My magic videos from 70s. 80s and 90s

[Arnaud]

All,

I collected many videos with Magic from TV from all over the world in the 70s, 80s and 90s. I started to put these selectively online in my youtube channel.

Find the link here:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNeiXd ... subscriber

Thanks for subscribing. There many nice unique clips you may not have seen before! Hope you like them!

Arnaud

[PapaG]

Many thanks for sharing this.

[Jack Shalom]

Thank you.

[Brad Jeffers]

Fun to see Ricky Jay doing the vanishing birdcage!
Thanks for posting these.

[Joe Mckay]

Arnaud has posted up some great videos.

There are some great clips of Jerry Sadowitz performing card magic as well.

I think he is the best performer of card magic in the world. He is a brilliant creator as well.

You can see the clips here:

https://youtu.be/fFvXdStzR5E?t=158

https://youtu.be/fFvXdStzR5E?t=639

https://youtu.be/fFvXdStzR5E?t=951

https://youtu.be/fFvXdStzR5E?t=1266

[erdnasephile]

I am amazed that the Sadowitz clips are still up this long. (Sadly, discussing them here will probably hasten their demise, so watch while you can! )

A dumb question: is that Ricky Jay clip the legendary "Laughing Card Trick?"

[Tom Frame]

Thanks for posting these Arnaud!

While I'm familiar with and enjoy Sadowitz's scandalous work, I hadn't seen him in action. I appreciate the clips.

I dig clips 1, 2 and 4. I like the promising premise of clip #3, but Sadowitz fails to deliver because unwisely chose to make the method the effect. Never before has the world witnessed, repeatedly, in close-up, such a flash-filled noisy "performance" of the Pass.

[Richard Kaufman]

A lesson in how NOT to do the Pass.

[Joe Mckay]

I had only been studying magic for about a month or two when I first saw Sadowitz perform on TV. So I was pretty much a layperson.

The way the cards keep shuttling to the face felt magical. Clearly it was the work of skill - so wasn't magic in the true sense of the word. But I often wonder if card magic is not more impactful when it comes about as the clear result of skill?

I don't think magicians have ever really answered this question properly. Nobody alive thinks genuine magic is the reason why a card trick works. As such - every card trick - in the spectators mind - works thanks to maths (self-working tricks), fake cards or skill.

So - if we are going to leave an impression on the audience - it is more impactful to leave an impression that you are a skillful master when it comes to card magic. This is why I feel the best card tricks involve some kind of action involving the deck before the final effect. Give the cards a riffle or something. So that the last image is of you doing something to the deck that causes the trick to happen. Just clicking your fingers is not enough.

Ricky Jay was quite happy to demonstrate his skill and take the credit for his skill with a deck of cards. I know that Tony Giorgio (pro flourishes) and Dai Vernon (anti flourishes) used to argue a lot about this. On a logical level it would seem that the Vernon position would be the correct one. But in reality the Giorgio position is more effective.

In a performing art - practice has a habit of trumping theory. I think Jamy Ian Swiss came to a similar conclusion in one of his essays as well.

So to get back to the Sadowitz trick above. To us it looks like a riffle pass done over and over. But to a layperson - it looks like some kind of weird (and cool) flourish that is repeated over and over. And this flourish is what is causing the trick to work.

I promise you that is how I felt at the time as a layperson. I knew he was doing some kind of riffle action - but it felt much weirder than that. Almost as if he was flexing the cards in some strange way to get some kind of Rubik's Cube motion going on.

I just wanted to write this because it is very rare we get to have the testimony of a layperson when discussing a topic on here. And in this case that layperson was me.

[Joe Mckay]

I just saw Helge Thun do the "Ace of Spades as a Sorceror's Apprentice" on a Topas DVD.

This is the same trick that Ricky Jay does as The Laughing Card Trick. I am not sure if Ricky Jay got better at doing this trick later in life but Helge Thun does it much better...

I am only mentioning this because it is a trick you rarely see performed. As such - if you want to appreciate this Cliff Green trick properly it is worth seeing how good it can look in the hands of somebody else (such as Helge Thun).

[Bill Duncan]

I'm not sure where the idea Vernon didn't use or like flourishes comes from. He espoused naturalness, sure, but he also published and popularized a one handed shuffle, a one handed stud deal, and the coin star.

The Sadowitz thing looks terrible. Hands down, the worst thing I've ever seen him do. I don't think you were responding as a "layman" would to magic, but how a child would respond to a juggler. But yes, amazed, sure.

As for the question of is card magic "...more impactful when it comes about as the clear result of skill?" Are you asking if juggling is more impactful than mystery? I'm pretty certain the answer to that is "it depends on the mystery, and the juggling." Personally I believe that mystery will have an edge just because it's more a less common experience than awe.

But a performer may get more positive feedback from a juggling stunt because people never feel challenged or diminished watching a juggler.

[Brad Henderson]

Nobody alive thinks genuine magic is the reason why a card trick works. As such - every card trick - in the spectators mind - works thanks to maths (self-working tricks), fake cards or skill..

Let me correct your statement:

Nobody alive thinks genuine magic is the reason YOUR card tricks work. As such - every card trick YOU perform - in the spectators mind - works thanks to maths (self-working tricks), fake cards or skill.

I have no doubt this may be true or your card magic.

It most certainly isn’t true for everyone else’s.

[Richard Kaufman]

Ricky did "Ace of Spades as a Sorcerer's Apprentice" very poorly.

Brad: when I used to do magic for young ladies at the singles bar in New York where I hung out for years, I learned quite quickly that at least 20 percent of them thought I was doing real magic. It's the presentation.

[Brad Henderson]

Absolutely. People want to believe. People want to be able to say they were apart of a rare moment in time. I always find it both insulting and disappointing when magicians say no one will choose to believe that magic is real. It speaks only to their work, not anyone else’s.

[erdnasephile]

I love that Earl Nelson clip: so smooth and elegant. So magical.

PS: Re: Sadowitz clips: poof! Gone!

[Arnaud]

Yes Mr Sadowitz was not pleased... I just saw I have another Sadowitz BBC special....

More clips to follow.....

[Joe Mckay]

The other card performer who really impressed me when I first became interested in card magic was Harry Lorayne.

I saw him do WHAT A M-E-S! (a lengthy dealing trick) on an old Pat Page Trick-A-Tape syle video magazine. It was incredible. He really knows how to sell a card trick to laypeople. He is remarkable.

[Arnaud]

The other card performer who really impressed me when I first became interested in card magic was Harry Lorayne.

Now you mention it. I do not recall to have any Lorayne clips from TV. I recall he was on dutch TV with an impressive memory demonstration but not been able to find that clip.

[Richard Kaufman]

Harry purposely never did any magic on TV.

[Richard Kaufman]

Screw Sadowitz--these were done on public shows, not private. Leave the clips up and let him complain. That's all he'll do.

[Arnaud]

Harry purposely never did any magic on TV.

Well I found one! His appearance in the Paul Daniels show.

https://youtu.be/knAt-sq78zg

[Arnaud]

Screw Sadowitz--these were done on public shows, not private. Leave the clips up and let him complain. That's all he'll do.

That is unfortunately not how Youtube thinks Richard. You get a copyrightcclaim strike and they block the video.

[Arnaud]

Looks like I got my 3rd copyright strike and my youtube account got blocked........oops....sorry friends I would have loved to share my collection......Last one was requested by James Dimmare about me sharing his great performance at Luis de Matos. If anyone knows him and can convince him to retract the strike request (happyy to delete the video) it would open up again.

That said - it will always be vulnerable to individuals not happhy with finding themselves on youtube. It is (was) not my intention to upset anyone - and would have been happy to remove it.

Anyway.....it was nice as long as it lasted......

PS
This all started with me getting rid of my 100s of videos and starting to digitize them. Am 60% done. Any experience if a video collection like this has any value? If anyone is interested let me know. Contact me at arnaud.van.rietschoten@gmail.com

[Bill Mullins]

If Dimmare was on a Luis de Matos show, I wouldn't think he owned the copyright -- de Matos would. And therefore he wasn't in a position to claim the youtube video infringed him. Of course, it depends on the contracts, to which I am not privy.

[Richard Kaufman]

The production company MIGHT own the copyright, not likely the artist's involved.

[Brian Hebert]

I enjoyed the videos very much. so much good magic now gone. I really liked the Fred Kaps magic show one and the Vernon videos on Cavett and in Australia. Would have loved to see what else was going to pop up. The "Its Magic" tv show from the 50's/60's was very good as well.

thank you for allowing us to see some of it.

The only thing like it in my opinion was the Magicana video page. Perhaps you can talk to them.

[MagicbyAlfred]

Richard and Bill are far more likely than not to be right. However, the standard for filing a copyright infringement notification with YouTube and for YouTube to issue a resultant copyright strike is mere allegation of infringement by the alleged copyright owner or its agent, as opposed to proof. It is not hard to imagine that YouTube is going to employ a de facto presumption that infringement has occurred even if in reality it has not - in other words, YouTube is going to bend over backwards away from any chance of getting sued and incurring liability, or even legal fees and costs required to defend a suit.

According to YouTube's Help Page on "Copyright Strike Basics,"

"If you get a copyright strike, that means your video has been taken down from YouTube because a copyright owner sent us a complete and valid legal request asking us to do so. When a copyright owner formally notifies us that you don’t have their permission to post their content on the site, we take down your upload to comply with copyright law."

So, what is a "complete and valid legal request"? According to YouTube, it consists of the following:

1. Your contact information
You’ll need to provide information that will allow us and the uploader(s) of any video(s) you remove to contact you regarding your complaint, such as an email address, physical address or telephone number.

2. A description of your work that you believe has been infringed
In your complaint, be sure to clearly and completely describe the copyrighted content you're seeking to protect. If multiple copyrighted works are covered in your complaint, the law allows a representative list of such works.

3. Each allegedly infringing video’s specific URL
Your complaint must contain the specific URL of the video you believe infringes your rights, or we won't be able to find and remove it. General information about the video, such as a channel URL or username, is inadequate. Please include the URL(s) of the exact video(s). The URL should be in the following format: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxxxxxxxxxx

4. You must agree to and include the following statement:
“I have a good faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.”

5. And the following statement:
"The information in this notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.”

6. Your signature
Complete complaints require the physical or electronic signature of the copyright owner or a representative authorized to act on their behalf. To satisfy this requirement, you may enter your full legal name (a first and last name, not a company name) to act as your signature at the bottom of your complaint.

You may contact us via email, postal mail, or fax, being sure to include the requirements above.

[Bill Mullins]

I have heard enough horror tales of youtube copyright strikes to know that often, the person alleging the strike is not the copyright owner or his authorized agent. I'm not accusing Dimmare of doing this, but would not be surprised if that were in fact the case. (It would be unusual for the contract between the production company and a performer on a TV show to assign the copyright to the performer, or to explicitly empower the performer to act on the production company's behalf in copyright matters.)

When one makes a DMCA allegation about, for example, a pirate movie website, you have to declare "under penalty of perjury" that what you are saying is true. Youtube doesn't seem to require this declaration.

[MagicbyAlfred]

Under You Tube's requirement number 5, above, for a "complete and valid request," the individual making the copyright infringement notification (whomever that might be in a given case) is declaring under penalty of perjury that he/she is "the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

[Bill Mullins]

My eyes passed right over that. sorry.

[Steve Mills]

The ghost of Jeff Buzzbee!

[MagicbyAlfred]

To analyze YouTube's position on the copyright strikes just a teensy bit further, YouTube states:

""If you get a copyright strike, that means your video has been taken down from YouTube because a copyright owner sent us a complete and valid legal request asking us to do so. When a copyright owner formally notifies us that you don’t have their permission to post their content on the site, we take down your upload to comply with copyright law."

[MagicbyAlfred]

Somehow what I wrote after the quotation in my previous post didn't get included, which I'm sure was due to my own glitch. Anyway, the point I was going to make was that even if someone sends a request to YouTube to take down a particular video that they are claiming is their copyrighted material, it appears that YouTube will take it down without really being able to verify that the sender of the request was being truthful or whether or not the sender was mistaken as to owning the copyright. Therefore, just because YouTube takes down a video does not necessarily mean or provide proof that the uploader infringed anyone's copyright, or that YouTube was required by copyright law to take the video down. I am not, by the way, suggesting that anyone has lied to YouTube about being the copyright holder or the copyright holder's agent, or even that they mistakenly or incorrectly claimed they were - but it could happen, and if it does and YouTube takes down the video, it would not seem to be fair.

[David Nethery]

Looks like I got my 3rd copyright strike and my youtube account got blocked...

Well, that's a shame. You are not profiting financially from posting these old videos , but these things have educational/historical value for magicians. Most of the people who were ever going to view these videos are magicians. I'm sorry Dimmare felt that way about having his brilliant act posted. I was very glad I saw it again before it got taken down. You had some real rarities , such as the Jackie Gleason magic special from 1962 , which I've read about before , but had never seen. It was interesting. I'm glad I saw it before it was removed.

Thanks again for sharing. Sorry you had your account suspended as a result.

[Tom Stone]

If Dimmare was on a Luis de Matos show, I wouldn't think he owned the copyright -- de Matos would. And therefore he wasn't in a position to claim the youtube video infringed him. Of course, it depends on the contracts, to which I am not privy.

An artist obviously own the copyright to their own work. And since Arnaud isn't in USA, there's no confusion about it, nor is there any extra work involved.
I've taken down a bunch of Youtube videos of me, and there's never been any problems - except when the uploader is an american, then it is usually necessary to phrase it in an unnecessarily verbose manner.

[Tom Stone]

According to YouTube's Help Page on "Copyright Strike Basics,"

"If you get a copyright strike, that means your video has been taken down from YouTube because a copyright owner sent us a complete and valid legal request asking us to do so. When a copyright owner formally notifies us that you don’t have their permission to post their content on the site, we take down your upload to comply with copyright law."

So, what is a "complete and valid legal request"? According to YouTube, it consists of the following:

Usually, it is enough to fill in the template given by Youtube, except if the transgressor is located in USA, because then it is rather common that they refuse and say something about "fair use" even when the american fair use doctrin doesn't even apply. Pretty annoying. But I've found out that all that can be circumvented, and have the piece taken down without objections, if you under point 2 refer to the "four factor test" of the fair use doctrin (regardless of whether fair use is in question or not), and point out how the offending clip fail each of the 4 parts of that test. That extra work shouldn't really be necessary, but what can you do? Youtube is huge and make its own rules...

[JHostler]

If Dimmare was on a Luis de Matos show, I wouldn't think he owned the copyright -- de Matos would. And therefore he wasn't in a position to claim the youtube video infringed him. Of course, it depends on the contracts, to which I am not privy.

An artist obviously own the copyright to their own work. And since Arnaud isn't in USA, there's no confusion about it, nor is there any extra work involved.
I've taken down a bunch of Youtube videos of me, and there's never been any problems - except when the uploader is an american, then it is usually necessary to phrase it in an unnecessarily verbose manner.

I'm not sure how it works in Sweden, but in the United States an artist can choose to sell or "contract away" his/her rights to a specific recorded performance. It's pretty darn common.

[MagicbyAlfred]

JHostler wrote: "I'm not sure how it works in Sweden, but in the United States an artist can choose to sell or 'contract away' his/her rights to a specific recorded performance. It's pretty darn common."

Correct. Title 17 of the United States Code, section 201, provides:

"(d) Transfer of Ownership.--
(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession."

[Tom Stone]

I'm not sure how it works in Sweden, but in the United States an artist can choose to sell or "contract away" his/her rights to a specific recorded performance. It's pretty darn common.

If you're employed, that happens automatically even without contract, for work created during the employment.

But for a self-employed performer, no, that is not at all common. It is fully enough to rely on the Rome convention, the TRIPS agreement and a little from the Uruguay Round agreement.
In short, you own your own material. The production company own the footage. And with a contract, you can give the production company the distribution rights of the work of yours that they have incorporated in the work of theirs.

If someone else than the production company, let's say Youtube, publish it - then you're in your full right to enforce your rights to your work, because when did Youtube sign a contract for distribution rights of your work? And the production company can of course do the same for the actual footage.

We're not slaves. We do own our own material.

[Tom Stone]

"(d) Transfer of Ownership.--
(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession."

Any reason why you skip §201(d)(2)?

That is:

"(2) Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivision of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title."

And the relevant part of section 106 is:

"Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(SNIP)
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly;"