Hey now, I've been at the wrong end of a pointy stick enough times to tell if it's hand carved or not! /joke
Since you gave your opinion it seems fair that I give mine too.
1) The pictures that were shown on the forums show poor cuts
2) The patterns on his works are very detailed and (near) perfect
3) They admitted to having used an image they had no rights to
4) The video they posted does not demonstrate the same detail that is in their other works
5) There are some apparent shills to back them up
I'm pretty sure that if the case went to court they would not be convicted based on only this. They would probably get a warning. Also they did deliver their works to the satisfaction of their customers.
But in my opinion they're misleading their patrons with their statements. Because of 1) if think they're overstating the quality of their work. Because of the mismatch between 1) and 2) (one shows little attention for detail and the other an high attention for detail) I think there's something fishy. Number 3) is a minor one, but funnily enough the point that would most likely lead to punishment because that's the way the justice system rolls. The final number 4) is disappointing, since they came out to proof something but ended up actually proving nothing. Finally I did not see conclusive proof of 5) and though it seems pretty obvious I'm not really considering it - I feel the other points carry enough weight for me.
All that tells me the works they're selling here are not top notch. Nothing that would make me get my pitchfork out and fire up the good ole torch though. Hey, they may still be greatly skilled and just doing bitcointalk on the side with low effort jobs.
1) It is a video in the middle of the process. Yes it would have been best if he posted video from the beginning and end instead of the middle. This is him not doing a very good job with videography, not proof he is a scammer. You seriously think he just staged that video to try to fake hand carving skill? That seems like a pretty elaborate con to me, beyond realism.
2) And? So he is supposed to reproduce a work that he gets paid thousands of dollars to do usually within 24 hours and manage to also in that time upload gigabytes of data of the video? Are you even examining the logistics of these irrational demands being made?
3) No, he didn't admit to using an image he had rights to. He used a LICENSED image, and he never tried to hide that fact. Additionally he MODIFIED the image, meaning that according to the law it is AN ORIGINAL IMAGE. This is what is legally defined as a "derivative work", meaning by law HE MADE THE IMAGE and has rights to it. I am a professional graphic designer and I am well aware of copyright laws, you have zero room to argue this point.
4) This is just you repeating the same points over an over as in 1 and 2. See my answers for 1 and 2.
5) Again this is 100% speculation. Just because people choose to back him up DOES NOT make them shills. There is absolutely no proof of this, just more theories stacked on top of each other in a lame attempt to give the original baseless accusations weight.
You are correct in stating this would not be enough in a court of law. You know why? BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROOF!!!