…and this is a 
Peter Irons drafts a letter
Category: Creationism
Posted on: April 9, 2008 7:29 PM, by PZ Myers
One thing I know: I never want to piss off Peter Irons, Esq., Attorney at Law.
Re: Copyright infringement in "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"
Dear Mr. •••••:
This letter will constitute notice to you, as Chairman of Premise Media Corporation, of the copyright infringement by your corporation, and its subsidiary, Rampant Films, of material produced by XVIVO LLC, in which XVIVO holds a copyright.
It has come to our intention that Premise Media and Rampant Films has produced a film entitled "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," which is scheduled for commercial release and distribution on April 18, 2008. To our knowledge, this film includes a segment depicting biological cellular activity that was copied by computer-generated means from a video entitled "The Inner Life of a Cell." XVIVO holds the copyright to all the models, processes, and depictions in this video, and has not authorized Premise Media or Rampant Films to make any use of this material.
We have obtained promotional material for the "Expelled" film, presented on a DVD, that clearly shows in the "cell segment" the virtually identical depiction of material from the "Inner Life" video. We particularly refer to the segment of the "Expelled" film purporting to show the "walking" models of kinesic activities in cellular mechanisms. The segments depicting these models in your film are clearly based upon, and copied from, material in the "Inner Life" video.
We have been advised by counsel that this segment in your film constitutes an actionable infringement of XVIVO's intellectual property rights, as protected by federal statutes, including Section 106 of the Copyright Act, the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998. Each of these statutes provides for judicial enforcement of their provisions, with substantial civil penalties for their infringement.
We have also obtained legal advice that your copying, in virtually identical form, of material in the "inner Life" video clearly meets the legal test of "substantial similarity" between the copied work and our original work.
This letter will also serve as notice to you that XVIVO intends to vigorously and promptly pursue its legal remedies for your copyright infringement, unless and until Premise Media, Rampant Films, and their officers, employees, and agents comply with the following demands:
That Premise Media, Rampant Films, and its officers, employees, and agents remove the infringing segment from all copies of the "Expelled" film prior to its scheduled commercial release on or before April 18, 2008;
That all copies of the "Inner Life" video in your possession or under your control be returned to XVIVO;
That Premise Media notify XVIVO, on or before April 18, 2008, of its compliance with the above demands.
We have been advised, by a telephone conversation with Mellie Bracewell of Premise Media on April 8, 2008, that an e-mail transmission of this letter to her will be promptly forwarded to you. A hard copy of this letter, on XVIVO stationary, will also be sent to you today by express delivery.
We are sure that you will want to avoid legal action in this matter, and urge you to promptly notify us of your compliance with the above demands. You may do so by return e-mail, directed to david@••• or mike@•••, followed by a hard-copied letter indicating your compliance with the above demands.
Sincerely,
David Bolinsky
Partner and Medical Director
XVIVO LLCMichael Astrachan
Partner and Creative Director
XVIVO LLCCc: Peter Irons, Esq.
Attorney at Law
2551 North Valley Road
Greenville CA 95947
Comments
Two nits to pick:
"It has come to our ATtention"
and
"A hard copy of this letter, on XVIVO stationEry,..."
Posted by: Aureola Nominee, FCD | April 9, 2008 7:34 PM
I can't remember when a legalese threat gave me such glee.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 9, 2008 7:36 PM
*Evil laughter*
Posted by: HadasS | April 9, 2008 7:37 PM
Wow, that's great.
I really thought that it wouldn't be worth pursuing, despite the fact that it looks like a pretty clear copyright violation.
But if they proceed with the lawsuit, that's only too good--a chance to siphon off any possible profits (don't underestimate the number of people who might go at the urging of their pastors, etc.), making the point that these people are dishonest through and through, and perhaps even getting it across to some folk that IDists are incapable of doing anything original, but have to steal from the real scientists.
Go Peter Irons!
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 9, 2008 7:38 PM
but Aureola, you missed the split infinitive ...
Posted by: skyotter | April 9, 2008 7:40 PM
*giggle**snort*
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 9, 2008 7:41 PM
Aureola'
You're funny. Does that make you a nit wit?
Posted by: Jsn | April 9, 2008 7:43 PM
First a a new series of Beyblade is announced, and now this?
Happy happy joy joy.
Posted by: Sili | April 9, 2008 7:44 PM
Peter Irons FTW
Posted by: Steven | April 9, 2008 7:47 PM
This day just keeps getting better and better.
Posted by: Bill | April 9, 2008 7:47 PM
They should have made a documentary on the making of EXPELLED.
It would rival 'Spinal Tap'.
Posted by: ERV | April 9, 2008 7:49 PM
Dude I don't get it. Is god like, testing our reason by tempting us to believe, or something?
Look for rolling shorters at my place once the spin and damage control starts.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | April 9, 2008 7:49 PM
I'd be willing to bet money that they don't remove the segment, the film makes a killing and that they finally settle out of court for a pittance.
Posted by: Steven Alleyn | April 9, 2008 7:51 PM
the typos are probably the result of a dumbass intern typing it up.
this letter makes me so happy
Posted by: Paul Johnson | April 9, 2008 7:52 PM
I LOVE this guy! And if he only got a hold of the Seidel case...
Posted by: PalMD | April 9, 2008 7:52 PM
It's unfortunate that this bit of infringement was seen before release. It would have rated higher on the schadenfreude scale if they'd waited until Expelled's final prints had been made and distributed, forcing cancellation of the premiere, recall of all prints and a (worse than than the usual standards) hack job to remove the offending segment.
Posted by: Kevin Dorner | April 9, 2008 7:53 PM
snap!
Awesome.
Posted by: rmp | April 9, 2008 7:55 PM
Seems a shame if they end up removing that segment. Because it sounds like it was just about the only part worth watching.
Posted by: Cheezits | April 9, 2008 7:56 PM
OOOOOHHHHHHHHH YEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!
*Kool Aid pitcher crashes through the wall of Premise Media's conference room, holding a Cease and Desist order*
(Because, you know, they all like the Kool Aid so much in there)
Posted by: DanioPhD | April 9, 2008 7:57 PM
EEEEEEEwwwwwwww. Trouble for popcorn sales at the Steinfest.
Posted by: danley | April 9, 2008 7:57 PM
They thought they could get around copyright by making a knockoff. It doesn't work that way. You have to make an original work. Tracing is still a violation.
Posted by: Ace of Sevens | April 9, 2008 7:59 PM
That's fantastic!
Posted by: Lisa J | April 9, 2008 8:00 PM
Is this real?
I want to believe it's real but I don't have a lot of experience in this field and I'm always superskeptical so can someone point me to anything more about it? Or just point me to something in the letter that confirms it must be real?
Posted by: Reginald | April 9, 2008 8:03 PM
The cells have been expelled - now there's absolutely nothing left but crap!
Woooooo!
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 9, 2008 8:08 PM
Kevin:
I imagine they probably already have -- the release is only 9 days away. But actually, I think this would have been better earlier. As it is, I would guess it will make more financial sense for Premise Media to leave the footage in and just reach a settlement with XVIVO. Assuming, of course, that XVIVO is willing to do that.
Posted by: Ian | April 9, 2008 8:09 PM
But ... but ... it's not a copy. Ours is brown
Posted by: Quidam | April 9, 2008 8:14 PM
No. The name Aureola would make one a tit-wit.
Posted by: Denis Loubet | April 9, 2008 8:16 PM
Hells yeah! Get 'em Peter!
Posted by: firemancarl | April 9, 2008 8:17 PM
Hmm href link didn't work
href=http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/9669/jewlyingforjesuscy8.jpg
Posted by: Quidam | April 9, 2008 8:17 PM
skyotter:
If split infinitives were good enough for Shakespeare, who am I to reject them?
Jsn:
No, it makes me a grammar nazi. ;-)
Posted by: Aureola Nominee, FCD | April 9, 2008 8:20 PM
Ian@25
not necessarily, last minute prints are not uncommon, when I was a projectionist, we got prints with only a day to spare... the processing company I used to get my film finished at had stories about last minute printing.
though admittedly most examples of last minute volume prints that I'm aware of tend to be special effects heavy large budget things. usually because they were still working on it at the last minute.
out of curiousity, weren't the previews projected on video?
Posted by: peter | April 9, 2008 8:21 PM
Expelled was scheduled for release much earlier than April 18, rather February 8. The "cell as a city" sequence was identified as a possible copyright infringement months ago.
Subsequently, Expelled changed the release date unexpectedly and for no reason. However, it is reasonable to assume they, the producers of Expelled, realized that the "cell as a city" sequence was, indeed, a copyright infringement and sought an alternative, which would take time to produce and insert into the film.
But, since none of the Expelled producers are scientists, nor do they have access to real scientists, all they could attempt was to copy the original animation and change the color.
Nice try.
Posted by: Doc Bill | April 9, 2008 8:24 PM
Reg-- Its real.
Wait 24 hours. Evolution News & Views will confirm it for you. I mean, you know the DI is going to back up EXPELLED, right? Just like they backed up the school board at Dover? Right?
Posted by: ERV | April 9, 2008 8:25 PM
The "canceled" screening in Tempe certainly had a knock off of the XVIVO video. It was longer than in any of the promotional material I've seen and nearly identical in content to Inner Life of a Cell. Sure the colors were changed and the inspirational music sound track was different, but there's no mistaking where it came from.
Posted by: Brad | April 9, 2008 8:25 PM
I was waiting for this to happen -- from reports, it sounded as if the Excreted sequence was basically just cribbed from the XVIVO film. IANAL, but even I know that's still plagiarism. You'd think the Excreted folks would know that -- but that would assume they had some intelligence (thus the unintentional irony of the subtitle grows by the day).
Prediction: this will be spun in the Usual Circles as one more attempt by the Darwinist Establishment to supress the ID message.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | April 9, 2008 8:33 PM
I believe the phrase is "Eat that, you shits!"
Peter Irons is a gentleman of awesome stature.
Posted by: Will Davies | April 9, 2008 8:39 PM
Oh, to be a fly on the wall when the Expelled producers read this. Maybe something a little like this.
Posted by: James F | April 9, 2008 8:39 PM
I really thought that it wouldn't be worth pursuing, despite the fact that it looks like a pretty clear copyright violation.
I feel vindicated, having argued for a closer look at this issue as soon as it was brought up.
not that it's worth much.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 9, 2008 8:41 PM
Actually, this is really stupid.
While it does appear that Expelled made their own very similar version of the XVIVO animation they did create the 3d modeling from scratch. Facts can't be copyrighted. While the XVIVO video has a layout and sequence of events that have been generally copied Expelled didn't use any of their footage or graphics. I really don't think we want to make copyright laws stricter in this sense, for what Expelled does is similar in some ways to reading about a fact and then writing up a description in your own words. Oh sure, you can argue both ways, but I think this kind of legal action will bite back and litigious IDers' will try and use the same tactics against us.
Posted by: Scote | April 9, 2008 8:42 PM
Oh sure, you can argue both ways, but I think this kind of legal action will bite back and litigious IDers' will try and use the same tactics against us.
example?
I really, really, can't think of anything that would work in reverse.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 9, 2008 8:44 PM
this is just another "big Science" conspiracy trying to hide the "Truth".
LOL
Posted by: potamologist | April 9, 2008 8:46 PM
#39
Scote,
The problem is that such a general idea as kinesin motion can be portrayed in many ways, depending on what you what to emphasize. Look at the animation and graphics from Ron Vale's lab at UCSF. There are too many similarities, IMO; it's a rip-off. I'm a scientist and not a lawyer, however, so I'd like to hear from the legal eagles around here.
Posted by: James F | April 9, 2008 8:48 PM
"THUD"
Posted by: kim boone | April 9, 2008 8:48 PM
I'm pretty much with Scote here. The DMCA is evil enough on it's own accord, no beed to make it even worse.
Posted by: BillCinSD | April 9, 2008 8:48 PM
Having never seen "The Inner Life of a Cell" I Googled it to try to find something of better-than-YouTube quantity, and, lo, I did: http://www.studiodaily.com/main/technique/tprojects/6850.html
Yes, it's pretty damn impressive, and moreso when not overlaid with twaddle.
This handy FireFox plugin will allow it and any other streaming video (ie YouTube) be downloaded for better viewing: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3006
Posted by: Kevin Dorner | April 9, 2008 8:49 PM
"...for what Expelled does is similar in some ways to reading about a fact and then writing up a description in your own words."
The depiction of the facts (e.g., manlike kinesin high-wiring on a microtuble) was non-obvious and novel on the part of XVIVO, and clearly copied in Expelled. The comparison just doesn't hold.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | April 9, 2008 8:51 PM
The Golgi apparatus is not a pulsing, glowing blob. Yet there it is, in both animations, pulsing and glowing.
The actin network at the cell membrane does not look like a diamond crystal structure. And yet........
You cant copyright nature, either, but you cant put a pair of yellow shorts on Mickey Mouse and pretend he was your idea.
Posted by: ERV | April 9, 2008 8:52 PM
Posted by: Stanton | April 9, 2008 8:55 PM
Danio, howzabout a nice Hawaiian punch? #19 made pretty pictures in my mind.
Posted by: True Bob | April 9, 2008 8:56 PM
While I am gleeful at the possibility that the "film" gets in trouble for playing fast and loose with copyright, as well as with people's innocently-supplied interviews (not to mention sanity, truth, history, and intelligence), I do despair that an apparently proper formal legal letter can contain such glaring spelling/grammatical errors. My standard practice, when viewing such letters, is to apply extreme scepticism about the actual legal credentials of the person/s affixing their name to the document. (I help moderate a popular forum and so have seen my share of legalistic threats about "take this down or else").
Let's be honest; if this letter had appeared threatening a blog with cease-and-desist for some reason, most commentators would pull it to bits for its slightly wonky sentence structure and spelling. That it's on the side of right and justice (etc and so on) can't excuse the problems with its content, or the possibility that it could be taken less seriously because of those problems.
Yes, spelling DOES matter, when you're threatening to sue people. Otherwise, they'll just laugh at you for being ignorant (which, in the current context, should make the irony-meter fall off the scale :) ).
Posted by: infoaddict | April 9, 2008 8:57 PM
This handy FireFox plugin will allow it and any other streaming video (ie YouTube) be downloaded for better viewing:
why not just go to the source:
http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 9, 2008 8:58 PM
That didn't work either. Here's a link to your original messageboard post with the image (which is chuklicious as always).
I've re-reproduced it as well. If, based on that, you need to serve a legal complaint and motion for injunction based on my copyright infringement of your work, I do request that you include some cookies with your complaint: I'm hungry.
Posted by: Bad | April 9, 2008 9:00 PM
Sic the retards!
Posted by: Holbach | April 9, 2008 9:01 PM
#39, Scote: How will the IDers use it against us? Are we copying their footage scene-for-scene? I don't think so.
Posted by: Cyde Weys | April 9, 2008 9:01 PM
Scote,
The artistic element behind how any facts are displayed is what is being discussed. Just as there are a million ways to visually take a tour through the solar system, so too are there a million ways to visually depict the inner life of a cell. That artistic depiction is intellectual property (award winning no less) and is not up for grabs by any group that attempts to copy it in the most obvious manner, and call it their own. Arguing that they had to make 3D models themselves, thus the work is their own, is like the plagiarist arguing that he had to type in the words from the book he was copying, and thus the product (the book) is now his. It simply doesn't work that way.
Posted by: Michael X | April 9, 2008 9:02 PM
I have compared the clips available on line for Expunged and for most of it the similarity is clear. Not just because they are portraying the same objects but because the camera angles and pan paths are identical. Given that the original animation is a stylised representation, it seems clear that they did not revisit the source and generate an animation from scratch but remastered the original. If it were computer code the 'look and feel' is undeniable. I'll guarantee they didn't have a clean room where independent scientists produced their animation without having studied the original as would be required for software.
Posted by: Quidam | April 9, 2008 9:02 PM
infoaddict wrote
What is that strange verb in the post title? DraftWhat could that possibly mean?
Posted by: True Bob | April 9, 2008 9:03 PM
Haha, so copyright infringement laws actually do work toward assholes sometimes. Hahahaha!
Posted by: Steve Ulven | April 9, 2008 9:03 PM
#51: Thank you. :^)
Posted by: Kevin Dorner | April 9, 2008 9:05 PM
AAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by: Jeff C. | April 9, 2008 9:08 PM
They will claim Christian persecution and claim Jebus and God own the master copyright since they designed it all.
Posted by: mayhempix | April 9, 2008 9:09 PM
Professor Myers, I believe you have been vindicated! :-)
HaHaHaHa ....
Posted by: Pandora | April 9, 2008 9:12 PM
I'm a little worried about this. Could give them a reason to not release the film, back out on its release, and blame it all on 'big science,' which, of course, they will claim is behind this lawsuit. I see it now, Expelled 'would have' opened to spectacular reception if only....
Posted by: BMH | April 9, 2008 9:12 PM
Steven Alleyn wrote: I'd be willing to bet money ... the film makes a killing
I wish I could make that bet - this crap will never make a dime.
Posted by: tomh | April 9, 2008 9:14 PM
But if they did that, it would be an admission on their part that the copyright infringement claim has merit. Sounds like a win to me.
Posted by: Ian | April 9, 2008 9:16 PM
Could give them a reason to not release the film, back out on its release, and blame it all on 'big science,'
it would be FAR less work to clarify THAT issue, than all the lies and misinformation presented in the film itself.
Frankly, if this single issue made the producers cry "victim" and not release the film for public consumption, I wouldn't be happier.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 9, 2008 9:17 PM
"No. The name Aureola would make one a tit-wit."
Close... but it really makes one a nip-wit.
Posted by: mayhempix | April 9, 2008 9:20 PM
OK, the spelling errors were mine, and didn't get caught at the XVIVO office when they copied the letter from my draft onto their stationery. So who's perfect? From what I know of the movie business, and what the XVIVO people told me, it would cost the Expelled producers a mint (at least $100K) to recall and remaster all copies before they go to theaters. So they have to choose a) between that cost, b) delaying the film's release, and c) keeping the segment in and risking a lawsuit. XVIVO does have a really good copyright lawyer from a big firm in Boston, so it's not just an idle threat.
Posted by: peter irons | April 9, 2008 9:23 PM
ERV, I suppose you're right. This pretty much has to be real especially if they also sent a hardcopy letter.
I will still wait though until more comes out, I'm always cautious.
Also has anyone gone to XVIVO's site? I had no idea what else they did, those are amazing things.
Posted by: Reginald | April 9, 2008 9:30 PM
If, say, 20 or 30 of Peter Irons's awesome smackdowns could be collected into a book, I would buy that book.
I'm just saying.
Posted by: Brodysattva | April 9, 2008 9:41 PM
Try copying the Oxford English Dictionary (with a few changes in wording) and see how far you get with the idea that the definitions of words can't be copyrighted.
Posted by: Chris Noble | April 9, 2008 9:49 PM
#64 -- re: I wish I could make that bet - this crap will never make a dime.
Unfortunately I have to disagree, for the same reason that L. Ron Hubbard's books get into the best-seller list. Scientologists are peer-pressured into buying them, as Christians will be peer-pressured to see this dreck by the busload. I hope that any future Francis Collins or Ken Miller among them isn't the worse the experience.
Posted by: Kevin Dorner | April 9, 2008 9:52 PM
ERV (11):
It would rival 'Spinal Tap'.
Marty DiBergi: "Quoting from one of your reviews - 'This tasteless film is a good indication of the lack of scientific knowledge within. The intellectual honesty of this band cannot even be charted. They are treading water in a sea of retarded pseudoscientific apologetics and bad analogies.'"
Ben Stein: "Well, that's a lot of nitpicking, really..."
Posted by: Vic | April 9, 2008 9:58 PM
giggity
Posted by: Pleco | April 9, 2008 9:59 PM
This Is Beautiful! Peter Irons For President.
Posted by: J-Dog | April 9, 2008 10:01 PM
Injunction junction, what's your function?
An equitable remedy in the form of a court order, whereby a party is required to do, or to refrain from doing, certain acts. The party that fails to adhere to the injunction faces civil or criminal penalties and may have to pay damages or accept sanctions for failing to follow the court's order. In some cases, breaches of injunctions are considered serious criminal offences that merit arrest and possible prison sentences or death.
At the core of injunctive relief is a recognition that monetary damages cannot solve all problems. An injunction may be permanent or it may be temporary. A preliminary injunction, or an interlocutory injunction, is a provisional remedy granted to restrain activity on a temporary basis until the court can make a final decision after trial. It is usually necessary to prove the high likelihood of success upon the merits of one's case and a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction before such an injunction may be granted; otherwise the party may have to wait for trial to obtain a permanent injunction.
Considering how blatant the copying of the video is, it is probably likely that an injunction will be granted.
Posted by: Moses | April 9, 2008 10:02 PM
I give it a two word review: shit sandwich
Posted by: Pleco | April 9, 2008 10:02 PM
I'd love to be in court when their animators get asked to justify their work:
Prosecution: Tell us why you chose to portray these particular cell processes in such a way.
Animator: Err, well, we looked inside a cell and that's what we saw.
Busted!
Posted by: MH | April 9, 2008 10:03 PM
I think their defense will be fair use, for purposes of comment and criticism. Or perhaps parody.
Posted by: Nemo | April 9, 2008 10:16 PM
Much as this is interesting news, I doubt it will have that great an impact on the overall film's success or failure. (And in a different post, I've already stated why this film cannot 'fail', because here we are talking about it.) The main premise of the film does not hinge on that disputed segment, so leaving it in or taking it out will not substantially alter the film one way or another. Thus it would be difficult to calculate the damages and any settlement will probably be minor in relationship to the rest of the costs/revenues.
Having said that, it will be fun to see how it plays out over the next few weeks.
Posted by: Duncan | April 9, 2008 10:20 PM
Good calls, Aureola. A professional document shouldn't trip up on words like those.
Otherwise, fuckin' A. Awesome.
Thanks, Moses, for the explanation. Sounds promising for the owners of the stolen video. I sure as hell wouldn't want my material to be appropriated for this detestable purpose.
Posted by: Lulu | April 9, 2008 10:22 PM
New Comedy Central gameshow coming this fall-
SUE BEN STEIN'S MONEY
I don't know though, do you think XVIVO can find a good lawyer at Harvard?
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | April 9, 2008 10:24 PM
thus it would be difficult to calculate the damages and any settlement will probably be minor in relationship to the rest of the costs/revenues.
hello?
did you happen to see that Peter himself asked what the expected damages would be of having to retract all the current copies of the film?
excess of 100K.
see #68.
oh yes, if approved by a judge, this will most assuredly have an impact on the release and distribution.
Injunctions have a tendency to do that.
you probably should have gandered at the comments in the thread before pontificating.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 9, 2008 10:24 PM
Can we get some stills from the two videos to show the similarities? And maybe from an unrelated video so people can see what independent development looks like?
Posted by: Monado, FCD | April 9, 2008 10:29 PM
#79 Nemo wrote:
I think their only hope is the Chewbacca defense.
Posted by: James F | April 9, 2008 10:31 PM
While it does appear that Expelled made their own very similar version of the XVIVO animation they did create the 3d modeling from scratch.
I am sure that if the Expelled producers can show the judge all their notes and proof of intermediate production stages with respect to the scientific work that went from the analysis of the existing literature data to the construction of the molecular models, their rendering, and the final animations, the suit will be quickly dismissed. If on the other hand, all they have is a final product that looks just like XVIVO, and nothing to show about how they got there, the most logical conclusion is that their version is just a bad, unauthorized copy. It's pretty straightforward, really: if they have been honest, they have nothing to fear.
Posted by: Andrea Bottaro | April 9, 2008 10:31 PM
Andrea - Dude - I think you summed up the Stadard Operating Procedure for the entire range of ID Creationism Research: "if they have been honest, they have nothing to fear".
I think that I sense fear.
Posted by: J-Dog | April 9, 2008 10:36 PM
If it were fair use, they would have stuck with the original and not gone to the trouble of pretending to make an original work.
All of your copy is belong to us.
Posted by: David vun Kannon, FCD | April 9, 2008 10:39 PM
I guess you could say Mr. Irons is pretty...steamed.
Posted by: JCG | April 9, 2008 10:43 PM
Andrea,
It's actually worse than you think. Not only must they show their work, they have to explain (as PZ stated in the far earlier post on this topic, and ERV pointed out in this thread) the identical mistakes made in both videos. But, even more damning, how they ended up visualizing these mistakes in the exact same way as XVIVO. No amount of homework and fact checking will save you there.
Posted by: Michael X | April 9, 2008 10:48 PM
#89 JCG wrote:
I guess you could say Mr. Irons is pretty...steamed.
Posted by: James F | April 9, 2008 10:50 PM
I'm pretty sure that the producers of Expelled will want to get this resolved ASAP.
Do you remember the tales from folks who got into the preview screening where the producers mentioned a $250,000 "fine" for anyone caught making a copy of the movie? What they were refering to were the statutory damages provided for in the copyright law. (Statutory damages means you get to collect it even if you can't prove that you suffered a harm in that amount).
That $250,000 would apply for each and every instance of infringement: Each copy of the movie made, each showing of the movie (all those previews!), and each promo DVD they made and distributed like leaflets at the previews. At a quarter of a million a pop, they are at substantial financial risk if their work does infringe the copyright of the XVIVO work.
This is a serious shot across their bow, and if they feel there is a reasonable risk they would be found to have infringed the XVIVO work, they will excise it pronto (or pay XVIVO a substantial sum to license it).
[As a side issue, I wonder to what extent Dembski's "reworking" of this video to make it seem like it was something he (or the DI) produced blinded the producers of Expelled to the possibility that this issue would crop up.]
Posted by: divalent | April 9, 2008 10:53 PM
#79 Nemo wrote:
I think their defense will be fair use, for purposes of comment and criticism.
From what I understand, they weren't commenting on or criticizing XIVO's animation.
It's rather like using John Lennon's song "Imagine" without paying for the rights, in order not to make commentary or criticism of the song, but in order to make a point about the Soviet Union. Which I hear this film does.
Anyone got the number of Yoko's Lawyer?
Posted by: Siamang | April 9, 2008 10:56 PM
I've heard that publishers of dictionaries and encyclopaedias sometimes put in deliberate mistakes to detect plagiarism.
Posted by: Chris Noble | April 9, 2008 10:57 PM
#39
To my knowledge, paraphrasing someone and not giving credit is still considered plagiarism.
I wonder if they have credited the inspirational material, even though using a work based on it, would make it ok. I don't know. What would be the fair use limit of this? Does Parodies count in this?
Posted by: Brian Tani | April 9, 2008 10:57 PM