Reasons to Believe statement on "Expelled"

Hugh Ross's old-earth creationist organization, Reasons to Believe, has issued a statement on "Expelled":

Dear RTB Chapter members,

With the impending release of "EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed" (April 18), the Reasons to Believe scholar team thought it best to prepare a statement of our position, a guide for answering questions from chapters, networks, and apologists. Keep in mind that the mission of RTB centers on reaching out to science-minded people with two purposes:

1. to bring the Gospel message to those who would not otherwise hear it, and

2. to strengthen the faith of those who fear that science conflicts with the
Christian faith-equipping them for ministry in the process.

In order to accomplish these purposes, we must first earn the right to be heard.

After previewing the promotional materials provided by the movie's marketers, we were concerned that the movie took an adversarial approach to the scientific community. A number of RTB scholars and staff attended a prerelease screening in Los Angeles recently and confirmed that EXPELLED definitely does take such an approach. The movie draws an analogy between the Berlin wall and the scientific community's response to intelligent design. By doing so, EXPELLED implicitly argues that the scientific community deems certain questions off-limits, particularly any question about the legitimacy of neo-Darwinian evolution. The movie further argues that academia, the media, and the courts all conspire as "thought police" to oppress any and all dissent from the party line.

Clearly some oppression and discrimination have occurred, but the experience of RTB scholars and many of their contacts refutes the movie's premise that the scientific community systemically and unilaterally fosters these injustices. While individual scientists and institutions have behaved unfairly at times, this charge cannot in all fairness be leveled against the scientific community as a whole.

Regardless, from RTB's perspective, the central question is this: when injustices do occur, how should we respond? Consider the response of Nate Saint to his son's question, as depicted in the movie, End of the Spear. Nate, Jim Eliot, and three other missionaries were preparing to make contact with the notoriously violent Waodani tribe in Ecuador. Stevie asks if they will shoot the Waodani if attacked. Nate replies: "We can't shoot the Waodani, son. They're not ready for heaven. We are."

If science-minded skeptics indeed represent a mission field, then we should not come out shooting. EXPELLED seems to do just that. While an entertaining movie, its main thrust runs counter to RTB's mission of seeking to engage scientists in the scientific arena. Consequently, any endorsement of EXPELLED by RTB hinders our ability to spread the Gospel message to those we hope to reach.

Therefore, we ask all chapter members and volunteers to refrain from endorsing EXPELLED in any official way. This request does not extend to your personal interactions-only to any actions taken in association with or on behalf of Reasons to Believe.

Thank you for your support and understanding.

The RTB Scholar Team

(Hat tip to Blue Collar Scientist.)

UPDATE (April 22, 2008): Reasons to Believe has issued another statement about "Expelled," which says, in part:

In Reasons To Believe's interaction with professional scientists, scientific institutions, universities, and publishers of scientific journals we have encountered no significant evidence of censorship, blackballing, or disrespect. As we have persisted in publicly presenting our testable creation model in the context of the scientific method, we have witnessed an increasing openness on the part of unbelieving scientists to offer their honest and respectful critique.

Our main concern about EXPELLED is that it paints a distorted picture. It certainly doesn't match our experience. Sadly, it may do more to alienate than to engage the scientific community, and that can only harm our mission.

Even more "Expelled" copyright infringement and deception

The Atheist Blogger points out that "Expelled" is violating the license terms on the blog theme used at their blog.

A commenter at The Playlist blog points out that while they did indeed purchase a license to use The Killers' song "All These Things That I've Done," they did so in a deceptive way. Here's how they described the film that they wanted the license for:

The film is a satirical documentary with an estimated running time of 1 hour and 50 minutes, exploring academic freedom in public schools and government institutions with actor, comedian, economist, Ben Stein as the spokesperson.

No mention of intelligent design or evolution. That's a similar tactic to the deception they used to get some of the interviews in the film.

FBI faked delay in terror investigation to justify unneeded new powers

Declassified documents obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation show that while investigating a possible conspirator in the 2005 London bombings, the FBI forced an agent to return documents obtained from North Carolina State University under normal lawful process so that they could be requested again under the USA PATRIOT Act, using a power the FBI did not have but wanted. When the second request was rejected, the FBI used another subpoena--just like the first one that had already been successful--to again obtain the documents.

The purpose for this sham? So that FBI Director Robert Mueller could testify before Congress that the lack of the desired power caused a delay in obtaining these records.

Sorry, Director Mueller, but this "delay" was a fraud, which means your testimony was still false (though apparently unknowingly so on his part).

Bensteinian Rhapsody

This is pretty good...

Ed Brayton's Skeptic article on Sternberg

Ed Brayton has written an article about the Richard Sternberg controversy at the Smithsonian for Skeptic magazine, which will appear in the next issue. The article has been published online in advance, along with an article by Michael Shermer about his interaction with Ben Stein.

UPDATE (April 18, 2008): Ed Brayton has responded to the Discovery Institute's "non-response" on the Sternberg affair.

New "Expelled" cell footage clip on YouTube

On April 15, "getexpelled," a user which has been posting the official clips from the movie "Expelled," posted new animation footage of the operations of the cell which is clearly not derived from XVIVO's footage. (ERV refers to this footage as a "toddler animation" and "a shitty Las-Vegas-Meets-TeleTubbies 'Inner Life'".)

I suspect they already took action to put this new footage into the film that will come out tomorrow instead of the animation which they copied from XVIVO, which means that they have already complied with that demand from XVIVO's infringement letter. That also means that their lawsuit for a declaratory judgment in Texas is really an argument that this new footage is not infringing, which they'll probably win--this footage is not infringing. But it also means that, yet again, they've been thoroughly deceptive in how they operate, and have implicitly admitted that they were, in fact, infringing XVIVO's copyright in the footage that they showed in the early screenings.

That's probably not worth the effort for XVIVO to sue them over. But it's definitely worth pointing out.

UPDATE (April 22, 2008): Apparently the XVIVO-infringing animation is still in the released film, after all.

Scientology celebrity escapes

Actor Jason Beghe, who appeared as Demi Moore's love interest in "G.I. Jane" as well as in episodes of "Numb3rs" and "CSI," was a member of the Church of Scientology since first taking courses in 1994. In 2005, he appeared in promotional videos for the church. He's now left Scientology and has appeared in a video made by long-time Scientology critic Mark Bunker:



UPDATE: Since YouTube has removed not only the above clip but Mark Bunker's YouTube account, here's an Australian TV news story about Beghe leaving Scientology:



Here's a rehosted version of the original interview clip:



Here's an interview of Beghe by Tony Ortega, a journalist who used to write for Phoenix New Times and New Times LA, who has written several good stories on Scientology:

"Expelled" uses sample from "Imagine" without permission

The copyright infringment continues--it seems that "Expelled" makes use of about 25 seconds of John Lennon's song "Imagine," but permission was neither sought nor granted for its use:

In a written statement, the film's three producers -- Walt Ruloff, John Sullivan and Logan Craft -- acknowledged that they did not seek permission, but they called the use "momentary." "After seeking the opinion of legal counsel it was seen as a First Amendment issue and protected under the fair use doctrine of free speech," the statement said. A spokeswoman said under 25 seconds of the song are used in the movie.

Now this is actually an instance where I agree with "Expelled"'s producers--this should fall within fair use guidelines. The courts, however, have already ruled otherwise. (UPDATE: Not quite accurate, see correction below.) In 2005, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films that even a 1.5-second sample requires a license. I'd be happy to see a lawsuit on this issue result in that ruling being overturned.

I've previously written about the danger of such erosion of fair use to the creation of new music in one of this blog's more popular posts. The link at the end of that post about "Amen Brother" is well worth your time.

(Also related is this film in which fair-use samples from Disney films are used to make Disney characters explain current U.S. copyright law.)

UPDATE (April 18, 2008): Russell Blackford argues that "Expelled"'s use of "Imagine" is to make comment on the content of the song, and makes a moral case for the legitimacy of its use. I agree with his argument--the use of a sample of the song to make comment on it enhances the case for "fair use," but I think it should have met fair use guidelines even without that.

UPDATE (April 23, 2008): As commenter lquilter points out below, the Bridgeport case did not say quite what I said above--it doesn't eliminate fair use as a defense to a use of small samples, it eliminates the argument that sampling is using so little of the original material that no copyright applies. The result is that a lengthier court proceeding is required to fight for such use.

"Expelled"'s makers are now being sued over the use of "Imagine." I don't feel bad for them, but I think they should win their case. This probably guarantees that the film will not make a profit from its theatrical run, after deducting legal expenses.

UPDATE (May 1, 2008): The Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project has signed on to defend "Expelled" against the Ono Lennon lawsuit. Good for them, I hope they win this one. It shouldn't be difficult.

UPDATE (May 2, 2008): P.Z. Myers points out distortions in "Expelled"'s press release about the their defense in the "Imagine" lawsuit. Even in the rare case when I agree with them (their fair use defense here), they still have to throw in a distortion or two to show that they are sleazy, I guess. (I disagree with Myers' assertion that there is no commentary on the song; see Russell Blackford's analysis, linked to above.)

Perhaps the strongest argument against "Expelled" in this case is that they sought licenses for other songs they used, but did not even attempt to get permission for "Imagine," as pointed out by Laura Quilter (who has also commented here).

UPDATE (May 5, 2008): The judge in the case has enjoined "Expelled" from any further distribution or DVD release, though they can continue showing the film in the theaters where it's already playing (currently down to 655 theaters).

UPDATE (May 9, 2008): And now down to 402 theaters.

UPDATE (June 2, 2008): The judge has ruled against Yoko Ono's motion for a permanent injunction against "Expelled" on the grounds that the defendants are likely to prevail.

The official "Expelled" paternity test

The folks at XVIVO have argued that "Expelled" has engaged in copyright infringement by directly copying from their film, "The Inner Life of the Cell." The "Expelled" producers have responded by claiming that they constructed their film based on original research:

However, the latest claim concerning the copyright status of our proprietary animation is so ridiculous, bogus and misinformed that we must respond. Premise Media invested significant time and money into the research and original creation of the animation used in our film to illustrate cellular activity. Our own team of experts created the highest quality of animation that is available. In fact, the animation we use in the theatrical release of our movie is only a small portion of the animation we have created and plan to use in future projects.

Darwin Central has proposed a paternity test in the form of a series of image comparisons. On the left hand side, images from a variety of sources showing a particular process in the cell that is depicted by "The Inner Life of the Cell." On the right hand side, a comparison image from the "Expelled" segment at issue. Surely, if the "Expelled" producers are correct, there should be no reason to find any special similarity between the image on the left that comes from XVIVO's film and the image that comes from "Expelled" versus any of the other images on the left.

See for yourself.

It also appears that other parts of "Expelled"'s animations have been taken from other sources, to which John Wilkins has a connection!

Yet Premise Media is suing XVIVO, seeking a declaratory judgment in Texas! This sounds like venue shopping or "forum shopping," since XVIVO is in Massachusetts.

UPDATE: ERV has a copy of the complaint and a summary. She also includes a new video, that she speculates has replaced the XVIVO-copied video in the final film.

UPDATE (April 19, 2008): The footage copied from XVIVO was apparently removed from the film before yesterday's public release.

P.Z. Myers fisks Michael Medved

Discovery Institute Fellow and bad movie critic Michael Medved has written an article arguing that an atheist should not be elected U.S. president. P.Z. Myers gives it a hilarious fisking at Pharyngula.