Uri Geller making Youtube pull down James Randi's criticism?

Mercutio said:
How do you know?

Conjunction is not enough! I need evidence! There must me thousands of Shimshon Shtrangs--why, it's practically "John Smith"!


(sorry, I had to...:D...)
Click to expand...

Bitch! :p



(Look up Shimshon Shtrang, if you want evidence)
 
Kilgore Trout said:
This may or may not have any bearing on the situation (I can quickly get over my head with legal discussion) but there are a few entries in this blog about a Professor's ongoing YouTube battle with the NFL over copyright. (She also is an attorney that worked for the EFF)

My wonderings.. It is legal for that company (that may or may not be connected to Uri) to have those videos taken down if it doesn't really own the copyright? If one of the videos was, say, Uri on Carson -- Carson's estate (or NBC or whomever) would own it (I would think) not Uri. Regardless, couldn't the videos be put right back up, being "fair use" after all?
Click to expand...
YouTube doesn't care if it's legal. I've gone through a similar problem with Yahoo and a supposedly copyrighted name.

YouTube does not want to be held responsible if there is in fact a copyright violation. Rather than put any time or effort into checking to see if the claim has any merit, YouTube will simply remove the content and let the person making the claim and the person who originally uploaded the content sort it out.
 
Questioninggeller said:
Good idea. I just backed everything up.
Click to expand...
Like I said, I've had a similar experience with a company claiming ownership of a generic term that is used by a group of friends in a not-for-profit and purely social setting. After threatening to shut down Yahoo Groups and websites, the company then went on to change their own website to make it look better for them.


I sure wouldn't put it past Geller to do the same.
 
CFLarsen said:
Bitch! :p

(Look up Shimshon Shtrang, if you want evidence)
Click to expand...

And what evidence do you have that this is the same Shimshon Shtrang? Hmmmmmm? That's what I thought! Pseudo-skeptic! Tosser! Other Words!



:p


(ok, is it just me and the booze, or does everybody else read "Shimshon Shtrang" as "Simpson, Strange"... just me? ok, never mind...)
 
Mercutio said:
And what evidence do you have that this is the same Shimshon Shtrang? Hmmmmmm? That's what I thought! Pseudo-skeptic! Tosser! Other Words!



:p


(ok, is it just me and the booze, or does everybody else read "Shimshon Shtrang" as "Simpson, Strange"... just me? ok, never mind...)
Click to expand...
He sounds like a comic book character to me. Like Fin Fang Foom.

Or doing a very un-PC imitation of a Chinese accent. Shim Shom Shang!
 
CFLarsen said:
Geller certainly doesn't own the copyright - which makes it even worse (for him).

He is trying to silence any critical opinion of him.
Click to expand...

To falsely claim he owns a copyright when he doesn't certainly does not demonstrate he is an honest person.
 
zombiebex said:
YouTube doesn't care if it's legal. I've gone through a similar problem with Yahoo and a supposedly copyrighted name.

YouTube does not want to be held responsible if there is in fact a copyright violation. Rather than put any time or effort into checking to see if the claim has any merit, YouTube will simply remove the content and let the person making the claim and the person who originally uploaded the content sort it out.
Click to expand...

I read more about this and the DMCA law. (Again, I'm no lawyer) But what I've gleaned is that YouTube actually isn't held accountable for copyrighted material, so long as they abide by a few rules (Safe Harbor Provisions). Here's a FAQ I've found. There is also a process to get the material returned via a 'counter-notice'. After that, the copyright owner has 14 days to bring up a lawsuit.

This part does seem interesting: "A statement of the accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the owner" is required to file the original take-down notice.

Granted, the original posters of the material may not have the means to actually fight this, but I bet the JREF might. Uri might have just thought he could use a scare tactic to get the videos removed. He might also have made a big mistake. (Or if by some odd twist of fate, he does own the copyright to those videos, the situation may become moot under educational fair-use)

ETA: The copyright of one of the removed videos is almost surely owned by Carson Entertainment Group. The video (formerly) found by YouTube value M9w7jHYriFo was removed by Explorologist LTD. In this thread there is a link to that video that shows an image of Uri on The Tonight Show. I bring up the Carson appearance because of the relationship Randi had with Carson and, while the copyrights of other clips may be harder to discern, I would think Carson Entertainment Group would be willing to oblige. Also, I say the material is 'almost surely owned' by the Carson Entertainment Group because they provide "almost all of the footage from 1973 to 1992" for licensing. Uri appeared on Carson in 1973.
 
Last edited:
Kilgore Trout said:
I read more about this and the DMCA law. (Again, I'm no lawyer) But what I've gleaned is that YouTube actually isn't held accountable for copyrighted material, so long as they abide by a few rules (Safe Harbor Provisions). Here's a FAQ I've found. There is also a process to get the material returned via a 'counter-notice'. After that, the copyright owner has 14 days to bring up a lawsuit.

This part does seem interesting: "A statement of the accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the owner" is required to file the original take-down notice.

Granted, the original posters of the material may not have the means to actually fight this, but I bet the JREF might. Uri might have just thought he could use a scare tactic to get the videos removed. He might also have made a big mistake. (Or if by some odd twist of fate, he does own the copyright to those videos, the situation may become moot under educational fair-use)

ETA: The copyright of one of the removed videos is almost surely owned by Carson Entertainment Group. The video (formerly) found by YouTube value M9w7jHYriFo was removed by Explorologist LTD. In this thread there is a link to that video that shows an image of Uri on The Tonight Show. I bring up the Carson appearance because of the relationship Randi had with Carson and, while the copyrights of other clips may be harder to discern, I would think Carson Entertainment Group would be willing to oblige. Also, I say the material is 'almost surely owned' by the Carson Entertainment Group because they provide "almost all of the footage from 1973 to 1992" for licensing. Uri appeared on Carson in 1973.
Click to expand...

Fair use. Courts will likely hold up the usage of footage for its educational merit. 30 seconds zoomed in on Geller's hand for the sake of educating the public on this public figure is likely to be deemed more important than a claim to forbid any and all clips.
 
Questioninggeller said:
Fair use. Courts will likely hold up the usage of footage for its educational merit. 30 seconds zoomed in on Geller's hand for the sake of educating the public on this public figure is likely to be deemed more important than a claim to forbid any and all clips.
Click to expand...

That was rather my worst-case-scenario in which Uri actually holds the copyrights. If he doesn't hold those copyrights, he perjured himself (or someone acting on behalf of his company, or however that all works).

I did more looking and although my position may be weakened, I think it still holds a little merit.

YouTube's policy for the removal of copyrighted material is worded differently than the FAQ I linked. Specifically it goes beyond just "owner," but the "owner of a exclusive right." Also to have something removed, "[a] statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law" [is required]. This might be more legalese than I can manage; I've no idea what Uri might think he has an exclusive right to, generally bending spoons perhaps, and he may believe Carson Entertainment Group doesn't want the video up, but he may also believe he can bend spoons with his mind.

Can I at least get points for wanting to see Uri prosecuted for perjury? :)
 
Just did a YouTube "Uri Geller" search.

Doesn't look like there's a single piece of critical video left.
 
zombiebex said:
Just did a YouTube "Uri Geller" search.

Doesn't look like there's a single piece of critical video left.
Click to expand...

I just checked too. I couldn't find any critical video. There's a bunch of those damned SRI videos and uncritical TV appearances posted by shipishtrang.

edit to add: Amazing, the whole website is purged of all critical videos!
 
Last edited:
Kilgore Trout said:
That was rather my worst-case-scenario in which Uri actually holds the copyrights. If he doesn't hold those copyrights, he perjured himself (or someone acting on behalf of his company, or however that all works).
Click to expand...

I'm thinking the other way. No matter who owns the copyrights fair use should apply to those who post short clips of him cheating. It is in the public interest to know how he does his tricks since he uses misdirection and not the power of Zeus.
 
hmmm. Also looks like the pro-Geller clips all require approval before comments can be posted.

Right then! Now what?

StopUriGeller.com?
 
I heard a musician talking about the YouTube copyright thing on NPR the other day. He said that basically what happened to him was that he had uploaded videos that he himself owned the copyright to. When a record company threatened to sue YouTube for copyright infringement, they pretty much took down everything that they thought was relevant, including this guy's stuff. To get it back up, he had to go through a whole process of filling out paperwork, etc. Their policy seems to be "if in doubt, take it down, and let them prove they own it before putting it back up."
 
Questioninggeller said:
I'm thinking the other way. No matter who owns the copyrights fair use should apply to those who post short clips of him cheating. It is in the public interest to know how he does his tricks since he uses misdirection and not the power of Zeus.
Click to expand...
I wanted the whole kit and caboodle. My hope was that the JREF repost these videos (thinking the original posters do not have the means to take action, but if they do, great), and if they're taken down again, the JREF can file a counter-notice to get them back up. In addition, they may be able to take action with the idea that perjury was committed by Explorologist LTD, because of wrongly claiming ownership of the copyrighted material. If the counter-notice was followed up with a lawsuit, it would fail because of fair-use at the very least. Well I can hope anyway.
 
Technicaly yes a false DMCA fileing could result in a court case however I'm only aware of one case where people are seriouly talking about going to court (EFF vs Viacom) and that hasn't happened yet (and to be honest I'm not sure I'm going to be happy about the result whichever way it goes).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom