Kent Hovind had my video pulled.

EGarrett

Illuminator
E
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
3,086
Yes, apparently Kent Hovind or someone associated with him had my YouTube vid pulled. I could've sworn Kent Hovind said repeatedly that his material was NOT copyrighted?

YouTube said:
YouTube | Broadcast Yourself™
Dear Member:
This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by Creation Science Evangelism claiming that this material is infringing:

Kent Hovind destroyed by Evolution Grad Student 2/3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnIoykCr-Rk

Please Note: Repeat incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account. In order to avoid future strikes against your account, please delete any videos to which you do not own the rights, and refrain from uploading additional videos that infringe on the copyrights of others. For more information about YouTube's copyright policy, please read the Copyright Tips guide.
Click to expand...
 
I believe Shanek was successful in getting a video put back up after an incident like this one. Maybe you should PM him...
 
Probably his son, trying to keep the family business alive.

That material is in the public domain, and Kent has no recourse to it being shown. ShaneK should be able to advise you on getting it back up. So might the JREF office, who had a similar encounter with Uri Geller.
 
Ian Osborne said:
I believe Shanek was successful in getting a video put back up after an incident like this one. Maybe you should PM him...
Click to expand...

Two of them, actually. Astrologer James Young and Bart Sibrel both had the respective episodes of Bogosity pulled. I got them reinstated without having to change one frame.

What you have to do is file a counter-notification with YouTube. The instructions are here:

http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=58127&topic=10553

I had mine reinstated by citing Title 17 Section 107 of the US Code (fair use). You might want to read that section before filing your counter-notification.

Here's the text of what I sent them:

[Name, address, and phone number]

[Links to the removed videos]

I, Shane Killian, under penalty of perjury, hereby state the following:

1. That the three-part video known as "Bogosity Episode 1: Astrology" was produced solely for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. That none of the video clips used from James Young constituted a reproduction in its entirety;
3. That the portion so used was less than 10% of the original material as legally required to be fair use for educational purposes or for commentary and criticism;
4. That the video is not a derivative work, being an educational piece intended as criticism;
5. That nowhere in the video is it stated or implied that Young provided this video data for criticism;
6. That Young's name and website as reference appears twice in the video, and no other claim of authorship for that video portion is given;
7. That the video is comprised solely of criticism and commentary of the video portions used; and
8. That no copyright infringement was intended and I still believe no such infringement has taken place, for the above-stated reasons.

I hereby consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the above address is located. I will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.

[Full name]
Click to expand...
(Note re: #3: The 10% requirement does not actually appear in the USC; it's just a guideline used by the courts.)

I also signed it with my PGP signature, although that technically isn't necessary, but it might be useful if the claim ever goes to court.

You can expect it to be reinstated in a couple of weeks. Don't let it get you down. If your use of the video is substantially the way I've used other videos in Bogosity, you should be fine.

By the way, the standard "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer applies. I'm just telling you what worked for me, not giving legal advice.
 
Zep said:
Probably his son, trying to keep the family business alive.

That material is in the public domain, and Kent has no recourse to it being shown. ShaneK should be able to advise you on getting it back up. So might the JREF office, who had a similar encounter with Uri Geller.
Click to expand...

If it is indeed in the public domain, then of course phrase your counter-notification on that basis.

Good luck.
 
Yes, cheers Shane - and good luck, EGarrett. Be sure to post a link when your vid goes back up!
 
Its Hovind's son, Eric. He removed a whole bunch of material including a song written by someone.

According to Hovind's blog posting ( www . cseblogs.com/?p=85 ) its their official account.

I think the BBC should go after Hovind for this: youtube . com/watch?v=WpYEr4qBxa4
 
Any developments, EGarrett? Do keep us in the loop on this one. I look forward to watching the vid when it goes back up.
 
If many of us were to repost the videos at once, Hovind's camp may spend all their credibility with youtube when there is a larger volume of complaints by Hovind's camp, and a larger number of responses that the material is in the Public Domain. Something to think about. Anyone have a central server we could all get the vids from, and then individually we could post them up?
 
Ian Osborne said:
Any developments, EGarrett? Do keep us in the loop on this one. I look forward to watching the vid when it goes back up.
Click to expand...
I just got in contact with Jason Herbert of Rational Response this morning. They're prepping some sort of legal action and I sent them my videos for that use.

We also traded some strategizing for how to attack Hovind. My video uses an mp3 from his radio show, whereas the others use video clips, but there appears to be a way to handle this regardless. I offer a suggestion of keeping not only the pulled videos, but the pro-Hovind videos that were kept, in order to show that they are selectively enforcing their copyright in order to try to suppress conflicting opinions...which to my knowledge will cut their case off at the knees. Herbert said that they'll probably now use that strategy also.

Copyright is only intended to be used to protect intellectual property, not as a club against freedom of speech...and that method seems a quite clear way to protect it.

Having gotten together and had these conversation, I must say that Eric Hovind has his hands full trying to mess with a group made-up of outspoken skeptics and critical thinkers who edit their own video presentations. It's not exactly a dumb or timid group.
 
CFLarsen said:
Let me know where to find them, and I'll put them up.
Click to expand...

Ducky said:
If many of us were to repost the videos at once, Hovind's camp may spend all their credibility with youtube when there is a larger volume of complaints by Hovind's camp, and a larger number of responses that the material is in the Public Domain. Something to think about. Anyone have a central server we could all get the vids from, and then individually we could post them up?
Click to expand...
If you guys give me your AIM names, either here or in Private Messages, I will contact you and I can send you the .zip file over AIM.
 
EGarrett said:
If you guys give me your AIM names, either here or in Private Messages, I will contact you and I can send you the .zip file over AIM.
Click to expand...

I don't use AIM. Skype, or simple email. Or, put them on a server somewhere and email me the URL.
 
Thanks EGarrett. I am downloading now.

I'll have it up as soon as I can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom