David Bolinsky of XVIVIO has posted an open letter regarding the copyright infringement by Expelled. Interestingly, Mike Edmondson who was the animator for the movie has been scrubbed from the Expelled website and Dembksi has hinted that the producers had squirreled away money for copyright lawsuits. Sayeth Dembski:
I’ve gotten to know the producers quite well. As far as I can tell, they made sure to budget for lawsuits. Also, I know for a fact that they have one of the best intellectual property attorneys in the business. I expect that the producers made their video close enough to the Harvard video to get tongues awagging (Headline: "Harvard University Seeks Injunction Against Ben Stein and EXPELLED" -- you think that might generate interest in the movie?), but different enough so that they are unexposed.
To make things worse for the cdesign proponentsists, Jonathan Wells has claimed that Expelled produced their animation in three months (versus the fourteen months it took XVIVIO working probably with a larger crew and budget):
Expelled does NOT use the Harvard animation. The producers paid a professional to create a new animation that is more accurate than the Harvard one (based on current knowledge of cellular processes). Any similarities between the Expelled animation and the Harvard one are due to the fact that both animations depict many of the same processes.
Notes Bolinsky:
Given the vast number of structures to be removed, and given the structures remaining "on camera", whose positioning and relationships, both aesthetic and functional, needed to remain true to the function and beauty of molecular biology, it is inconceivable, mathematically, that the animator hired by EXPELLED’s producers, independently and randomly came up with the same identical actin filament mesh XVIVO depicted in one scene, which had never before been rendered anywhere in
3D! It is astonishing that among well over a dozen functional kinesins from which an animator might choose, we both chose the same configuration of kinesin, pulling the same protein-studded vesicle, on the same microtubule! Can YOU believe we coincidentally picked the same camera angles and left in the same specific structures in the background, positioned with the same composition? Equally astonishing is the "Intell[i]gent Design" treatment of these and other proteins surfaces, which XVIVO derived using procedural iso-surface skinning of the PDB cloud data of our protein’s atom placement. There are an infinite number of poss[i]ble "correct" solutions to that problem.
Even Dembski’s useless explanatory filter could pick this one out.
In his execrable Icons of Evolution, Wells asks:
"If this is fraud when a stock promoter does it, what is it when a scientists does it?" [p. 234]
Beware of the log in one’s own eye.
- Log in to post comments
So David Bolinsky and XVIVIO have withdrawn the threat of legal action and given permission to Expelled to use the animation? Did Harvard not back them?
Julia, why do you think the threat of legal action has been withdrawn?
Here is the conclusion of Bolinsky's open letter (enboldening added):
It seems rather clear XVIVIO et al. have every intent on following through.
These people have surpassed insane stupid and hit orbital. Holy crap. It's not even fun bashing them anymore - there's no challenge.
We don't have to counter their junk science. All we need to do is take all of the idiotic crap they've done, write a few songs, and put on a farce: IDiots! The Musical.
PZ said "Point and laugh." No need to even point - just wave a hand vaguely in their direction, and you're golden. Argh.
I know how this chess game will end. Dumbski will get beaten soundly, knock all the pieces off the board, and start shouting "I win!" It's what all two-year olds do.
Because of these statements from the letter
Isn't he saying that while Harvard made objections to the earlier use of the video in lectures, that XVIVO is alone in objecting to the movie and, lacking the financial and legal resources to carry through, now tell the Expelled people they should go ahead and release the movie? That sounds to me as though they are saying that they don't have Harvard's backing this time and so are withdrawing their demand that the Expelled people not release the movie with the video in it.
I continue to read the Bolinski comments Julia refers to as sarcasm:
--from Public Speaking Course: Glossary P-T).
And keep in mind what Peter Irons said in the comments in the Pharyngula thread:
Despite pleas from the Harvard PIs, Harvard Law wont do anything until the movie is released. XVIVO does not have the resources to file an injunction to prevent the release of EXPELLED (which they would prefer to do), but EXPELLED will still be in trouble if they release the movie with the animation there.
ERV,
Oh, thanks for the clarification! I take it, then, that Harvard Law is expected to do something after the movie is released if the animation is still in Expelled.
JuliaL, I don't think that's what they're saying. I think the confusion is over this part:
I think many people are think he's saying XVIVO has no intention of engaging the Expelled crew, when he means that XVIVO has no intention of engaging them alone, as in they're trying to get Harvard involved, but haven't gotten an official answer from Harvard. Basically describing what they intend to do, and not saying that if Harvard backs out, they'll give up.
Well, I guess I need to refresh the page once in a while.