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

Another thing -- I suspect that the people upset about this alleged irregularity are just fine with the inherent deceptions in the films of Michael Moore and Al Gore. What's worse splicing parts of disparate speeches together to make a living breathing (at the time) person look like he was saying something else to open him to public scorn, or basing an animation on a widely seen free video to reveal a truth to the general public?tribune7_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

Now one could make the case that the animation studio purposely copied aspects of the artistic style (not completely, obviously, since there are notable differences in the textures and models). That's not plagiarism nor would I consider it unethical. If that was the case then every artist since Picasso would be in trouble if they ever copied the cubist style. BTW, I've worked in developing 3D rendering. There's only so many modeling/rendering suites used in the industry; they may have used the same one (although it's hard to tell with the low resolution videos). I can often recognize a renderer for its sublte differences, even when the same category of effect or full-screen filter is being applied. Both studios apparently used a Depth-Of-Field shader, which gives some objects that soft look.Patrick_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

Jack Kerbs -- That is plagiarism. That is cheating. It is copying (not verbatim, but substantially in both specific content and in general structure), and we flunk them for it. Should we not? Should this be acceptable? It really depends on the point of the exercise, doesn't it? If you are trying to determine whether a student has learned a lesson and by his widespread use of copying he indicates that he has not, it is quite appropriate to mark him down. And of course, if someone claims someone else's research as his own for his own personal benefit that is also grounds for sanction. OTOH, if the goal is to disseminate accurate information for the understanding of all, and if it is obvious that the intent is not to claim someone else's work as one 's own (the definition of plagiarism) which appears to be the case in Expelled, then you are complaining about the wrong thing. Now, there may very well be a copyright issue involved, but even there one ought to avoid getting on one's high horse about it. Even if a copyright violation is found, it is almost certain a result of ignorance rather than an intent to deceive. And what if it is ruled there is no copyright violation? Do you say you are sorry?tribune7_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

This legal threat stunt reeks of National Center for "Science" Education (NCSE) invovlement. Consider, for example, that a laser printer quality PDF version of the letter was available at the NCSE website mere hours after news broke. I expect ERV to be hired by Eugenie soon. The Harvard video in question oozes with "intelligent design" and I suspect the NCSE threatened to Sternberg the scientists involved if they did not play ball. And former NCSE minister of propaganda Wesley Elsberry seemed to be in the know early. Please see: Legal threats and copyright shakedowns ERV knew that this was going to break at 12:54 p.m. PT-mafia time, according to comment-150049 for the entry "truth-tickets" at the PT-mafia lair.William Wallace_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

Jack Krebs wrote: "…is there any level of similarity between the XVIVO product and what eventually shows up in Expelled that would lead you to say that Expelled had copied, and that they were wrong to have done so?" No. There ARE similarities, of course, but none that would lead me to believe that actual plagiarism took place. Patrick expressed my thoughts very well when he said you can't just copy/paste these things from a video. I do some 3D modeling and, well, that's just not how it works. Again, as Patrick pointed out, there are bound to be similarities if they both are modeling the same subjects. These people are just trying to shut the movie down because they don't like its message and they're embarrassed that they've been caught. Simple as that.TRoutMac_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

Patrick, 1. I don't claim to know if Expelled copied - evidence that there might have been a common source of ideas that both Expelled and XVIVO drew on is pertinent, as might be other kinds of evidence. 2. These are NOT like a AR-15 firing. No one has pictures of the cellular processes shown - deciding how to depict those process in animated form has taken considerable creative work. It's not like two people painting the same tree. 3. But I'm glad to see that you would find some level of copying unacceptable.Jack Krebs_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

Folks, the extent of apparent similarity of the videos is just a minor part of the story here, little more than a hint (and of course if you are trying to avoid a copyright infringement suit, you are not going to make an exact copy). The work that went behind each of these animations in terms of analysis of the published scientific data, selection between alternative models, three-dimensional modeling of individual proteins, complexes and organelles, kinetic representation of processes, all the way to the methods for computer-generated rendering, can be easily examined by experts to establish if primary and independent sources were used to generate the Expelled version. That is the intellectual property XVIVO wants to protect, not just the pretty pictures (which are, by the way, not what the inside of a cells actually would look like if we could directly peer into it in real time, as any biologist knows, so they are not "true-to-life" but an artificial and selective representation of reality). There really isn't much leeway there: it took XVIVO a large effort to make their movie, and a similar amount of effort would be expected from anyone trying to produce similar results independently. Anything else is copying.Andrea_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

Jack Krebs wrote: "One common problem that we have is that some kid copies some material, a paragraph to a whole article, from a website (Wikipedia is popular), and then goes through and changes some words, possibly omitting some stuff, maybe moving a sentence or two around, and then hands it in as his own work without any citation." Apples and oranges. For this to be comparable, the producers of the Expelled clip would have to have access to the animation files themselves, in whatever software was used to create them, where they could then go in and edit them, using the same models, etc. but changing vantage points, colors, etc. But it's clear that, using the "imperial walker" as an example, that the same models aren't even used. This is a new animation through and through. I wouldn't have any problem with the assertion that the "Inner Life" video provided a measure of 'inspiration'… meaning that the Expelled producers wanted to show similar things in a similar way for a similar effect. But that's not plagiarism.TRoutMac_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

Creep into thy narrow bed, Creep, and let no more be said! Vain thy onset! all stands fast. Thou thyself must break at last. Let the long contention cease! Geese are swans, and swans are geese. Let them have it how they will! Thou art tired; best be still. They out-talk’d thee, hiss’d thee, tore thee? Better men fared thus before thee; Fired their ringing shot and pass’d, Hotly charged—and sank at last. Charge once more, then, and be dumb! Let the victors, when they come, When the forts of folly fall, Find thy body by the wall! Relax, guys -- they're only stopping a movie. You can't stop the signal.wnelson_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

So Trout, is there any level of similarity between the XVIVO product and what eventually shows up in Expelled that would lead you to say that Expelled had copied, and that they were wrong to have done so? Is there any line here that could be crossed, in your opinion?Jack Krebs_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

So, Jack, considering your just-stated position, what do you have to say if it turns out the creators of "Inner Life" at XVIVO borrowed ideas from another artist, Graham Johnson, and didn't give proper citation? Graham's work is at http://valelab.ucsf.edu/images/movies/mov-procmotconvkinrev5.mov . I'm hoping you wouldn't have a double standard. In any case, this is all about 3d modeling and animation of real objects. You cannot copy and paste 3D models from a video. It's possible that both animation studios purchased the same source models, but if not each set of artists had to create the models from scratch and animate them. Both animation teams had to do the work separately, so I don't see how anyone could call this plagiarism. They both did the work. We're also talking about real-world objects. Let's say you're modeling a stock AR-15 firing. Even considering all camera angles, there's only so many variants of animations that can be produced. Now if Promise Media had used the Harvard source video or produced their own and claimed it was the Harvard video (forgery) then we'd have a problem. I'd be the first to decry their actions.Patrick_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

Jack Krebs wrote: "I object to being called a fascist just because I believe in protecting people’s copyright protections." That's nice, but no one's calling you a fascist because you believe in protecting copyrights. But if you want to contrive a copyright infringement where none exists for the sake of suppressing an idea that you don't personally like, then you are a fascist. The only way that XVIVO can claim that this is really a copy of their video is if they also claim that their animation is not true-to-life. As has been pointed out here in an earlier comment, if both videos represent something that is accurate and true-to-life, then inevitably they will have many things in common. A reasonable person with no axe to grind would recognize this plain fact and wouldn't consider legal action against someone else who also wanted to depict these biological processes and ended up depicting some of the same things and in a similar fashion. In fact, they would expect that to happen if indeed they were confident that their video was true-to-life. But all that goes out the window when folks wish to suppress Intelligent Design and, at the same time, protect their own precious reputations. It makes me sick.TRoutMac_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

BarryA?Jack Golightly_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

I have worked as both a teacher and curriculum director in a public high school, and I have worked on both specific plagiarism issues and more general plagiarism policies. One common problem that we have is that some kid copies some material, a paragraph to a whole article, from a website (Wikipedia is popular), and then goes through and changes some words, possibly omitting some stuff, maybe moving a sentence or two around, and then hands it in as his own work without any citation. That is plagiarism. That is cheating. It is copying (not verbatim, but substantially in both specific content and in general structure), and we flunk them for it. Should we not? Should this be acceptable?Jack Krebs_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

I just watched both "walking" sequences, and you'll notice that in the XVIVO video the scene begins with a close-up of the walker then pans from left to right. IN the Expelled version, the scene pans in from the opposite side (from right to left), so the scene sequence isn't even the same. I don't think they have a case, as it was obviously not copied. Similar yes, but similarity without copying isn't protected, as far as I know. It would be like a musician saying "My song is G-C-D and his is D-C-G; plus they were both played on acoustic guitar at the same tempo." No. As long as the work in question wasn't "sampled" meaning copied mechanically (it was an original creation) and there are differences between the two, you cannot claim copyright infringement. I'm not a lawyer, so I'd like to hear from someone who knows the law better. But dealing with record companies on sample clearance, I can tell you that a "cover version" is not treated the same as a "sample" in music law. I'd guess tha same applies to other forms of media.Atom_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

"For those of you reading this thread who are sympathetic to the threatened legal action, you ought to be ashamed." Is there any reason NOT to expect XVIVO to react when they spend over a year and tons of money producing a video, and then someone--with whom they are at philosophical odds no less--takes their hard work, makes a blatant-but-mediocre copy, and passes it off as their own *for profit*?ykroz_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

I object to being called a fascist just because I believe in protecting people's copyright protections. The fact that it is a new animation is not the issue - no one is claiming that Expelled actually uses the XVIVO animation. The issue is whether, and to what extent, the presentation in Expelled was copied from the XVIVO product. 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.Jack Krebs_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

The BIG version: http://aimediaserver4.com/studiodaily/harvard/harvard.swfGraceout_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

Okay, I just watched all three clips… the two from Expelled and the (abbreviated) "Inner Life" video. My recollection was correct. (no gloating, though!) This is quite obviously NOT the XVIVO video. Similar? Yes. Does it show some of the same processes? Without question. But it is a new animation. If they are able to shut the movie down because of THIS, then the problems here in the U.S.A. are much worse even than I thought. This is a naked attempt at exactly what the movie is about. Suppressing the teaching, even in the free marketplace, of a particular idea. For those of you reading this thread who are sympathetic to the threatened legal action, you ought to be ashamed. You are fascists, plain and simple. You want to SHUT UP an idea that (switch on sarcastic, nasally tone here) you just don't personally take a liking to. What arrogance. Incredible.TRoutMac_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

Harvard probably doesn't mind if others use their product for free. This is common in open source/freeware software. As long as you don't use their product for commercial purposes, the author doesn't care. However, once you tread into the commercial world, you better cough up the dough.DrDan_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

JPCollado: I think the irony is that the XVIVO authors claim that the very close similarities between the two animations are due to design, while ID supporters argue that they are the product of sheer chance. (To complicate matters a bit, in this case we would even know who the designer is, and how and why he/she acted, but the principle still applies.) Thinking of it, perhaps Dr. Dembski may want to apply his Explanatory Filter to the case, so that we can compare the results to whatever the evidence presented at trial will demonstrate. That would be a first!Andrea_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

http://www.xvivo.net/press/harvard_university.htmAtom_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

Jonathan Wells: "Any similarities between the Expelled animation and the Harvard one are due to the fact that both animations depict many of the same processes." But to the warped darwinian mind, you see, anything that is similar to something else HAD TO HAVE COME FROM a common progenitor. The proof is in the homologies and that's all the counts.JPCollado_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

How typical. I wonder, could XVIVO be held accountable for the same thing? Random mutation and natural selection just might slap a lawsuit on them.toc_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

I see that Andrea posted a link to the video. Thank you!TRoutMac_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

Here's what I don't get. There seems to be some disagreement, as expressed by Gods iPod, as to whether or not the Expelled clip is really identical to the "Inner Life of the Cell" video. Why should there be? I'd love it if someone could post a link to the Inner Life video (I know it was removed from YouTube, but maybe it's somewhere else?) because I'd like to see it again and compare the two. Judging from the Expelled clip in the earlier thread, I noticed immediately that certain aspects of the segmented were reminiscent of the "Inner Life" video, but that clearly this was a different video. Even the details and proportions of that 'walking' gizmo struck me as slightly different. Unless there's been a new version of the "Inner Life" video released, I cannot see that one was copied from another in a way that would violate a copyright. Gods iPod seems to have an entirely different take, however, so I'd like to see which "Inner Life" video he/she saw.TRoutMac_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

Andrea: I'm sure XVIVO knows which side their bread is buttered on. There's no sense in being naive. And no, I don't have a problem with them shutting the film down. If Promise didn't play by the rules, then that's that. Maybe the ID movement needs to walk away, start the long process of getting funding, endowments, etc., and do their own thing. Let the old institutions rot.wnelson_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

"Irrespective of all the other issues, would that be morally wrong?" For-profit plagiarism? Umm, I'm going to go out on a limb and say 'yes'.ykroz_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

Just suppose, hypothetically, that they did copy the XVIVO product extensively. Irrespective of all the other issues, would that be morally wrong?Jack Krebs_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

wnelson: XVIVO's animation is freely available on their web site (http://www.xvivo.net/press/harvard_university.htm) and on youtube. It's hard therefore to argue that they are doing this to prevent people from seeing it (especially since Expelled producers want to charge for their version). I guess they do want to be in control of how it's used, especially in for profit activities. Also, XVIVO is a private company (see http://www.xvivo.net/) and not part of Harvard. It apparently took them, in collaboration with a team of Harvard scientists, more than a year to generate the animation, so it's understandable that they are proprietary about it.Andrea_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply