Copyright

Wesley Elsberry points out that Ben Stein has reported in an interview that he was approached for the “Expelled” project, described more or less as it finally came to be, back in 2006. Part of the pitch was that he was shown XVIVO’s “Inner Life of the Cell” video. Yet in April 2007 (a month after the “expelledthemovie.com” domain was registered), Mark Mathis obtained the cooperation of Genie Scott, P.Z. Myers, and other participants by pitching the nonexistent film “Crossroads,” about the intersection of science and religion, from “Rampant Films,” which had an innocuous website and an address at an empty apartment complex in Los Angeles. Stein’s interview provides further evidence that “Crossroads” was a dishonest subterfuge and that the “Expelled” crowd fully intended to use XVIVO’s film in their movie and did not commission their copy until after William Dembski was sent a cease and desist notice in September 2007, delaying the film’s release from February to April. See Wesley’s Austringer blog for more details.

ERV reports that Mike Edmondson, who was listed as the animator for “Expelled,” has left his employment with Premise Media and asked to have his name removed from their website. (UPDATE: It looks like Edmondson probably was responsible for the “Beware the Believers” YouTube video, but not the ripoff of the XVIVO film. Good for him for cutting ties with these liars and thieves.) (UPDATE April 21, 2008: It’s been confirmed that Edmondson made “Beware the Believers.") She also points out that it is William Dembski who observed that “Expelled”’s producers set aside budget for copyright infringement lawsuits. And that Jonathan Wells is helping with the foot bullets by claiming that “Expelled” produced their version of the XVIVO film in 3 months with one guy (where it took XVIVO a team of people 14 months). Looks like ERV is the blog to watch on this issue. She’s also the one who documented that William Dembski knew well that he was violating XVIVO’s copyright.

At Richard Dawkins’ blog, David Bolinsky of XVIVO explains the extent of the copyright infringement and reveals a previous copyright infringement action against William Dembski: To the anti-ID community which is giving XVIVO support in our ideological battle against the microcephalic apostates of “Intelligent Design”: XVIVO created The Inner Life of the Cell for Harvard, through fourteen months of painstaking examination of how a myriad of systems, functional structures and proteins in a cell, could be depicted in a sweeping panoramic style of animation, reminiscent of cinema, that fundamentally raised the bar on the visualization of molecular and cellular biology for undergraduate students. In depicting what we did, other than merely maintaining the intent of the syllabus, we needed to edit like mad. A cell has billions of molecules, millions of active functional proteins and tens of thousands of structural elements separating, sequestering and joining compartments and systems into a functional whole. An initial foundational decision process of our creative vision, consisted of editing out 95% of the contents of our cell in order to gain, for our virtual camera, a vista to visualize what elements we left in. The decisions we made blended aesthetics with science. They were not made lightly, nor were they made without extensive consultation with researchers at Harvard, and an extensive body of literature, including protein data libraries and new findings by Harvard researchers. 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 “Intellgent Design” treatment of these and other proteins surfaces, which XVIVO derived using procedural iso-surface skinning of the PDB cloud data of our proteins’ atom placement. There are an infinite number of possble “correct” solutions to that problem. Coincidence? Given their “access to the same literature” we had, where Graham Johnson at Scripps so brilliantly worked out the real motion of kinesins, I am simply blown away that the “Intelligent Design” animators slavishly made the hands of their kenesins move exactly as we did, even though we intentionally left out the stochastic Brownian motion which actually characterizes the tractive force and periodic pedicle placement of these tiny motivators. We simply did not have the time or budget to render these, and a dozen other details, to the level of insanity we would like to have done! This was, after all, an underfunded proof-of-concept piece. The cellular biology that serves as “filler” material, between scenes copied from Inner Life, is riddled with biological errors. Imagine “Intelligent Design’s” depiction of protein synthesis without ribosomes! To Mr. Dembski: The only reason I am involved in this discussion is because I do not want the reputation of my company, hard-earned as it is, to be sullied by even oblique affiliation to your sort of smarmy ethics, if only through works of ours, purloined to fit your agenda. Last year you were charging colleges thousands of dollars to give lectures showing a copy of The Inner Life of the Cell, you claimed you “found somewhere”, with Harvard’s and XVIVO’s credits stripped out and the copyright notice removed (which is in itself a felony) and a creationist voice-over pasted on over our music (yes, I have a recording of your lecture). Harvard slapped you down for that, and yes there is a paper trail. One can only assume that had we not taken notice then, we would be debating The Inner Life of the Cell being used in EXPELLED, instead of a copy. You have enough of a colorful history that Harvard, in its wisdom, decided to ‘swat the gnat’ with as little fuss as possible. Imagine our surprise earlier this month, to see our work copied in a movie trailer for EXPELLED! And you are in the movie too! Not quite a star, but brown dwarfs are cool. XVIVO has no intention of engaging alone, in asymmetrical fighting against an ideological entity with orders of magnitude more resources than we have. That might make great theater, but would resemble a hugely expensive game of whack-a-ID. Boring! It makes me happy, though, that you decided to implicate your friends in print, on your blog (http://www.uncommondescent.com/legal/expelled-plagiarizing-harvard/#comment-229619), in what is legally, malignant infringement, since you no had doubt discussed with EXPELLED’s producers, Harvard’s previous legal infringement action against you, the Discovery Institute, where you are a fellow and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, where you teach. Once we uncover the EXPELLED animation dollar trail, and bring it to light, we will have even more fun. The sublimely ridiculous claim that EXPELLED uses completely original animation, in light of copying our work so closely that a budget was reserved to pay for an infringement suit by Harvard, is delicious! Why should I try to take you guys down when you are doing such a splendid job yourselves? For free! So go ahead and release your movie. Just keep track of how many tickets you sell. We may just find that data valuable, too. David Bolinsky For more on David Bolinksy and the animation see: (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/147)UPDATE (April 12, 2008): P.Z. Myers comments. Blake Stacey also has a nice post summarizing the copyright infringement issue. UPDATE (April 19, 2008): The footage copied from XVIVO was apparently removed before the film’s public release yesterday.

XVIVO LLC has sent a copyright infringement warning letter to Premise Media about the computer animation that appears to have been based on XVIVO’s “The Inner Life of a Cell.” Some have speculated that “Expelled”’s release was moved from February to April because it had used the XVIVO film directly (just as William Dembski and other Discovery Institute fellows had been doing in public lectures), and they used the time to re-create the animation on their own. The letter says that XVIVO considers the segment in the film to still be close enough to be an infringement of their intellectual property rights, and 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; ...

All of Scientology’s Operating Thetan (OT) levels have now been leaked through Wikileaks, which may account for considerable slowness of that website. Although at the very least large parts of these documents have previously leaked on the Internet (via Usenet) back in the mid-nineties, which led to multiple lawsuits by the Church of Scientology against those responsible, this may be the first time the entire 612-page manual of OT levels 1-8 has been circulating on the Internet. I think it’s likely that Scientology will be filing a copyright infringement lawsuit against Wikileaks, which is distributing the document in a single large PDF. ...

In a press release yesterday that cites an article I co-authored in Skeptic magazine, a group referring to itself as “Anonymous” has announced that it has declared war against Scientology. The stated justification for the “war” is the Church of Scientology’s attempts to keep a video of Tom Cruise off the net. That video, which is still viewable at Gawker.com, was made for a Scientology awards ceremony. The longer video from which it was taken is also now viewable there. Gawker.com responded to a cease and desist letter with a refusal to remove the video, which it considers to be fair use for news and comment, but I’m not so sure that it has a good legal case for putting up more than short excerpts. (In case you’re wondering about all the Scientology jargon in the Tom Cruise video, MTV has done a good job of explaining it. Actor Jerry O’Connell has also put out a good parody.) The “war,” which is described at another site under the name “Project Chanology” (a reference to 4chan, a popular message board, where most posts are made by people who don’t login and are thus attributed to “Anonymous”), calls for denial of service attacks over the Internet, prank phone calls, spam emails, and personal visits involving vandalism and harassment. Apparently Scientology’s main website was down due to denial of service for at least part of the day yesterday. The press release cites a number of web pages for further information about Scientology, the second of which is the article “Scientology v. the Internet: Free Speech & Copyright Infringement on the Information Super-Highway” which Jeff Jacobsen and I wrote for Skeptic magazine in 1995 after Scientology effectively declared war on the Internet. (A much lesser-known sequel to that article, published only on the web, is “Scientology v. the Internet: An Update and Response to Leisa Goodman.") I completely disagree with the tactics being used here–Scientology has as much right to free speech and protection of their copyrights as anyone else, though I also condemn Scientology’s habitual misuse of copyright to try to suppress fair use of information. To the extent this is a prank designed to get media attention, well done. To the extent it gets taken seriously, though, it’s something that may not end well. Read the material, watch the videos, have a laugh, and tell others about the absurdity and abuses of Scientology. But please, don’t launch attacks on their websites, harass individuals, or engage in vandalism. “Anonymous” previously received coverage for attacks on MySpace accounts on Fox 11 in Los Angeles on July 26, 2007. BTW, the press release gets its facts wrong when it claims that the alt.religion.scientology Usenet newsgroup was “shut down.” Scientology attorney Helena Kobrin issued an rmgroup message, but almost all news servers ignored it. The accurate facts may be found in Jeff’s and my Skeptic article. UPDATE: Wikinews and Xenu.net have more. ...

(Hat tip to Scott Peterson on the SKEPTIC mailing list.) Historical Comments Einzige (2007-12-31): Brilliant, funny, and sad, all at the same time.

In a September 2007 talk, Dembski used an over-dubbed version of a computer animation of the inner workings of the cell that he took from Harvard and XVIVO, which he subsequently claimed he had downloaded from the Internet in a form that didn’t have the credits (e.g., from YouTube). Peter Irons has now shown that the content of Dembski’s latest book, Design of Life, shows that his explanation is a lie. That book includes a reference to the same video, with a link to its original location, marked as “last accessed” on January 25, 2007. Since he knew where the video came from in January 2007, he also already knew in September 2007. ERV points out the details of Dembski’s deception. (Via Pharyngula.) UPDATE (December 31, 2007): There is an entertaining exchange of letters between Peter Irons, Bill Dembski, and Dembski’s attorney John Gilmore posted at Pharyngula. ...

ERV has found that William Dembski (and apparently other DI fellows) have misappropriated a computer animated video of the cell from Harvard and XVIVO, replaced the narration with their own, and presented it as though it’s their own work without giving credit to the original source. Her blog shows the original video and a presentation of the video at a lecture by William Dembski. The Discovery Institute really is shameless. (Via Pharyngula.)

MediaDefender, a company that attempts to disrupt the sharing of copyrighted material owned by its clients on peer-to-peer filesharing networks, has suffered an embarassing security breach–the leaking of 700 MB of emails from senior employees in the company. The leak allegedly occurred because one senior employee was forwarding company email to his Gmail account, and he used the same password for his Gmail account that he used to register for a P2P service of some kind. This breach demonstrates the importance of adhering to corporate policies about use of external mail providers and using good password security–anything really important should have a unique password, not the same one used for accessing a variety of online websites and services. UPDATE: It’s now being claimed that MediaDefender’s phone systems have also been compromised for the last nine months, and a 25-minute phone call between MediaDefender and the New York Attorney General’s office is circulating, as well as a transcript. The transcript indicates that the AG’s office was concerned (rightly so, apparently) about a possible mail server compromise at MediaDefender; the MediaDefender representative states at one point that he is speaking over a VoIP connection. UPDATE: It seems the record companies are using information about P2P downloads collected by MediaDefender to make marketing decisions. Here’s a quote from one of the leaked emails (quoted from SlashDot): Subject: Nicole Scherzinger Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:14:31 -0700 Nicole from pussy cat dolls has a single called “whatever u like”. It’s not selling well on itunes or playing that great on radio. A song called “Baby Love” just leaked (I don’t know how long ago). Interscope wants to know if Baby Love is picking up steam on p2p. They need to make a decision by early next week on whether they should switch to this song as the single. Please get me a score comparison on Monday for these two tracks. Also, please put beyonces, fergie, gwen, and nelly furtado singles as comparisons.UPDATE (September 17, 2007): Ars Technica has a good summary of the breach and what the leaked information shows about what MediaDefender has been up to with its video upload service (apparently designed to encourage the upload of copyrighted content as a sort of sting operation), MiiVi. MediaDefender says it was an “internal project” that was supposed to be password protected but was inadvertently made public. CNet has a story on MediaDefender which notes: ...