Monday, January 6, 2014

WMF Craig Petty and RED

I was busy so I missed the whole RED issue. If you have been busy as well, here is the short version:

Craig Petty (the better half of the Wizard Product review show) released a card trick named RED. In theory the effect should appear like this: In a blue backed deck of cards a red backed card is shown. The spectator is asked to think of a card. The red backed card is removes turned over and turns out to be the thought of card. At least that is what the trailer suggests. This is not what is happening and the trick is not as clean as hoped and has a multitude of problems and requires conditions over conditions. It requires a mathematical procedure, a thought-of card force stack and some rough and smooth.

So the trick has been out and it was pointed out by several people that this is exactly like Bob King's New Wave Prediction. Exactly the same. The "same mathematical procedure, the same thought-of card ranging force stack, the same rough and smooth stack."

So one could argue in Craig Petty's defense that sometimes great minds think alike. But a screen shot from the Magic Bunny Forum from 2005 surfaced where Craig Petty clearly states his favorite gimmicked card tricks. The very first item is New Wave Prediction.



So one could argue in Craig Petty's defense that Craig has no moral issue about copying other's work and claiming it as their own. But is this is untrue either, as watchers of the Wizard Product Review will know. Craig Petty has a sense of moral and ethics. And he clearly was against this sort of conduct of business. (Hat tip to the Smiling Mule)

So one could argue in Craig Petty's defense that he may have bought the rights to Bob Kings trick. And doing so would allow him to republish the routine with a new name and a new face. Petty's face! So far I know nothing of it. And if it were true, would it morally be true to omit the creator's name in the credit? I think not.

So it comes down to this. Craig Petty has released a known trick under his name. Craig clearly has a moral agenda when it comes down to theft, and it obviously doesn't apply to him. There is a professional term for this: Fucking hypocrite!

61 comments:

Michael Jay said...

The screen shot that you are using has been ripped from my site, in an area that requires a log in. Further, you give a hat tip to The Smiling Mule (a name ripped from a Walton effect). The Smiling Mule states, "The Magic Bunny is a two-faced, lying asshole." Now if The Magic Bunny is a two-faced, lying asshole, then certainly the screen shot is nothing more than a lie that has been ripped by your site for use here. I guess it all comes down to the level that we willingly sink to in order to in order to get where we're going...You are willing to publish material from someone else's site (without permission) to prove your point, The Smiling Mule is willing to make ad hominem attacks to discredit and ridicule another and Petty is willing publish a ripped off effect.

Roland Henning said...

So your point is? Just because I don't agree with the Smiling Mule's opinion all the time doesn't mean I cannot refer to him? Personally I don't think the Magic Bunny is a two-faced, lying asshole.

Btw. I did not take the screen shot and I did not refer to the Smiling Mule doing so. Do you claim copyright to the screen shot? If so, what part of it? The content (that is Petty's) or the look of the board (hardly noticable in the screen shot and pretty standard phpBB-board design)?

And I never claim to be above moral ground. I just write the facts illustrated using source material.

Michael Jay said...

I'm not claiming copyright, I'm claiming that it was ripped from my site without permission (and it was). Just because you personally didn't take the screen shot doesn't give you any special rights or any kind of moral high ground to stand on. Sharing ripped material is still sharing something that doesn't belong to you, regardless of who ripped it.

My point is that we all have level that we're willing to sink to in order to further our own end. Your level is taking ripped material to use in order to make your point. The fact that you can wave a hand of nonchalance in the use of ripped material with the statement, "I did not take the screen shot," proves, specifically, my point.

Roland Henning said...

Okay, I got your point. You say that we are all willing to sink on order to further our own end. I agree. That doesn't make Craig Petty's RED any better. Do you wish that I remove that screen shot? I would simply write it out instead making it a quote and totally "journalistical".

Michael Jay said...

No, it doesn't make Petty's RED any better. And no, I don't wish that you remove the screen shot...But, since part of our problem with Petty's RED is the lack of crediting, maybe you could actually credit your source? You credit The Smiling Mule (with your 'hat tip'), but The Smiling Mule doesn't credit HIS source for the screen shot (which I full expect from him and why I won't waste my time trying to reason with him).

Maybe in the future check your sources and possibly ask permission to use information that isn't really yours to use. Again, the screen shot comes from an area that requires a log in to view and that should certainly make it obvious that it isn't material for the free sharing of all on the internet (which isn't to say that open material is free to share because international law does state otherwise).

Roland Henning said...

Okay, I'll add credit, and no I WILL NOT ASK FOR PERMISSION next time. There is no need to ask for permission, as I would have to ask Craig Petty for permission and not you. He delivered the "content". And I'm pretty certain that the screen shot is completly within the "fair use" area.

Michael Jay said...

And you would be wrong. All material on my website is copyrighted to me, the owner. You'd also do well to check your laws on 'fair use.' The saving grace is that lawsuits cost more money for this kind of theft than they are worth (a fact that I'm sure Petty is very happy about). But if telling yourself that you have the right to use other people's stuff anyway that you like gives you that good feeling, then go with it. That's your level.

Roland Henning said...

"All material on my website is copyrighted to me, the owner." Where on your forum is that claim? I did not see it. The Magic Café has a big disclaimer on the bottom of each page. Also does that mean if a user posts an idea it is automatically yours?

Barry Solayme said...

Roland, it seems Bob King knew nothing about this, according to one report, and is not happy. We'll see, I guess.

BS

Michael Jay said...

Magic Bunny publishes the comments made by any given posting member, that makes Magic Bunny the publisher. Unless contractually stated otherwise, published commentary becomes the property of the publisher. What this comes down to is that all comments posted on my site are under my legal ownership and I am responsible for keeping the published material on my website safe from theft. However, you'll find that I have made the statement (off topic forum) in the rules of the site that intellectual ownership remains in the hands of the posting member (I might own the copyrighted statement as published on my site, but the intellectual ownership of that information remains with the posting member). This distinction between the published words and intellectual ownership has come up in the past on my site in regard to a member who posted a trick that was ultimately purchased by Kenton Knepper. To this end I wrote the following:

"Magic Bunny welcomes lawful and creative contributions from all of its members and recognizes that the content of any material submitted upon its pages remains the intellectual property of the original author. However, members must be aware that all submitted material will be visible to others (either on a restricted or open access) and that Magic Bunny cannot be held accountable for the actions of others after this material has been placed within the public domain. Despite not claiming ownership of any work submitted, it is our to policy not to retrospectively alter or delete any material at the request of a member, unless required to do so under UK legislation."

Again, this is a matter of legal enforcement in a court of law and financial suicide attempting to fight a legal battle over loopholes, particularly on a world stage. You're going to do whatever you please in regard to the material that you rip from my site, so it becomes a matter of personal ethics and morals. You obviously realize this fact and, as a result, you state that you will take what you want without asking permission.

And, again I say, that's your level.

Roland Henning said...

Wow a lot of red tape bullshit. Magic Bunny publishes... on a technical note true, but the person pushing the "publish button" is the creator of the content, then again, Magic Bunny supplies the "publish button", but that means the one having created the "publish button" should own.... man this is opening a Pandoras box.

I stole nothing. I used a screen shot. I gain no money, you lose no money. Theft means somebody loses something. Be it money or fame. You lost nothing, your credits as the owner of the publishing aspect has been edited into the post. And you lost no money. Happy?

Your excluding the middle argumentation really makes me lose faith in you buddy. There clearly is a difference between stealing a sucker from a child and picking up the wrapper from said sucker to prove that before mentioned sucker has been sucked by some sucker.

Michael Jay said...

If that's what helps you sleep at night, then you go with it. That's your level. "I'll take what I want and use it how I want if I believe that nobody was harmed." Your level. You might be right and you might be wrong, but it's still what you tell yourself to feel righteous, even though someone else disagrees.

Your level.

Roland Henning said...

Agreed!

Michael Jay said...

So you won't mind if I start taking screen shots of your site and publishing it on my site, then? You'll lose nothing, I will gain nothing - everybody's happy.

My members won't be required to visit your site to read what you have to say, but who cares? You won't lose anything and I won't gain anything.

That okay with you?

Oh, wait, I don't even have to ask because nobody is harmed, in my opinion, therefore it's okay.

Sound like a plan?

Roland Henning said...

Now we understand each other!

Barry Solayme said...

It would make even more sense if Mr Jay used a screenshot from WMF to illustrate a point he was making. Yes, that would be both proportionate and sensible. Grown up, too.

BS

Krab said...

Makes you wonder if Mr Jay ever heard of Fair Use? Also I wonder if he loses his shit when the news uses a screen shot of a website. Maybe something like memebase posting screen shots makes his foam at the mouth.

Michael Jay said...

Also makes you wonder if Krab has ever had his teeth knocked down his throat...No, well actually it doesn't. If he had, he know to keep his assholey little mouth closed.

The Smiling Mule said...

So mister Jay STILL doesn't understand my comment regarding his site.

Scratch that, of course he does, it has been explained to him rather clearly. He is just being a disingenious asshole again. Taking it out of context again.

As for the screenshot, somebody posted it on the magic cafe. I grabbed it before it got deleted for obvious reasons.

If you have any "moral" issues with the screenshot being used to support a point then you are a brainless idiot.

Finally, mister Jay does not know what an ad hominem is. In fact, I wrote a post just for people like you. Calling you a two faced, lying asshole does not an ad hominem make. You really are making a fool of yourself.

Asshole.

Sorry for the hijacking Roland, but when this wanker calls me out by name and continues his slimy dishonest tactics, I gotta reply.

Iain Stanford said...

To be fair, when (reputable) news sites show screen shots of websites they either,

A) Include the site logo in the image or
B) Say the name of the site

Originally there was neither but now there is a reference to Magic Bunny.

Either way, eveyrone needs to grow up a bit...

The Smiling Mule said...

Roland, for your information and to put it in context. I have a post about how web sites seem to reflect the personality of their owners.

I give a few funny (in my opinion) examples. Eg. "Simon Lovell's is full of shit."

"Wesley James doesn't have one."

After a few such examples, I commented "The Magic Bunny is a two faced lying asshole" or words to that effect.

Here's the post:

phantom-notebooks.blogspot.com/2013/11/you-know-how.html

The Smiling Mule said...

FURTHER, if you'd like I can provide all the evidence which shows that there was nothing from me to "try to discredit" mister Jay, as he claims.

He did that himself by first banning me for no good reason and then lying about the reason for the ban in an attempt to make me look bad.

He then admitted that the banning was a mistake, admitted that he told lies to make me look bad and actually reinstated my account.

I then made one little satirical remark in the COMMENTS SECTION of my own blog whereupon he promptly banned me again.

Granted this is it in a ntshell, but the man is a a petty little lying egomaniac.

Oh also, an asshole.

Once again apologies for the hijacking. I just can't stand dishonest two-faced bastards.

Krab said...

Why yes I have had a few of my teeth broken. Comes from years of football and hockey. But since you are being an internet tough guy and have no leg to stand on here with the fair use thing...

Gary Jones Magic said...

If someone asked me if I ever had my teeth knocked down my throat I would say no, but you could try. I've been stabbed, had part of my left ear ripped off and sewn back on, been shot at, but never had my teeth knocked back my throat. I would also just arrange a time and place for the person making the threat so me could meet up and then they could try! Just saying? :-)

Darkchaos665 said...

I'm not a magician and I have no idea how I got here, but these comments are ridiculous. With all due respect, I didn't know magicians took part in such passive-aggressive drama. It honestly reminds me of 14 year old boys arguing on the internet.

In case it angers some of you for me to say that, just know I say it in a sort of bummed, disillusioned way, rather than to be purposefully insulting.

Gary Jones Magic said...

As for Red, it was only a matter of time, I haven't watched many of the WPR's since the Wayne Dobson fiasco, but I have watched some of the rants, nuff said!!

Gary Jones Magic said...

Darkchaos665, can we all please come and live in your perfect world?!!

If you're not a magician and you have no idea what the above is about, then your comment is pretty redundant, and you won't have seen the irony in the above comments :-)

The Smiling Mule said...

I still think the down and dirty advertising is just as bad as the alleged thievery.

I mean, I'm willing to entertain the notion that Craig Petty is JUST THAT STUPID that he genuinely forgot where the trick came from, but there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever about how shameless, hypocritical and downright dishonest the advertising was.

The Smiling Mule said...

Darkchaos665, think of one of the things you care most about in life. Then think about someone raping it in the arse.

Different people have a passion for different things and this kind of stuff is IMPORTANT to some people.

If, on the other hand, you were referring to the antics of Michael Jay then I agree with you wholeheartedly; He is a petty little man with the mentality of a mildly retarded 14 year old boy... ;)

Darkchaos665 said...

Gary Jones Magic,

If I understand correctly, Petty ripped off a trick from King and cannot plausibly claim innocence due to the fact that he previously listed King's trick as one of his favorites. Henning pointed this out in a blog post which included a screenshot of Petty's list on a forum that I gather is owned/run by Jay. Jay, out of what would seem to be a distaste for Henning and/or his reporting, criticized Henning for allegedly stealing from his site, comparing this act to the Petty theft (hah) and attempting to belittle Henning and Mule (I hope you don't mind if I call you that for the sake of brevity...whose purpose is defeated by me writing this parenthetical...) for what he considered dishonorable practices, sinking down to a certain level to "get where we're going".

The rest was mostly childish bickering, including Henning stubbornly antagonizing Jay (though he was arguably provoked), and Jay citing legalities that wouldn't actually hold up in a court of law. My favorite part was when Henning facetiously agreed with Jay to both antagonize him and possibly drop the subject, at which point Jay took the bait and continued commenting about publishing screenshots of Henning's site on his own site, which just made him appear angry and butthurt (and to which I agree with Solayme's response). Oh, and then he eventually gave up giving reasoned responses and devolved into violent threats towards Krab.

I'll note here that if Henning somehow derives income from readers to his website then if Jay kept publishing screenshots of Henning's site on Jay's own site, the case could be made that Jay was causing Henning to lose income derived from readers, which would be adequate grounds for a lawsuit. If Henning derives no income from his posts then Jay would then be merely promoting Henning's message by reposting screenshots of his page.

Furthermore, Jay has no valid legal argument against Henning unless he can prove that whoever originally took the screenshot was not authorized to view that page/post/site. Otherwise, if whoever took the screenshot was authorized to view the page/post/site, they are free to take screenshots and distribute them as they wish as long as doing so doesn't violate the terms and conditions, if terms and conditions can even dictate such a thing. Likewise, Petty also has no case against Henning's use of the screenshot because Petty knowingly posted his content to a site where members were authorized to take screenshots, and so if it can't be proven that the person who took the screenshot was not an authorized viewer, the screenshot was legally taken and can be legally distributed. Similarly, a company cannot sue you for posting a photo on Facebook that has, say, a billboard with their logo in the background, unless you are monetizing the image of their logo in the photo. Since the content in the screenshot was not original content, he has no intellectual rights to it either.

Does this sufficiently show that I have enough idea of what's going on as to have a valid impression of the situation?

The Smiling Mule - I am not saying that Michael Jay has the mentality of a mentally challenged child, though I think I have somewhat conveyed my impression of him. :-)

Darkchaos665 said...

Though, I'm also being somewhat unfair to Jay. His initial comment was due to irritation at Henning's use of content from his site without permission or citation, and while he has no grounds for legal action, he still had the right to be irritated. It just didn't have to be expressed in such an aggressive way, as with most comments here.

Basically, it'd just be nice if everyone could be more civil. But I understand that you all have your passions and feuds and so-and-so did so-and-so and never adequately apologized and you can't just back down because one random outsider would like to see it.

The Smiling Mule said...

It's quite obvious that Jay's initial comment was scraping the bottom of the barrel for any excuse to have a go at me. Were it not for the mention of my site in this post, I doubt he'd have had anything to say at all.

Instead of a reasonable "hey Roland, that screenshot is from The Magic Bunny, I'd appreciate a shout out," he launches into a silly little tirade, the majority of which is desperately reaching to have a go at me.

He's still bitter because I publicly exposed him as a liar, and a general all-round slimy character who, among other things, abuses his position as the site admin to obtain private personal details and attempt to use them against people.

But for the record, I AGREE that we all should have provided said "shout out" from the get-go and I have since rectified this on my own site.

Gary Jones Magic said...

I can't argue with that Darkchaos665 :-)

Misophoniac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Michael, this is a textbook Fair Use case. You might want to pick a different battle.

Michael Jay said...

You're right, I should pick a different battle. Fact is, though, nothing is black and white in court and quite often people who should win, lose, and vice-versa.

I just find it interesting that nobody seems to notice the irony of someone complaining about Craig Petty for theft and lack of crediting when they use material ripped from my site without crediting.

And just because I got a case of the krabs doesn't mean that I was making a threat. I just stated that I was certain that someone with a big, smart, mouth had never been clocked before because that's generally what happens when someone lives by the rule of mouth.

Somewhere there's a jackass with a grin and all is well in the world.

Krab said...

What Roland did is called fair use. Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test.


1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

Also I'm not the one being a loud mouth jack ass.

Michael Jay said...

And you have #3 to look at right there, little krab dude. The amount and substantiality of the portion used. He used the entire post. You are allowed to use portions, but the use of the post in its entirety can be questioned. And, again, I'll try to explain this in words you can understand:

Any lawyer will tell you that there is no guarantee when you enter a court room. You can be completely right, but still lose a court case. Don't ask me, ask a lawyer.

In regard to loud mouthed jack asses, you're the one who decided to open his yap and get involved...Far as I can tell, this had NOTHING to do with you, at all. So, you open your smart asses pie hole and you got what you had coming. Keep doing that and let me know when someone finally closes that loud mouth for ya.

Krab said...

Really? It looks like all of it is blurred but the part that is relevant. Also it is one post not a whole thread. He credits your site.

Still nothing has been given to me other than I see you have earned the reputation that people have shown you to have. Love the internet tough guy act.

How this is relevant to me? I was a member of your forum. Since you claim copy right on everything posted on your site I no longer post as I like to retain ownership of my IP.

Krab said...

Also right now on your own forum members are posting whole post from the green monster.

The Smiling Mule said...

Yes, Jay, it was ME who decided to get involved, when it was you who you called me out by name in your very first comment.

Well at least I have been vindicated. It's here for all to see what a slimy character this Jay really is.

Threats of physical violence.

Threats of legal action.

Disgusting hypocrisy.

Utter ignorance and stupidity.

Now you've changed your tune to "well you can never be sure in court room." Ok then, how would they react to your blatant violation of the data protection act? Eh? Abusing your position as forum administrator to obtain private information, and then trying to bully someone with it.

Two-faced, lying asshole.

Marplots said...

I wish that copied post wasn't so blurry. I want to see what #2 and #3 are so I'll know what Petty will be releasing later this year.

I bet they'll be great tricks.

Double Deal said...

I believe that Petty should publicly apologize to his viewers on youtube for this fiasco.

He seemed to completely go against everything he preaches weekly including not putting up a full unedited demo of his effect.

I honestly believe that nowadays there are certain magicians who just want to make money without having to work. Sadly - they will do whatever it takes to make a quick buck. All respect is gone and now there is not even dignity left. Say whatever you want - actions speak loudly and everyone will be thinking about it whenever they see him or hear his name. He should consider going back to school and changing his name. Not to mention hope no one sues his dumbass.

Michael Jay, you upset someone used a pic taken from your site? Cry to your mom and then take down your site. Don't hate the player - hate the game! LOL

Michael Jay said...

Seriously, you find nothing absurd in someone complaining about Craig Petty for theft and lack of crediting when they use material ripped from someone else's site without crediting? Okay, I guess nobody really get's it.

Krab said...

Then why have you let the post the the cafe stay on your site? It only says it's from the cafe not The Magic Cafe. Glass houses and all. BTW it says right in Roland's post it is from Magic Bunny.

Double Deal said...

Michael Jay - You are MISSING the point. Petty didn't forget to credit some wanker - He STOLE someone's entire routine and is selling it now.

Imagine you are charging your members to be part of your website. Then someone copied your entire website exactly as it is, added a new name to it, and then decided to charge money to be a member. Do you finally get the point?

You mad because he get caught RED handed? Try to be a bit impartial. Imagine that was your routine.

Bravo to Roland for letting the truth be known.

It's quite absurd and makes me laugh when I see you whine saying, no one credited you for lifting that pic from your forum. Sadly that pic screams that he knew about the routine beforehand. You can't block the sun with your thumb. Some people just will always piss into the wind.

Do you hear that? They are all laughing at you!

The Smiling Mule said...

Of course the screenshot should be credited to it's source.

Not necessarily for any rights issues, but for the record. It's just good form.

As for morally comparing the use of a partial screenshot from a message board with the thieving and selling of a commercial product... well, need I say more?

For a site like Roland's, it would actually be less moral NOT to post the screen in this situation. Permission or not.

Lesser of two evils, at WORST.

Michael Jay said...

Right, you guys just don't get it. I'm not defending Petty - what he did was reprehensible. I'm not the one beating my chest over theft and failure to credit, that's what's happening here...And to really drive the chest beating home, the site owner puts up a picture that was taken from another site without credit...But you don't get it. I would laugh if it wasn't such a cry.

(And, yes, I know that it's credited NOW, but when this started it was not and that's when I was making the point...Everything else has been a wasted effort to explain my position.)

The Smiling Mule said...

What "point" were you making?

Roland forgot about, or overlooked telling his readers where the screenshot came from. That's all that happened here. There is no "point" to be made. He didn't try to pass it off as his own work. He didn't attempt to take credit for someone else's idea.

For there to be any "point" to be made, you'd have to be implying that this is somehow related to stealing someone else's idea and selling it. It isn't. Just because you can invoke the same vocabulary (i.e. the word "credit") to describe two different situations does not mean they are related or comparable in any real way.

The word is referring to two completely different concepts in each case. In Petty's case, credit is referring to the credit someone deserves for originating something - "he deserves credit."

In Roland's case, the word credit refers to the "accreditation" - merely the source. Nobody "deserves" credit for coming up with that screenshot. They are completely different concepts and you are being disingenuous by suggesting that Roland's actions are in any way comparable with Petty's.

Unknown said...

Jay: Hey Roland, any chance you can credit The Magic Bunny for that screenshot?

Roland: OK. Here you go.

Jay: Thanks!

---------

It could've gone that way.

The Smiling Mule said...

Yeah Unknown, I said as much up the page a bit. It's obvious that Jay had an agenda.

Michael Jay said...

I have an agenda? Christ Almighty, your brain just doesn't work right. I'm not a psychiatrist, but this seems to fit you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malignant_narcissism

The Smiling Mule said...

Just look at your first comment asshole.

80% of it is referring to me, or actually mentions me by name.

Roland Henning said...

I can imagine where Jay is coming from. He simply states that taking material from a website (which I didn't) is also theft, the same of which I accuse Craig Petty of. So that makes me a hypocrite. This is exactly the same argumentation that militant vegetarians are using. Killing animals is murder the same way that killing a human is murder. To them both are the exact same. In in a way we are. From a moral point they are actually right. From a cultural point of view they are treated as wrong.

It was a mistake not crediting the screen shot right away... A bit of that is due to the fact that I orignially didn't know where the screen shot was coming from. So I can certainly understand Jay's bitterness, but I don't agree with it.

How late in the discussion am I? The dead horse is attracting flies?

The Smiling Mule said...

Oh I can imagine where he is coming from too, but they are simply two different things.

The militant vegetarian analogy doesn't work for a number of reasons. Most importantly, the reason that I identified: the same word is being used to mean two differnt things.

There is a difference in context between "credit" for an idea and "credit' for a citation.

One level where your analogy does work though, is that Jay is effectively commenting on a post about a serial killer and suggesting you are a hypocrite because your are also a murderer... WITHOUT clarifying that by murder, he actually means you eat steak.

So actually yeah, if your vegetarian analogy was to merely suggest that he is a disingenuous twerp, then it's a good one!

But I STRONGLY disagree that the militant vegetarians are right from a moral standpoint. It is not the same as murdering a human being and this can be demonstrated scientifically. There is a sliding scale. It depends how you formulate your morals and on this poin, I´m with Sam Harris!

Which brings me back to why it's a bad analogy. There is no sliding scale which allows you to move between credit for a creation and credit for a citation. They are completely different things and to compare them is just to play word games in order to score cheap points. Which is quite obviously what Jay is doing.

Just my poinion ;)

Michael Jay said...

I do hope that you get the help that you need, The Smiling Mule. I've come to feel deeply sorry for you.

Bizzaro. said...

What the hell is going on in this comments section fellas?

Here let me add to the discussion: If that screen shot was taken with a camera would there be as much of an uproar since by copyright law whoever takes a photo of something owns the copyright to said photo?

The logistics of it all makes the mind wobble.

Michael Kras said...

The Magic Bunny is a forum that likes to crush the ambitions of young aspiring magicians who are simply misguided and growing up. The amount of abuse I received on his forum, from Michael Jay especially and specifically, at the mere age of 14 should have been enough to make me give up. A disgrace. And this proves it. This is one of the saddest conversations I've ever seen out of grown men. I'm only 20 and I can comfortably tell you to grow the fuck up.

Michael Graves said...

Michael Jay is nothing more then a self proclaimed master. Your attitude to younger members and your quick to jump to punching someones teeth out just shows that you are nothing more then a bully and hide behind the screen.

grow up and go somewhere else and let the adults talk.

76386bc0-95c8-11e3-82b2-000bcdca4d7a said...

Thanks for the entertainment.
I've read everything and kept score.

Darkchaos665 wins "best comment" with "It honestly reminds me of 14 year old boys arguing on the internet."

If he were a magician he would have realized that they are a bunch of social misfits that suffer from a form of arrested development that stops around age 14 -- the typical age when they discovered magic. Before anyone takes this as an insult, stop and think about it, you know it's true, and I say this as someone that discovered magic at around age 14. :-)

Overall, after the 10 round match, I'd have to say the win goes to Mr. Henning. The screenshot (whether credited or not) appears to fall clearly in the realm of "fair use" - at least for US copyright law - and therein may be part of the issue, as such use may be different under UK law. In either case, I can't see it being worth anyone getting their panties into a bunch over it, and as for Mr. Jay's initial point, that the uncredited screenshot was the moral equivalent of trying to sell someone else's idea, there's no comparison, and the resulting tirades only served (for me at least) to further substantiate the characterizations of his personality made by the others here that he was desperately trying to refute.

Htoo Ya Kyaw said...

fuck.. every post that i see here, magicians are arguing on a big level.. man i lost my faith in magic community..