Expelled Plagiarizing Harvard?

_{Patrick

April 10, 2008

Expelled, Legal}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Premise Media has just been slapped with a “cease and desist” letter from XVIVO, the group at Harvard that produced the video clips from which the still images at the top of this thread were taken. They are alleging copyright infringement (not to mention blatant plagiarism). The full text of the letter from XVIVO’s lawyers can be read at:

ERV: Expelled Epelled for Plagiarism
ERV: About That Cell Video in Expelled

The letter makes it clear that if the offending video clips are not removed from the film and all promotional materials by the opening date, immediate legal action will be taken to stop the release of the film.

Thanks to Allen MacNeill for bringing this accusation to our attention.

This accusation first became public when PZ Myers claimed that the Expelled movie used the Harvard “Inner Life of the Cell” animation. We’re currently investigating this claim and hopefully we’ll have more information in the next couple hours. But when asked about this, Jonathan Wells had this to say:

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.

Comments

Angry Old Fat Man. Now that's a great name. Haha.DeepDesign_{April 12, 2008
April
04
Apr
12
12
2008
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PST}

If it has not been mentioned already, some here maay wish to check out PZ Myers' revised views.O'Leary_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PST}

Thanks, Jack. It looks like I was (at least!) an hour behind on my post. I just now read DaveScot's post "Bolinski...Backed Down..." which does a better job of saying "all this is moot."Lutepisc_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PST}

They've got nothing on that video. It doesn't even look hat much like the Harvard one.Frost122585_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PST}

to Lutepisc: no one has sued anyone or filed for any injunction.Jack Krebs_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PST}

DaveScot wrote:
The only thing I can see XVIVO actually claiming is style, processes, and algorithms.
As far as I can tell, the only claim they have would be style. You just can't steal a computer graphics process or algorithm just by looking at the output. Even a "reverse engineering" of certain motions and materials would result in very different processes to produce and render them. To obtain an algorithm would require espionage.Apollos_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PST}

Allen MacNeill tells us that "...immediate legal action will be taken to stop the release of the film." However, over on Dawkins' blog (I don't know how to do the link thingie, so take my word for this, check it out, or leave it--as you wish) there is a letter which is allegedly from David Bolinsky (the XVIVO medical illustrator who supposedly filed the suit along with the request for a preemptive injunction [IANAL, so my terminology here may be mistaken] to prevent the showing of Expelled) addressed to William Dembski, inter alia. In it, Mr. Bolinsky says, "So go ahead and release your movie. Just keep track of how many tickets you sell. We may just find that data valuable, too." If this is indeed from Mr. Bolinsky, he is now apparently giving permission to release the movie, in spite of his earlier request that it not be released. One might argue that Mr. Bolinsky is using sarcasm in this letter. However, that is not at all clear to me, and it may not be clear to Expelled's producers, either.Lutepisc_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PST}

But it is not a crime, it is only alleged at this point. And what if theaters don't show Expelled because of intimidation, and the case goes to court and Expelled wins. Then Expelled could sue the theaters which had a contract to show the film, but caved-in and broke that contract under pressure from people without a case. I say again, "roll the film!"Helio_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PST}

Sparc Near as I can tell none of the stuff XVIVO mentions is protected by copyright. Copyrights exclude methods, ideas, processes, styles and a lot of other things that go into a copyrighted work. For instance, styles are protected by design patents. These protect a unique "look & feel". Software algorithms can be patented with utility patents. You can't protect styles and algorithms with copyrights. The only thing I can see XVIVO actually claiming is style, processes, and algorithms. If they think they can protect those with a copyright they have another think coming.DaveScot_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PST}

Helio, Showing the film makes them a party to the "crime".utidjian_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PST}

I don't see how a copyright dispute over the film content could bring in the theater chains.Helio_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PST}

Helio says, “Damn the torpedoes” and roll the film! Take the hit in court if necessary. Even in the worst case, whoever really holds copyright can’t just walk away with the farm, it is such a small segment in the film. How do you know the XVIVO lawyer hasn't threatened the theater chains? Maybe they aren't so brave.austin_english_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PST}

"Fair Use and Documentaries in Court" gives a summary of cases. http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/videos/sets/fair_use_case_studies/ What does the legal record tell us about fair use in documentaries? Not very much, because there have been so few cases—nine since 1996, and only five plaintiffs in total, since two plaintiffs each brought three of the cases. None of the plaintiffs have been motion picture studios or large archives. In most cases, the defendant won. Where the defendant did not win, the defendant had behaved in ways that documentarians who wrote the Documentary Filmmakers’ Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use would not approve. Only two decisions were against users. Here is the one closest to Expelled (but not very close). Elvis Presley Enters., Inc. v. Passport Video, 2003 (DECISION AGAINST USER) Passport Video’s 16-part video documentary on Elvis Presley’s life used much material from television appearances, music and photographs. For instance, in this clip, the extended performance scene of Elvis Presley is unrelated to the interview voiceover. AGAINST USER. The court ruled against the makers, most importantly because most of the uses were non-transformative. The purpose the documentary put the clips to often “serves the same intrinsic entertainment value that is protected by Plaintiff’s copyrights.” In this clip, the extended performance scene of Elvis Presley is unrelated to the interview voiceover.austin_english_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PST}

"Damn the torpedoes" and roll the film! Take the hit in court if necessary. Even in the worst case, whoever really holds copyright can't just walk away with the farm, it is such a small segment in the film.Helio_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PST}

The following is from "Documentary Filmmakers' Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use." In weighing the balance at the heart of fair use analysis, courts employ a four-part test, set out in the Copyright Act [see post 142]. In doing so, they return again and again to two key questions: * Did the unlicensed use “transform” the material taken from the copyrighted work by using it for a different purpose than the original, or did it just repeat the work for the same intent and value as the original? * Was the amount and nature of material taken appropriate in light of the nature of the copyrighted work and of the use? Among other things, both questions address whether the use will cause excessive economic harm to the copyright owner. If the answers to these two questions are affirmative, a court is likely to find a use fair. Because that is true, such a use is unlikely to be challenged in the first place. Documentary films usually satisfy the “transformativeness” standard easily, because copyrighted material is typically used in a context different from that in which it originally appeared. Likewise, documentarians typically quote only short and isolated portions of copyrighted works. Thus, judges generally have honored documentarians’ claims of fair use in the rare instances where they have been challenged in court. The answer to the first question seems to be yes. The copyrighted material is educational. It is free to view over the internet. The answer to the second question seems to be yes... if Expelled did not lift the whole animation, anyway.austin_english_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PST}

Charlie asked, if they didn’t mechanically lift the work, is that copying wrong? I put some of the Copyright Act in post 142. The copyright holder has "exclusive rights... to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work." But there is a fuzzy "fair use" limitation. It leads to some questions. 1. How much of "The Inner Life of the Cell" did the Expelled animators use? I don't know. 2. Does a for-profit documentary have fair use because of its similarity to news reporting? Thinking of closing credits of documentaries, I doubt it. 3. How much will Expelled's derivative work hurt the "potential market for or value of the copyrighted work"? The animator Bolinsky seems to say the work is of low value. It has scientific errors and is just a start. He seems worried about the effect of Expelled's use of the work on his company. But section 107 specifies the the effect on the work itself. Section 106(a) gives authors of visual art the right to protect their "honor and reputation." But section 101 indicates that "The Inner Life of the Cell" isn't visual art. A “work of visual art” is— (1) a painting, drawing, print, or sculpture, existing in a single copy, in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author, or, in the case of a sculpture, in multiple cast, carved, or fabricated sculptures of 200 or fewer that are consecutively numbered by the author and bear the signature or other identifying mark of the author; or (2) a still photographic image produced for exhibition purposes only, existing in a single copy that is signed by the author, or in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author. A work of visual art does not include— (A) (i) any poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing, diagram, model, applied art, motion picture or other audiovisual work, book, magazine, newspaper, periodical, data base, electronic information service, electronic publication, or similar publication; ... (B) any work made for hire; or ...austin_english_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PST}

. Is the use of a similar scene of a natural entity a copyright violation — lawyers, any thoughts?
The analogy I'm thinking of is if it's like you created a character called zicky mouse and he looked just like the disney version, except for the colour of his jacket and shoes. The point I'm getting is that scene left more out then it left in. That's the impression I'm getting.
What harm was done
That is for Judge Judy to decide! :)
he says that there is a match [to be proven!], i..e. a specification in the context of a large search space; i.e complexity. So he infers design, here design to copy.
Is there a mathmatical demonstration of the use of the EF to determine that available or just the logical inferernce? What mechanism will the judge use, if it comes to that, to decide. It would be ironic if he used the EF and found them guilty! :) Jokin!
claim copying, and you have to use the EF.
Should be good then. I like demonstrations of the EF in everyday courtcases.
Refuse to claim it and you let out a major visualisation in the public that reveals the depth of organised complexity at work in the so-called “simple” cell.
I don't know that anybody has called the cell "simple" for a while now. Where are you getting that from? These "major visualisations" are readliy availble on the video sharing sites. I guess you applaud that?RichardFry_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PST}

H'mm: I see two interesting points, and some issues: POINT a: EXPELLED sez: "Questions have been raised about the origination of some of the animation used in our movie EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed. 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." Point B: A med illustrator involved with the XVIVO sez: 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 . . . Now, implications: 1 --> EXP -- per specific words used -- is not claiming that the general scene and situation are original, but the animation. Is the use of a similar scene of a natural entity a copyright violation -- lawyers, any thoughts? What harm was done, and what duties of care were neglected or violated? [But, too, has anyone done a pixel overlay on the frameworks to see what is similar, what is different? As Chas Johnson did for Dan Rather and the TANG memo . . .] 2 --> I am intrigued by the use of the EF by the med illustrator: he says that there is a match [to be proven!], i..e. a specification in the context of a large search space; i.e complexity. So he infers design, here design to copy. 3 --> What does that say about the wider context here when we look at the specified complexity that is biofunctional in the cell,as the subject matter of the videos shows, then? 4 --> Am I the only one here who sees that something is a bit odd in using the EF when it suits and disputing it on an even more sophisticated case of specified complexity when it does not? 5 --> Why do I get the feeling that some of this "cutting it close" is deliberate, to stir up precisely this dilemma: claim copying, and you have to use the EF. Refuse to claim it and you let out a major visualisation in the public that reveals the depth of organised complexity at work in the so-called "simple" cell. Any thoughts? GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PST}

JJS, It just seems to me David Bolinsky seems angry, and then some, and he does not sound like he's letting it go... I guess we'll see.RichardFry_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PST}

Richard, Yes, legal action (under normal circumstances) could be bad, unless the producers knew ahead of time that any litigation wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on. I'm not a legal expert, but I fail to see XVIVO's claim.JJS P.Eng._{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PST}

From what I'm reading on richard Dawkins .net it seems this page might be read out in court one day! If so, Hi Mum! Big up to the staines massive! Peckam, bo bo bo. :)RichardFry_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PST}

I think it is obvious that this is part of Expelled’s “baiting” of the Darwinist establishment
Please. I can't imagine anything worse then the thought of legal action that might stop my film coming out at the very last moment. Who would knowinging invite that? From the article you link to
Last week, Stein screened "Expelled" to Missouri lawmakers followed by a press conference promoting three academic freedom bills germinating there.
This Mr Stein from the film has must claim very strong voodoo indeed! :)RichardFry_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PST}

I was wondering when Expelled would respond (at bottom of blog post) . Russell (117): I was responding to a specific comment made by Andrea at 35. Following the comments here, it is obvious there is more than just scientific journals to the perceived violation of intellectual property by XVIVO. After soaking this all in for a day, I think it is obvious that this is part of Expelled's "baiting" of the Darwinist establishment. Just look at how quickly P-Zed took the bait for the private screening and the conference call. Same with Dawkins. Now XVIVO has taken the bait. This is all one big marketing strategy by Expelled, and it has worked spectacularly. (HT to FTK for the link)JJS P.Eng._{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PST}

With what sparc said, we now have a specific example of what normally occurs in product development. Managers or Company's do have an idea or actual examples of what they want the product to be. Many times they will point to other products and mention all the aspects they would like to mimic (i.e. successful features). This is especially true in highly competitive fields (e.g. film, video games, automobile, computer software). In these environments teams will analyse the problem space, many times coming up with similar ends to current products because the previous products had already well digested the problem space. This happens because while techinically everything has a large number of ways it can be done, only a few really accomplish the goal well. In addition, for fields with art involved designs become popular and subsequent designs try to adopt much of the style while adding to it in some way. Think of automobile design, one co. develops a popular design within a quick interation many other companys cars begin to share many similarities. Or for computer software, many interfaces look alike even though there are a multitude of ways graphical and functional elements may be arranged. Specifically in the case of film, there are only a handful of camera angles that do any scene real justice out of thousands that could be arranged during an animation sequence in 3 space. Same could be said for texturing and rendering the scene. This is why in product development, products become similar and when it comes to copyright and intellectual property right infringement it takes very precise similarity to flag something as potentially illegal.IntellectualPropertyRights_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PST}

sparc, this from Bolinsky is interesting too: It makes me happy, though, that you decided to implicate your friends in print, on your blog [post 64], 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.austin_english_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PST}

I haven't seen the Expelled video but from what's been said here I can't see that there is any question about independent inspiration and interpretation. I think it's obvious that they "copied", reproduced, or reinterpreted the images from the Harvard work. The question is, if they didn't mechanically lift the work, is that copying wrong? Allen MacNeill calls it stealing, but is it? Don't we hear all the time that the altered drawings of embryos in biology texts aren't actually Haeckel's embryos? Is every drawing of a tree of life stolen from Darwin? Somebody else mentioned atoms and DNA as other examples of interpretations that are widely copied. Sure, these are probably all public domain at this point, but in principle, I don't see that there would be a problem. As another example, if you use the exact electron micrograph of the bac-flag I presume you have to credit it, but is there any limit on your rights to drawing or modeling the bac-flag based upon that digital image? I doubt it. The same thing happens when you cover another artist's song. He put in all the effort of writing, arranging and producing it, and there is nothing he can do to stop you from hiring a band and recording your own, identical, version. You just have to pay him his legal mechanical or compulsory fee - which you can do after the fact and without having received permission.Charlie_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PST}

As someone else pointed out, I think there is a possibility of a design inference here.Jack Krebs_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PST}

One of the medical illustrators responsible for The Inner Life of the Cell made a comment:
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.
(emphasis mine)sparc_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PST}

At 163, Hahaha.DeepDesign_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PST}

poachy wrote:
Landsharks carry candygrams.
No they don't, they just tell everybody they do. Right before they bite them in half. DeepDesign wrote:
He’s a man. He’s fat. He’s old. But most of all, he’s angry. Angry Old Fat Man?
You rang?angryoldfatman_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PST}

1 2 3 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply