Second Mann spoof video removed

NickB
http://www.nationalpost.com/search_results.html?q=Andrew+Weaver
Better to use the regular link. The stories seem pretty innocent — but it is a real lawsuit as opposed to the illiterate letter put out on behalf of Mann — by somebody presumably a layer. Hopefully someone has explained “cached” vs “cashed” to the Mann lawyer as a sympathy gesture.

RayB (00:48:23)
Reverend Horton Heat did a remake of the “Stop the Pigeon” song a few years back:

WillR (11:07:15)
Did I miss a link for Mann’s letter? Sounds like a fun read 🙂

Here is another angry religion;
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/21/south.park.religion/?hpt=Sbin

WillR (13:46:36)
Mann’s lawyer should have a look at the EFF’s statement on Fair Use, or maybe M4GW or NCTC should:
When can I borrow someone’s images for my blog post?
Images are subject to the same copyright and fair use laws as written materials, so here too you’ll want to think about the fair use factors that might apply. Is the image used in a transformative way? Are you taking only what’s necessary to convey your point? A thumbnail (reduced-size) image, or a portion of a larger image is more likely to be fair use than taking an entire full-size image. If you want to go beyond fair use, look for Creative Commons licensed images.
I want to parody someone. Can I use some of their images and text in my parody?
Yes, parody is recognized as a type of fair use, like other commentary and criticism, and courts recognize that a parody must often take recognizable elements from the work it comments upon.
Courts do distinguish parody from satire. Parody copies from the object it mocks, while satire uses recognizable elements from the original work to mock something else or society in general. Parody gets broader fair use leeway than satire. If you want to make fun of Roy Orbison by changing “Pretty Woman” to “Big Hairy Woman,” that’s non-infringing parody; but if you make fun of the O.J. Simpson trial using Dr. Seuss illustrations and rhymes, that’s satire and in one famous case, it was found to be infringing (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books U.S.A., Inc.).
http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/IP
In my quick read, this seems to be quite clearly a Fair Use issue unless they are putting Mann’s face on the t-shirts they are selling, which I’m pretty sure is not the case.
Regarding Weaver,
I’m curious if desmogblog violated anything by posting it on their blog, but that said… some of the complaints are pretty ridiculous: “Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph… has not/not been debunked“. I guess if the NP put words in his mouth that were provably false – like the allegations on the fossil fuel industry – then maybe there’s a valid complaint… but I’m not sure it can really be proven.
In general is appears that they’re trying to put the entire IPCC/AGW case on trial. To say it’s illegal to question or imply that the IPCC or AGW in general is incorrect is more than ridiculous… it’s anti-free speech.

NickB:
I am not going to comment in any significant way on something before the courts.
However the statement of claim is a public document. It is fair game to post that and make a factual statement about the claim.
The Weaver claim is available to read and on-Canadian readers can probably say what they wish. Canadians should be circumspect.

Not all of the original is user content created by MFGW. That means that Jibjab or whoever created the original chopping down of the singing tree scene retains copyright of that scene. Regardless of whether MFGW were granted permission to use that scene to produce the original video they still do not have copyright on that scene.
As the new video contains a copy of that scene therefore it is in breach of copyright on the original which is not held by MFGW.
The bottom line is that the chopping down singing tree scene and the singing tree character were not created by MFGW so to produce a new video which was not in breach of copyright they would have to develop their own characters and scenes. That is the way western copyright law works. I can’t just go making a story about a wizard that looks like Harry Potter.
They could still play the video in most Asian countries however as copyright laws are different there. They only cover the original work and still allow for modification. In most Asian countries I could go and make an 8th Harry Potter movie if I wanted to as long as I was taking it in a new direction.
Regardless of whether people agree with them or not the reasons YouTube have cited are not bogus they are genuine legal reasons which can carry genuine legal repercussions. I fully understand YouTube’s position in removing the video.

WillR
I’m pretty sure I just caught what you said and why you said it – by all means, do not let a random interchange on the internet compromise your professional integrity.
It is interesting (counterintuitive?) that Weaver would document his concerns – which includes direct quotes from the “offending” articles in question and then ask the courts – via Copyright claims via NP I’d imagine – to wipe the internet clear of any/all record of the accusations.
Anyway, it should be interesting to watch here from the sidelines…
Regards.

RE: Kay (05:41:43) : “There also needs to be market harm; in other words, Mann would need to show that he’s losing money because of Davis’ work.
Perhaps Dr. Mann could show that his career advancement opportunities have been constrained by this video as a result of ‘the appearance of wrongdoing’ standards that may apply even if he and his work were fully vindicated.
Still, it is an internet classic and it is a little late to make such claims now as I suspect most of the damage of that sort has already been done. He may, perhaps, succeed in preventing the use of this video as part of a campaign to fight the renewed effort to pass Cap and Trade.

@ur momisugly NickB: There is also, from my time studying Computer Science, a rampant dysfunction with many of the students – not too dissimilar from Engineering and Math majors, and which seems to be the case with Climate Science too – in that traditionally defined IQ (book smarts, as I call it) is king above all other values, and practical intelligence (what I refer to as street smarts, and where I classify the “more you know, the more you know you don’t know” paradigm) is of little consequence. IMO, this is probably the biggest driver – when a nerd-king, as I call it, sets their position on a technical issue they are rarely ever accepting that they could be wrong, and even when faced with substantial evidence that they were wrong… they will rarely own up to it.”
Having been married for many years to an engineer/mathematician, I can say this is dead on. In our case, that attitude spilled over into our marriage and it’s part of the reason we’re not married any more.
These guys wouldn’t survive 5 minutes in the real world. Many of them may be smart, but their social skills leave a lot to be desired. Maybe that’s why they’re Nerd Kings to begin with.
======================================
Roger posted: And here’s another relevant quote, from Anthony Standen’s Science is a Sacred Cow, [1950], 1958, Dutton Paperback.
18-19 [Certain people (called “science fiends” later in the book)] suppose that because science has penetrated the structure of the atom it can solve all the problems of the universe. … They are known in every … college as the most insufferable, cocksure know-it-alls. If you want to talk to them about poetry, they are likely to reply that the “emotive response” to poetry is only a conditioned reflex …. If they go on to be professional scientists, their sharp corners are rubbed down, but they undergo no fundamental change. They most decidedly are not set apart from the others by their intellectual integrity and faith, and their patient humility in front of the facts of nature…. They are uneducated, in the fullest sense of the word …. ”
Excellent quote.

I can’t find tips and notes, so hopefully someone will see this.
Another climate scientist is suing, this time a Canadian newspaper is the target.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/22/climate-change-libel-action-canada-national-post
[Reply: Some browsers have trouble showing Tips & Notes, and Climategate. There is also a Tips & Notes link along the right sidebar of the page, under the image links. Look for “Pages.” ~dbs]

Anthony
I have sent an email to your Ambassador here, His Excellency, Jeffrey Laurence Bleich and followed it up with an email to the President of Pennsylvania State University, Dr. Graham B Spanier, protesting at the obvious attack on these gentlemen’s First Amendment Rights, especially by a public funded body.
Colin J Ely
Melbourne, Australia