Saturday, November 9, 2013
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Saturday, August 10, 2013
Bigfoot Lawsuit, sad state of affairs : Hovey V Poling
So I have been away from the blog for quite some time, I was burned out on all the drama that goes on both behind the scenes and in public. The latest drama just couldn't escape my attention and I felt it is necessary to put the whole thing in perspective from a legal stand point. No, I am not a lawyer nor do I have any legal background but even a layman such as my self can clearly see what the law says.
First a little background. Melissa Hovey released the alleged Bigfoot photo way back in February of 2012. She clearly stated that she did not own the photo and issued an ultimatum to the real owner to come forward, the real owner did not and expressed clearly to Hovey that he/she wished to remain anonymous. Melissa clearly stated both in blog posts and on podcasts that the photo was not hers and she only claimed copyright to "protect" the author of said photo.
Shortly after the release of the photo Phil Poling, on his old SuperSoylent youtube channel, posted a video that removed Hovey's copyright and replaced it with his own, it was clearly a parody and Mr. Poling was trying to point out that Melissa could not own copyright to that photo since she openly admitted that it did not belong to her.
Fast forward to the lawsuit, I wont go into details about the suit as others have done a great job in that area already, Matt Knapp in particular and you should check out his blog for all those details. Suffice it to say Hovey was wrong, it can be spun however she likes it but she is wrong. She can not claim copyright on this photo, never could. Whether or not the photo belongs to Karl Kozak or not, the fact remains that Hovey NEVER had ownership of the photo.
What the copyright law says is important, here is a snipet of the law straight from copyright.gov. It speaks to ownership and who can be considered an owner of a copyright:
(2) For the purposes of this section, the terms audiovisual work , compilation , copy , derivative work , device , fixation , literary work , motion picture , phonorecord , pictorial, graphic and sculptural works , process , sound recording , and their variant forms, have the meanings set forth in section 101 of title 17. The term author includes an employer or other person for whom a work is “made for hire” under section 101 of title 17.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a copyright claimant is either:
(i) The author of a work;
(ii) A person or organization that has obtained ownership of all rights under the copyright initially belonging to the author. 1
So, we see here that Ms. Hovey CAN NOT claim copyright because, by her own admission, she is not the author of the work nor have ANY ownership rights been transferred to her. An open and shut case in my book and aparently in the courts eyes too.
So what does this all boil down to? Melissa Hovey, either out of spite, or out of a severe faulty understanding of the law took an innocent man to court over something she did not own and he had every right to use under the fair use law. Mr. Poling, I assume, is out a boat load of cash defending himself against a lawsuit that never should have been. I don't care what you think about Melissa Hovey, she was wrong and even a cursory examination of the law would have made that apparent. I don't know who her Attorney was but they seemingly had no clue what copyright law is or they would have advised her to never file the suit. I don't care what you think about Phil Poling, he was right, he was right from the beginning and he was right in the end, maybe some of his statements were not appropriate, and I believe that's what really what enraged Melissa, but he was spot on about copyright law from the very start.
It's no secret that Melissa is a friend of mine, it is also no secret that Phil is too. I assume after this article goes public, one of those friends may no longer wish to remain that way. My intentions are not to bash anyone but to point out FACTS. Melissa always told me she wanted the truth out there and the truth is that the photo never was hers to claim and she took an innocent man to court over a grudge. That is a sad state of affairs.
Christopher York said it best in the Facebook group The Squatchers Lounge:
yes everyone lets just let this be and continue to be lemmings. We should never ever look at how messed up our legal system is. We should allow [Hovey] to claim copyright on whatever they want, and never question anything after the fact. Because we never ever go back through history to look at court decisions, right? Yes the court did rule and that ruling should be looked at because of what it says about the state of affairs in this community. Self righteous egos are what this community is full of. People who believe because they have been on TV or a documentary that they are justified in whatever they say or do. Now lets look at what Hovey is saying, you know besides the fact that she acts like this is a big surprise to her.... Oh yeah she just wanted the truth about the picture... BS! She wanted someone to pay for her feelings getting hurt. PERIOD! And the sad part is she wasted your taxes and tied up the courts with this ignorant waste of time lawsuit that did nothing more than force someone else to have to defend himself for something he never should have had to defend. So yeah lets just move on and be complacent and leave the community as it is. BLIND!
First a little background. Melissa Hovey released the alleged Bigfoot photo way back in February of 2012. She clearly stated that she did not own the photo and issued an ultimatum to the real owner to come forward, the real owner did not and expressed clearly to Hovey that he/she wished to remain anonymous. Melissa clearly stated both in blog posts and on podcasts that the photo was not hers and she only claimed copyright to "protect" the author of said photo.
Shortly after the release of the photo Phil Poling, on his old SuperSoylent youtube channel, posted a video that removed Hovey's copyright and replaced it with his own, it was clearly a parody and Mr. Poling was trying to point out that Melissa could not own copyright to that photo since she openly admitted that it did not belong to her.
Fast forward to the lawsuit, I wont go into details about the suit as others have done a great job in that area already, Matt Knapp in particular and you should check out his blog for all those details. Suffice it to say Hovey was wrong, it can be spun however she likes it but she is wrong. She can not claim copyright on this photo, never could. Whether or not the photo belongs to Karl Kozak or not, the fact remains that Hovey NEVER had ownership of the photo.
§ 202.3 Registration of copyright.
(a) General. (1) This section prescribes conditions for the registration of copyright, and the application to be made for registration under sections 408 and 409 of title 17 of the United States Code, as amended by Pub. L. 94-553.(2) For the purposes of this section, the terms audiovisual work , compilation , copy , derivative work , device , fixation , literary work , motion picture , phonorecord , pictorial, graphic and sculptural works , process , sound recording , and their variant forms, have the meanings set forth in section 101 of title 17. The term author includes an employer or other person for whom a work is “made for hire” under section 101 of title 17.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a copyright claimant is either:
(i) The author of a work;
(ii) A person or organization that has obtained ownership of all rights under the copyright initially belonging to the author. 1
1
This category includes a person or organization that has obtained,
from the author or from an entity that has obtained ownership of all
rights under the copyright initially belonging to the author, the
contractual right to claim legal title to the copyright in an
application for copyright registration.
So, we see here that Ms. Hovey CAN NOT claim copyright because, by her own admission, she is not the author of the work nor have ANY ownership rights been transferred to her. An open and shut case in my book and aparently in the courts eyes too.
So what does this all boil down to? Melissa Hovey, either out of spite, or out of a severe faulty understanding of the law took an innocent man to court over something she did not own and he had every right to use under the fair use law. Mr. Poling, I assume, is out a boat load of cash defending himself against a lawsuit that never should have been. I don't care what you think about Melissa Hovey, she was wrong and even a cursory examination of the law would have made that apparent. I don't know who her Attorney was but they seemingly had no clue what copyright law is or they would have advised her to never file the suit. I don't care what you think about Phil Poling, he was right, he was right from the beginning and he was right in the end, maybe some of his statements were not appropriate, and I believe that's what really what enraged Melissa, but he was spot on about copyright law from the very start.
It's no secret that Melissa is a friend of mine, it is also no secret that Phil is too. I assume after this article goes public, one of those friends may no longer wish to remain that way. My intentions are not to bash anyone but to point out FACTS. Melissa always told me she wanted the truth out there and the truth is that the photo never was hers to claim and she took an innocent man to court over a grudge. That is a sad state of affairs.
Christopher York said it best in the Facebook group The Squatchers Lounge:
yes everyone lets just let this be and continue to be lemmings. We should never ever look at how messed up our legal system is. We should allow [Hovey] to claim copyright on whatever they want, and never question anything after the fact. Because we never ever go back through history to look at court decisions, right? Yes the court did rule and that ruling should be looked at because of what it says about the state of affairs in this community. Self righteous egos are what this community is full of. People who believe because they have been on TV or a documentary that they are justified in whatever they say or do. Now lets look at what Hovey is saying, you know besides the fact that she acts like this is a big surprise to her.... Oh yeah she just wanted the truth about the picture... BS! She wanted someone to pay for her feelings getting hurt. PERIOD! And the sad part is she wasted your taxes and tied up the courts with this ignorant waste of time lawsuit that did nothing more than force someone else to have to defend himself for something he never should have had to defend. So yeah lets just move on and be complacent and leave the community as it is. BLIND!
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Cryptid of the week
I am starting a new series called Cryptid of the week. Here is episode #1. Enjoy!
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Can't see the "Forest" for the trees
Can't see the "Forest" for the trees
To discern an overall pattern from a mass of detail; to see the big picture or the broader, more general situation.(from Wictionary)
Folks, there is more to the Rick Dyer dead Bigfoot claim than meets the eye. There is a bigger picture that many are missing.
First let me start by saying that Minnow Films likely has little to do with the bigger picture. Minnow is just a means to an end. We tend to be focused on the Shooting Bigfoot film and all the claims around it. Shooting Bigfoot will most likely show a Sasquatch, real or fake, eating ribs from a tree. It may show the "persuit" of said sasquatch. I would almost be willing to bet that the film will end with a gunshot and a black screen. The footage shown will almost certainly be left up to individual interpretation, just like the tent video. If you listen closely enough you will hear how Rick really plans on cashing in on this story and it isn't from Minnow.
Rick has stated that the film Shooting Bigfoot is step one. Well what's step two? The same thing that step two would have been in 2008 if the hoax hadn't been revealed prematurely. Step two is a Bigfoot autopsy movie, Rick has mentioned such a movie on several occasions. If you remember back to the hoax of '08, the speculation was that Biscardi and Dyer were planning such a movie. They failed to do it then but Rick may not have failed this time.
So how would a Bigfoot autopsy movie make any money? While it's not guarenteed to make anything if you remember back to the Alien Autopsy hoax film it made boatloads of cash. If Rick, or whomever Rick sold his film company to, shopped this around and found a buyer, it has the potential to do the same.
Speaking of Rick selling his film company, there has been some debate as to whether or not he really did. I believe he did, or at least sold the rights to the autopsy footage and whatever was left of the tent video that has not been released. I have put a lot of thought as to exactly who he has sold it to. The facts add up to two individuals who live near St. Paul Minnesota. Rick visited St. Paul the 21st of February. Coincidently (or perhaps not) Musky Allen visited the St.Paul area on the 14th of the same month. It is my belief that Rick has sold his film company to Jim and Jon, better known as Jack Barnes and Jeff Andersen. If you look at some simple facts you too may come to the same conclusion.
#1 The original black and white version tent video was uploaded under a fake name to youtube, it was later discovered that it was in fact Rick Dyer that uploaded it. To date this is the only time Rick has uploaded the tent footage on his own.
#2 Every subsequent uploading of the tent video was done by Jim and Jon. Rick may have used their uploads but they were the original uploaders. First was their analysis of the B&W clip, then their analysis of the color clip minus the sound. Most recently it was their upload of the color version with sound.
#3 The color version with sound came AFTER Rick's trip to Minnesota.
#4. FB/FB awarded Rick the 2012 Bigfoot Researcher of the Year award, a thank you perhaps?
#5 Rick's film company, Big Lion Films, allegedly had a film in production titled Year Of Bigfoot "2013", Facebook Find Bigfoot has used the same phrase and even gotten some press by declaring 2013 The Year Of Bigfoot.
#5 And this is what leads me to believe that it was in fact Jim and Jon who bought Rick's Film company, Rick said he was in Minnesota to "sign papers" related to the alleged bigfoot.
Why would the Facebook Find Bigfoot guys want to buy this footage and how does this relate to their promise to shut down their site if this is found to be a hoax?
I believe the answer is simple. They have bigger fish to fry, they are interested in the general public and not the Bigfoot community. If their page closes down, so what. The autopsy film, if successful, will bring in more money than a simple Facebook page ever could. Jim is a marketing guy, he knows this. Rick Dyer knows this, Musky Allen knows this.
Rick mentioned something on his podcast that also struck me, he said when this is all said and done he will disappear for a while. Musky has been known to make the same claim. FB/FB shutting down would also make them disappear. Convenient? Maybe.
Take this information for what it's worth, it is just speculation on my part. Look into the story on your own and form your own conclusions.
To discern an overall pattern from a mass of detail; to see the big picture or the broader, more general situation.(from Wictionary)
Folks, there is more to the Rick Dyer dead Bigfoot claim than meets the eye. There is a bigger picture that many are missing.
First let me start by saying that Minnow Films likely has little to do with the bigger picture. Minnow is just a means to an end. We tend to be focused on the Shooting Bigfoot film and all the claims around it. Shooting Bigfoot will most likely show a Sasquatch, real or fake, eating ribs from a tree. It may show the "persuit" of said sasquatch. I would almost be willing to bet that the film will end with a gunshot and a black screen. The footage shown will almost certainly be left up to individual interpretation, just like the tent video. If you listen closely enough you will hear how Rick really plans on cashing in on this story and it isn't from Minnow.
Rick has stated that the film Shooting Bigfoot is step one. Well what's step two? The same thing that step two would have been in 2008 if the hoax hadn't been revealed prematurely. Step two is a Bigfoot autopsy movie, Rick has mentioned such a movie on several occasions. If you remember back to the hoax of '08, the speculation was that Biscardi and Dyer were planning such a movie. They failed to do it then but Rick may not have failed this time.
So how would a Bigfoot autopsy movie make any money? While it's not guarenteed to make anything if you remember back to the Alien Autopsy hoax film it made boatloads of cash. If Rick, or whomever Rick sold his film company to, shopped this around and found a buyer, it has the potential to do the same.
Speaking of Rick selling his film company, there has been some debate as to whether or not he really did. I believe he did, or at least sold the rights to the autopsy footage and whatever was left of the tent video that has not been released. I have put a lot of thought as to exactly who he has sold it to. The facts add up to two individuals who live near St. Paul Minnesota. Rick visited St. Paul the 21st of February. Coincidently (or perhaps not) Musky Allen visited the St.Paul area on the 14th of the same month. It is my belief that Rick has sold his film company to Jim and Jon, better known as Jack Barnes and Jeff Andersen. If you look at some simple facts you too may come to the same conclusion.
#1 The original black and white version tent video was uploaded under a fake name to youtube, it was later discovered that it was in fact Rick Dyer that uploaded it. To date this is the only time Rick has uploaded the tent footage on his own.
#2 Every subsequent uploading of the tent video was done by Jim and Jon. Rick may have used their uploads but they were the original uploaders. First was their analysis of the B&W clip, then their analysis of the color clip minus the sound. Most recently it was their upload of the color version with sound.
#3 The color version with sound came AFTER Rick's trip to Minnesota.
#4. FB/FB awarded Rick the 2012 Bigfoot Researcher of the Year award, a thank you perhaps?
#5 Rick's film company, Big Lion Films, allegedly had a film in production titled Year Of Bigfoot "2013", Facebook Find Bigfoot has used the same phrase and even gotten some press by declaring 2013 The Year Of Bigfoot.
#5 And this is what leads me to believe that it was in fact Jim and Jon who bought Rick's Film company, Rick said he was in Minnesota to "sign papers" related to the alleged bigfoot.
Why would the Facebook Find Bigfoot guys want to buy this footage and how does this relate to their promise to shut down their site if this is found to be a hoax?
I believe the answer is simple. They have bigger fish to fry, they are interested in the general public and not the Bigfoot community. If their page closes down, so what. The autopsy film, if successful, will bring in more money than a simple Facebook page ever could. Jim is a marketing guy, he knows this. Rick Dyer knows this, Musky Allen knows this.
Rick mentioned something on his podcast that also struck me, he said when this is all said and done he will disappear for a while. Musky has been known to make the same claim. FB/FB shutting down would also make them disappear. Convenient? Maybe.
Take this information for what it's worth, it is just speculation on my part. Look into the story on your own and form your own conclusions.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
The Bigfoot Hoaxers Credo (humor)
If there was such a thing as a credo for Bigfoot hoaxers, this would be it. Keep in mind, this is not directed at any single hoaxer but at all hoaxers in general.
The Bigfoot Hoaxers Credo
1. We believe that Bigfoot does not exist and anyone who believes in the existence of such a creature are just plain stupid.
2. We Believe we are better than everyone else because we say we are.
3. We believe that we should never be questioned and everything we say must be taken as fact no matter how ridiculous it is.
4. We believe that we must never provide any solid evidence to back up our claims.
5. We believe that those who do not blindly follow us must be labeled "haters".
6. We Believe that our personal information, such as our real names,arrest records, and previous hoaxes must NEVER be made public (even when such information is already public).
7. We believe that our "haters" personal information, such as real addresses and phone numbers MUST be made public (even when said information is not already public).
8. We believe that when our hoax is finally revealed we must claim that it is our "haters" fault and we were just teaching them a lesson.
9. We believe that we can do no wrong, are always blameless, and beyond persecution.
10. We believe that if and when we are exposed as hoaxers it won't matter because we can hoax again, and again, and again, and.....................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)