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

I have worked professionally in a field that involved engineering and artistic creativity. Intellectual property rights are a complicated subject in their own right and especially in a field that is highly competitive and in our world now where much is free for certain uses. In 3D animation production such as this, it is definitely true that in order to create the end product a series of art assets are necessary: 3D models, textures, light maps, algorithmic affects, animation data, etc. And on the science side, it is necessary to develop or use engineering solutions to render and animate your art in an environment. This is a highly demanding task and professionals of both sides will look to what has been done before and what is readily available for free along with developing their own content and engineering solutions. There are stock art assets available for some starting points to build from or the artist will have to start from scratch if desires depart from common objects. With cellular parts resembling somewhat basic shapes (comparitively) I imagine most art packages and assets out there could be utilized and slightly modified to meet the requirement. Likewise the many of the algorithms and the science details are open for public use in one way or another or are available in packages to purchase. To drive a point home that was already made, you can't decompose someone elses video into its necessary constituent art parts (some I listed above) to resuse yourself and simplying 'painting' over another film would not produce high quality results. In additonal, to add what may seem like a simple thing, a new camera angle, would not be possible with only the raw video. Nor would a professional want to do these things if it were possible, since much stock art and art packages are available. And Denise is correct, in my background we did look to what was already done and out in the field and ways to improve on it. As long as you didn't steal assets or implement your own in precise ways of similarity then you are fine. In life and in that field because the subject matter was the same many similarities existed thought. This is why the company had lawyers; for difficult cases / when grey areas arose or unintentional cases came up. I would caution though that before someone claims someone else is stealing or unethical you need to have experience in this area and know that person or company intended on stealing (in the case you are calling them unethical). As well, you have to show more than just similarity in cases like these. Since this is a complicated legal issue, it would be wise to show restraint and give benefit of the doubt until all the details can be weighed fairly.IntellectualPropertyRights_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

frosty yeah, and the other .2 or .3% is when your debating me dave. That should be "you're" not your. :-)DaveScot_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

I suppose I should be honored that my poor contributions are worthy of so much of your attention, but I guess I am frustrated that I am not better at expressing my level of support for ID. And perhaps there hasn't been alot of talk about Jones being an activist judge. Maybe I should have used the term "narcissistic putz." Would that have been better? I guess the message I need to get is that I am not contributing much to the conversation and should crawl back under my bridge. Got it, loud and clear. FYI. You might want to google "Leopold Stotch", then tell me who is the troll.poachy_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

Okay . . . I seem to recall, some years back, a toy firm produced the GI Joe action figure. It checked its lawyers. They could not copyright the human figure [I guess big G owns that copyright . . .], and so they deliberately reversed I think it was the thumbs. [And I guess the linkage and flexing mechanisms were not non-obvious developments of the state of he art.] That way any actual copy would highlight itself. Now, let us contrast this case, best as I can see from the above: 1 --> Stein et al have plainly shown similar but distinctly diversely presented features of the cell to the XVIVO animation, and in a context where they may well be using the same or similar off the shelf software or adaptations thereof. 2 --> On claimed copied errors -- h'mm isn't that FSCI as a reliable sign of design PZM et al? -- it seems (and I stand to be corrected) that we have a similar decision to be smoother rather than jerkier, not an error of biology per se. 3 --> So, to my mind this looks like fair use of a source in portraying common facts in a non-academic context, leading to a presentation of an in- the- public- interest, fair comment diverse interpretation of underlying facts. 4 --> We are also dealing with a public policy issue presented to and for the general public, and one side of a debate that is often not accessible to the general public in its usual media -- academic web sites etc don't count here. That suggests that academic rules on explicit citations don't apply. 5 --> Besides, they are not trying to claim the animations as academic original work, while stealing an idea [or for that matter its specific presentation] from someone else. [Can someone show that they are using actual data from the XVIVO clips, rather than developing their own animation that runs differently, as Atom highlighted?] 6 --> Similarly, it is unlikely that XVIVO or Harvard will lose revenues from the showing of the animations in the published, commercial form of the movie -- as opposed to working prototypes. [That is there is a question as to whether actual harm has been done, and/or that duties of care have been neglected. Also, I am intentionally implying that something was very wrong in how Judge Jones tried to rule based on rejected working editorial drafts in the case of Pandas and People.] 7 --> On the other hand, there are very obvious agendas, people, institutions and movements who would benefit if Expelled or key parts of it do not see the light of day, or if it is cast under a confusing cloud of suspicion or accusation. 8 --> In particular, there is an obvious agenda-serving interest on the same parts to minimise the graphic impact of reasonably accurate animations of the inner workings of the cell in movies and DVDs accessible through normal locations for general audiences, which would be to make the FSCI and organised complexity of the cell a matter of easily remembered, large scale public record. (This looks a lot like the general suppression of visuals on babies in the womb and what abortion does to them, by media that routinely show far more graphic and disturbing images. You CAN find the images, but they are not exactly available to a general audience. No prizes for guessing why, once you see the patterns of the politics of the relevant media houses.) 9 --> So, so far, this looks a lot like censorship of unpopular ideas and ad hominem attacks against their presenters [sounds familiar, JK? Or do we need FtK to tell her story again?], far more than any real complaint against abuse of copyrighted materials. [Plagiarism does not even seem to be a relevant issue.] So, now, JK et al, where am I missing the material facts, the ethical issues that underpin tort, or the logic? GEM of TKI PS: JK, you have some pretty serious matters still to answer to as can be seen from this earlier thread, from about 117 on. I would not go to the sort of language FtK used, but the behaviour evident from the thread is a pretty serious matter. Indeed, much of the exchange in this thread and its wider context, from your side, looks a lot like:
[KCFS’ PR] strategy [as declared in their online forum by their PR person, circa 2005] . . . is the same as it was in 1999: notify the national and local media about what’s going on and portray them in the harshest light possible, as political opportunists, evangelical activists, ignoramuses, breakers of rules, unprincipled bullies, etc . . . . Our target [so this is a movement strategy not deniable and repudiated actions by a loose cannon individual . . .] is the moderates who are not that well educated about the issues, most of whom probably are theistic evolutionists . . . . The solution is really political . . .
kairosfocus_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

Hi Lutepisc, I agree. I meant to say that the puppetry is dishonest. If somebody thinks his/her honest opinions/positions would result in a banning then behave honestly and take the consequences. If you don't think they're welcome then why masquerade behind a childish game?Charlie_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

Here's a question which poachy never has answered: "Poachy, are you a troll or a sock puppet?" TIA.Lutepisc_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

(Or "her" sister...)Lutepisc_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

Charlie, I doubt that poachy will be banned. I don't have time to track this down, but IIRC poachy told us that he got his nickname from intruding repeatedly into his sister's space in the back seat of the family car when they were young. No doubt his sister objected to this, but poachy always had enough deniability to avoid a reprimand. It's part of the art of being, well, "poachy." Being "outed" as a sock puppet from time to time will be helpful, though. We need to keep an eye on poachy, like his sister no doubt did.Lutepisc_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

One troll-feeding only ... Poachy at 144, The date that you signed on here has nothing to say about when you started following the subject. Say it does, though ... Since and including Nov. 2007 I find one reference to Jones as an activist, and that by your fellow, Leostotch. His reference was an equally sarcastic jab at the supposed liberal tendencies of an activist judge. You didn't get the impression from this site that everyone was calling Jones an activist. Almost every comment I've seen you issue here is a backhanded reference to an PT talking point. Your reference to ID as a circus with the pseudo-naive reference reference to a "big top" strategy was charming though. Be honest and take your banning like a man.Charlie_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

yeah, and the other .2 or .3% is when your debating me dave.Frost122585_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

Poachy No embarrassment. I've written probably a million words on this blog and when someone has to reach back years through all of that to find a mistake it's a clear example of the exception that proves the rule. The rule being that I, like Rush Limbaugh, am right 99.7% of the time. Maybe more.DaveScot_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

Tribune7 wrote:
You are a troll LOLOL. But you are a good one.
Yes, indeed. It's a shame to see all that shrewness and native ability go to waste like that. Poachy, I hope you'll hang around and allow yourself to learn! Maybe ID has some points worth considering...Lutepisc_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

He's a man. He's fat. He's old. But most of all, he's angry. Angry Old Fat Man?DeepDesign_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

The only problem there is distinguishing the difference between the weasels, landsharks, and lawyers. Landsharks carry candygrams.poachy_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

allanius wrote:
Personally, I’m just glad to hear that the Darwinists are such paragons of virtue. Guess I won’t have to lock up my daughters after all!
The best protection for your daughters in that case is to encircle them with lawyers. I don't know how to protect your daughters from the lawyers, though. Maybe rabid weasels or landsharks. The only problem there is distinguishing the difference between the weasels, landsharks, and lawyers.angryoldfatman_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

Personally, I'm just glad to hear that the Darwinists are such paragons of virtue. Guess I won't have to lock up my daughters after all!allanius_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT}

Poachy. You are a troll LOLOL. But you are a good one.tribune7_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT}

Charlie in 127, I didn't even read this site back in 2005. I didn't even sign up here until November 2007. I guess I should have researched further, but since everyone talks about what a activist judge Jones was, that I just assumed he was a liberal. Sorry, if I embarassed you, Dave.poachy_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

Hi bfast, thank you for your support. I suppose I should thank you for your confusion, but that doesn't sound right even to a "sockpuppet" like me. I will admit to not being the most well-read or a good writer, so maybe I have broken some unwritten rules around here. I hope the mods will correct me if I have. I don't understand alot of what is posted around here, but I was excited about Expelled and the Drawinists shooting themselves in the foot. I suppose that most folks just want me to be quiet.poachy_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

This could be a hoax. XVIVO doesn't hold the copyrights. The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 definitely doesn't apply to technical applications or to works done under contract. I can't see how the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998 applies. But the Copyright Act is relevant. § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: ... (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; The Expelled animation is obviously derivative. But it may also be fair use. § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.austin_english_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT}

Andrea Methods aren't protected by copyright. Those are protected by patents. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000102----000-.html
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
I did a search of granted patents and published patent applications. XVIVO doesn't appear to hold or have applied for any patents. So much for any claim of infringement on methods. XVIVO's threat is without merit of any kind. Harvard may have a case but it certainly isn't open and shut. Just to be thorough I checked the registered copyright database and found no registrations by XVIVO and no registrations for "The Inner Life of the Cell". Copyright protection doesn't require registration but it sure helps in court. DaveScot_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT}

DaveScot (#67) said,
I hate to spoil the fun here but Harvard University is the copyright holder named on the video. Watch the “super speed” version and see. The animation is credited to John Liebler/XVIVO. That’s right there next to it on the Harvard site.
Thanks, Dave, that answers some questions that I have been asking for a long time. We have been hearing the name "Harvard," "Harvard," "Harvard" repeatedly here but we have not heard a peep from Harvard in regard to this accusation of copyright infringement. The original video was created by the collaboration of Harvard and XVIVO -- see http://www.xvivo.net/press/harvard_university.htm So maybe XVIVO is co-holder of the copyright -- I don't know. I would like to see the contract between Harvard and XVIVO. Also, the "super-speed" and "high-speed" versions of the XVIVO/Harvard video open with the following notice:
For educational purposes only. The use, duplication, or distribution of this material for any commercial purpose is strictly prohibited.
So maybe that's why the "Expelled" producers decided to create their own copy -- I was wondering why they didn't just buy or rent the XVIVO/Harvard video. Anyway, if the "Expelled" video was created from scratch, I don't see how it can fairly be considered to represent "use, duplication, or distribution" of the XVIVO/Harvard video. BTW, 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.
Larry Fafarman_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PDT}

bFast, I agree with you, that article is interesting. Not just that the first animal was so complex but how it skews the entire phylogeny.Jehu_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

Jack Krebs
This is not about suppressing ideas. Of course the Expelled folks are free to talk about the cell all they want. They are also free to learn about the cell from any source they want. What they are not free to do is to just make a copy of XVIVO’s work on the subject and put it in their for-profit movie. These should be fairly clear distinctions.
It is exactly about supressing an idea. That and only that is precisely what this is about. The Darwinians are in frenzy over this film. Why? Because it presents their philosophy masquarading as science for what it is and that it what has them in a stew. I have a nice photo book here at home of Rocky Mountain National park with a spectacular photo taken at Bear Lake in the park. I also have a photo that I took of Bear Lake when there on vacation. My photo and the one in the book look quite similar. Did I plagarize the book photo? No. But I did stand in the same or nearly same spot and wouldn't you know it, those very same mountains and the very same water appeared in my photo. Are you seriously suggesting that if I published a photo book with that photo in it I would be open to plagarism from the photographer of the other book? You've got to be kidding me. He or she may have a copywrite on their book, but they do NOT have one on the subject of their photo...a place out in nature. Its the same here. XVIVO may have a copywrite on their film, but they do NOT have one a cell. If the two films show the same stuff or look similar, well, DUH, its the same basic subject matter.DonaldM_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT}

Open, Sez Me!!!! sparc this is I think the secret message within the ring. PROOF that the Explanatory Filter is indeed an empirical instrument. I congratulate Dembski and Sal for pulling this fast one over on the materialists and improbable PZ worshippers. Mathematics can never ever lie, and Dembski described this very same scenario so many years ago and all of the culture elitist and chance loving atheist jihadists just yawned and claimed it was written in Jello. Makes me think of some great old kung fu movie lines. We see who raf rast. The shoe is on the other hand now!irreducible_complacency_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT}

W. Dembski (The Logical Underpinnings of Intelligent Design)
when both record the same errors, it is perfectly legitimate to conclude that whoever published second plagiarized
sparc_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT}

C'mon you guys. Does this site care about recent discoveries that are solidly not predicted by NDE or is it just focused on the politics of ID? “Shock: First Animal on Earth Was Surprisingly Complex” http://www.livescience.com/ani…..nimal.html 'Turns out that the first animal was a jellyfish, complete with complex nervous system etc., rather than a much simpler sponge.bFast_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT}

That's rather hyperbolic, I think.Jack Krebs_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

This entire thing is not hard to figure out. Darwinists are scared excrementless about being exposed to the public for what they are: ideologues who don't want to give up their power to indoctrinate others, and especially other people's children, with public funding. They will resort to any means available to suppress dissent. It's extraordinarily despicable and wicked. The 18th of April is just eight days away, and they are in a state of panic, because their de facto antitheocracy is in jeopardy.GilDodgen_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT}

But I think the more appropriate term is "sock-puppet".Charlie_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply