Criss Angel - The Ripoff

DJM

Muse
D
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
791
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=219254&forum=18&start=0


I can't believe the nerve that jerk has, stealing other people's ideas like that. Does he think no one will notice?!

How would he feel if magicians started taking his creations? Oh wait, he has created NOTHING. Just taking known effects and making it seem like it's his own. I hope Steve Baker take him to court.


Steve's amazing stunt that he's perfomed live for 30 years:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsr8Yn9amjw


Angel's ripoff, done with edits and a stuntman:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YL4r1ebZkdA
 
Chill out DJM!! You're gonna blow a fuse.
Criss Angel unethical ? Who knew?! :D
 
I'm sorry, but magic is a big part of my life. I don't want some hack freak ruin this beautiful art that we love so much.

And we already know he's unetichal, but this is just way too much. I really feel for Steve, I can only guess what it would feel like if someone stole one of my ideas.
 
And this is one of the bigger problems: There's really nothing Steve can do. You can't copyright, patent, protect, whatever magic tricks without revealing the mechanism.

However, I know many trade solutions in private (or so I've heard) with one another (which is how, I assume, Angel knew how to do the escape). But what if another magician works out how to do an illusion on his own?
 
But it's obvious Criss stole the idea from Steve, it's not much of how it's done. This is one of his most known stunts that he's been doing for 30 years, and he met Criss a year ago. To have someone just steal it from him it's insulting.

What's the problem paying the right for this? It's not like they don't have enough money on the show.. and they sure got enough people to think of original ideas. Maybe they should try that instead of hurting other magicians.
 
Because Criss is lazy. Or greedy. Probably both. Also, given his comment about the Masked Magician, I'm guessing it's Criss's brazenness that gets him. The MM wearing a mask and all at least gave the image that he was doing some serious stuff. Angel just nonchalantly rips the poor guy off, here.
 
Last edited:
What troubled me about the Angel video, and maybe it's just because I despise the boy, is that the whole thing was just so bad. Baker incorrectly complains it was an "exact" copy when in fact it was a pale imitation. I'm not sure why the Amazing Jonathan would participate in something so unaware of its own schlockiness. What I liked especially about Baker was the concern expressed for the stuntman. No time to take a bow. What does Angel do? *shake fist in air "I'm gonna kill you, Jonathan!" It is pretty crappy they decided not to pay the man, but hey, I'm sure Angel still has to send monthly checks to the car dealership where he bought his Lamborghini.

I wonder if Baker got permission from the network to put a video clip of Death Race up on YouTube. Seriously all this intellectual property stuff is crap. And what do you expect from the demands of a profit-driven weekly television show? Even Criss Angel's brain trust will have to resort stealing in order to fill 22 minutes a week for an entire season. In other words, down with capitalism!
 
Do we know if Steve Baker has given Criss Angel permission to "rip off" his act or not?

Considering Angel has been on Penn Jillette's radio show, and he speaks with James Randi, and is working with Uri Geller on a TV show at the moment, it's not out of the ballpark to assume he has permission from or some sort of relationship with Steve Baker.
 
Last edited:
orphia nay said:
Do we know if Steve Baker has given Criss Angel permission to "rip off" his act or not?

Considering Angel has been on Penn Jillette's radio show, and he speaks with James Randi, and is working with Uri Geller on a TV show at the moment, it's not out of the ballpark to assume he has permission from or some sort of relationship with Steve Baker.
Click to expand...

According to Steve Baker:
Angel had no permission from Baker to use that routine.

Steve Baker complains about it in the magic café forum. (link to this post is in the OP)
 
Last edited:
Sadly, as unethical as it is, there's no legal reason in the world why Criss can't take the idea and apply it to his own act.

However (and this is a little-known fact) you can copyright an execution. By that I mean if you do something very specific in a very specific way, for example Jeff McBride's mask act, you can protect that execution of the concept. You can't protect the concept of changing masks, but you can protect your illustration of it.

The same could apply here, if Steve's execution was unique and Criss's was a direct copy of it. But Steve would have to have copyrighted it up front, I believe.

Sadly, if Criss (well, his advisors) were able to figure out the method, then Steve can't lay any claim to it. All he can protect is his presentation of it.
 
tkingdoll said:
Sadly, as unethical as it is, there's no legal reason in the world why Criss can't take the idea and apply it to his own act.

However (and this is a little-known fact) you can copyright an execution. By that I mean if you do something very specific in a very specific way, for example Jeff McBride's mask act, you can protect that execution of the concept. You can't protect the concept of changing masks, but you can protect your illustration of it.

The same could apply here, if Steve's execution was unique and Criss's was a direct copy of it. But Steve would have to have copyrighted it up front, I believe.

Sadly, if Criss (well, his advisors) were able to figure out the method, then Steve can't lay any claim to it. All he can protect is his presentation of it.
Click to expand...
You beat me to it.

This is an important point, though I think you are mistaken about having to have copyrighted it up front. Without knowing for sure (or taking the effort to find out), if the copyright is the same as for written works, then positive action does not need to be taken at all. The mere act of creating the work starts the copyright. Of course, filing for copyright makes it demonstrable, but that's a practical concern and not a legal one.

I share the moral disappointment with Angel doing this, but legally I see little recourse for Baker. The method is nothing. I saw Baker's video first and could divine the method. It's the presentation that is Baker's alone. (And the guts; no way I would ever attempt anything approaching this).

Angel's presentation was vastly different, even if the chain escapes were the same. (The OP suggests even this was different and relied on "edits and a stuntman".)

My opinion of CA has always been up in the air. This makes me lean a bit more away from him.
 
Garrette said:
You beat me to it.

This is an important point, though I think you are mistaken about having to have copyrighted it up front. Without knowing for sure (or taking the effort to find out), if the copyright is the same as for written works, then positive action does not need to be taken at all. The mere act of creating the work starts the copyright. Of course, filing for copyright makes it demonstrable, but that's a practical concern and not a legal one.
Click to expand...

Very possible, I wasn't 100% about the upfront part. I do know of people who have successfully sued for this very thing, although I believe it's quite rare.
 
tkingdoll said:
However (and this is a little-known fact) you can copyright an execution. By that I mean if you do something very specific in a very specific way, for example Jeff McBride's mask act, you can protect that execution of the concept. You can't protect the concept of changing masks, but you can protect your illustration of it.
Click to expand...

Would need to be a fairly dirrect copy. Case law is also rather limited that makes it tricky.

The same could apply here, if Steve's execution was unique and Criss's was a direct copy of it. But Steve would have to have copyrighted it up front, I believe.
Click to expand...

Nope not required. The problem here would be argueing that Mr Angel has coppied the expression of the idea rather than just the idea.

It could be argued that the idea is:

The method behind the trick
Being attached to the side of a car
Haveing a car driven at you
Haveing the car blown up
Escape from this situation at the last moment

Those would be the elements that would be hard to copyright. On the other hand the patter and the appearence of the chains could be protected by copyright. However neither of these were coppied. Derivative work stuff is tricky though so hard to predict how any court case would go.
 
Last edited:
DJM said:
But it's obvious Criss stole the idea from Steve, it's not much of how it's done. This is one of his most known stunts that he's been doing for 30 years, and he met Criss a year ago. To have someone just steal it from him it's insulting.
Click to expand...

Not really. If he had patented it the patent would have expired 10 years ago. Expecting to have exclusive use of a method for more than 20 years is insulting to the rest of societly. Courts and laws have repeatedly backed this position agaist some quite impressive attempts to get around it (Philips v Remington was a rather impressive attempt to use trademark law).
 
Forget it, Robinson. It's the Cafe. More threads get disappeared there than human rights activists in the Pinochet regime.
 
Cain said:
Forget it, Robinson. It's the Cafe. More threads get disappeared there than human rights activists in the Pinochet regime.
Click to expand...

Sad but true.The mods over there just hit delete for fun.Complain and they basically say "Its our forum we do what we want"
 
Azrael 5 said:
Sad but true.The mods over there just hit delete for fun.Complain and they basically say "Its our forum we do what we want"
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ. Why on earth does ANYBODY visit such a forum?


On topic: I think that's nonsense. What Chriss has done is not bad. It's what you interpret. I don't find your interpretation reasonable. There is a reason why you can't have a copyright or a patent on such things. You must not take the idea of claiming things as yours only because you were the first to think of it too far. How would you like it if someone would protect how to urinate? Try to loose your grip as a magician and lay your feelings aside. Maybe if you think of it a bit more you will recognize the sillyness of your accusations. And creating new things is not an answer. The possibilities are very limited. It's not that people are just too lazy to be creative. But creativity has it's limits too.
 
So why won't I just copy someone else's book and claim it's my own? How many storylines are out there? Everything has been done before.

How about I copy a good song and then say I'm the one who wrote it? Heck, there are no many ways to create songs anymore. It's all been done before.

Let's just throw art away, creativity is long dead. Long live the plagiarism!
 
DJM said:
So why won't I just copy someone else's book and claim it's my own? How many storylines are out there? Everything has been done before.
Click to expand...
You may copy rough storylines. You may not copy the entire book. Changing the names of the characters wouldn't suffice too. It may be not easy to judge in some cases. But you should be able to see the difference.

Allowed to copy:
A prince leaves his castle to save the princess. After fighting a dragon they marry and live happy for the rest of their lives.

Allowed to copy:
A guy gets chained up to a car and has to free himself, while someone drives into his car causing an explosion.

Not allowed to copy:
Every word of an entire book.


And where did Chriss Angel claim he made this trick up on his own?

DJM said:
How about I copy a good song and then say I'm the one who wrote it? Heck, there are no many ways to create songs anymore. It's all been done before.
Click to expand...
You may copy parts of it. You may copy the style. What you are trying to propagate would mean someone could make a song having each possible note in it and no one could make music anymore because every single note is protected.

And it's not all been done before. But most has been. Many many songs in the charts are covered old ones. Sometimes they are covered for several times.
 
DJM said:
Let's just throw art away, creativity is long dead. Long live the plagiarism!
Click to expand...

The intellectual and moral justification for copyright, in the United States, is utilitarian. A person does not have a sacred right to an idea because she invented it. Instead society grants a temporary government protected monopoly to the author in order to give an incentive to others to innovate. When copyrights last for too long, or prohibit too many others from spinning off variations and adding their own ideas, then it starts to stifle creativity.

Plagiarism is a strong charge, and usually means passing off the ideas of others as one's own. Magic performance is not academic. Unless you're Ricky Jay, most audience members will not pretend to care about the life and history of Hofzinser. I perform tricks and uses lines without any crediting at all.

Oh, oh, oh, I have a question for the lawyers out there. I have purchased manuscripts where the author claims he retains "broadcast rights" (or something like that) on the effect. Is that ******** or what? I think Blaine bought the sealed soda can trick for a couple years of exclusive broadcast, but that still got ripped off by Magic Makers if I remember correctly. And what about the 12 year-olds who post their videos on YouTube, whose motto is "Broadcast Yourself"?
 
Cain said:
The intellectual and moral justification for copyright, in the United States, is utilitarian. A person does not have a sacred right to an idea because she invented it.
Click to expand...

This is the fairly common aproach in countries based off English common law.
The alturnative aproach is the Napoleonic one where "moral rights" are a lot lot stronger. While the exact rules vary from legal system to legal system the results are ah interesting:

Under french law moral rights last forever. Sequals can be viewed as a violation of moral rights. Recently someone tried to make that argument against a sequal to Les Misérables. They won the case but fortunely the court was sane enough to limit damages to 1 euro.

There would also be issues with colouriseing a black and white film.

the problem is the "right to the respect of the work " and "right to
protection of honour and reputation" (I tend to feel that anyone who wants to inforce the sencond one should be prepared to defend their position on the field of honour).

Aditionaly things such as the GPL may not be legal in such juristictions.




Oh, oh, oh, I have a question for the lawyers out there.
Click to expand...

Not a lawyer but:

I have purchased manuscripts where the author claims he retains "broadcast rights" (or something like that) on the effect. Is that ******** or what?
Click to expand...

Depends what you mean by "purchased manuscripts" technicaly that could mean buying the bits of paper the work in writen on in which case you will have no rights other to own those bits of paper or sell them on. Copyright is not tied to a physical object.

I think Blaine bought the sealed soda can trick for a couple years of exclusive broadcast, but that still got ripped off by Magic Makers if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...

Unless Magic Makers had signed a deal not to "rip it off" then unlikely to be any legal issues. If they had then the trade secrect stuff kicks in.

And what about the 12 year-olds who post their videos on YouTube, whose motto is "Broadcast Yourself"?
Click to expand...

Depends on the contents of the video. If you mean the standard video blog then the copyright is held by the 12 year old. Youtube may or may not have the rights to:
to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels.

The complication is that the 12 year old is a minor. Another uplshot of this is that it isn't prosible to use material released under the commons free licenses in youtube videos.

Minors are in a rather weak position with regards to their copyright. They can't file DMCA notices.
 
DJM said:
So why won't I just copy someone else's book and claim it's my own?
Click to expand...

As long as the work is in the public domain you can (probably the issues of falsely claiming credit and/or copyright on PD work has not been setled yet.


Let's just throw art away, creativity is long dead. Long live the plagiarism!
Click to expand...

Well it worked for shakespeare.
 
There was also a thread opened on the Penguin Magic forum but that was also deleted however before it was removed it did come to light that the technical advisors on this show have signed non disclosure contracts which forbids them from discussing any aspect of the show.

Therefore we are not in possession of the full facts and can not deduce if ‘it’s a rip off’ in the sense of it being an exact copy, or not.

In the wider context and after the comments of “Long live the Plagiarism” there are many examples which, if we use a far wider interpretation of ownership and creativity that is currently the case, would make the lawyers very wealthy indeed.

Some examples

1) I went to the cinema and saw a movie about a family with superpowers. One could stretch themselves to a great length, another could become invisible and create force fields, another had incredible strength and another that could set themselves on fire without being hurt.

Did I see The Incredibles? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317705/
or
The Fantastic Four? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120667/ and http://www.marvel.com/comics/Fantastic_Four

2) I once saw a cartoon with superhero that stretches.

Did I see Mr Fantastic? http://www.marveldirectory.com/individuals/m/mrfantastic.htm
or
Plasticman? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_Man
or
Elastigirl? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastigirl

3) Next year I hope to see a movie about a multi Millionaire that puts on a costume, fights Supervillans but has no superpowers himself.

Am I planning to see Iron Man? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371746/ and http://www.marveldirectory.com/individuals/i/ironman.htm
or
Batman? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/ and http://www.dccomics.com/heroes_and_villains/?hv=origin_stories/batman&p=1

4) How about a mask wearing Supervillan with a cape and mystical powers.

Am I thinking about Darth Vader? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darth_Vader and http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/darthvader/
or
Doctor Doom? http://www.marveldirectory.com/individuals/d/drdoom.htm

Each of these fictional characters can exist because there are key differences in how the powers were acquired, in the personality, the names and how they are drawn. Remove that and you have open season for frivolous lawsuits claiming one is a ‘Rip Off’ of the other.

Back on topic, if those aggrieved in this matter still feel it is ‘theft’ ((http://www.mrescape.com/) see comment July 30th 2007) then he, she or they should engaging the services of a specialist lawyer and argue the points out in court however, as others have stated already, there is little in the way of Case Law to offer guidance.

20th Century Fox felt that Battlestar Galactica was a ‘rip off’ to the Original Star Wars Film (Episode IV ‘A New Hope’) and sued.
http://www.trekology.com/battlestar-galactica/classic-series-1978/

http://www.thedigitalbeat.com/2007/04/battlestar-galactica-original-series.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica#The_original_series
 
It's a fine line, for sure. The idea of escaping from shackles before some impending doom occurs is a hallmark of escapology. The car driving at full speed towards a second car filled with explosives, is a very creative extension of that premise.

You would hope that the copycat would relegated to relative obscurity simply because the public would see that he's obviously a knock-off. But it could just be that the copycat has better marketing than the original thinker, and it's easy to feel the injustice of that situation.

Criss Angel is a creep anyhow. I can't care how good or bad his magic is, he just gives me the skeevies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom