"Well, yes, we are planning to publish a leather bound set, all five volumes sharing a common slipcase at a price point ~ $1500/$2000."

"This rumor is NOT true" my Ά$$. (Greek letter Alpha w/tonus and two dollar signs)

Well, garsh! Iffen a rep said so it must be true! :D

Actually, some publishers do announce plans for future deluxe releases shortly after or when the regular releases hit the market (blu-ray/DVD producers for example, with the LOR Special Extended versions being a specific incident).

Having said that, I cannot (and never claimed to) vouch for the veracity of the information provided by L & L (although I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt, since they've always been straight with me in the past).

In fact, there is little objective data at this time to definitively decide what to believe. I merely reported the answer I received when I queried the company in an attempt to add to the present discussion.

As long as the "horse" referenced remains unnamed and/or has no documented predictive track record, there is no rational, evidence-based, way to assess the credibility of the information proffered.

At this point, many of the comments in this thread can be accurately classified as rumors--nothing more, until other facts assert themselves.

erdnasephile wrote:As long as the "horse" referenced remains unnamed and/or has no documented predictive track record, there is no rational, evidence-based, way to assess the credibility of the information proffered.

Exactly!

Getting back to the earlier hot-button issue (and it would be nice to see an actual attorney weigh in): The non-Cervon material - the ideas, essentially - really aren't legally protected. Cervon's text is indeed his to copyright... no patents, trademarks, or copyrights were/are apparently infringed.

Ethical issues are an entirely separate matter.