reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Dec 5, 2007 7:42:47 GMT -4
Please let me know if this has already been thoroughly discussed. I searched for a relevant thread but couldn't find one.
Jarrah White posted a video on Youtube making various claims about copyright infringement involving Spacecraft films, svector, Mark Gray (I hope I spelled it right) and Jay. In the video, he basically claimed:
-He had made some videos using source footage from spacecraft films
-He made some claims that spacecraft films is edited and not complete
-Mark Gray commented that some source footage had just degraded too much to use
-Mark Gray filed for copyright infringement
-Jarrah's videos were taken down and his account suspended
-svector made some videos using source footage from spacecraft films
-Jarrah complained to Mark Gray about svector, and Gray said he would look into it
-nothing happened to svector
He then goes on to attack jay, claiming that Jay made contradictory statements regarding spacecraft film's apollo videos as being "complete unedited footage" and shows some examples.
I don't particularly like Jarrah White or agree with his methods or opinions, but he brings up a question that I think warrants discussion (assuming he's telling the truth). Why did Gray not file for copyright infringement against svector if he and Jarrah were both using the footage?
Now, I know Jarrah has a pretty skewed view of reality, so I am eager to hear a different side of this story. But for now it seems that Gray may be doing nothing more than playing favorites when deciding what infringes on his products. Again, I eagerly await more information on the matter to get it all cleared up.
As for the edits themselves, I find them unremarkable and unsuspicious. And for the most part it appears that he was taking Jay out of context when he quoted him as saying "spacecraft films presents complete and unedited footage" (most notably I believe Jay is referring to the entire "smoking gun" footage when quoted). Nontheles, Jay, would you consider reconciling this?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Dec 5, 2007 8:28:41 GMT -4
This has been discussed, although it's a couple of pages back now. The relevant post would seem to be this one which indicates to me at least that the answer may be as simple as Svector asked permission to use the footage, but Jarrah didn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Dec 5, 2007 8:32:08 GMT -4
Mark mentions Jarrah and Svector in this post, No. 88 in "Jarrah White attacks SC Films, praises Dave Greer". He posted again in No. 95. Mark Gray from No. 88: I don't mind at all stating that I can and will selectively protect the copyrights. The evidence is overwhelming that the landings happened, and feel it is my duty to favor intelligent thinking rather than the kind of drivel put out by these folks who wouldn't know proof if it hit them in the head. Funny how they have no issue using technology developed by intelligent, scientific humans to spread their ridiculous ideas.
I suppose every village has to have its idiots, and with 6 billion people we have no shortage. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 5, 2007 9:49:53 GMT -4
Now, I know Jarrah has a pretty skewed view of reality, so I am eager to hear a different side of this story. But for now it seems that Gray may be doing nothing more than playing favorites when deciding what infringes on his products. As is his right. And considering one of them uses the footage specifically to make wild accusations that Gray is in cahoots with NASA and is not to be trusted, while the other simply uses the footage from Gray's films because it happens to be the best and most readily available source of that footage, I can quite see his point of view. Copyright, like patents and many other legal restrctions, means nothing unless it is defended or challenged. The decision to defend rests solely with the person or organisation in whom the copyright is vested, so if Mark Gray wants to be selective he can. In addition, copyright simply prevents the use of material without permission. If you get permission you can use it. Somehow I can't imagine Jarrah asked for permission to use the footage to attack Gray. |
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Dec 5, 2007 10:33:10 GMT -4
I was online as the whole the blew up. What basically happened is that Mark, who is not accustomed to the onslaught of HBs in the You Tube manner (name calling, unrealistic demands, acusations, and downright rudeness) and didn't realise that svector had obtained permission from him in the heat of the moment. Obviously svector is not his real name. In the kafuffle, Mark said he would look into it, at which time (and if svector is reading please correct me if necessary) svector reminded mark that he had indeed secured permission. (as a note, I had a few videos on YT and also obtained permission, but would bet my bottom dollar in a JW scenario Mark would not keep track of who he had and hadn't given permission to.
Furthermore Jarrah's video was directly ripped from SCF DVDs using the company logo and addressing SCF by name. He also used DVD case photos (IIRC). An example, greenmagoos uses Mark's material, but did not have his account suspended. Whether or not you agree with magoos, he at least uses the NASA material only and doesn't (to my knowledge) attack Mark in them, but rather defends his point of view. (although on the fateful Mark vs HB night, magoos did openly admit to using SCF DVDs, so there is a fine line being trodden). Jarrah used unauthorised material to attack the creator of that material. It is the right of Mark to decide who can use it and who can't. I doubt even Jarrah would allow use of a video he made in such a manner.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 5, 2007 13:22:16 GMT -4
First of all, I don't pay any attention at all to Jarrah White. He demonstrated from Day One that his goal is not to discuss the issues but rather to discredit me personally regardless of what lies he has to tell in the process. He does not appreciate the damage I do to the reputations of his heroes. So to me he's just noise.
My statement regarding SCF material being "complete and unedited" was made in the context of certain clips that Sibrel had edited for A Funny Thing and omitted from Apollo Monkey Business. It was not meant to apply in all piddly contexts that someone like Jarrah White might create. Jarrah is changing horses.
As a matter of record I have discussed with Gray for years the criteria he uses to select and present the various forms. In some cases, for example, secondary material is in better archival shape than primary material because it was better suited to archive. Mark must then make a decision whether to use degraded primary material or pristine secondary material. He thus switches between them. What Mark does is not injurious to the integrity of the source material for purposes of determining authenticity because it does not omit pertinent material or create material that was not there. But it does qualify as an "edit" for copyright purposes. Jarrah cannot substantiate that any of Gray's edits differ materially in content (as opposed to quality) from any of the primary sources. He's just handwaving.
Second, Svector got permission. If you get permission there's no copyright violation. That's how licensing works. If Svector got permission from the copyright holder to present SCF material on YouTube, and Jarrah did not, then Jarrah is in violation of copyright law and Svector is not.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Dec 5, 2007 13:48:31 GMT -4
The trouble with the HB mindset is that it discards a perfectly legitimate mistake as another rabbit-hole in the grand conspiracy scheme. It is impossible,in their eyes, for someone like Mark to mistakingly forget he gave svector permission one year before (for example) to use his material. Curiously the HB camp quietly ignores greenmagoos use of copyright material being allowed to still be hosted, despite lack of clearance.
Indeed, I got wind a few months prior to Jarrah's faux-pas of Mark's intended course of action and actually enlightened a few YT HBs to the specifics of the use of SCF material. These same people pleaded being unaware of said laws when Mark's axe fell. I still have the emails I sent them lest they cry foul. Curiously I had obtained permission from Mark for certain material, and when I heard he was upset about his material proliferating on YT, I opted to remove it out of good faith. I figured Mark, when he struck, wouldn't have the time to determine whether I was someone he allowed or not.
Interestingly, a direct rip from his Apollo 1 set, put up by a pro-Apollo YTer was also taken down. It was the entire audio track of the accident with SCF graphics. When it comes to protecting his business from copyright abuse, Mark doesn't particularly choose sides. Of course someone who is using SCFs material to call him a fraud is hardly going to get a pat on the back for their creativity.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 5, 2007 14:29:52 GMT -4
That's good policy. When one realizes one is arrears on necessary permissions, one should cease the unlicensed activity and go about obtaining the proper license, even if one is absolutely sure it will be granted. Everyone wins.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Dec 5, 2007 21:32:16 GMT -4
[quote[This has been discussed, although it's a couple of pages back now.
The relevant post would seem to be this one which indicates to me at least that the answer may be as simple as Svector asked permission to use the footage, but Jarrah didn't.[/quote]
Rats, I knew it probably had already been discussed.
That's exactly what I assumed happened. In the video, Jarrah basically flies through his screenshots so fast you can't actually read anything he is highlighting, but I was still able to catch a bit of your paragraph and I knew you were talking about the smoking gun footage in specific.
Thanks guys for clearing that all up for me. I knew Jarrah's version of the events were skewed to make him out to be an unfair victim, but it's nice to know exactly what happened on both sides of the coin. Jarrah of course fails to mention in his video that svector had obtained prior permission whereas he had not. And it's also nice to know that selective enforcement of copyright is normal practice, not an isolated attack as Jarrah insists. Thanks again everybody.
One more thing: what happened to episode 4 of svector's video series?
|
|
|
|
Post by svector on Dec 8, 2007 4:54:25 GMT -4
Why did Gray not file for copyright infringement against svector if he and Jarrah were both using the footage? Because I contacted Mark before I started my project and discussed using his footage. As far as I know, Jarrah did not. Jarrah also made potentially libelous accusations against Mark Gray and Spacecraft Films which he could not substantiate. I do find it a little curious that you felt it necessary to start an entire thread to ask this question. A simple PM never crossed your mind?  |
|
|
|
Post by svector on Dec 8, 2007 5:08:57 GMT -4
One more thing: what happened to episode 4 of svector's video series? It's the flipside of the coin. I used 10 or 15 seconds of footage from David Percy's documentary -- primarily images of him sitting at his desk, so viewers would know who I was talking about -- without his permission. In what I assume was more or less a retaliatory move based on the whole Jarrah/SCF affair, he petitioned YT to remove it and was successful. I plan on re-cutting and resubmitting it; I've just been busy with other projects lately, including a potential video interview with Bob Heironimus. ( If anyone knows who he is and what he's known for, you get 5 brownie points. ) |
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Dec 8, 2007 6:59:33 GMT -4
I think he's just some guy with a big foot, or at least _he_ is pretty sure about his big foot.
|
|
|
|
Post by svector on Dec 8, 2007 7:04:05 GMT -4
I think he's just some guy with a big foot, or at least _he_ is pretty sure about his big foot. +5 |
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Dec 8, 2007 7:07:57 GMT -4
Of course I knew that because, apart from being a paid NASA shill, I also freelance as an upaid sasquatch/bigfoot disinformation agent/shill. Purely voluntary that one though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Dec 8, 2007 7:34:20 GMT -4
Of course I knew that because, apart from being a paid NASA shill, I also freelance as an upaid sasquatch/bigfoot disinformation agent/shill. Purely voluntary that one though. Government contracts do pay better, don't they? Cz |
|
