Expelled producers accused of copyright infringement
An NCSE article says,
For the following reasons, it is hard to take the XVIVO 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, licensing fees, or royalties in lieu of deletion of the segment. Discrimination against the producers of "Expelled" in regard to sale or licensing of the video could involve restraint of trade issues. For example, US law prohibits price discrimination. If XVIVO has sold or rented the video to others and refuses to sell or rent the video to the "Expelled" producers on the same terms, IMO that is restraint of trade.
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? Did Harvard and or XVIVO have a contract with the government to produce the video? Arguably, anything co-produced by Harvard should be considered to be in the public domain because of all the general government support that Harvard receives.
Creating a knockoff of the original video cost a fair amount of money and supposedly carried the risk of a charge of copyright infringement, so why did the "Expelled" producers choose this option? Did the "Expelled" producers ever try to buy or rent the original video?
Also, there is evidence that XVIVO knew about this alleged copyright infringement for a long time, yet did not send the letter until just a few days before the scheduled release date for the movie. Failure to assert a right in a timely manner often results in forfeiture of that right.
It appears that a lot of important legal questions are being ignored here.
Here is a list of blog posts on the issue.
.
On April 9, 2008, XVIVO, the animation company which produced an award-winning animation of "The Inner Life of the Cell," charged producers of a forthcoming "intelligent design" film with copyright infringement. In a letter to Logan Craft, chairman of Premise Media Corp., the producer of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (featuring Ben Stein), XVIVO claimed that a segment of "Expelled" portraying the complexity of the cell is patterned upon segments of their well-known animation, produced on behalf of Harvard University.
For the following reasons, it is hard to take the XVIVO 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, licensing fees, or royalties in lieu of deletion of the segment. Discrimination against the producers of "Expelled" in regard to sale or licensing of the video could involve restraint of trade issues. For example, US law prohibits price discrimination. If XVIVO has sold or rented the video to others and refuses to sell or rent the video to the "Expelled" producers on the same terms, IMO that is restraint of trade.
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? Did Harvard and or XVIVO have a contract with the government to produce the video? Arguably, anything co-produced by Harvard should be considered to be in the public domain because of all the general government support that Harvard receives.
Creating a knockoff of the original video cost a fair amount of money and supposedly carried the risk of a charge of copyright infringement, so why did the "Expelled" producers choose this option? Did the "Expelled" producers ever try to buy or rent the original video?
Also, there is evidence that XVIVO knew about this alleged copyright infringement for a long time, yet did not send the letter until just a few days before the scheduled release date for the movie. Failure to assert a right in a timely manner often results in forfeiture of that right.
It appears that a lot of important legal questions are being ignored here.
Here is a list of blog posts on the issue.
.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 4/10/2008 07:34:00 AM
55 Comments:
Larry,
Just because XVIVO might have known about the possible infringement 2 weeks ago is certainly not a failure on thier part to act in a "timely manner".
I'm sure that they had to review the situation carefully with council before instigating this action.
Two weeks is not a long time.
Sorry if this puts a damper on your Expelled party, but thats just too bad for you. And too bad for the alleged thieves at Premise.
Perhaps my least favorite WND columnist, Jill Stanek, let the cat out of the bag:
Scheduled for release in 1,000 theatres, "Expelled" will be hotter than "Farenheit 9/11 (sic)," which debuted on 868 screens, and much more convenient to see than "An Inconvenient Truth," which I was surprised to find opened on only four screens nationwide despite all the hype, peaking at 587 before its appeal melted.
Bingo. All three films are about equally worthless.
Benjamin Franklin said...
>>>>>> Just because XVIVO might have known about the possible infringement 2 weeks ago is certainly not a failure on thier part to act in a "timely manner". <<<<<
XVIVO may have known about the possible infringement much longer ago than that. An article said,
January 11, 2008
We are informed that EXPELLED will not be ready for its scheduled February 12 release. Though all accounts of the film thus far describe it as cut/pastes of stock footage, one wonders what the hold up was...
The cause of the delay might have been concern about possible infringement of the video's copyright.
>>>>> Two weeks is not a long time. <<<<<<
Two weeks is an eon in terms of the time frame here. The opening date of the movie is only one week away and XVIVO's main demand, deletion of the segment at issue, would take a long time to satisfy.
>>>>> Sorry if this puts a damper on your Expelled party <<<<<<
You Darwinists are always jumping to conclusions. And the timeliness of XVIVO's demands is not the only issue here.
Fred Hoyle wrote that Darwinism is the philosophy "that opportunism is all." That seems to apply to these antics of the Darwinists.
"that opportunism is all." That seems to apply to these antics of the Darwinists.
And what about the cdesign proponentsists who stole the video? The irony is lost on Jim. The first rule when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging, not start spinning.
The cdesign proponentsists like Jim can spin this all they want. The facts speak for themselves: The producers and their supporters are morally challenged. First they obtained interviews used in the film under false pretenses, next they construct an intellectually dishonest story out of the misbegotten interviews and outright untruths, and then they tried to prevent those interviewed from attending prerelease screenings. And now blatant plagiarism and copyright infringement.
Objective observers can't help but see all this as evidence that the ID movement is rife with dishonesty. Especially when viewed against the findings in the Dover ruling which said "The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."
After all that pushing their religion and crowing about acceptance of evolution leading to Nazism and racism, etc., the cdesign proponentsists come out with egg on their faces once again. I suppose they can claim that at least belief in creationism leads just to white collar crimes like plagiarism and copyright infringement.
I see that "Peter the Lawyer" Irons is involved. This ploy by the Darwin-fanatics will probably simply turn out to be great publicity for the movie.
I've been practicing intellectual -property law for almost half a century, and eI can tell you that everything Larry F. said about copyrights is wrong.
What seems to haver happened is that the producers of Expelled had piled up so many infractions of the ninth commandment that God gave them a try at the eighth as well. Unfortunately, God can't forgive copyright infringements.
Larry, you wrote:
"Arguably, anything co-produced by Harvard should be considered to be in the public domain because of all the general government support that Harvard receives."
I don't see why you would argue such a thing. As an NIH grantee, the things I produce are not in the public domain. In fact, I have the standard agreement with my institution: royalties on any patents from my work are split 50:50 between me and the institution.
As for my production of manuscripts, I assign the copyright to the journal as a precondition of publication. If you don't believe me, you might want to go to some journal web sites and find the instructions for authors--they usually have a PDF of their copyright assignment form.
As you can see, SOP is that nothing is put in the public domain as a result of my government support.
Smokey said...
>>>>>Larry, you wrote:
"Arguably, anything co-produced by Harvard should be considered to be in the public domain because of all the general government support that Harvard receives."
I don't see why you would argue such a thing. <<<<<<<
Well, Harvard's arts and sciences faculties have an "open-access" program for posting free research papers online:
Harvard University’s arts and sciences faculty approved a plan on Tuesday that will post finished academic papers online free, unless scholars specifically decide to opt out of the open-access program. While other institutions have similar repositories for their faculty’s work, Harvard’s is unique for making online publication the default option.
The decision, which only affects the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, won’t necessarily disrupt exclusivity agreements with journals or upend the academic publishing industry, but it could send a signal that a standard bearer in higher education is seriously looking at alternative distribution models for its faculty’s scholarship.
I think that's a great idea -- assigning copyrights and patents to universities and faculty members has created a lot of problems.
>>>>>> As an NIH grantee, the things I produce are not in the public domain. <<<<<<
Ahem -- then how do you explain this:
The budget bill contained a provision that requires NIH-funded researchers to to deposit electronic copies of their peer-reviewed manuscripts into the National Library of Medicine’s online archive, PubMed Central, and requires the NIH to make the research publicly available and searchable online within 12 months after publication in a journal.
Olorin wheezed,
>>>>> I've been practicing intellectual -property law for almost half a century, and eI can tell you that everything Larry F. said about copyrights is wrong. <<<<<<
How so? The headline of this blog means what it says: "I'm from Missouri -- you'll have to show me" and "Just-so stories are not accepted here." How, for example, does copyright law give anyone license to practice discriminatory restraint of trade?
This just in -- Harvard is a holder of the copyright on the XVIVO video -- see this comment on Uncommon Descent.
Larry brayed...
> does copyright law give anyone license to practice discriminatory restraint of trade? <
You pathetic cretin, is there any legal principle that is so simple that it is within your limited zone of comprehension?
Playing new songs on public radio does not put them in the public domain. Showing movies on television does not put them in the public domain.
There are two concepts here; public domain and restraint of trade. You obviously understand neither. I would suggest you stay out of legal opinions. You are batting zero.
Larry wrote:
"Well, Harvard's arts and sciences faculties have an "open-access" program for posting free research papers online: "
So what? My papers are posted online too. That has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that I no longer own the copyright. The journals are being muscled by the NIH, and rightly so.
"I think that's a great idea -- assigning copyrights and patents to universities and faculty members has created a lot of problems."
What you posted has absolutely nothing to do with patents, Larry.
"Ahem -- then how do you explain this:"
Because the knowledge I publish is in the public domain. One patents inventions (things) and methods, not knowledge.
Larry blathered: Discrimination against the producers of "Expelled" in regard to sale or licensing of the video could involve restraint of trade issues
"could involve?" So you're just guessing? Wow, I thought you might have had facts or real information. Not. I've read this blog and heard Larry's arguments before he starting this shitty blog to know that he would write things without any basis in reality or facts. But I digress.
>>>>If XVIVO has sold or rented the video to others and refuses to sell or rent the video to the "Expelled" producers on the same terms,
So you don't know? No facts? Again?
>>>>>IMO that is restraint of trade.
In your opinion? We already know what your opinion is worth (nothing, in case you're reading this blog for the first time, and if so, I'm sorry).
>>>>>which may have received government support for the project, so the video could be in the public domain
Two baseless conjectures in one sentences. Larry's ramping up the crazy today. Two for one today (and most days).
>>>>>Arguably, anything co-produced by Harvard should be considered to be in the public domain because of all the general government support that Harvard receives
This is totally moronic and has already been debunked in other comments. Again, what a moron is Larry!
>>>>>so why did the "Expelled" producers choose this option? Did the "Expelled" producers ever try to buy or rent the original video?
First question: they're morons. Second question: so you don't know anything about the situation but contribute your own two cents. Why not just rant to the homeless people sitting next to you in the library as you read the internet? Have they already shunned you?
>>>>>Failure to assert a right in a timely manner often results in forfeiture of that right.
But you don't know that those rights have been forfeited in this case, now do you? Of course not.
>>>>.Also, there is evidence that XVIVO knew about this alleged copyright infringement for a long time, yet did not send the letter until just a few days before the scheduled release date for the movie
Most lawyers are competent and need time to properly draft the necessary materials. That's why they win cases while armchair lawyers like you claim to know the law better than anyone else, yet lose the only case they file.
Wow! A monstrous dash of loserness! What a great Friday! Bring on the crazy drunk kids -- I'm all set for the crazy! Another loser post by Larry. What else is new?
Anonymous said...
> That's why they win cases while armchair lawyers like you claim to know the law better than anyone else, yet lose the only case they file.<
You are selling Larry short. He has file a number of cases. Of course he has lost all of them.
Anonymous driveled,
>>>>>> "could involve?" So you're just guessing? <<<<<<
Yes, I am guessing! The laws concerning restraint of trade are very complicated and a lot depends on the circumstances. For example, suppose the XVIVO video gets 10-percent-of-profits royalties from a Darwinist film but XVIVO then demands 90-percent-of-profits royalties from the producers of "Expelled." Is that restraint of trade? I only brought up the restraint-of-trade issue as a topic for discussion, and so far as I can see I am the only one who had the sense to bring it up.
>>>>>> Two baseless conjectures in one sentences. <<<<<<
They are not baseless and they are not even merely conjectures -- for example, new rules require NIH-funded researchers to publish their research papers in the pubic domain.
>>>>>so why did the "Expelled" producers choose this option? Did the "Expelled" producers ever try to buy or rent the original video?
First question: they're morons. <<<<<<
Your "first question" is not a question -- it is a statement, idiot. Your "second question" is not a question, either. You are the moron, you stupid fathead. My above questions are fair questions. Maybe XVIVO and Harvard refused to sell or license the video. One of the copies of the video starts with a notice saying that the video is not for commercial use.
>>>>> But you don't know that those rights have been forfeited in this case, now do you? <<<<<
They probably have been. Anyway, some copies of the video show that Harvard is an owner of the copyright and I have seen no evidence that XVIVO is a co-owner.
>>>>.Also, there is evidence that XVIVO knew about this alleged copyright infringement for a long time, yet did not send the letter until just a few days before the scheduled release date for the movie
Most lawyers are competent and need time to properly draft the necessary materials. <<<<<<
You despicable dunghill, the publisher of "Of Pandas and People" filed a motion to intervene in the Dover case only about a month after receiving a subpoena from the plaintiffs and the trial was a huge 3-4 months away, but Judge "Jackass" Jones ruled that the motion was "untimely."
>>>>> That's why they win cases while armchair lawyers like you claim to know the law better than anyone else, yet lose the only case they file. <<<<<<
No one is more ignorant of the law than those who don't know that a lot of judges are worthless sacks of shit.
Voice in the Urbanness driveled,
>>>>>> Playing new songs on public radio does not put them in the public domain. Showing movies on television does not put them in the public domain. <<<<<<<
You mentally-challenged beetlebrain, those are not examples of restraint of trade. An example of restraint of trade is, say, where the copyright owner of a new song or movie sells or licenses it to one broadcaster but refuses to sell or license it to another broadcaster.
Restraint of trade issues can be very complicated -- consider, for example, the lawsuits against Microsoft.
Smokey said,
>>>>>> What you posted has absolutely nothing to do with patents, Larry. <<<<<
I never said that it did. I only said that IMO it is a bad idea to grant copyrights and patents to universities.
>>>>> One patents inventions (things) and methods, not knowledge. <<<<<
Yes, but knowledge in the form of a scholarly paper can be copyrighted.
<<<<<< Two baseless conjectures in one sentences.
They are not baseless and they are not even merely conjectures -- for example, new rules require NIH-funded researchers to publish their research papers in the pubic domain.
But publication in the public domain is not synonymous with having no copyright (as has been noted already in the comments).
>>>>so why did the "Expelled" producers choose this option? Did the "Expelled" producers ever try to buy or rent the original video?
First question: they're morons.
Your "first question" is not a question -- it is a statement, idiot. Your "second question" is not a question, either.
No, my statements were not questions. They were answers that corresponded to the first and second questions in the portion of your useless blog that I responded to. Hence, to your question, "so why did the "Expelled" producers choose this option?," I provided the answer "They're morons." And to your second worthless question, "Did the "Expelled" producers ever try to buy or rent the original video?," I answered, "so you don't know anything about the situation but contribute your own two cents. Why not just rant to the homeless people sitting next to you in the library as you read the internet? Have they already shunned you?"
Furthermore, your reply "Maybe XVIVO and Harvard refused to sell or license the video. One of the copies of the video starts with a notice saying that the video is not for commercial use." is merely further speculation. Get some facts first, that's one small reason why your blog sucks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you don't know that those rights have been forfeited in this case, now do you? <<<<<
They probably have been.
So you're still guessing? You don't even know the answer to the second part of that either (with Dave Scot as the source, it's probably wrong).
>>>>>You despicable dunghill, the publisher of "Of Pandas and People" filed a motion to intervene in the Dover case only about a month after receiving a subpoena from the plaintiffs and the trial was a huge 3-4 months away, but Judge "Jackass" Jones ruled that the motion was "untimely."
Since I'm not a lawyer, I won't add to speculation here, but I will say that this is a different case: trial preparation had already begun in Dover, this is merely the first notice of a trial. Should a copyright violation stand just because I commit it today and publish the work tomorrow? Of course not. The lawyer's letter seems to be an attempt to save the alleged defendants a lot of money once the movie is released and there have been further (and larger) damages.
Your final statement was meaningless pent-up rage against the judicial system. Apparently it is true, you have lost several cases, not just the one I credited you with.
Why did "Peter the Lawyer" Irons write "it has come to our intention" instead of "attention?"
Peter probably means that he and his Darwin-dogma pals have the "intention" to try any ploy, however desperate and unlikely, that might somehow stop EXPELLED from mopping up the floor with the Darwin-fanatics.
And Peter isn't even an intellectual property attorney. But he's apparently a Darwinist-materialist extremist, who thus may have offered his "services" free.
> I only brought up the restraint-of-trade issue as a topic for discussion, and so far as I can see I am the only one who had the sense to bring it up. <
And the only one with so little sense that he thought it was relevant.
>>>>>so why did the "Expelled" producers choose this option? Did the "Expelled" producers ever try to buy or rent the original video?
First question: they're morons. <<<<<<
> Your "first question" is not a question -- it is a statement, idiot. <
He is merely answering your question, idiot. Please try to read more carefully before you make an ass of yourself yet again.
> Your "second question" is not a question, either. <
Nor was it meant to be, you cretin.
> My above questions are fair questions. <
Which he answered.
>>>>> But you don't know that those rights have been forfeited in this case, now do you? <<<<<
> They probably have been. <
In other words, you don't know.
> the publisher of "Of Pandas and People" <
He was talking about competent attorneys.
> No one is more ignorant of the law than those who don't know that a lot of judges are worthless sacks of shit. <
So far you have only shown that the appellant was a worthless sack of shit.
>>>>>> Playing new songs on public radio does not put them in the public domain. Showing movies on television does not put them in the public domain. <<<<<<<
> You mentally-challenged beetlebrain, those are not examples of restraint of trade. <
Exactly, you mindless cretin. Nor is it a restraint of trade where the copyright owner of a new song or movie sells or licenses it to one broadcaster but refuses to sell or license it to another broadcaster. In fact such sales or licenses are exclusive in the vast majority of cases.
> Restraint of trade issues can be very complicated <
Not as complicated as you are trying to make them. You just don't understand even the basics.
Take a look at this.
I noticed that Wikipedia User NCdave was booted for trying to make the WIkipedia article on Expelled more netural.
I noticed this, and gave him an barnstar, which can be seen at the bottom of This page
Well, I was blocked as a sock of NCdave, and I think NCdave's block was extended.
My apologies to NCdave.
But the way wikipedia forms consensus is by blocking those who don't tow the ID=Creationism line.
Finally, shame on the pansexual Metros for punishing NCdave, whom I am clearly not (since, as an experienced WP admin, I know much more about WP policies, templates, and procedures than NCdave.)
I will get Metros, you pansexual tree humper.
Also, would somebody please go restore this edit to Jimbo Wales' talk page? It was was reverted by the tree knot humper Metros here.
Also, follow the threat Here at the ANI, where some honest wikipedians are stepping up to the plate.
(NOTE: The above link will go stale eventually, so see this if the above link does not work.)
Anonymous driveled,
>>>>>>> But publication in the public domain is not synonymous with having no copyright (as has been noted already in the comments). <<<<<<<
A law dictionary's definition of "public domain" is:
in copyright law, the right of anyone to use literature, music or other previously copyrighted materials after the copyright period has expired.
I presume that the term can also be used for material that was never copyrighted.
>>>>> No, my statements were not questions. They were answers that corresponded to the first and second questions in the portion of your useless blog that I responded to. <<<<<
Sorry, I misunderstood. I naturally thought that you were dumb enough to think that a statement is a question.
>>>>> I answered, "so you don't know anything about the situation but contribute your own two cents. <<<<<
Dumbo, I asked the question because I think it is important and because I am trying to find the answer.
>>>>> Furthermore, your reply "Maybe XVIVO and Harvard refused to sell or license the video. One of the copies of the video starts with a notice saying that the video is not for commercial use." is merely further speculation. Get some facts first, that's one small reason why your blog sucks. <<<<<<
Does my statement about the notice on the video sound like speculation, dunghill? The videos (actually, there are two copies that have the notice) are here -- the "super-speed" and "high-speed" versions of "Inner Life: View the Animation." Also note on the bottom of the notice that Harvard holds the copyright. XVIVO may be a co-holder of the copyright -- I don't know.
>>>>>> Since I'm not a lawyer, I won't add to speculation here, but I will say that this is a different case: trial preparation had already begun in Dover, this is merely the first notice of a trial. <<<<<<
A motion to intervene in a court case takes a hell of a lot more evidence and justification than a cease-and-desist letter. Prior to receiving a subpoena from the plaintiffs, the book's publisher had no reason to believe that the plaintiffs would try to make the book a central issue in the Dover case.
>>>>> Your final statement was meaningless pent-up rage against the judicial system. Apparently it is true, you have lost several cases, not just the one I credited you with. <<<<<
You know very little about my court record, dunghill, regarding what I won, what I lost, and the circumstances. And attacking my court record is irrelevant -- it is just an ad hominem attack. If I lost a thousand cases and won none, it would still be irrelevant. Can you find any court documents -- decisions, briefs, etc. -- where the past records of attorneys or judges are attacked? Would an attorney refuse to take a weak case just because of a fear that losing it would hurt his reputation? Of course not -- attorneys only care about whether or not they get paid.
ViU driveled,
>>>>>First question: they're morons. <<<<<<
> Your "first question" is not a question -- it is a statement, idiot. <
He is merely answering your question, idiot. <<<<<<
His answer to the question -- "they're morons" -- is so inane that I did not even recognize it as an answer. My original first and second questions were:
Creating a knockoff of the original video cost a fair amount of money and supposedly carried the risk of a charge of copyright infringement, so why did the "Expelled" producers choose this option? Did the "Expelled" producers ever try to buy or rent the original video?
>>>>>> the publisher of "Of Pandas and People" <
He was talking about competent attorneys. <<<<<<
You feeble-minded dunghill, a publisher is not an attorney.
>>>>>> Nor is it a restraint of trade where the copyright owner of a new song or movie sells or licenses it to one broadcaster but refuses to sell or license it to another broadcaster. In fact such sales or licenses are exclusive in the vast majority of cases. <<<<<<
I am not sure of that, dunghill. I know that it is illegal for a buyer to agree to not buy products from the competitors of the seller, so maybe it is also illegal for a seller to agree to not sell products to competitors of the buyer. I am asking questions to try to get answers, dunghill.
Would an attorney refuse to take a weak case just because of a fear that losing it would hurt his reputation?
Some attorneys had better reputations before they won in court.
Of course not -- attorneys only care about whether or not they get paid.
So you must be as wealthy as I am?
Responding to trolls like Anonymous and ViU is mostly a waste of time. Their tactic is to try to take away time I could be using to write new posts. Their crap is usually not worth answering but I am afraid that many non-astute visitors here would misinterpret my non-answers as conceding the trolls' worthless points.
The Darwinists have some new rules -- don't ask questions and don't say "I'm not sure."
> Sorry, I misunderstood. I naturally thought that you were dumb enough to think that a statement is a question. <
Since you are unable to see what is obvious to nearly everyone, don't you think that you should question your other observations and interpretations.
> Dumbo, I asked the question because I think it is important and because I am trying to find the answer. <
He gave you the answer.
> You know very little about my court record, dunghill, regarding what I won, what I lost, and the circumstances. <
He knows everything about the cases you won since there were none.
> Would an attorney refuse to take a weak case just because of a fear that losing it would hurt his reputation? <
Are you saying that you had a weak case? I would say that you had a very strong case in the smog fee issue. Any competent attorney could have won it, and they did once you were out of the picture.
>>>>>> the publisher of "Of Pandas and People" <
He was talking about competent attorneys. <<<<<<
> You feeble-minded dunghill, a publisher is not an attorney. <
You mindless cretin. If you go back and try to read the post (I know that reading isn't one of your strong points.) you will see that I did not refer to the publishers.
>>>>>> Nor is it a restraint of trade where the copyright owner of a new song or movie sells or licenses it to one broadcaster but refuses to sell or license it to another broadcaster. In fact such sales or licenses are exclusive in the vast majority of cases. <<<<<<
> I am not sure of that, dunghill. <
Your lack of knowledge of a fact, jackass, does not make it any the less true.
> I am asking questions to try to get answers, dunghill. <
But you don't recognize the answers when they are placed in front of you, idiot.
> Responding to trolls like Anonymous and ViU is mostly a waste of time. <
Since their posts, like most, go over your head.
ViU, here is a restraint-of-trade case for you, you stupid dunghill -- a professional photographer was convicted of refusing to photograph a same-sex wedding --
Elaine Huguenin co-owns Elane Photography with her husband. The bulk of Elane's work is done by Elaine, though she subcontracts some of the work some of the time. Elane refused to photograph Vanessa Willock's same-sex commitment ceremonies, and just today the New Mexico Human Rights Commission held that this violated state antidiscrimination law. Elane has been ordered to pay over $6600 in attorney's fees and costs.
Elane (sic) has been ordered to pay over $6600 in attorney's fees and costs.
And here we see the full flowering of the "liberal" dispensation on Freedom. I.e., the vital promulgation of depravity trumps any right to freedom of conscience. Where is the ACLU this time?
AFAIC, Elaine may legitimately refuse to provide service for any reason, or no reason. This is a free country (or was).
>>>>>>AFAIC, Elaine may legitimately refuse to provide service for any reason, or no reason.
That's not completely true -- discrimination is one reason why one may not refuse service. Or can owners of a lunch counter refuse to serve certain customers based on skin color? If sexual orientation is the basis of her refusal of service, then it was the correct decision to fine her. If the reason was because she already had a different job (especially a better paying one), she should have had the right to say no (obviously, one can't be in two places at the same time).
There are too many Anonymous's here -- maybe you folks could choose other pseudonyms to aid in distinguishing your comments.
Anonymous I said,
>>>>>[Elane (sic)] (sic) <<<<<<
The photographer's name is Elaine but the business name is Elane Photography
Anonymous II said,
>>>>> discrimination is one reason why one may not refuse service. <<<<<
The Darwinists are always insisting that ID is religion. So refusal to sell, license, or donate the video to the fundy "Excelled" producers is impermissible discrimination on the basis of religion. Great! Anyway, the whole question is moot because XVIVO is not a holder or is not the sole holder of the copyright on the video -- Harvard U. is either the sole holder or a co-holder of the copyright.
Anyway, ViU, now you can see that restraint-of-trade law is not as simple as you thought it was.
Peter Irons, the pettifogging attorney whose name is on the threatening letter, is a jerk. He kept asking me to go to the trouble of writing a review of a law journal article he wrote (I was not terribly enthusiastic about the article) and he later said that no one cares what I think.
>>>>>>>Anyway, the whole question is moot because XVIVO is not a holder or is not the sole holder of the copyright on the video -- Harvard U. is either the sole holder or a co-holder of the copyright.
Harvard owns the copyright on the intellectual work behind the video design. As the letter states, XVIVO owns the rights to the graphic performance -- and it is that copying that is objected to, making it moot. In addition, you know nothing about mootness.
>>>>>So refusal to sell, license, or donate the video to the fundy "Excelled" producers is impermissible discrimination on the basis of religion.
Considering the Expelled team never tried to purchase or borrow the video... that's pretty much the whole issue. Besides, why would anyone be required to donate their services, especially when they have the right to sell them? Not donating is not discrimination (not selling, perhaps, but in this case the video is being used to support an opinion completely contrary to that which it was designed to support). If I'm the holder of the copyright to "Holiday in Cambodia," then I have no obligation to let the Cambodian tourism center use the song (not that it promotes visits to Cambodia, just the opposite, but a Sex Pistols song was sung during a beauty pageant from what I hear, so anything is possible). Nor do I have to let a politician use the song during his or her campaign (as happened with Springsteen I believe during the 2004 Bush re-election, if I remember correctly).
The photographer's name is Elaine but the business name is Elane Photography.
Apparently you are correct; sorry for the "sic".
Anonymous said,
>>>>> you know nothing about mootness. <<<<<<
What in the hell is there to know about mootness, idiot? Mootness is mootness.
>>>>> Harvard owns the copyright on the intellectual work behind the video design. As the letter states, XVIVO owns the rights to the graphic performance <<<<<
The letter claims that XVIVO holds the copyright. Sheeesh -- you are just playing word games.
>>>>> Considering the Expelled team never tried to purchase or borrow the video... that's pretty much the whole issue. <<<<<<
We don't know that.
>>>>> Besides, why would anyone be required to donate their services, especially when they have the right to sell them? <<<<<<
I never said that XVIVO or Harvard are "required to donate their services." We don't know what XVIVO and Harvard are required to do because we have not seen the contracts between XVIVO, Harvard and possibly the government (if the video was government-funded).
>>>>> Not donating is not discrimination <<<<<<
It can be -- it depends on the circumstances.
A2 said:
... discrimination is one reason why one may not refuse service. Or can owners of a lunch counter refuse to serve certain customers based on skin color?
You are invoking the much more sympathetic case of immutable personal characteristics and trying to equate it to behavior. But there is no Constitutional right to be served, even when blatant racism is involved. The proper remedy here is to speak to the perpetrator's sense of decency and justice, or perhaps to organize a secondary boycott. Read what the 14th Amendment actually requires legally.
If sexual orientation is the basis of her refusal of service, then it was the correct decision to fine her. If the reason was because she already had a different job (especially a better paying one), she should have had the right to say no ...
This approach puts you in an untenable position of having to prosecute thought crimes. For instance, suppose a gay Haitian illegal alien approached Elane to request photography of a Voodoo ceremony, and was declined. Do you think Elane should have to prove one or more of:
A) Not racist,
B) Not homophobe,
C) Not anti-illegal immigration,
D) Not involved in anti-Voodoo religious discrimination,
E) Not too busy to take the job,
F) Not about to go on vacation,
G) Simply doesn't want the job?
The "liberals" are so confused about this that they now gush over a presidential candidate who spent 20 years in a racist church and now qualifies as a "racial healer".
> a professional photographer was convicted of refusing to photograph a same-sex wedding <
As even you can see that has no relation to the cases you have discussed.
Anonymous said,
>>>>> you know nothing about mootness. <<<<<<
To which Larry bleated.
> What in the hell is there to know about mootness, idiot? Mootness is mootness. <
Obviously you don't understand mootness when it came to your own cases. I won't try to explain it here because everyone else understands it and you never will.
>>>>> Harvard owns the copyright on the intellectual work behind the video design. As the letter states, XVIVO owns the rights to the graphic performance <<<<<
> The letter claims that XVIVO holds the copyright. Sheeesh -- you are just playing word games. <
Now you demonstrate that you don't understand copyrights. Sheeesh!
>>>>> As even you can see that has no relation to the cases you have discussed. <<<<<
Bullshit -- the photographer case is definitely an example of restraint of trade and the video case might be another example.
We still don't have the following essential information --
-- whether any of the parties offered or requested purchase of the video, licensing fees for the video, or permission for free use of the video.
-- the provisions of any contracts between XVIVO, Harvard, and/or the government (if the original video was government-funded).
>>>>>> Now you demonstrate that you don't understand copyrights. <<<<<<
As I said, you are just playing word games, dunghill. XVIVO claimed that it owns the copyright.
The producers of EXPELLED have posted a reply in the Blog section of their website that reads, in part: "Claims that we have used any animation in an unauthorized manner are simply false. Premise Media created the animation that illustrates cellular activity used in our film."
Jim wrote: Premise Media created the animation that illustrates cellular activity used in our film
But they copied XVIVO's animation sequence; they made their own copy. That's apparently a violation (if proven).
Larry blathered: We still don't have the following essential information --
-- whether any of the parties offered or requested purchase of the video, licensing fees for the video, or permission for free use of the video.
-- the provisions of any contracts between XVIVO, Harvard, and/or the government (if the original video was government-funded).
Both are irrelevant. In fact, the first is most likely false given statement's made by Expelled producers and their own budget: they designed their own video (copying, apparently, XVIVO's, in apparent violation of the law) so as not to use XVIVO's. If XVIVO had refused, and you were right about trade restraint, then they would have been able to sue XVIVO. Instead, they chose to make their own video. In addition, they have a budget to address lawsuits. All this suspects that they never tried to use (legitimately, at any rate) XVIVO's video.
The second is irrelevant and is mere speculation on Larry's part -- as is his whole post. He knows not one relevant fact about the case and has written ... another lame blog post. It is irrelevant because it is obviously not in the public domain, otherwise the Expelled producers could have used the XVIVO video without need of permission.
I wrote, to which Larry incoherently responded: >>>>> Harvard owns the copyright on the intellectual work behind the video design. As the letter states, XVIVO owns the rights to the graphic performance <<<<<
The letter claims that XVIVO holds the copyright. Sheeesh -- you are just playing word games.
The letter states that XVIVO holds the copyright to the animation. The animation is what was copied (the intellectual framework behind it, created by and copyrighted by Harvard, was not copied as they provided a completely different explanation, ie., one that says that evolutionary mechanisms are not at work here, pointing to evidence of the Intelligent Designer, aka, Jeebus.
Anon 1 wrote: Do you think Elane should have to prove one or more of...
Only if there were some reason for her to. The burden of proof in these cases seems to fall on the plaintiff, based on my familiarity with the Denny's case a few years ago. How did the jury decide that Denny's discriminated against African-American customers? By a pattern of conduct observed at hundreds (if not thousands) of restaurants across the country.
So, should Elaine (or Elane) have to defend herself? Generally no, but if ten similar situations were to present themselves, then yes, she would have to defend her refusals. If she has a vacation, then plane tickets, hotel reservations, etc., should suffice, but it would be an odd coincidence if every time a same-sex couple asked for an event to be photographed that she was on vacation, while numerous other hetero-couple events are attended to.
I agree with your concerns that it becomes a police state, but I tend to agree with anti-discrimination laws like this, given the need for them to exist. I would hope that some sort of lawsuit (one that could possibly bankrupt the business, even if it is innocent, or at least not guilty, of the charges) would not advance beyond a round or two of inquiry of details about the case.
Didn't think there would be an intelligent exchange on this blog. Is this a first?
An Anonymous (there is more than one) said (April 13, 2008 5:40:00 PM) --
>>>>> Larry blathered: We still don't have the following essential information --
-- whether any of the parties offered or requested purchase of the video, licensing fees for the video, or permission for free use of the video.
-- the provisions of any contracts between XVIVO, Harvard, and/or the government (if the original video was government-funded).
Both are irrelevant. <<<<<<
Those questions are not irrelevant, idiot. You are nuts.
>>>>>> In fact, the first is most likely false given statement's made by Expelled producers and their own budget: they designed their own video (copying, apparently, XVIVO's, in apparent violation of the law) so as not to use XVIVO's. <<<<<<
Maybe the reason why the Expelled producers decided to make their own copy of the video was that maybe the copyright owners (Harvard and/or XVIVO) refused to sell or license the video or allow free use of the video.
>>>>>> If XVIVO had refused, and you were right about trade restraint, then they would have been able to sue XVIVO. <<<<<<
You are making no sense -- you just said that the question of whether XVIVO had refused to sell or license the video is irrelevant.
>>>>>> The second is irrelevant and is mere speculation on Larry's part -- as is his whole post. He knows not one relevant fact about the case and has written ... another lame blog post. It is irrelevant because it is obviously not in the public domain, otherwise the Expelled producers could have used the XVIVO video without need of permission. <<<<<<<
I said that I want to see the contracts -- period. This blog is not named for the motto "I'm from Missouri -- you'll have to show me" for nothing.
>>>>> The letter states that XVIVO holds the copyright to the animation. <<<<<<
The letter is full of crap. Harvard's copies of the videos say that Harvard holds the copyright. Either Harvard is lying or XVIVO is at most a co-holder of the copyright.
I wrote, Larry misunderstood: >>>>>> If XVIVO had refused, and you were right about trade restraint, then they would have been able to sue XVIVO. <<<<<<
You are making no sense -- you just said that the question of whether XVIVO had refused to sell or license the video is irrelevant.
It is irrelevant for the reasons given in my statement. Read it again. I can help explain the words if I know which word(s) is (are) giving you problems.
Larry spit: Maybe the reason why the Expelled producers decided to make their own copy of the video was that maybe the copyright owners (Harvard and/or XVIVO) refused to sell or license the video or allow free use of the video.
I don't think that this is likely given the reasons I provided in my post. Sorry for using three-syllable and larger words. I will try to keep words shorter from now on so that maybe you will -- holding my breath -- understand more than one of them.
Larry grunted...
> This blog is not named for the motto "I'm from Missouri -- you'll have to show me" for nothing. <
It is actually an insult to Missourians. You are too dense to be shown anything. That has definitely been show.
Anonymous Non-Rex driveled,
>>>>>> I don't think that this is likely given the reasons I provided in my post. Sorry for using three-syllable and larger words. I will try to keep words shorter from now on so that maybe you will -- holding my breath -- understand more than one of them. <<<<<<<
I don't care about what is likely or unlikely, bozo. I just want the cold, hard facts. "I'm from Missouri -- you'll have to show me."
Larry hypocratized: I just want the cold, hard facts.
Then why did you write a post without any facts? You don't know if the Expelled producers tried to obtain permission to use the video (unlikely, in my view, but unknown I can state, though it is most logical that the answer is no based on statements made in the letter, on UD and on dawkins's blog), you don't know if the video is in the public domain (despite a clear copyright statement in the video), you don't know if XVIVO holds a copyright (they claim to)... those are the only points you have here, besides speculation as to the actions of the Expelled producers about why they would risk violating copyright law by incorporating dubious footage (one possibility: they are morons; another: they thought they could get away with it; another: they have funds for such a lawsuit, were hoping for such a lawsuit, etc.).
Everything is speculation. You want facts? You can't handle the facts -- or even understand them. Hypocrite.
>>>>> As even you can see that has no relation to the cases you have discussed. <<<<<
> the video case might be another example. <
And a rock might be a reptile, but it isn't.
VIU driveled,
>>>>> And a rock might be a reptile, but it isn't. <<<<<<<
You stupid sack of &^*#@#, it is very easy to just say someone is wrong without saying why. Any moron can do it.
The video situation could, for example, involve restraint of trade in the form of illegal price discrimination :
Section 13. Discrimination in price, services, or facilities
(a) Price; selection of customers
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce, where such commodities are sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, and where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them . . . . .
Also, if Harvard/XVIVO agrees to sell or license the video to a Darwinist-film producer only upon condition that the video not be sold or licensed to an ID-film producer, that too would be restraint of trade.
Anonymous said...
>>>>>Larry hypocratized: I just want the cold, hard facts.
Then why did you write a post without any facts? <<<<<<
"hypocratized"? That's a word I haven't seen before.
I wouldn't say that the post does not have any facts -- it is just missing some facts.
> I wouldn't say that the post does not have any facts -- it is just missing some facts. <
You are describing your article perfectly.
>>>>>You are describing your article perfectly. <<<<<
I am also perfectly describing articles on the same subject on several other blogs.
Anon 2 wrote:
Didn't think there would be an intelligent exchange on this blog. Is this a first?
Actually, no. There have been several memorable (i.e., worthwhile) exchanges. You must be a newbie.
... it would be an odd coincidence if every time a same-sex couple asked for an event to be photographed that she was on vacation, while numerous other hetero-couple events are attended to.
And wouldn't it be an odd coincidence if hetero couples had to pay a marriage penalty in the tax code (despite the fact that encouraging sturdy families is arguably good public policy)? Conservatives, though, tend to be leery of using government power to achieve allegedly beneficial goals. (A problem that "liberals" obviously do not have.)
Larry,
Sorry, but that legal take won't hold water.
First, XVIVO can certainly demand the return of all copies of their works. This is standard in copyright cases. A court would order the same thing. By copies, they mean everything Premise produced, not the original video.
Second, this action is not covered by the commerce act. The two companies are not "engaged in commerce" between Premise never entered into negotiations with XVIVO about using the footage. Even if they had (and XVIVO refused), Premise may not rely on self-help. The legal course of action would be to file a complaint with the commerce department and/or sue. If someone won't see you a car because you are female, you can't steal the car.
Third, copyright for the animation belongs to XVIVO. Harvard has the copyright only for the video itself - just like the music is copyrighted separately from the entire video.
Forth, even if Harvard or the public owned the copyright, that doesn't mean folks can copy it. The public expects to be paid for use of materials copyrighted to them. You can't use the Harvard logo either.
Fifth, the demands of the letter (even if unreasonable) doesn't mean that Premise can keep violating copyright. XVIVO can ask for anything (public appologies, CEO to dance the jig, a billion dollars, etc.) as a way for Premise to avoid being sued. The grounds for legal action are copyright infringement -- not failure to meet the demands of the letter. They could sue them now if they wished.
This is serious. XVIVO appears to have an excellent case. Even defending the lawsuit could cost millions and would shut the film down instantly.
Post a Comment
<< Home