|
|
Post by Count Zero on May 11, 2007 15:45:37 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on May 11, 2007 22:27:18 GMT -4
That's weird, I have it in my YouTube favourites but it's listed as unavailable. I wonder if Bart Sibrel complained about that one (the thumbnail for that particular video is a picture of Sibrel)?
|
|
|
|
Post by svector on May 20, 2007 2:11:55 GMT -4
Bartie Boy had it removed for "copyright infringement", along with another video. I'll have it back up soon, but for now it's viewable on Google video: video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5996460376061890432and LiveVideo: www.livevideo.com/video/9A0933D7844947AEB370BFBA56B9737A/lunar-legacy-episode-1-part-3-did-we-land-on-the-moon-.aspx?m_tkc=1342004(sorry for long url - may need to be joined & copied) The DVD is also ready. If anyone is interested, contact me here, or: moonmovie@yahoo.com. I'm really excited about how it came out. For the main menu, picture a DSKY in which the display morphs into: Play Scene Bonus I'm kinda proud of that one. :-) I have another one in the hopper that I think you'll enjoy. I won't give away the plot, but let me just say that it would appear Mr. Sibrel may have taken a little extra "artistic license" with one of his productions, and in doing so, may in fact have crossed a line heretofore uncrossed. Stay tuned. :-) |
|
|
|
Post by svector on May 20, 2007 2:26:28 GMT -4
That's weird, I have it in my YouTube favourites but it's listed as unavailable. I wonder if Bart Sibrel complained about that one (the thumbnail for that particular video is a picture of Sibrel)? I doubt that's it, but if it is, I have no control over the thumbnail used, at least as far as I know. YT selects it automatically when a new video is uploaded. He's more likely complaining about some segments I borrowed from his DVD. As I used them for demonstration/educational purposes, it should have been covered under the Fair Use statutes in Title 17 §107, but YT tends to act first and ask questions later when they get a pull request from a publisher. No biggie, I'll just recut it like I did with the other video he had nuked. |
|
|
|
Post by dwight on May 20, 2007 5:31:16 GMT -4
Svector, of course that means censorship and information supression no matter how much copyright there may be?  |
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on May 20, 2007 6:41:13 GMT -4
This is where TinyURL.com comes into its own, it turns that monster URL into: tinyurl.com/2jpqnt which is much nicer |
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on May 20, 2007 10:48:19 GMT -4
No biggie, I'll just recut it like I did with the other video he had nuked. Don't let BS bully you, file a DMCA Counter-notification with YouTube to get the video re-instated. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 20, 2007 16:50:42 GMT -4
Derived use of original published material in the context of commentary and review is allowed under Fair Use. It is especially defensible where the review would make little sense without it. It is, however, limited to a small percentage of the total original material: generally ten percent or less.
Since Sibrel seeks public attention, he has little expectation of privacy and limited control over how his published likenesses may be used.
And since Sibrel has specifically published his video as a provocative expose', there is every expectation that it will generate considerable commentary and review. He has very limited say in how the debate may be framed which he has elected to start.
|
|
|
|
Post by svector on May 20, 2007 20:22:01 GMT -4
This is where TinyURL.com comes into its own, it turns that monster URL into: tinyurl.com/2jpqnt which is much nicer LOL, you're right. After I posted that, I thought to myself, "someone's gonna scold me and suggest tinyurl". ;D Next time. |
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on May 20, 2007 20:36:48 GMT -4
He's more likely complaining about some segments I borrowed from his DVD. As I used them for demonstration/educational purposes, it should have been covered under the Fair Use statutes in Title 17 §107, but YT tends to act first and ask questions later when they get a pull request from a publisher. Did you put in a written label on the footage identifying what it's from? This, I think, would protect you. Thanks for the link(s). |
|
|
|
Post by svector on May 20, 2007 20:38:59 GMT -4
Derived use of original published material in the context of commentary and review is allowed under Fair Use. It is especially defensible where the review would make little sense without it. It is, however, limited to a small percentage of the total original material: generally ten percent or less. Since Sibrel seeks public attention, he has little expectation of privacy and limited control over how his published likenesses may be used. And since Sibrel has specifically published his video as a provocative expose', there is every expectation that it will generate considerable commentary and review. He has very limited say in how the debate may be framed which he has elected to start. That was my understanding also Jay, though I confess I don't have any experience in 1st-amendment law. Since it was released, I've acquired some new material that I was planning on making a new video with, but now I think I may just update episode 3 with it instead, and re-submit it. I also have a new series coming out soon, called "Exposed". Mr. Sibrel is the featured subject in episode 1. Be sure to tune in. :-) |
|
|
|
Post by svector on May 20, 2007 20:42:57 GMT -4
He's more likely complaining about some segments I borrowed from his DVD. As I used them for demonstration/educational purposes, it should have been covered under the Fair Use statutes in Title 17 §107, but YT tends to act first and ask questions later when they get a pull request from a publisher. Did you put in a written label on the footage identifying what it's from? This, I think, would protect you. Thanks for the link(s). Yes I did, both in Episode 3 and the end credits in Episode 5. I am in the process of disputing the removal with YT, but I'm not exactly losing sleep over it. I've heard they generally don't pay much attention to appeals anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on May 26, 2007 10:40:00 GMT -4
I downloaded the segments from a net cafe to save bandwidth (I only have dial up) and I've just finished watching them, good stuff, even if I think the 'boppy music' technique is so 'Loose Change'  Though I will admit liking the music used in the 'missing tv transmission' segment... I'm going to make a VCD and present it to one of my workmates who peddles all sorts of conspiracy theories, it'll be interesting to see his reaction... Later: Turns out the compression makes the soundtrack too heavily distorted to listen to, so I'll have to write off a CD to the experience. |
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on May 26, 2007 14:49:17 GMT -4
I think it's ironic that Sibrel would complain about you taking footage from one of his videos seeing as how we (we as in you guys) found he had stolen his footage from that documentary and didn't cite it as a source.
|
|
|
|
Post by svector on May 26, 2007 18:12:04 GMT -4
I downloaded the segments from a net cafe to save bandwidth (I only have dial up) and I've just finished watching them, good stuff, even if I think the 'boppy music' technique is so 'Loose Change' Though I will admit liking the music used in the 'missing tv transmission' segment... I'm going to make a VCD and present it to one of my workmates who peddles all sorts of conspiracy theories, it'll be interesting to see his reaction... Later: Turns out the compression makes the soundtrack to heavily distorted to listen to, so I'll have to write off a CD to the experience. Graham - glad you liked it. PM me and I'll send you the DVD. Then you won't have to worry about the YT compression. It's amazing how much you can see in full-rez, that you can't see in the YT version! |
|
