Registered: 1454294489 Posts: 297
Reply with quote
Marc posted this on his Facebook timeline this morning. It's a longer post, but I'd ask that you read it. Marc is well-respected throughout the magic community, and his words carry significant weight.
Well, after a week of this crap about elluionist and Lloyd Barnes stealing Harrison Greenbaum's effect without permission and marketing it for a second
time, I need to publicly comment on it. First, I did contact ellusionist and had some e-mails back and forth with their "customer relation" person. I did not hear directly from either Brad or Geraint, only their messages. They released it a while ago and took it off the market when confronted with the fact that the effect was Harrison's and the method was Asi Wind's. Now they are marketing it again as FU2, and it is a big FU to Harrison. THey admitted that the effect was Harrison's. They had that posted on their own website. I am certain that they were pissed because they were stuck with a whole lot of decks of cards they had printed for it and tried to come up with a way of weaseling out of the situation. They put it out with an inferior method, you have to force the card. However, the effect is the same. I went to Lloyd Barnes' FB page where he posts a very long commentary. It is total bullshit. It is a thief trying to justify his theft. Read it for yourself. BTW, I commented twice on that page and Lloyd saw fit to delete my posts both times. I guess the harsh truth is a little tough to take and he didn't want his followers to be confused by the facts, as opposed to his ramblings and ridiculous attempts at justifying his theft. The David Sleaze routine he brings up has no bearing on Harrison's effect. Watch it. It is a very standard pick a card, then the revelation and then he says FU to the audience member. This in no way resembles Harrison's effect in which the FU is part and parcel of the actual revelation. The fact that Harrison's revelation is peeling a sticker off the card vs Lloyd's fine print revelation at the bottom of the card is equally ridiculous. It is like saying that your color changing deck is different because you changed the deck from blue to red, instead of from red to blue. Harrison created his routine over ten years ago. He has been performing it professionally in his repertoire for at least nine years. it is his. The fact that he chose to keep it for himself and not market it or give anyone the right to perform it is his prerogative. He can use Asi's method, because Asi marketed it. He cannot sell the method, nor can ellusionist. They didn't want to piss off Asi. They don't seem to have a problem pissing off Harrison who confronted them both times and very publicly, at least in magic social media. Harrison only stated the facts and published what ellusionist representatives posted themselves or said. Now they are trying to back track it and rewrite the history of it. Bottom line, Lloyd Barnes and ellusionist are thieves. They stole a routine right out of a professional's act. They were confronted about it on both occasions and have chosen to continue to sell it. Shame on them. It is just that type of attitude that destroys the art of magic. It is what prevents creators from sharing their work with other magicians. It is everything wrong about the business of magic, let alone art. Consequently, I am severing my ties with ellusionist. I do not want to be associated with their kind. I have requested that they stop selling my products and creations in any form. I have asked them to remove my name and likeness from anywhere on their website and social media platforms. Now I am going to ask you to do something that may be difficult. I am asking all of you to contact ellusionist and tell them they need to stop selling stolen goods, in particular FU2. I am asking you to tell them that if they continue business in this fashion, you will no longer support them. I want you to tell them that you will no longer buy any products from them. And, i want you to write to all of your magic friends and ask them to do the same. I believe that by providing a united effort and tell them the magic community will not support thieves, they may get the message. Thank you for reading this and thank you in advance for taking the time to help rectify a true wrong and maybe, just maybe, help our great art/craft in the process. Marc DeSouza
Registered: 1535750530 Posts: 682
Reply with quote
oh… that just sucks... the crap level of what Ellusionist sends email about is pretty high, so I've been sort of suspicious when I would see something good anyway, so now I know, and I'm on this...
Thanks for posting it __________________
Registered: 1463716362 Posts: 3,178
Reply with quote
A couple of comments. I am opposed to theft and outright use of another's effect without permission even if you "tweak" it in the process. Marc's history of the effect in question appears legitimate and I'm sure is accurate.
Personally I have never bought anything from Ellusionist and after this, will probably not ever. But one thing that I need to say and this is just personal so YMMV, but I find the entire thing in bad taste. I know the "F" word has become just another word among some people but for me it is a curse word and to use it in a magic trick is beyond the pale. Call me prudish, I'm OK with that. I just don't think magic needs to mirror society by lowering our standards. Just like I suggested in another thread that Goshman's Magic Ding Dong be relegated to the ash heap. Again, YMMV, but on the subject of piracy, theft and other maladies infecting magic, I wholeheartedly agree with Marc.
Registered: 1452639747 Posts: 4,704
Reply with quote
Although I don’t care for the effect and find it to be in poor taste, I feel like I should at least post Lloyd Barnes statement regarding this disagreement.
This is from the Magic Cafe. https://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=696851&forum=218 ——————————————————————————————- A Statement Regarding FU2 and False Accusations ||
I wish that we weren’t reading this together and it was my hope that transparency and logic would prevail in this situation. However, it hasn’t and it’s upsetting that this statement needs to be written at all.
You may be aware that last year, I released an effect called The **** You Deck. Within hours of release, Ellusionist was contacted by Harrison Greenbaum under the pretence that the effect was not ours to release. The method used was a method he’d been using for a similar effect in his stage show. We immediately and without questioning him removed the effect from sale. As that was morally right thing to do, even though the effect was unknown to the magic community as a whole and was unpublished. We stuck with our decision in good faith and because we took Harrison at his word that it was his effect.
In the following hours, we were contacted by Asi Wind, where I myself had a productive phone call with him where he explained that he was true originator to the core method used in The **** You Deck. He was first to market.
Of course, we kept the effect off sale and it would never be sold again in that form. I’ve had tricks that others have independently created that replicated my own work and it’s horrible when people refuse to pull it off sale. I would never do this to another artist. Period.
The following year was spent entirely reworking the effect to remove Asi’s method. Meaning we needed no full deck and no switches.
It's just a force. We’ve since discovered that the use of the phrase **** You as a gag during a card magic routine even predates Harrison. More on this later though.
I kept the ending of the effect, a singular gaff card that replaced the Joker with a **** You emblem and a change of the Ace of Spades in the Guarantee section of the Joker, to a different card to a reveal.
Although this could be seen as similar to Harrisons ending, the outcome, as a whole, is not.
To explain Harrisons routine; A book is in view. A card is freely named, inside the book is a bookmark (a playing card), a move happens as the card is removed from the book, the bookmark is revealed to have a sticker on the face of it saying **** You. (He's put that online for magicians to deduce the similarities.) The sticker is removed to reveal that it was hiding a real playing card, which is their named card. With my routine; A single card is placed in view in the spectators hand, a card is chosen via a force, the card is turned over to show it’s a Joker that’s been designed to say **** You and upon closer inspection the Guarentee has the name of their chosen card. No sleight of hand, no sticker, not a freely named card.
The only similarity the routine shares with Harrison’s are the words **** and You.
The differences? - No freely named card - No book - No indexed deck - No switch - No sticker - No reveal of a normal playing card.
- The use of the phrase **** You.
The selected card is revealed in some way. And certainly not in the same way. It’s not a sticker that’s removed to show a playing card was hiding in plain sight.
After yesterday’s release of FU2, Harrison immediately posted on Facebook and other platforms that 'ELLUSIONIST HAS STOLEN MY TRICK AGAIN'. What’s most concerning about this, is a select vocal few people have taken this false statement at face value and simply believe it. I get it, it’s the way the internet works at the moment. Anyone with a social media account can come to a conclusion, say it loudly and convince others to believe with zero critical thinking on their own behalf. It’s sad. It’s a sorry state of affairs but it’s the modern world we live in now.
More deceitful and slanderous lies were spouted by Harrison like ‘Lloyd stole this from me.’ I can assure you, I did not know of Harrison’s existence until after the original release of The **** You Deck. Something he found very hard to believe as he performs so many shows. Again, none of which I’ve ever seen. I live on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. 4,255 miles roughly. He took a completely immoral recording of Geraint Clarke, entirely without consent and posted it wholly out of context to support his narrative, in what I can only guess was an attempt to spark rage and out-cry. A grown man did this. Let that sink in. But most of all, he completely believes that FU2 and his unpublished performance piece are entirely one and the same. Which, although they share a small similarity, are entirely different.
So I want you all to ask yourself, what defines an original creation?
My thinking is this and I’d like to hear any different opinions if you have them.
An original effect/creation should have at least 2 of the following elements:
1. Entirely different method. 2. Entirely different routine. 3. Entirely different plot. Wayne Houchin released Sinful, coin in Coke Can in 2006 (From what I can find). That was the first time I can find that a Coin in Can effect was ever created (I may be slightly off but I’m just using this as a basic example). Since then, off the top of my head, I can name 4 other versions of Wayne’s Coin in Can plot being released on the market. Porthole by Luke Osland, Breakthrogh by the Menghel Brother, Osmosis by Dalton Wayne & C2C by Peter Eggink.
With my previous list of what I believe defines an original creation, these only tick one out of the 2/3 necessary requirements to be an original relase. Different method. The plots are the same and the routines are the same. However, I DO believe that these all warrant their own independent releases as they each bring something new to the table. And you don’t hear Wayne Houchin posting slanderous and defamatory statements over the internet each time a new one is released. He’s a smart man with integrity and loves magic. To me, it’s quite clear that FU2’s method is wildly different. No index. No switch. No sticker. No full card reveal to be hiding in plain sight. That is undisputable.
Where it could be seen as similar. The use of **** You, but not a sticker on a normal playing card. It’s a Joker that has **** You written on it and the **** You Emblem in place of the Joker image. It reveals the card only by name, in the Guarantee section of the small print. It’s a basic force and card revealed routine.
Now, I’m pretty sure nobody living today can lay claim to a pick a card/reveal a card plot. So that can’t be argued.
Does he own the intellectual property to revealing a card and saying **** You? Well, after doing some searching; Harrison explicitly told us on (this time) a legally recorded phone call (where all parties consented)that the earliest video he has is from 2009 performing it in a show. However, David Sleaze, The Punk Magician (real name Greg Travis) performed a card effect where a card is chosen, he reveals it and THEN exclaims **** You to his spectator… in 1989. The year after I was born. 20 years before Harrison’s and 30 years before FU2. Don’t believe me? See for yourself: (*Deleted by Rudy*)Again, although not exactly the same, it is similar. Does this mean that Harrison “stole” the idea from David Sleaze? I wouldn’t say those words myself but it’s hard to imagine that he didn’t see this video, especially as a professional stand up comedian who seemed to know a-lot about comedy and magic in our phone calls. And David Sleaze (although before my time as I’m now discovering) is a well known comedy magician. It’s not hard to imagine seeing that and coming up with a card trick that uses **** You in a reveal and being able to claim sole Intellectual Property to it. Even after seeing that right now, if anyone did believe they had sole Intellectual Property in the use of **** You in a routine where you reveal of a playing card, that claim is now null and void. The first time around Harrison had a problem with the index deck method, we pulled it without question. Although unpublished, the method was almost identical. Now, he’s trying to tell us he owns the intellectual property of using **** You in a reveal. And now we know different. Whether he knew it or not. There are 3 effects on the table here and I’ll list the dispute and chronological orders for you. So we can have a better, in depth understanding:
1989: David Sleaze performs an effect where a card is chosen and revealed, proclaiming **** You AFTER the reveal. Unpublished.
2009: Harrison performs a card trick where a card is named, found in a book, it’s revealed with **** You shown BEFORE and then the card is revealed behind a sticker. Unpublished.
2019: I release FU2, where a card is placed out in the open as a Mystery Card, a card is selected, The card is revealed to have a Joker changed to a Middle Finger and the words **** You in place of the words Joker. The small print reveals the name of the card. The only thing that we ACTUALLY share here is that ''**** You' is revealed before the reveal of the card. Neither of us can claim the use of the words **** You with the reveal is ours.
It's everyones. We can't own words as magicians. So the real argument, if using rationale and logic is; is someone a thief for sharing the same ordering in timing of a reveal in a card trick? Both reveals are different ‘Gaff card vs. Normal card with a sticker on the face that’s removed’. Because neither of us can claim the use of using **** You in a card reveal is either of ours now. It predates us both. And what makes it ok to think that it’s ok to call someone a thief and try to tarnish theirs, their peers and the company they work for’s reputation when they know in their heart that it’s true independent creation… of the timing of the reveal. I’ll leave you on this. Whether it’s someone you respect or it’s someone unknown to you; Never just believe something anyone says without having respect for your own integrity and the use of critical thinking to understand the truth behind the statement.
Sometimes, the magic community can be worse than extreme Social Justice Warriors. Not all of the community but a select few.
To everyone else, thank you for the outpour of messages, comments, shares etc. It won’t be forgotten and you’ve helped me to understand that I can hold my head up high, not being the guilty party.
All of this over a card trick. Lloyd __________________ w ww.youtube.com/themagiciansforum http://www.facebook.com/themagiciansforum
Registered: 1454294489 Posts: 297
Reply with quote
Thanks for the post. There is, of course, another factor besides ownership of the IP here. It's the very nature of the effect. While it may work, in context, for Harrison or Lloyd or others, I know I wouldn't go near the punch line on this effect, and I dare say you wouldn't either. Nor would Harry...and I'm guessing nor would many of the folks on this forum. Either way, I'm not going near FU2 for any number of reasons.
Registered: 1460490519 Posts: 3,151
Reply with quote
I'm going to lock this one. Both sides have been heard from, and folks may make up their minds from here. If another mod sees it differently, that's cool.