Legal threats and copyright shakedowns
April 9, 2008 – 10:25 pm by William WallaceThe PT-mafia may once again be behind a shenanigan designed to keep the truth from being disseminated.[1]
A letter with legal threats has been sent to the producers of Expelled, according to Pandas Thumb, ERV and Threads from Henry’s Web blog.
The film Expelled uses recreated footage to convey ideas contained in a video that I blogged about on the The great white blood cell. In that blog entry, I speculated that the video, produced by or for Harvard in cooperation with “XVIVO”, was created by closet creationists. Being a cloet creationist is a very risky endeavor.
Today three or more blogs[2] are reporting that XVIVO is sending legal threats to the producers of Expelled because it uses footage that conveys ideas similar to those in Inner Life of a Cell.
The Darwinian Propagandists over at the NC”S”E have already hosted a high quality version of the letter, complete with redacted email address.(Bolinsky, David et al. 4-9-2008)
The original Harvard/XVIVO video is posted all over youtube, for example (note: the following video is hosted by youtube):
Yet, as far as we know, the XVIVO creators are not concerned with copyright infringement per se, but only the re-presentation of similar ideas contained in the video. Why is that? I have previously speculated that Harvard/XVIVO was harboring closet creationists. Could it be that the National Center for “Science” Education has threatened to Sternberg the closet creationists at Harvard? Nah, the fact that the NCSE has a copy of the letter is probably just a coincidence. Coincidence theories abound.
Footnotes
[1]Remember Richard Sternberg? The NCSE consulted with the Smithsonian on how to best make Sternberg’s life a living hell for daring to challenge Darwinian orthodoxy.
[2]Many blogs have already blogged on this issue.
Sources
- Bolinsky, David et al (4-9-2008) Shakedown letter: Copyright infringement in “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” The National Center for “Science” Education
- Dunkelberg, Pete (4-9-2008) Will the public ever see Expelled? Panda’s Thumb Panda’s Thumb blog
- ERV (4-9-2008) EXPELLED: EXPELLED for plagiarism endogenousretrovirus@blogspot
- Neufeld, Henry (4-9-2008) XVIVO Claims Copyright Violation in Expelled! Threads from Henry’s Web blog
UPDATE (4-15-2008)
This has been covered in blogosphere comments before, but the high quality version at Harvard does not say copyright XVIO, but “Copyright ©2007 Robert Lue and Alain Viel, Harvard University“. Seems to me XVIVO might not have standing, given the copyright notice. This would explain why the letter was sent by XVIVO and not their attorney.
 |
| Screen Capture of ©opyright screen at the end of Inner Life of the Cell. |
66 Responses to “Legal threats and copyright shakedowns”
You are not making much sense. Do you believe in copyright and the right to pursue those who infringe upon it?
I do not get your argument here. First of all the NCSE never threatened Sternberg and I wonder why you believe that the Harvard video is somehow produced by a creationist?
In fact the NCSE argued strongly against making Sternberg a martyr. But you may not have yet read the relevant original source materials now have you?
In the end this is all about copyright. Do you believe that copyright is an enforcable right?
By PvM on Apr 9, 2008
PS: PZ Myers [link] and several other sites are hosting similar postings. This is going to be big news again. The PT ‘mafia’ strikes again. With an unlimited PR budget they manage to control the media’s attentions and have forced both Fox News and SciAm to deliver negative reviews of ‘Expelled’.
By PvM on Apr 9, 2008
Your prophecy is certainly not disputed here.
Meanwhile, please see Which rule?.
By William Wallace on Apr 9, 2008
“Unlimited PR budget”
What universe are you living in? Who exactly do you suppose “forced” Fox News to give them a bad review?
PZ the mighty University of Minnesota-Morris professor? Or the enormous budget of the NCSE (which, I suspect is a very small fraction of what was spent on Expelled).
By factician on Apr 9, 2008
IANAL, but surely the plagiarized entity sues for copyright infringement?
I can’t sue you for your bad Janet Jackson bootlegs.
By Rich on Apr 9, 2008
Mr Wallace: Are you saying that intellectual property rights should not be defended? Would you want someone copying something you wrote virtually word for word and then make money with it?
By ellazimm on Apr 9, 2008
We will get you. Retire or die.
By SlimVirgin on Apr 9, 2008
ellazimm,
It is my understanding that the amount of money made (profit) for copyright infringement affects the amount of damages, not whether or not there are damages.
SlimVirgin,
Are you a member of the NCSE, or just a groupie?
PvM,
Why should you be allowed to participate here when I’ve been blocked from participating at the PT-mafia lair?
By William Wallace on Apr 10, 2008
You owe me a new keyboard for my Mac and one glass of a very old, very expensive scotch. I spit up with laughter when I read this entry. …
By ShiningOne on Apr 10, 2008
Ever heard of sarcasm?
By PvM on Apr 10, 2008
So William do you believe in copyrights?
By PvM on Apr 10, 2008
For the following reasons, it is hard to take the threatening letter seriously –
(1) XVIVO has no right to demand the return of copies of the video. BTW, the video is available right here.
(2) There was no demand for payment of purchase or royalties in lieu of deletion of the segment. Discrimination against the producers of “Expelled” in regard to sale or rental of the video could involve restraint of trade issues. For example, US law says about price discrimination,
Also, the video was created in collaboration with Harvard University, which may have received government support for the project, so the video could be in the public domain. What does XVIVO’s contract with Harvard say? Arguably, anything co-produced by Harvard is in the public domain because of all the general government support that Harvard gets.
Also, did the video have a copyright notice?
You folks are ignoring or overlooking some important legal questions here.
By Larry Fafarman on Apr 10, 2008
Hi, William, I didn’t know that this is your blog.
You are certainly right about that despicable dunghill PvM — he is always arbitrarily censoring comments and commenters over at Panda’s Thumb.
By Larry Fafarman on Apr 10, 2008
“It is my understanding that the amount of money made (profit) for copyright infringement affects the amount of damages, not whether or not there are damages.”
Probably true, so what? All the more reason XVIVO should start pursuing copyright protection now before the movie is widely distributed rather than wait to see how much profit it makes.
In the meantime, you still haven’t addressed the issue of whether XVIVO has the right to defend its intellectual property.
By jkc on Apr 10, 2008
So PvM, do you even think a case can be made re copyright infringement?
I’m a lawyer, and I don’t think so. It seems to me your appeal to intellectual property rights is fallacious and has everything to do with the wrong reasons.
By JvG on Apr 10, 2008
Um, no. XVIVO is sending legal threads not because Expelled is using video that “conveys ideas similar”, they’re suing because Expelled made a shot-for-shot clone of XVIVO’s video in a ham-handed attempt to skirt XVIVO’s copyright.
It’s as if I filmed an unlicensed remake of “Gone With the Wind” that had all the same scenes and plot events, just with different actors and slightly reworded dialog (e.g. ending with, “honestly, honey, I don’t give a crap”), then wondered why the owners of the copyright of Gone With the Wind wanted to see me in court…
If creationists can’t figure out why this might be a problem, it’s no wonder they can’t get the harder stuff (like actual science) right either.
By Ichneumon on Apr 10, 2008
JvG,
Thanks for stopping by. I doubt this will go anywhere…just another item for the PT-mafia to whine about. I even offered ERV 10:1 odds on a friendly wager, and she won’t take me up on it. Laughable.
Larry,
You raise interesting points. Thanks for stopping by.
By William Wallace on Apr 10, 2008
What’s actually “laughable” is that four differnet people have offered to take William Wallace up on his bet, yet he “forgets” to mention this here.
It is also laughable that William Wallace made his offer and then IMMEDIATELY (in the same post) concluded that there would be no takers.
It is also laughable that despite William Wallace’s cocksure prediction that there would be no takers, there have been multiple takers, showing the “value” of Wallace’s presumption.
It is also laughable that William Wallace waited merely 69 minutes, late in the evening, when most people had not yet even become aware of this story, before drawing an insulting and premature conclusion about the lack of responses:
If you had any integrity, Wallace, you wouldn’t do these things.
It’s no wonder, given your behavior so far, and the lack of integrity of anti-evos in general, that several people there have commented that the reason they don’t take your wager seriously is that they don’t believe you will pay up if you lose.
Nonetheless, add me to the growing list of people who have announced their willingness to accept your wager as soon as you repair the serious ambiguities and loopholes in your original sloppily written offer.
How long are you going to keep pretending that we don’t exist?
And what’s your excuse going to be now for failing to immediately clarify your wager so that the bets can be on the table before the Expelled people give their response? Or are you waiting to see if they pull the film or the footage today before you accept any wagers?
[WW correction: Ichneumon is leaving out important information, such as in this comment, I asked others to come to this blog to negotiate.]
By Ichneumon on Apr 10, 2008
That is some really batty legal reasoning. The claimant in these cases demands damages and injunctions, not purchase or royalties.
By Bad on Apr 10, 2008
William Wallace: Here’s what I posted at ERV’s blog (with the date fixed this time). The 10:1 odds sound good.
—
I’m happy to bet you $100 (paid to U.S. tax-exempt nonprofit of the winner’s choice, with the restriction that it must be a 501(c)(3) that files Form 990s with the IRS and is in good standing as a nonprofit at both the federal and state level) that either (a) the cell footage will be removed for the April 18 release or (b) a settlement will occur between Premise Media and XVIVO (which may or may not require a lawsuit to be filed first, and will likely occur out-of-court and confidential). That is, I claim that (a) or (b) will occur, and only lose the bet if neither occurs.
The difficulty is that it may take some time for (b) to be validated, especially if a lawsuit is filed and it goes to trial–that could take a couple of years, easily.
Do you want to offer a different formulation?
—
I’m of the opinion that the film release won’t be delayed, and they probably won’t remove the footage. I suspect Premise Media is already lawyered up and will issue a reply letter to XVIVO, and that XVIVO will file a lawsuit. I then expect an out-of-court settlement (which could occur a year or two later) that we won’t be privy to the details of, which may include the removal of the footage from the DVD release (I don’t know if XVIVO would be open to licensing as part of the settlement or if Premise would decide to make new footage that isn’t a derivative work).
[WW: The 10:1 odds was for ERV. You raise a good point that about a possible settlement. Settlements often come with ~"no admission of wrongdoing" boilerplate. I doubt the current footage is a derivative work, though. I apologize about the moderation queue, I got tied up today. ]
By Jim Lippard on Apr 10, 2008
You write: “because it uses footage that conveys ideas similar to those in Inner Life of a Cell.”
That’s incorrect. That’s not the basis of the threat at all. The issue is a claim of copyright infringement on the grounds that the film has created a derived work from “Inner Life of a Cell,” with the same shots, sequences, and angles.
Ideas are not copyrighted, only the form of expression of those ideas is copyrighted.
I also don’t think that the intent is to suppress the film, only to stop the alleged infringement–to prevent the unauthorized use of a derivative work.
Personally, I think that copyright law is in dire need of reform–that fair use rights are being eroded, copyright terms have been overextended, and licensing needs to be made easier (since many copyright owners may be difficult or impossible to find). But even after reforms along the lines that Larry Lessig advocates, I think XVIVO would still have a case here–this isn’t a case where the copyright owner is hard to find, or where the copyright term has been extended beyond reasonability, or where the creator of the derivative work has substantially transformed it into something new and different.
[WW: I agree with much of what you write on copyright reform and that ideas are not copyrighted.]
By Jim Lippard on Apr 10, 2008
Beg pardon, PvM. Sometimes sarcasm doesn’t transmit as well as it could on the internets. My bad.
By factician on Apr 10, 2008
>> Larry F writes: ” For the following reasons, it is hard to take the threatening letter seriously –
(1) XVIVO has no right to demand the return of copies of the video. BTW, the video is available right here.
(2) There was no demand for payment of purchase or royalties in lieu of deletion of the segment. Discrimination against the producers of “Expelled” in regard to sale or rental of the video could involve restraint of trade issues….l.
Also, the video was created in collaboration with Harvard University, which may have received government support for the project, so the video could be in the public domain…. Arguably, anything co-produced by Harvard is in the public domain because of all the general government support that Harvard gets.
Also, did the video have a copyright notice?
You folks are ignoring or overlooking some important legal questions here.”
No, Larry; the legal issues you raise are fallacious. (That means “wrong.).
>>> PvG writes: “So PvM, do you even think a case can be made re copyright infringement?
I’m a lawyer, and I don’t think so. It seems to me your appeal to intellectual property rights is fallacious and has everything to do with the wrong reasons.”
I am an intellectual-property lawyer with 48 years’ experience, and XVIVO’s case looks pretty good to me. Especially when Expelled even copied a mistake that the XVIVO video included. Take a look at PZ Myers’ side-by-side comparison.
By Olorin on Apr 10, 2008
This reminds me so much of Dover– the fact that the offenders did what they are accused of is obvious to any rational person, but the creationists are spinning and spinning to try to deny it. Just let it go to court and we’ll see what happens.
By Ric on Apr 10, 2008
Hmm, it seems that, as well as misrepresenting the truth, creationists see nothing wrong whatsoever in blatently plagiarizing someone else’s work. Regardless of any legal issues, do you not agree that stealing someone else’s work is morally wrong?
I am actually relatively new to the whole creationism ‘debate’, but, so far, the creationism/ID side is not very impressive - it seems to be a collection of bad science, misrepresentations and people committing not very Christian acts, which is heavily ironic considering the whole creationist idea has it’s roots in Christianity.
[WW: What do you think of Judge Jones blatantly plagiarizing the ACLU's works?]
By Zmidponk on Apr 10, 2008
JvG, I have no way of knowing whether you really are a lawyer or not. I do know that I AM a lawyer, practicing in intellectual property law, and I do not see why you apparently believe that the owners of this work will have no cause of action for copyright infringement, if the producers of Expelled go forward with this film, including this clip, without a license.
Perhaps you could enlighten all of us with your theory of the case?
Larry, I hardly know where to begin . . .
First of all, even if the federal government funded Harvard’s work here, that would NOT place this work in the public domain. Where on Earth did you get that idea? You might want to look at, for starters, the Bayh-Dole Act, which gives recipients of federal funding the right to keep title to any patented inventions that they may make. You could also look at the DFARS, which has a whole system for giving the government certain licenses to material that a contractor makes and delivers to the government under a contract.
Second, the copyright owners are under no obligation to demand royalties. They are free to simply refuse to let the Expelled producers use this clip.
Third, a copyright notice on the work is no longer required under US law. Moreover, the producers are now on actual notice of the copyright.
Fourth . . .Price discrimination? WTF???
By John the Skeptic on Apr 10, 2008
[WW: You'll have to work that out with Abby. Abby gets the 10:1 odds.]
By On behalf of Rich Hughes on Apr 10, 2008
What proof is there of Judge Jones plagiarizing the ACLU?
By zoltan on Apr 10, 2008
I believe that Mr. “Wallace” is referring to the fact that Jones used the ACLU “findings of fact” in writing his decision.
In which case, I have bad news for Mr. “Wallace”:
That’s what findings of facts are FOR. The Thomas More Law Center/Discovery Institute also submitted findings of fact, which Jones didn’t use because he didn’t believe them. And that’s his prerogative as well. There is no moral nor legal basis for demanding that Jones has to believe the Dishonesty Institute.
By Nullifidian on Apr 10, 2008
I don’t have the years of experience of Olorin or John the Skeptic, but I am graduating next month with a JD (speciality in IP) and I completely agree with their assessment of the situation. And I almost choked on my coffee when I read that price discrimination post :-O
By ZekeCDN on Apr 11, 2008
As Nullifidian correctly notes:
Both sides also submit proposed conclusions of law. Essentially, each side gets to outline for the judge the way that they would like the judge to shape the decision. Judge Jones simply found the plaintiff’s case much more persuasive, and based his opinion on their proposed findings and conclusions.
Happens every day, in courthouses across the country. It’s the way the system is supposed to work.
By John the Skeptic on Apr 11, 2008
William Wallace: “What do you think of Judge Jones blatantly plagiarizing the ACLU’s works?”
This is a misunderstanding of the judicial process, and specifically of the role of proposed findings of fact and law. I recommend that you read Ed Brayton’s discussion at Science Blogs and Timothy Sandefur’s discussion at The Panda’s Thumb:
[dispatches]
[Weekend At Behe’s (at the PT-mafia's lair)]
By Jim Lippard on Apr 11, 2008
Just to forestall another old kvetch, the Dishonesty Institute also claimed that Judge Jones went out of his way to rule that ID is not science, when he could have decided only on the School Board’s actions.
Yes, the Supreme Court tries to reach a decision based upon a single issue when possible; however, lower courts should decide all questions, so that an appellate court can rule on all of them individually if it chooses. And it was the ID side that raised the claim that ID was science….
By Olorin on Apr 11, 2008
According to David Bolinsky of XVIVO, “Expelled” set aside a portion of its budget for copyright infringement litigation because of this very issue. If that’s true, that sounds like they knew what they were doing was wrong.
Bolinsky also says that Dembski was the recipient of a copyright infringement action from Harvard for his unauthorized use of the XVIVO film in his lectures–probably just a cease and desist letter, from the sound of it.
And further, he describes in detail how XVIVO’s film was made, making a very strong case for copyright infringement on the part of “Expelled.”
[Jim Lippard's David Bolinsky on "Expelled" and Dembski's copyright infringement at the Lippard Blog]
By Jim Lippard on Apr 11, 2008
Dembski was sent only a cease-and-desist letter, which he apparently complied with.
If Dembski actually participated in the decision or the acts of infringement, he could be personally liable as a contributory infringer.
Even if Premise Media set aside budget for infringement, there are (at least) 2 other matters they should have considered. First, any theaters that show the film are themselves infringers; theaters may well refuse to show the film upon threat of a lawsuit. Second, Premise media should also set aside a couple of years out of their lives, since copyright infringement is also a Federal criminal offense.
By Olorin on Apr 11, 2008
Why do you think William Dembski participated in the decision? You can fight, but please do fight fair.
P.S. Jim, I reformated your raw URL. Please see the Guidelines for a hint on how to format URLs to hyperlinks.
By William Wallace on Apr 11, 2008
William Wallace writes: “Why do you think William Dembski participated in the decision?”
Note that the first word of my comment was “If.” Grounds for suspecting that he may have been involved in the decision or in the actual process of deriving the knock-off appear in his own comments about the history of the film. Don’t you read “Uncommon Descent”??
By Olorin on Apr 12, 2008
By William Wallace on Apr 10, 2008: “It is my understanding that the amount of money made (profit) for copyright infringement affects the amount of damages, not whether or not there are damages.”
This is wrong, but not entirely; see 17USC504. But you’re not nearly as wrong about copyrights as the commenters on Uncommon Descent. “DaveScot” thinks his experience in reading patent abstracts makes him an authority on copyright law; please tell him he is entirely wrong about that as well.
My comments there seem to get trash-canned.
Apparently Uncommon Descent believes that wishful thinking trumps reality. This could be dangerous.
By Olorin on Apr 13, 2008
Olorin,
I have had several comments not make it to PT either, though PvM claims that they are just held for moderation.
Meanwhile, I think I agree in that it seems to me that patents, trademarks, and copyrights are related, but different. Post a link to the thread, or shoot me an email with details, or just post your point here.
My point was in response to ellazimm, and is that a person who copies a DVD for personal use from a friend still risks having to pay damages even if the damages were less than they would be if he were selling bootleg DVDs at the flea market.
Olorin, you’re free to cross post your “trash-canned” post here so long as you keep it civil. I am allowed to post at UD, but I suspect that they view me with skepticism, as I would if I were in their shoes.
By William Wallace on Apr 13, 2008
Here are a few examples of DaveScot’s errors on copyright law.
(1) He thinks that, if the owners do not stop some people from using their video, they are then precluded from preventing others from using it. Wrong; the owners can be as selective as they like. They can withhold permission for any reason or for none.
(2) He thinks that hiring independent artists to recreate a similar video is not infringements. Wrong. If the artists had access to the original and the results similar, then it infringes. Moreover, given access and similarity, there is a presumption of copying, and Expelled must prove that it did _not_ copy the original.
(3) He thinks that there is no infringement because both are based upon the same underlying facts. Wrong. XVIVO selected some from among many facts, and arranged them in a particular manner. If the Expelled video uses a similar selection and arrangement, then (given access) it infringes.
(4) He thinks that no damages can be awarded if Expelled does not cause any harm to the copyright owners. Wrong. “Statutory damages” (17USC504) can be awarded without any harm whatsoever to the owner. They can be quite large—up to $30K/copy.
These examples were all selected from a single comment on Uncommon Descent. There are many others, and other commenters have made these and other errors.
By Olorin on Apr 14, 2008
NEWS ALERT:
The so-called Florida Citizens for Science, one of the biggest Darwinist lobbies in Florida, is censoring discussion of co-evolution. Help is badly needed.
By Larry Fafarman on Apr 14, 2008
Olorin said,
It is easy just to say that someone is wrong without saying why — any moron can do it. You remind me of [a judge I know. Other details ommitted].
I don’t give a da[r]n if you are CJ of the Supreme Court — you are going to have to argue your points here like everyone else.
John the Skeptic said,
I sure as he[ck] know where to begin — by saying that XVIVO is full of crap.
Peer-reviewed papers by NIH-funded researchers are now automatically placed in the public domain (though this rule is for papers, not videos, the same general principle might apply because the video is for educational purposes):
Also, Harvard’s arts and sciences faculties have an “open-access” program for posting free research papers online:
John the Skeptic said,
The issue here is copyrights, not patents. And the Bayh-Dole Act attaches a lot of strings to government contractors’ patent rights.
So how is that an argument supporting the idea that patent rights go to the government contractors?
That may depend on whether or not they sold or licensed the video to others — then issues of price discrimination and restraint of trade may come up.
I now agree.
As I said, if the copyright owners sold or licensed the video to others, the issue of price discrimination may arise — see this comment.
Olorin said (Apr 14, 2008) –
If DaveScot really thinks that, he is probably wrong, according to what I have seen on websites where experts give advice on copyright law. However, if XVIVO and/or Harvard have sold or licensed the video to others, that may bring in issues of price discrimination and restraint of trade.
Anyway, Harvard is either sole holder or co-holder of the copyright, and so far we haven’t heard anything from Harvard regarding the Expelled producers’ use of an imitation of the original video.
By Larry Fafarman on Apr 14, 2008
Larry,
I tried to help out at FCS.
Regarding your last comment, first let me say in general I probably oppose the same people and ideas that you oppose. But I toned down your comment a bit. I enjoy discussions, but let’s not let this devolve to the evolander level.
Anyway, if Expelled tried to license the footage previously, and Harvard and/or XVIVO refused, I think that would be at least a mitigating factor *if* it ever got to trial.
I really don’t think it will get to trial; I think this was a cheap NC”S”E orchestrated stunt–especially since the letter from XVIVO was apparently already on the NC”S”E at the same time the story broke.
Regarding your arguments about the copyright being in the public domain since it was done by an institution that receives public dollars–I think the argument needs a little more work. I cannot declare that you are wrong. I understand that with federal dollars unreasonable strings come attached–so you could also be correct–but you have not convinced me
That being said, keep on keeping on!
William
By William Wallace on Apr 14, 2008
William Wallace said,
I have given up on FCS (Florida Citizens for Science). They won’t let me discuss co-evolution anymore, and that was my best argument against Darwinism.
Sheeesh — you thought those mild epithets were abusive?
Yes — they chose the time of maximum inconvenience to send the letter, just two weeks before the movie’s opening date.
I really meant that it should be in the public domain, not that it necessarily is.
I gave the example of NIH-funded researchers being required to place their peer-reviewed papers in the public domain. And I would not call that an “unreasonable” attached string.
BTW, after my comments are posted, I see the message that my comment is awaiting moderation. Does that mean that my comment is not visible to others until after it has been moderated? Anyway, what you have here is true comment “moderation,” where the blogger has the option of cleaning up the comment. On some other blog systems, the only choices are to post or censor the entire comment.
By Larry Fafarman on Apr 15, 2008
It looks like your comments are making it through. More on the NC”S”E publicity stunt here.
In general, the feds have unreasonable strings. E.g., “Hillsdale College vs. the Federal Bureaucrats—Again“, though I didn’t mean to say the examples you cited were unreasonable. I’ll do some research on co-evolution, and start a post on it so that you can share your thoughts here.
As an economic conservative, it would be much better to not have federal dollars going to institutions of higher learning.
By William Wallace on Apr 15, 2008
Now Larry F wants a point-by point too. OK.
>> “(1) XVIVO has no right to demand the return of copies of the video….”
If they own an interest in the copyright, they can demand return or destruction.
>> “(2) There was no demand for payment of purchase or royalties in lieu of deletion of the segment. Discrimination against the producers of “Expelled” in regard to sale or rental of the video could involve restraint of trade issues.”
Wrong. As long as they stay within the rights granted by copyright, anti-trust laws, including price discrimination, do not apply. A copyright holder has no obligation to seek damages or a license.
>> “Also, the video was created in collaboration with Harvard University, which may have received government support for the project, so the video could be in the public domain.”
Wrong. The closest you get here is that the US government can’t own copyrights in its own name. (But even this is subject to exceptions.}
>> “Also, did the video have a copyright notice?”
Notice is not required. But, yes, the video did have a copyright notice, until Dembski stripped it off.
So, Larry, if you stop telling people about copyright law, I will stop telling people how to clean septic tanks
By Olorin on Apr 15, 2008
“If they own an interest in the copyright, they can demand return or destruction.
Given the screen capture in the update section of this entry, do you think that they own the copyright?
By William Wallace on Apr 15, 2008
WW: “Given the screen capture in the update section of this entry, do you think that they own the copyright?”
Short answer: I don’t know.
However, even if they don’t own the copyright, the Visual Artists’ Rights Act of 1990 (VARA) gives the authors certain lifetime rights that are not alienable. See 17USC106A.
But XVIVO is just these couple of guys, without much in the way of resources to fight this by themselves. So it’s OK to steal from them. That’s the Nazi way.
By Olorin on Apr 15, 2008
Well, now it looks like Expelled stole some more animation—this time from PBS. See http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2008/04/expelled-erv-finally-gets-angry.html
One wonders what else will ooze up from the muck…..
By Olorin on Apr 15, 2008
17USC106A
Could you clarify which of the above Expelled might have violated?
By William Wallace on Apr 16, 2008
Pettifogger OLorin [wrote],
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Expelled producers need to keep the imitation of the XVIVO video in case they win the right to use that imitation.
The price discrimination laws make no exception for copyrights.
I was talking about the public domain, not government ownership.
[]
By Larry Fafarman on Apr 16, 2008
WW: “Given the screen capture in the update section of this entry, do you think that they own the copyright?”
I wouldn’t know. I would contact Harvard and ask, or I would contact XVIVO (listed on the video) and ask about copyright on the video, or I wouldn’t use it.
They don’t list the copyright for the music either. So? That doesn’t mean that the music is uncopyrighted and free to use.
Claiming that you didn’t know who owned the copyright isn’t a defense. They certainly know as of XVIVOs letter.
By BW022 on Apr 16, 2008
William Wallace said,
17 USC § 106A does not even apply at all because the video does not meet the law’s definition of “work of visual art.” 17 USC § 101 says,
By Larry Fafarman on Apr 16, 2008
Thanks Larry!
By William Wallace on Apr 16, 2008
BW022, I did try to contact but did not even receive and acknowledgment that my email was received. This could be because they abandoned the email account, or because their attorneys and/or NC”S”E handlers have coached them not to respond to such queries.
By William Wallace on Apr 16, 2008
It looks like “Expelled” is now using a new clip not derived from XVIVO. If they use this instead of the XVIVO-derived footage, then William Wallace will lose his bets on point (a).
(Expelled video posted to YouTube on April 15, 2008)
By Jim Lippard on Apr 17, 2008
William Wallace: The section of copyright law on visual art you are asking about is a relatively recent addition to the law to add “moral rights” in artistic works that are retained by an artist even after the work is sold. That’s not relevant to the XVIVO issue, but rather is a statute that prevents collectors from purchasing a work of art and then defacing or destroying it.
By Jim Lippard on Apr 17, 2008
Oh, I see Olorin brought up that section of law. If you recall the original hearings promoting that law, there were a number of filmmakers who were trying to argue for its application to film, and arguing that colorization of a black and white film would constitute damage to the original artist’s intent. The film studios argued against that, and clearly they won.
I think it would have been amusing if the law would have covered films and prevented Spielberg and Lucas from their hideous modifications of some of their past work (e.g., turning guns into walkie talkies in ET, taking out “close the blast doors/open the blast doors” from Star Wars, etc.).
By Jim Lippard on Apr 17, 2008
Larry, you’re right that VARA does not cover films. My bad.
Everything else you said is still wrong. however.
By Olorin on Apr 17, 2008
WW: You appear to be missing the point.
XVIVO has sent Premise a letter claiming that they have copyright of the video segments. That’s it. Harvard isn’t disputing it. Even Premise isn’t disputing it as they know that Harvard licensed the animation clips from XVIVO.
The fact that Harvard, or XVIVO, won’t spend their time answering your emails, doesn’t mean that their work suddenly becomes uncopyrighted. The fact that you (or Premise) won’t accept XVIVOs claims (even knowing they made the segments) is your problem, not XVIVOs.
Premise got a license for the music from the video. So obviously they figured out how to find out who owned various copyrights. They knew that XVIVO created the animation. They could have figured it out had they wanted to. However, their inability to figure it out, does not make the animation freeware.
In any case, both you and Premise knowns now. XVIVO says it is theirs. End of discussion unless you have proof that it isn’t.
By BW022 on Apr 22, 2008
Several people who have seen the film have told me that the footage copied from XVIVO was in the released film.
By Jim Lippard on Apr 22, 2008
Proof already provided–copyrighted by Harvard Robert Lue / Alain Viel.
By Dawn on Apr 22, 2008