Expelled Plagiarizing Harvard?

_{Patrick
April 10, 2008

Expelled, Legal

2}_{Categories
Expelled
Legal}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

Hi bfast, Yep. The poorly-veiled sarcasm:
Davescot: XVIVO has no standing. Peter Irons must not be much of a legal scholar as easily as you outflanked him.
Which just happens to hit a prespecified target in this case:
Well, if this goes to court, maybe this time we’ll get a solidly conservative judge appointed by President Bush, rather than some ACLU loving liberal.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/life-after-dover/#comment-8210
Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. ... (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. ...Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too
This has ATBC written all over it.Charlie_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

I am baffled! I went thorugh each of Poachy's posts in this thread. None of them in any way suggest to me that he is a troll. Can y'all provide quotes from Poachy that lead you to this view so that I know what to avoid so that I don't get flamed in the future?bFast_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

Oh, I see that's been covered. Sorry.Charlie_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

Jones (cough cough) was picked by Dubya. (Granted he didn’t give it as much consideration as he would for a SCOTUS pick)
Poachy knows that.Charlie_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT}

Poachy, if you are a troll you are a dang good one!!tribune7_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT}

And let's not forget that Ben Stein is himself an attorney, who was first in his Yale graduating class.William Dembski_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT}

William Dembski @ 63
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...
Jehu @ 86
Peter Irons is not an intellectual property attorney. I have previously described Peter Irons on this blog as a militant atheist...
Something tells me they're going to have a hard time trying to Win Ben Stein's Money :)jstanley01_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

Today, XVIVO was been issued a cease-and-desist order by the original designer of the cell for copyright infringement. After they relinquished all rights to their work, they also ceased all cellular activity and structure and turned into large puddles of goo to comply fully with the order.angryoldfatman_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

Apollos, my friend. I hope you're right. :) I am really looking forward to Expelled and it would be a shame if it wasn't released.DeepDesign_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

After reviewing the three clips I have no idea what the fuss is about. The biggest similarity between the productions is that they are both computer animations dealing with the same subject. This appears to be nothing more than some exuberant wishful thinking on the part of Expelled's opponents in an attempt to score gotcha points. There was a mild similarity in the track-walking animation, but that's a lot to hang a case on, considering these are two independently produced graphic representations of a process that nobody holds any legal claim to. I'm guessing this will turn out to be much about nothing. We can only hope it attracts more attention than this little controversy is actually worth.Apollos_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

RichardFry: "To clarify my last comment, when I spoke of errors I’m not aware that any significant error has been “copied”..." I am. "... but simply that when depicting such processes there will be a large amount of artistic licence when deciding what to show and how to show it." The artistic license in this case is in what one chooses to omit (which constitutes the vast majority of what is happening). "I think most people here are in agreement that they simply did not watch the Harvard video and then copy it wholesale without any understanding of the science and bio-physics involved in what they were depicting." But are any of the people here who agree with you familiar with the relevant biophysics involved, let's say, with kinesin? Has anyone ever seen any data that show that a kinesin has ever taken 9 forward steps with the same intervening time? That's what is shown in the video.Russell_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

Anyway, I guess I can't help feeling that this is a real goof up by the Expelled people.DeepDesign_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

Poachy, are you Chuck Humphrey too??DeepDesign_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

Lutepisc, I realize that I am not the most educated of persons and am not particularly a good writer, but I am trying my best to be supportive. I am not sure why you want to label me a troll. As for my nickname, I share the story with my friends. I don't believe I consider you one.poachy_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

JJS P.Eng.: "Correct me if I am wrong, the intellectual property you are referring to are scientific papers in academic journals." You are mistaken. The intellectual property at issue here is artistic interpretation. An accurate representation would be unintelligible and unwatchable. For example, look at the pulsating Golgi apparatus in both the original and copy. The Golgi does pulsate like that, but not in the absence of microtubules and actin filaments, both of which were removed as artistic decisions in both the original and the copy.Russell_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

"This is little more than a legal attempt to censor an idea some people don’t like." Good point. Jason Rennie, where have you been? Good that you are a back just in time as things are heating up. About a week away till the release of Expelled.DeepDesign_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

"Eugenie Scott was as smart as Satan" This wouldn't be that funny if Eugenie Scott wasn't so nasty.DeepDesign_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

"BOTTOM LINE: Before you think the producers of EXPELLED are idiots, you might think that they are chess players who have seen several moves ahead. For instance, have you ever thought who stood to gain the most from the Machine Video featured at UD a week ago?" I pray that you are correct Dr. Dembski.DeepDesign_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

Get a load of this. Mathis shares his conversation with Dawkins that took place after the private showing of Expelled.FtK_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT}

An author is not obliged to give permission for his product to be used, even if he is offered compensation. By the same token he does not have to show a financial loss to be able to obtain an injunction against its unauthorised use. If a party, after being advised, goes ahead with a copyright infringement then punitive damages can be awarded. 'Fair use' does not encompass showing substantial portions of the work (or a derivative work) in a for-profit film. I suspect that XVIVO are a little suspicious that a work which took them a year to develop in conjunction with a team of leading biologists was reproduced in a few months. Let's also remember that the XVIVO animation is not a realistic portrayal of what you would see if you stuffed a nanocamera n a cell. It is a stylized representation - a diagram designed to show how the parts work.Horace_Worblehat_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

bFast (99) pointed to the article Shock: First Animal on Earth Was Surprisingly Complex, but the supplied link did not work. Here are links that should work. at LiveScience.com at news.yahoo.comericB_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

It’s like that scene in “working girl” where how the idea is thought up is just as important as what it is, if you can’t say what inspired you to do it that way….
Yet another example where there is financial damage or competitive edge to passing off work as your own. In all the promos, I've seen from this movie there is more about Ben Stein in Angus-Young-style shortpants than this awesome blockbuster 3D video. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that this--were it even the original--would fall more under "fair use" because their is no case that can be made for market dilution competitive advantage or marketing based on this.jjcassidy_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

Peter Irons must not be much of a legal scholar as easily as you outflanked him.
Or he's a paid/interested sophist like so many other attorneys these days. Peter Irons may be an excellent legal scholar, but to argue that it precludes him from having any interest is a little naive or disingenuous. It's the old thing of "How can you doubt the people who agree with me? I don't." Pretty convincing to the convinced.jjcassidy_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

Whoopsie...[psychic] We psychics aren't great spellers...lolFtK_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

What should we think of people such as andrea and jack krebs, who immediately come here to blame some (hypotetical) copyright crimes?
Not to mention use painfully bad analogies of somebody changing every third word--as if Expelled was about 3D animation and contained end-to-end animation. If somebody changed every third word, then there probably would not be as much of original interviews, or they've already abandoned that pattern. And nothing that I see suggests that were the producers were the original made available are 1) trying to market themselves for their 3D modeling skills by claiming the work as their own. That's something you would have to do to make a sort of reasonably rational human change every third word in a book. Also as it was used in relation to school plagiarism, passing off the work as your own is the key there.jjcassidy_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

Okay, I’m going to go out on a limb here and make a prediction... None of this nonsense will ever be heard in a court of law. Now, I'll tune into my physic abilities and share an overwhelming sense that I am currently experiencing... I see the Expelled producers and film makers gathered around their laptops trying to keep their giggles from turning into cachinnation, but failing miserably. Do not worry my friends, all is well...FtK_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

Jones (cough cough) was picked by Dubya.
Genetic fallacy spoken here, I see. Jones is just as much a purveyor or long inferential chains as any liberal attorney. And since he signed on to a majority of what the ACLU argued, it matters little the projected opposition of who appointed him.jjcassidy_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

Tribune7, haven't you figured out that poachy is a troll? (Poachy, can you explain again why your sister gave you that nickname? It seems to fit...)Lutepisc_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

Sorry, I should add, you can rip off patented techniques all you like as long as you aren't trying to sell them into the jurisdiction in which the patent applies.Jason Rennie_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

"but the XVIVO-proprietary methods of creating molecular models of proteins and cellular processes and rendering them graphically." I think you'll find you are mistaken there. I assume you are refering to patent law, but in that case, it isn't using the patented technique to produce it that is a problem, but sticking the patented technique in a product without the appropriate license.Jason Rennie_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply