Hello I was wondering if we can reveal our own effects. Becouse i have a few tricks that I want to share but i dont want to publish them.
JDEN
JDEN
Is it revealing if...
- Thread starter JDENredden
- Start date
If they are your OWN effects i dont think theres a problem with it ........ but you dont have to use copyrighted sleights ..... or stuff like that ....... why dont you just make a vid of you performing your effects ........ keep'em to yourself
D
Deleted member 2755
Guest
Don't reveal them just perform in front of a camera and keep them to yourself and it would technically be sharing too because most magicians will be able to figure it out anyway
Yes, it would be revealing and exposure. You're not allowed to do it. You can through PM, but only choose people you trust. Keep it to yourself, and also listen to morpheis.
I guess if it's your effect technically it's not exposure, but I don't think it's a great idea. Also, if your effect contains techniques, methods, or ideas from other effects that are for sale, you can't reveal them, so you can't reveal your entire trick.
David
David
D
Deleted member 2755
Guest
Not really no... that's like saying when Dan and Dave put the Jones Change up for free in the media section it was exposure... It was their own. So no... it's not exposure if it's your own effect.
-Doug
Guys! Get a hold of yourselves! I don't have a problem with people telling/revealing their tricks but since this Forums is anti-exposure I'll speak for the rules.
You guys are asking if revealing your own tricks is revealing. And you say it isn't. Are you serious. Revealing your own tricks has the word Revealing in it! Exposure is Exposure..... I can't believe you guys think that exposing someone's else's trick is different than exposing your own (Well, rather than the ethics part). I don't think that T11 is an exposure site, because that's what it would be. Any joe can come up and see other people's tricks.
You guys are asking if revealing your own tricks is revealing. And you say it isn't. Are you serious. Revealing your own tricks has the word Revealing in it! Exposure is Exposure..... I can't believe you guys think that exposing someone's else's trick is different than exposing your own (Well, rather than the ethics part). I don't think that T11 is an exposure site, because that's what it would be. Any joe can come up and see other people's tricks.
Semantics aside, this is a magic community. People should be allowed to bounce ideas off of each other. Exposing your own effect is very different from exposing another persons effect. Exposure is defined as "disclosure, as of something private or secret." Whereas what jaydinho wants to do is teach. Not expose. If you say these are one in the same, T11 is one GIANT exposure site.
So...after saying that...lets say he charged a dollar to teach you the effect. Would it be okay then?
-ThrallMind
Yes, but, why are magicians so against exposure? Is it because we don't want people to learn tricks? No. There are several arguments against exposure but the majority of them lead to the fact that we simply want them to pay and to respect the creator whose deserves income and respect for his work if he puts it on the market at a price and also to protect the integrity of magic.
Regarding the former, it basically comes down to respecting the creator in question. Hence it is logical that if the creator wishes to reveal his own creation, there is no disrespect then in not paying or learning the secrets of the trick for free since it is essentially his wish. Quite simply, the ethics part you mention is the entire reason for anti-exposure - respecting the magician and his creation.
Regarding the latter, the integrity of magic is essentially protecting the principles from the layman. But who owns these principles? As has been previously mentioned if the effect used principles from another effect revealing the full trick would not be right. Why? Because it uses someone else's principles. Surely the creator of the effect has control over it, so it is his choice whether or not he wants to put it up for anyone to see. I do not see this as compromising magic, but merely the right of the individual over his own material.
My objection to exposure is essentially that the creator is snubbed; yes the layman might see the trick and learn it badly, but magicians do that just as much as layman, as any experienced magician can tell you. Just look at the YouTube "magicians". If however the creator allows his product to be put on the market for free, that's his choice and allows people to expand their repertoire or at the very least view new ideas and new material without the disrespect that accompanies exposure, since exposed material does not come with the permission of the creator.
In my opinion, exposure is essentially about the rights of the creator, and the disrespect it shows towards him, with monetary value as one factor. Surely the definition of exposure means someone else's product? Revealing your own tricks IS different because you have full rights over it. You do not expect income from it, and nor do you feel compromised when others view it for free. As previously mentioned, the main argument against layman learning it is that they have no respect for the effect and may perform it badly/hold that knowledge needlessly. In fact this happens just as much in the magic community. It is merely about whether the individual has the respect to learn the magic properly and/or use the knowledge appropriately, and that is something which no-one but the individual and those around them can decide. Exposure doesn't dictate that; indubitably some who benefit from exposure learn the effect entirely properly. That aspect of exposure is in fact separate and is dependent on the individual.
Hence if exposure revolves around the creator and his or her rights, then surely it is their right to give it away as well.
Peace
Regarding the former, it basically comes down to respecting the creator in question. Hence it is logical that if the creator wishes to reveal his own creation, there is no disrespect then in not paying or learning the secrets of the trick for free since it is essentially his wish. Quite simply, the ethics part you mention is the entire reason for anti-exposure - respecting the magician and his creation.
Regarding the latter, the integrity of magic is essentially protecting the principles from the layman. But who owns these principles? As has been previously mentioned if the effect used principles from another effect revealing the full trick would not be right. Why? Because it uses someone else's principles. Surely the creator of the effect has control over it, so it is his choice whether or not he wants to put it up for anyone to see. I do not see this as compromising magic, but merely the right of the individual over his own material.
My objection to exposure is essentially that the creator is snubbed; yes the layman might see the trick and learn it badly, but magicians do that just as much as layman, as any experienced magician can tell you. Just look at the YouTube "magicians". If however the creator allows his product to be put on the market for free, that's his choice and allows people to expand their repertoire or at the very least view new ideas and new material without the disrespect that accompanies exposure, since exposed material does not come with the permission of the creator.
In my opinion, exposure is essentially about the rights of the creator, and the disrespect it shows towards him, with monetary value as one factor. Surely the definition of exposure means someone else's product? Revealing your own tricks IS different because you have full rights over it. You do not expect income from it, and nor do you feel compromised when others view it for free. As previously mentioned, the main argument against layman learning it is that they have no respect for the effect and may perform it badly/hold that knowledge needlessly. In fact this happens just as much in the magic community. It is merely about whether the individual has the respect to learn the magic properly and/or use the knowledge appropriately, and that is something which no-one but the individual and those around them can decide. Exposure doesn't dictate that; indubitably some who benefit from exposure learn the effect entirely properly. That aspect of exposure is in fact separate and is dependent on the individual.
Hence if exposure revolves around the creator and his or her rights, then surely it is their right to give it away as well.
Peace
Trust me guys, I'm not against exposure. There's definitely nothing wrong with discussing an effect between us. The only problem is, not on a public site that's against exposure.
But, thinking about it, pm an artist, see what they say.
But, thinking about it, pm an artist, see what they say.
Please, reread my post, and look up the differences between teaching and exposure before you continue.
As I said, if what jaydinho is doing is considered exposure, you'd better leave T11 since it's one giant exposure site by your definition.
-ThrallMind
Alright! I give up! Gah! You win!
But seriously, contact an artist, we want to be safe. Because anybody can come on the forums and see tricks exposed.
You say you understand what I'm saying, yet you still claim he would be committing the sin of exposure by suggesting "anybody can come on the forums and see tricks exposed."
If jaydinho wants others to be able to see how his effect is done, why does he need to have an artists permission to explain an effect which they had no hand in making at all?
-ThrallMind
But it's HIS trick. He has the right to do whatever HE wishes to do with it. It's not exposure, it's teaching. If the CREATOR of the trick has no problem with anybody coming along and learning it, then that is HIS choice.
Simple.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Also, if you are using a published sleight, you could just say:
"Now do [insert creator's name here]'s [insert sleight name here]."
That way, you're not revealing the creator's workings but merely offering a solution to the desired outcome.
Here's an example:
"Now do Chris Kenner's 4 for 4 Switch to switch the kings for the aces."
You could also cite a reference as to where the sleight can be learned.
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Shanku
"Now do [insert creator's name here]'s [insert sleight name here]."
That way, you're not revealing the creator's workings but merely offering a solution to the desired outcome.
Here's an example:
"Now do Chris Kenner's 4 for 4 Switch to switch the kings for the aces."
You could also cite a reference as to where the sleight can be learned.
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Shanku
Oh, sorry about that, I see there was a misunderstanding. When I meant the artists, I meant the admins of the site, to see if it's okay to show the method on the site. You guys can argue all you want, but I still think it's better to be safe then sorry and ask an admin if it's okay.