Re: The Hovinds are fucked now

Unfortunately, I don't think the absence of copyright registration makes any difference to whether or not material is protected by copyright, although it does make a difference to one's right to claim damages for infringement.

The question to which I don't know the answer is whether CSE is entitled to claim back copyright for material which they had already put into the public domain.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• rational
• response
• squad
• rabidape
• suspended
• hell
• no
• kent
• eric
• hovind
• creation
• science
• evangelism

[rowsdowersavesus]

It isn't a requirement, HOWEVER, they specifically made it public domain initially. So, if they actually moved it out of public domain (as they claimed they had) they would have to register. It is possible to move it out of public domain, but not without a registration.

[GalacticAtom]

OK. That's the bit I wasn't sure of. Excellent!

[GalacticAtom]

And I guess that if they were to register the stuff now, it would only allow them to enforce copyright on usage after the date of registration; not on videos produced while it was in the Public Domain?

[schrodcat]

I agree, it's rather a fair use issue. Fair use judges (positively) on the basis of educational purposes, absence of commercial gain and of monetary damage to the other party, parody intent, extent of the used material & creative elaboration over it. Most notably, under fair use, copyright is explicitly NOT to silence critics. That's where Hovind's statement "spread it around" and inaction with good disciples will backfire at him, as copyright claims will look to aim at silencing criticism.

[tingtangs]

The Hovinds are a bunch of lying, cheating fraudsters. Fuck them all.

[memoryofakiss]

many of the DMCA flagged videos contained NO copyrhighted material ... for example the recordings that were used as evidence.

I spoke with Eric hovind on Monday and he told me that the DMCA notices were motivated as much by a desire to boost CSE's visibility on you-tube as it was to protect intellectual property. Shady tactic imo.

[rowsdowersavesus]

Exactly. So everything produced before last Wednesday evening/Thursday afternoon, when they took down "nothing of ours is copyrighted" from their site, is fine. It would have been fine anyway, as it falls under Fair Use, but still. (I was halfway mistaken, their stuff wasn't public domain officially, however, they had no copyright on it, and no one else did...so it was essentially public domain, but not officially)

[rowsdowersavesus]

Yeah. I wasn't as clear as I should have been.