Guest Columnist David VanVranken Breaks Down the Rip-Off DebateInside MagicMagic News Updated Daily for the Professional Magician

As you will read, David VanVranken is a very gifted writer. His analysis of the Knock-Off problem is thorough and, I think, points out there is no easy answer but there are guideposts.

I imagine this article will stir up the controversy on the subject; but it is such an important topic, it is important that we discuss all aspects of the argument. For dealers, inventors and performers, this becomes less philosophical problem and one of financial life or death.

Will the real “Bad Guy” please Stand up?

In this current round of “Magic Thievery” it’s hard to tell the players without a scorecard.

You have magicians

You have dealers

You have builders

And, you have some that cross the line into multiple categories.

Are magicians the problem? Yes and No.

Magicians have always been encouraged to “make the…

As you will read, David VanVranken is a very gifted writer. His analysis of the Knock-Off problem is thorough and, I think, points out there is no easy answer but there are guideposts.

I imagine this article will stir up the controversy on the subject; but it is such an important topic, it?s important that we discuss all aspects of the argument. For dealers, inventors and performers, this becomes less philosophical problem and one of financial life or death.

Will the real “Bad Guy” please Stand up?

In this current round of “Magic Thievery” it’s hard to tell the players without a scorecard.

You have magicians

You have dealers

You have builders

And, you have some that cross the line into multiple categories.

Are magicians the problem? Yes and No.

Magicians have always been encouraged to “make the trick their own” to encourage creativity. Sometimes this creativity results in a new and improved method or gimmick. Should they just keep this for themselves? Or should they try to market their idea and make some money from it? Many have done this.

The ethical course of action would be to try to get permission from the originator of your adaptation, or even offer it to them for some sort of compensation. Sometimes this is easy, other times it’s next to impossible. If permission is denied, they should be happy to have something exclusive only to them and never try to sell it.

Some magicians aren’t satisfied with the answers they receive and go ahead and sell it anyway. This results in the classic “buyer beware” and those of us who don’t know the source of the effect could be easily lured into buying an unauthorized copy.

What should the buying magician do? Do they go for “bottom dollar” and buy the copy? Or do they buy the original from an authorized source? The ethical magician would only buy the authorized piece, thus denying the copyist his income in hopes that they eventually go away.

Does this work?

In this technological age it’s becoming easier than ever to research an effect and communicate with all parties. It’s next to impossible to convince the copyist that what they are doing is wrong, so our next best recourse is to alert our friends so they won’t fall into the trap.

Are dealers the problem? Yes and No.

Dealers are in the business to make money. They see samples of all sorts of things and it’s their job to carry what they think their customers would like, while trying to support the legitimate builders and screen out the copy-cats.

When dealers become their own manufacturers, there isthe temptationto cut costs by making their own versions. This includes John C’s pen, homemade packet tricks, and other small gadgets.

I remember a story years ago about when Ken Brooke limited his own production to keep a trick exclusive. A dealer decided to make their own copies and sell them because the demand was there (of course) but they had no product to sell. The exclusivity of the trick was lost forever, and the originator got nothing for his hard work.

If I were the inventor, I’d think twice about investing time and money into my next product only to see the money go elsewhere. In this case everyone loses: The inventor, the dealer, and the magic buyers.

Are builders the problem? Yes and No.

(See a pattern yet?)

Here’s a hypothetical question posed recently:

“Magician A buys a Paul Osborne or Jim Steinmyer bookon building illusions.

Magician A builds the illusion in his garage, workshop etc.

Magician A decides it’s not for him and sells the illusion to magician B.

Is this theft of intellectual property? Is it a knock off?”

I don’t believe so.

Only if Magician A was in the business of copying props and attaching Steinmyer’s name to it would there be a problem. Or if he bought (or borrowed) a prop for the purpose of reverse engineering” it for his own profit.

In the case of a one-off builder, if it has original with them (or their magician client), or if they had legitimately purchased plans, then there is no problem. It wouldn’t be much different if Magician B had bought the book and hired Builder C to make it for him.

To me, the definition of “rip-off” falls into just a few categories:

1) Blatant attempts at forgery by building copies and passing them off as originals.

2) More shady attempts to circumvent the originator by making their own “version” of the item. This can be a complete copy with the originator’s routine copied verbatim, or it can be a “minor modification” that attempts to make you believe theirs is somehow “better.”

The creative process has some value too. This value is totally lost when someone merely “adapts” someone else’s routine. taking someone else’s idea and profiting from it is wrong. This hurts the inventor (and ultimately the buyer)as he loses the incentive to developfuture tricks.

There will always be someone out there assembling their own packet tricks for sale, but there is a far bigger problem with the mass manufacture of higher priced goods.

The Italian prop builder that WAM is targeting clearly falls into the first category. He’s making direct copies of large scale illusions and attaching the originator’s name to it. Is this forgery? Yes. Is it illegal? Yes, but it’s hard to prosecute without copyright and patent protection that most magic inventors just can’t afford.

Do we stop magicians from adapting routines and making their own? No. Should we stop them from profiting from it by telling their copy to others?

Tough question… I think the answer is “it depends”… on how close it is to the original and did he really add any value …and does the originator wish it to be sold! One magician recently is now private labeling “EZ-Magic” tricks for sale to his clients/audience.

Is that wrong? No.

Does it cheapen magic?

I certainly wouldn’t buy anything he had for sale, but then again I’m not eight years old with an allowance to spend.

This magician crosses the line with two of his “original” products that are clearly either developed by someone else, or the inspiration came from someone else.

He adds very little value to either of these tricks, and in one case is selling his “copy” against the wishes of the originator!

Do we stop trying because everyone’s going it?

Of course not!!!

We just try that much harder. We take one step at a time.

Zaney Blaney and others are doing this right now, and I applaud their efforts.