Loose Change - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wait! 9/11 was a NATURAL disaster? Why didn't We see that!

If I can't copyright what I shoot, why would I bother to shoot it?

Evan Fairbanks who shot the second plane hitting the WTC was using a camera, and tape, that did not belong to him. He was a freelancer working for Trinity Church that day, and grabbed the camera and went to film.

By rights, the tape should have belonged to Trinity - but Trinity's lawyers threw up their hands. Fairbanks made a bundle selling news footage for something he risked his life to get. I think he screwed his Trinity, but nobody asked me.

I love a world when everything is free, and public domain. The difference between priceless and worthless!
 
Mutton-Head said:
Well, I guess I have to admit, that no, I can't produce any demolition experts. So, my opinions on this matter are just “gut reactions.” Not really worth a whole lot.

I do feel that the government/NIST conclusions were the result of inadequate work, hasty conclusions, and too many assumptions, many of which I’ve brought up. But, it would be a mistake for me to like-wise make a case based upon assumptions.
Click to expand...

You're making progress ? Woah. Neat.
 
If I'm not mistaken, though, it looks like all the Naudet bros. want is to have their footage removed from Loose Change and the supporting materials (websites, etc.). It doesn't look (right now) like they're going after damages. If Dylan just yanks the Naudet imagery ... he can still keep distributing LC, correct?

This is satisfying but I think it's a short-lived thing. I suspect the Naudets are just appalled that they're associated with this crap and are trying to extricate their work from it. It doesn't appear from the letter that they have any agenda other than that. I'm sure the assets of LTW are not worth trying to go after.

I also think it's just the start of legal troubles for Dylan and possibly others in the "Truth" movement. It baffles me that some of the estates of some of the high-profile people implicated in that film haven't come forward and sued for libel.

ETA: Hmm... just thought about that. Can an estate of someone who's deceased sue for libel? Interesting legal question. I suppose you could say the libel reflects not only on the deceased but on the estate as well.

ETA2: Of course, this opens up the whole can of worms of rights for Dylan so it may be more complicated than that. He's probably got plenty of other timebombs ticking in there as well he'll need to resolve.
 
Last edited:
60hzxtl said:
Wait! 9/11 was a NATURAL disaster? Why didn't We see that!
Click to expand...
That must be why Mutton-Head posted those pictures of earthquake-damaged buildings. He knows that not only can the globalists control the weather, they've developed focused-earthquake technology!
 
dubfan said:
He's probably got plenty of other timebombs ticking in there as well he'll need to resolve.
Click to expand...

Which leads to the obvious conclusion that the whole "Loose Change" phenomenon will have been destroyed due to controlled demolition.
 
"Exactly...LC has captured the minds of the young which is far more dangerous than anything AJ or VK can do."(DemolitionCrew-LC Forum)


cap·ture (kăp'chər) pronunciation
tr.v., -tured, -tur·ing, -tures.

1. To take captive, as by force or craft; seize.
2. To gain possession or control of, as in a game or contest: capture the queen in chess; captured the liberal vote.
3. To attract and hold: tales of adventure that capture the imagination.
4. To succeed in preserving in lasting form: capture a likeness in a painting.

Yup.
 
Originally Posted by Landru :
Just as I thought.. they're going nuts over at the LC Forum about the legal action:

http://www.s15.invisionfree.com/Loos...showtopic=5091...



The great thing is that it confirms that they are even greater experts on law, public domain, fair usage, copyright, and PAYING FOR THE USE OF OTHERS WORK, greater experts at that than they are at science.

They're grammer ain's so hot either.
 
60hzxtl said:
Originally Posted by Landru :
Just as I thought.. they're going nuts over at the LC Forum about the legal action:

http://www.s15.invisionfree.com/Loos...showtopic=5091...



The great thing is that it confirms that they are even greater experts on law, public domain, fair usage, copyright, and PAYING FOR THE USE OF OTHERS WORK, greater experts at that than they are at science.

They're grammer ain's so hot either.
Click to expand...
I have to partially disagree with you there. While some seem to grasp the difference between public domain and copyrighted material, others are grasping at straws that lead to a larger cover-up. Although, there seems to be a number of posts from stalwarts who admit that the producers acted unwisely in charging for the DVD and admitance to viewing.

It does beg the question: if someone did use material and interviews from LC as the basis for a counter doc. Would the LC producers try to prevent it using the same tactics?
 
Last edited:
Landru said:
First time posting, gang, so forgive me if I missed this posted somewhere else:

Check out loosechange911.com.

As of May 26, it looks like the Naudet brothers lawyered up and have forced Dylan et al to take down the content on that lamentable site. Click on the text to read a most excellent legal bitch-slap.

All the tweeners could say is "Happy Memorial Day from the Naudet Brothers."
Click to expand...


OUCH!. :eye-poppi:D
And the independent film/documentary people I've worked for as an editor/postproduction producer wondered why the first thing I told them were to make sure they had cleared the copyright of music and pictures they hadn't done themselves AND had the paper to prove it!:D
 
CptColumbo said:
It does beg the question: if someone did use material and interviews from LC as the basis for a counter doc. Would the LC producers try to prevent it using the same tactics?
Click to expand...


If this wasn't rhetorical, I'd have to say YES. They would refer to it as a victory for "truth", like taking down movie website forums with spam.
 
The_Fire said:
OUCH!. :eye-poppi:D
And the independent film/documentary people I've worked for as an editor/postproduction producer wondered why the first thing I told them were to make sure they had cleared the copyright of music and pictures they hadn't done themselves AND had the paper to prove it!:D
Click to expand...
I remember my days as a TV news cameraman with the person with a clipboard behind me, ready to get people to sign agreements to use their likeness.
 
I do have some experience with this. The basic copyright law is "You shoot it, you own it", with some exceptions. In the example from 60hzxtl, the footage belongs to othe individual probably because he was as you said "freelance". If I hire someone to shoot pictures of a Volcano for me, and while they are there they catch a helicopter crash, I don't own that footage. But if say, CNN sends one of thier cameramen on the assignment instead, then CNN would own that footage I believe.

These public domain arguements are very weak, and even if they declared this footage public domain now (which they won't) it still wasn't when they made and sold their film. They are hosed here, big no-no to sell something that has copyrighted material on in that doesn't belong to you!
 
CptColumbo said:
I remember my days as a TV news cameraman with the person with a clipboard behind me, ready to get people to sign agreements to use their likeness.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, that cute little slip of paper called a "release form". I remember them rather vividly from an informecial I did for Århus County. It involved a litter of mini-humans (the socalled "kids") in one of those parkingspaces the adults put them in (a socalled "kindergarten") and having to clear every one of the little buggers with their parents.
 
60hzxtl said:
Wait! 9/11 was a NATURAL disaster? Why didn't We see that!

If I can't copyright what I shoot, why would I bother to shoot it?

Evan Fairbanks who shot the second plane hitting the WTC was using a camera, and tape, that did not belong to him. He was a freelancer working for Trinity Church that day, and grabbed the camera and went to film.

By rights, the tape should have belonged to Trinity - but Trinity's lawyers threw up their hands. Fairbanks made a bundle selling news footage for something he risked his life to get. I think he screwed his Trinity, but nobody asked me.

I love a world when everything is free, and public domain. The difference between priceless and worthless!
Click to expand...


I swear, I could KISS you right now! So pucker up!:kiss1:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom