Youtube Takers

Discuss the latest news and rumors in the magic world.
User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby DennisLisi » August 11th, 2022, 8:05 pm

Bob Farmer wrote:There is one theme in this thread I'd like to correct but I don't want to engage in a lengthy legal discussion, since every case is unique. Magic tricks can be protected by various legal protections, such as patents, copyrights, trade secrets, etc. etc. It depends on the trick and how the protection is applied. So, do not assume that magic tricks all the time always are not protectable--it may cost you money.


Yes, if someone markets your product without authorisation. But the problem here is that the "secret" to a magic trick is sold to the consumer. No protection from "exposure" is possible in that case. You would need to get every customer to sign a legally binding agreement never to reveal the method.

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby MagicbyAlfred » August 11th, 2022, 8:50 pm

For those who may be interested, here is the link to the U.S. federal court's order granting judgment in favor of Teller in his copyright infringement lawsuit against the Belgian Magician, Dogge. The judge explains that while magic tricks, in and of themselves, do not receive copyright protection in the United States, "dramatic works" and "pantomimes," including those embodying the performance of magic, are entitled to such protection, and the creator of the dramatic work or pantomime (in this case, Teller, the creator of "Shadows") has the exclusive right to publicly perform the work.

Copyright law is complicated, differs from country to country, and there are a lot of misconceptions about it. Even trained lawyers, unless they happen to be intellectual property specialists, don't have a very good understanding of it, much less laymen. The judge's order in the Teller case is chock filled with information explaining the nuances of U.S. copyright law and the line of demarcation between what is protectable and what is not. Fascinating reading!
https://casetext.com/case/teller-v-dogge-20

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby Tom Stone » August 12th, 2022, 10:12 am

The judges in the Teller case have no idea what they are talking about, and their nonsense can be completely disregarded.

Teller’s representation was also pretty incompetent as they fought like hell to get the trial moved from Belgium, where creators have a very strong position and where it would be a surefire win, to America where creators have a weak position and where the outcome was uncertain.

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby MagicbyAlfred » August 12th, 2022, 10:43 am

Tom Stone wrote:The judges in the Teller case have no idea what they are talking about, and their nonsense can be completely disregarded.


I'm just curious. Do you have a law degree, and more specifically, a credential or certification in U.S. copyright law? How many clients have you represented in court in copyright cases, or presided over as a judge? Perhaps you can elaborate more specifically as to what particulars the judges (actually it was just one judge) "have no idea what they were talking about," and specifically what parts of the decision were "nonsense," and why. Perhaps you can clarify U.S copyright law for us and provide an analysis of how it was misapplied and should have been applied. You know, something beyond the provocative, conclusory, and unsupported pronouncement you've offered.

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby DennisLisi » August 12th, 2022, 12:05 pm

The Teller case is interesting, but it has virtually nothing to do with this topic.

Teller would have liked to sue for "exposure" but that was not likely (in Belgium, or anywhere).

As I recall, Teller claimed that Dogge (I believe that is his name) didn't actually reveal the secret to his illusion. If that is true, then "exposure" is not a valid allegation.

Teller sued essentially for infringement of Intellectual Property.

Just as any of us could, if someone were to "steal our act". Theoretically.

"Exposure" is only actionable if a contract is signed, specifying that the licensee can perform the trick, but cannot share information that would enable unauthorised entities to reproduce it.

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby MagicbyAlfred » August 12th, 2022, 12:40 pm

DennisLisi wrote:The Teller case is interesting, but it has virtually nothing to do with this topic.


I would respectfully disagree with that. I think it has EVERYTHING to do with this topic. This is from an article in the Hollywood Reporter, just one example of the voluminous coverage the case received:

"Teller of Penn & Teller Breaks Silence To Sue Over Magic Trick
The defendant is a guy who performed a similar trick on YouTube and offered to reveal the secrets for a price. The video was removed after Teller sent a takedown notice."
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/busin ... be-312296/

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby DennisLisi » August 12th, 2022, 12:56 pm

MagicbyAlfred wrote:
DennisLisi wrote:The Teller case is interesting, but it has virtually nothing to do with this topic.


I would respectfully disagree with that. I think it has EVERYTHING to do with this topic. This is from an article in the Hollywood Reporter, just one example of the voluminous coverage the case received:

"Teller of Penn & Teller Breaks Silence To Sue Over Magic Trick
The defendant is a guy who performed a similar trick on YouTube and offered to reveal the secrets for a price. The video was removed after Teller sent a takedown notice."
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/busin ... be-312296/


Bob Farmer's objection to a series of YouTube videos, was that they revealed the secrets to a number of magic tricks that are marketed to the public, and performed by working magicians. He also expressed concern that the inventors and manufacturers of tricks may be adversely affected by "exposure" of the methods.

"Shadows" has (so far) not been marketed by Teller, and because THE EFFECT is copyrighted, none else can legally perform it without his consent.

These are quite separate issues.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27047
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby Richard Kaufman » August 12th, 2022, 1:06 pm

The effect is not copyrighted. It is not possible to copyright an idea.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby MagicbyAlfred » August 12th, 2022, 1:11 pm

Dennis, as far afield as some of the comments on this thread (and many others) have strayed from the literal topic, I don't see why you feel the need to engage in this kind of hair splitting. I see this Forum as a platform for the sharing, not limitation upon, ideas and information. The Teller case nonetheless involved piracy of another's idea, and exposure on YOUTUBE, or at least threatened exposure, for a price. That's close enough to the topic as far as I'm concerned. Rather than picking knits with me, I would be more concerned with engaging with another Forum member, who likened one of your points to saying that water is wet.
Last edited by MagicbyAlfred on August 12th, 2022, 1:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby DennisLisi » August 12th, 2022, 1:12 pm

I actually think it would be a brilliant marketing ploy, to offer magic tricks and illusions to the public, with the legal stipulation that they NOT REVEAL THE SECRET.

This could be done with a simple online form.

Think of the advantages! Not only would it discourage "exposure", but ENCOURAGE SALES. It would be a great selling point, to assure the buyer that the secret to a particular illusion will not become common knowledge.

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby MagicbyAlfred » August 12th, 2022, 1:14 pm

Richard Kaufman wrote:The effect is not copyrighted. It is not possible to copyright an idea.


Exactly. Like I said, there are many misconceptions (and therefore the irresponsible dissemination of misinformation) about copyright law, especially by those who have no legal training whatsoever, let alone in the field of intellectual property

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby DennisLisi » August 12th, 2022, 1:22 pm

MagicbyAlfred wrote:
Richard Kaufman wrote:The effect is not copyrighted. It is not possible to copyright an idea.


Exactly. Like I said, there are many misconceptions (and therefore the irresponsible dissemination of misinformation) about copyright law, especially by those who have no legal training whatsoever, let alone in the field of intellectual property


By "effect" I mean the routine--the objective presentation of the trick. Now, whose mincing words?

Tarotist
Posts: 1363
Joined: July 29th, 2021, 7:16 am
Favorite Magician: David Nixon

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby Tarotist » August 12th, 2022, 1:55 pm

Maybe a good ploy is to complain about copyright to You Tube whether you have a legitimate claim or not. Or perhaps even some sort of weak claim. I suspect they will probably take it down until the matter is resolved. It can at least annoy the exposers. Doesn't Jerry Sadowitz do something like this, although of course his complaints do have legitimacy?

Focus on one exposer you really don't like. See if you can find some copyright claim or other whether weak or not. If strong so much the better. Complain about the copyright violation and I bet they take it down. They will probably appeal it but the more hassle the better.

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby MagicbyAlfred » August 12th, 2022, 2:10 pm

DennisLisi wrote:I actually think it would be a brilliant marketing ploy, to offer magic tricks and illusions to the public, with the legal stipulation that they NOT REVEAL THE SECRET.

This could be done with a simple online form.

Think of the advantages! Not only would it discourage "exposure", but ENCOURAGE SALES. It would be a great selling point, to assure the buyer that the secret to a particular illusion will not become common knowledge.


I like it. But I think for it to have any real teeth, it ought to state in bold print on the form that violators of the stipulation will be publicly tarred and feathered and then drawn and quartered. Otherwise, we would have to rely on the honor system, and as the saying goes, "There is no honor among thieves."

User avatar
Smurf
Posts: 538
Joined: May 31st, 2010, 11:23 am

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby Smurf » August 12th, 2022, 2:33 pm

MagicbyAlfred wrote:
Tom Stone wrote:The judges in the Teller case have no idea what they are talking about, and their nonsense can be completely disregarded.


I'm just curious. Do you have a law degree, and more specifically, a credential or certification in U.S. copyright law? How many clients have you represented in court in copyright cases, or presided over as a judge? Perhaps you can elaborate more specifically as to what particulars the judges (actually it was just one judge) "have no idea what they were talking about," and specifically what parts of the decision were "nonsense," and why. Perhaps you can clarify U.S copyright law for us and provide an analysis of how it was misapplied and should have been applied. You know, something beyond the provocative, conclusory, and unsupported pronouncement you've offered.


All you have to do is search this forum's history and I think you will find all of Tom Stone's answers. He has posted a great deal of information here concerning this topic in general and the Teller case in particular. It would be unnecessarily repetitive to post it again.

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby DennisLisi » August 12th, 2022, 2:34 pm

MagicbyAlfred wrote:
Richard Kaufman wrote:The effect is not copyrighted. It is not possible to copyright an idea.


Exactly. Like I said, there are many misconceptions (and therefore the irresponsible dissemination of misinformation) about copyright law, especially by those who have no legal training whatsoever, let alone in the field of intellectual property


Before I begin, I would like to thank Richard for deleting my previous response to this comment. It contained an embarrassing spelling error.

Effects can be copyrighted, and have been for many years. The written description of the performance and/or presentation of a trick (as we all know) is often called "THE EFFECT". This is precisely what Teller copyrighted.

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby MagicbyAlfred » August 12th, 2022, 2:53 pm

Smurf wrote: All you have to do is search this forum's history and I think you will find all of Tom Stone's answers. He has posted a great deal of information here concerning this topic in general and the Teller case in particular. It would be unnecessarily repetitive to post it again.


Noble of you to come to Tom's defense, but I don't think I'm going to be searching this Forum's history. I'm well aware of Tom's many comments on the topic of copyright and the Teller case in particular, and frankly, they are filled with a great deal of MISinformation.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27047
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby Richard Kaufman » August 12th, 2022, 3:50 pm

We all know that you can copyright the written description of anything. But that's all you can copyright.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27047
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby Richard Kaufman » August 12th, 2022, 3:53 pm

Tom Stone does not recognize US copyright law as valid protection. When he talks about copyright protection, he is ONLY talking about what he believes is covered by copyright in Europe (including the UK and Scandanavia).
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby Tom Stone » August 12th, 2022, 4:03 pm

MagicbyAlfred wrote:Noble of you to come to Tom's defense, but I don't think I'm going to be searching this Forum's history. I'm well aware of Tom's many comments on the topic of copyright and the Teller case in particular, and frankly, they are filled with a great deal of MISinformation.

I am aware that there are a lot of crooks around who put a lot of effort into pushing the idea that creators have no rights to their work, especially on this forum. I'm rarely impressed by crooks' arguments, Alfred.

When a sentence doesn't even have internal logic, it doesn't matter who says it, judge or not. If they say crap like "The fact that the earth is round prove that it is flat", they are not to be trusted.

This judge is extra weird. Why would anyone, after a correct ruling, write something that basically negate the ruling?

Magic tricks are dramatic works. So saying something that, essentially, means "dramatic works do not receive copyright protection, but dramatic works are entitled to copyright protection", is pure nonsense that doesn't even qualify as a paradox.

It would make sense if they meant "the ability to perform magic", because a skill can't be protected. The ability to play the guitar have no protection, but music compositions have. Just like magical compositions (tricks).

Yes there are artistic work that are exempt from copyright. Those limitations and exceptions are few, extremely well defined, and magic tricks are not listed among those.

Talking about "effects" and "methods" is pointless. Those are just random labels we have decided to use in our "notation system", and are no more real than what a treble clef of bass clef are outside the notation system for music. For some reason, we've decided that it is easier to divide our documentation into one part where we guess or fantasize how an onlooker might interpret our work, and one part where it is described how to duplicate the work. That division isn't real, it doesn't exist outside the documentation. You can't perform an "effect", because there is no "effect". "Effect" isn't real. And there is no "method". There's only the work.
The work is what you perform, that is what make up your expression, and that is what is covered by copyright.

Richard is completely correct, you can't copyright your fantasies of how strangers might interpret the work. There's no IP legislation for wishful thinking. But the work is covered by the same copyright as all other artistic work.

For some reason, a lot of americans have the belief that no creator ever own their own work as their default baseline, and I've never understood why. All can't be crooks, right?

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby Tom Stone » August 12th, 2022, 4:08 pm

Richard Kaufman wrote:Tom Stone does not recognize US copyright law as valid protection. When he talks about copyright protection, he is ONLY talking about what he believes is covered by copyright in Europe (including the UK and Scandanavia).

I'm talking about all countries (180 nations) that are party to the Berne convention. Since 1989, that includes USA.
Yes, there are forces in america that are working hard to keep everything muddled and unclear, but the default assumption that no creator ever have any rights to their own work is 30+ years out of date.

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby DennisLisi » August 12th, 2022, 4:19 pm

Richard Kaufman wrote:We all know that you can copyright the written description of anything. But that's all you can copyright.


No, you can restrict Performance Rights when you write a song, a speech, a script, etc. That's how Teller won the case. The copyright says that the work may not be reproduced IN ANY FORM--and that includes staging it--without written permission from the copyright holder.

Technically, any magic manufacturer could sue you for performing its routines. Ridiculous? Yes, but they have that option.

They choose not to, for obvious reasons. People buy their tricks because of the implied right to perform them.

But Teller is not offering his illusion for sale. His argument is that it is his property, and only he may perform it.
Last edited by DennisLisi on August 12th, 2022, 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27047
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby Richard Kaufman » August 12th, 2022, 7:04 pm

Sorry, but you are incorrect.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27047
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby Richard Kaufman » August 12th, 2022, 7:06 pm

There has been some unpleasant exchanges in this thread which I have had to clean up. If you can't have a civil discussion, take it outside. Don't make me lock the thread.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby DennisLisi » August 12th, 2022, 7:17 pm

Richard Kaufman wrote:Sorry, but you are incorrect.


In what way am I incorrect, Richard?

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27047
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby Richard Kaufman » August 12th, 2022, 10:31 pm

Anyone could duplicate the effect and perform it with a slightly different presentation. The only thing Teller can claim to own is his "script." This is the only thing which can be copyrighted.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5911
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Contact:

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby Bill Mullins » August 13th, 2022, 12:32 am

Yes, the US joined the Berne Convention. But it never passed legislation to implement many of the Convention's provisions. So, there are things that are covered by copyright in European and other Berne countries that are not covered in the United States. Tom doesn't recognize this.

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby MagicbyAlfred » August 13th, 2022, 2:12 am

Bill Mullins wrote:Yes, the US joined the Berne Convention. But it never passed legislation to implement many of the Convention's provisions. So, there are things that are covered by copyright in European and other Berne countries that are not covered in the United States. Tom doesn't recognize this.


Bill is correct.

Appendix Q to The Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, which is contained in Title 17 of the United States Code states, in relevant part:

"Sec.1 · Short Title and References to Title 17, United States Code.
(a) Short Title.—This Act, may be cited as the “Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988.”

Sec. 2 · Declarations.
The Congress makes the following declarations:

(1) The Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, signed at Berne, Switzerland, on September 9, 1886, and all acts, protocols, and revisions thereto (hereafter in this Act referred to as the “Berne Convention”) are not self-executing under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

(2) The obligations of the United States under the Berne Convention may be performed only pursuant to appropriate domestic law.

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92appq.html

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby Tom Stone » August 13th, 2022, 2:56 am

Bill Mullins wrote:Yes, the US joined the Berne Convention. But it never passed legislation to implement many of the Convention's provisions. So, there are things that are covered by copyright in European and other Berne countries that are not covered in the United States. Tom doesn't recognize this.

Yes I recognize this. I also recognize that additional obstacles and hoops to jump through have been put in place to muddle the provisions that have been implemented.

However, that is still not enough to make it motivated to claim "According to US copyright, a creator have no rights at all to their own work".

At most, it is motivated to say "There's too much corruption in US courts, and in practice, it is too difficult and costly for creators in America to defend their rights."

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby Tom Stone » August 13th, 2022, 2:59 am

Richard Kaufman wrote:This is the only thing which can be copyrighted.

It isn't a verb. Copyright is automatic.

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby DennisLisi » August 13th, 2022, 3:18 am

Richard Kaufman wrote:Anyone could duplicate the effect and perform it with a slightly different presentation. The only thing Teller can claim to own is his "script." This is the only thing which can be copyrighted.


That's all he needs to copyright. If anyone bases a performance on his script without his permission, he can sue them.

Bob Farmer
Posts: 3302
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Short card above selection.

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby Bob Farmer » August 13th, 2022, 7:23 am

The reason I made my post about legal protection short and to the point is that inevitably any discussion in this area ends up with many non-lawyer opinions and arguments and I was hoping to avoid that. However, since there is interest, when I was teaching entertainment law, I did a lecture on the law of magic, and if you want a copy, send an email to bammomagic@cogeco.ca

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby DennisLisi » August 13th, 2022, 7:56 am

Bob Farmer wrote:The reason I made my post about legal protection short and to the point is that inevitably any discussion in this area ends up with many non-lawyer opinions and arguments and I was hoping to avoid that. However, since there is interest, when I was teaching entertainment law, I did a lecture on the law of magic, and if you want a copy, send an email to bammomagic@cogeco.ca


Then you are in a position to say who is right and who is wrong. You are to be commended for your diplomatic handling of the matter, Bob.

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby MagicbyAlfred » August 15th, 2022, 8:51 am

BRAD WROTE (in part):
"It’s precisely that presentation which turns the revelation of a ball under a cup from a puzzle into a moment that adults will run across a convention center floor to bring their bosses to see, that will compel multi million dollar companies to spend thousands of dollars to fly the ‘child with his toy’ across the country to represent their interests in front of their most valuable clients; and create a following of fans (geeky or otherwise) who come back to see you year after year and actually break down in tears when they run into you on the street."

Well put. Most anyone can learn most of the marketed tricks you can buy in a magic store (or I guess that’s mainly online now, regrettably), or learn a baffling card trick. The presentation is the variable that separates one from being a guy or gal who does a trick that is essentially nothing more than a puzzle for the onlooker (analogous to maybe a brainteaser), from a memorable and sought-after artist and showman (or show-woman). Many magicians I have known (and God love them for their love of magic and the joy they derive) have been just collectors and/or performers of tricks, apparently indifferent to wrapping the tricks inside a captivating, engaging, inspiring, or otherwise entertaining presentation. (As Tamariz put it, "Dressing up the trick." Or in Vernon's words: "You must have an emotional hook.") I don’t mean this as a put down, because if they are deriving joy from what they are doing and are satisfied, then who am I to judge? I would be quick to add, however, that when people who have seen me perform encounter me on the street, they do “actually break down in tears.” Unfortunately it’s for very different reasons than Brad had in mind.

DENNIS WROTE (in part):
"...HOW A TRICK IS DONE is relatively unimportant to the average viewer."

That may well be true, although I haven’t seen any empirical evidence on that, one way or the other. But in my opinion, when people ask you, “How did you do that?” they are not literally requesting that you explain to them the "how." I believe that this question is implicitly more of a statement, and should be taken as a compliment. The reason being (again, in my opinion, and based on my own anecdotal experience) in many cases, people have either caught something telltale, highly suspicious, or at least they have a theory of how it was done. Even if the theory is wrong, but the spectator believes it is right, it diminishes the experience of wonder, astoundment or impossibility. And I believe that a significant part of a great and memorable presentation is being able to give them that experience.

To bring it full circle to this thread, obviously, exposers on YouTube present a threat that this wonderful experience will be undermined or diminished for at least some people, and at the same time, hurt magicians who seek to provide it for them.

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby DennisLisi » August 15th, 2022, 11:49 am

Alfred--

You may see exposure of method as a "threat" but I see it as a creative challenge.

The most successful magicians are going to be those that accept it.

Which is why I find myself in the minority here. I think it's a good thing for Magic in the long run, and for perpetuity, to be practiced as a genuine art, rather than merely as a craft.

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby MagicbyAlfred » August 15th, 2022, 12:03 pm

DennisLisi wrote:Alfred--

You may see exposure of method as a "threat" but I see it as a creative challenge.

The most successful magicians are going to be those that accept it.

Which is why I find myself in the minority here. I think it's a good thing for Magic in the long run, and for perpetuity, to be practiced as a genuine art, rather than merely as a craft.


Dennis, I definitely understand your point. But, as just one example, I am never going to be Ok with the fact that I can't do the ID routine that I love, which has been so successful for so many years, and which has brought so much astonishment and enjoyment to audiences, without being concerned that it's been spoiled, or that a spectator will smugly announce the secret, because some exposer revealed it on YouTube. But it is what it is and that is the reality, so I will move forward and accept the challenge, since I have no other choice -- the "choice" has been made for me.

All of this said, there are some incredible nuggets in the old books that no exposer (or even many magicians) will ever know about, much less reveal. For example, I have a unique way of changing a card in a spectator's hand (one of the very strongest effects in card magic, IMHO). I know of only one other magician in my life who has used it, and the reactions are invariably incredible. And there it is buried away innocuously in the old books, along with other gems that are just waiting to be tapped into. So bring on the challenge...

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby DennisLisi » August 15th, 2022, 5:20 pm

Alfred--

I'm not going to give my own review of Steve Cook's "ID", but I don't think it's exposure is a tragic loss for The Magic Community.

Any trick that relies on the audience's blind faith in a magician's word--as in "I have only one card in the envelope", is asking for trouble as far as I'm concerned.

And charging for a useless leather wallet is a bit of a trick on the buyer in my (okay, not) humble opinion.

I can see how someone who paid exorbitantly for the trick would resent exposure--but maybe fewer magicians will get ripped off as a result.

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby MagicbyAlfred » August 15th, 2022, 6:17 pm

DennisLisi wrote:Alfred--

I'm not going to give my own review of Steve Cook's "ID", but I don't think it's exposure is a tragic loss for The Magic Community.

Any trick that relies on the audience's blind faith in a magician's word--as in "I have only one card in the envelope", is asking for trouble as far as I'm concerned.

And charging for a useless leather wallet is a bit of a trick on the buyer in my (okay, not) humble opinion.

I can see how someone who paid exorbitantly for the trick would resent exposure--but maybe fewer magicians will get ripped off as a result.


I had my own routine, Dennis. I guess my point is that exposure of the method of the ID is a sad thing. But hey, them's the breaks...

Tarotist
Posts: 1363
Joined: July 29th, 2021, 7:16 am
Favorite Magician: David Nixon

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby Tarotist » August 15th, 2022, 7:00 pm

MagicbyAlfred wrote:
All of this said, there are some incredible nuggets in the old books that no exposer (or even many magicians) will ever know about, much less reveal. For example, I have a unique way of changing a card in a spectator's hand (one of the very strongest effects in card magic, IMHO). I know of only one other magician in my life who has used it, and the reactions are invariably incredible. And there it is buried away innocuously in the old books, along with other gems that are just waiting to be tapped into. So bring on the challenge...


Oddly enough I suspect I did the same one on two occasions today! It gets a very strong reaction and I do it all the time. (If it is the same one of course). Of course I am an exceptional human being..........

I call it the Rosini Trick since I know he used to do it. I am not sure if he or Annemann came up with it because it is also in one of the Anneman books.

If it is indeed the same item I did it on TikTok and it got 20 million views. I suspect it may well be the same trick. Old as the hills.

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: Youtube Takers

Postby MagicbyAlfred » August 15th, 2022, 7:16 pm

Mark, are you speaking of the trick where the spectator inserts a card in the deck in an attempt to find their card, only to find that their card is the very card they are holding in their hand? If so, I perform that one as well, but I was referring to something even more obscure.


Return to “Buzz”