Jump to content
The Education Forum

Douglas Caddy

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    10,884

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Douglas Caddy

    MAINSTREAM COOLER - For those who believe mainstream contemporary facts.

    in Water Coolers

    Posted

    16 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

    Unforced errors. Really stupid on their part. Dumbasses.

    It now looks like the Raw Story article about Fran Willis erred in giving too much credit to the affidavits put out by the Trump supporters.

    It is a complex legal matter, but it appears that Willis and Wade may well survive as summed up in the closing two paragraphs of this Indepth New York Times article:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/23/us/trump-georgia-fani-willis-phone.html?unlocked_article_code=1.X00.2vfk.Zae4ZnAfwDQi&smid=url-share

    Sydney Wilkinson's 6k Copy of NARA's "Forensic Version" of the Zapruder Film

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    3 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

    Since there is a discussion of copyright issues related to the "forensic" version of the Z-film, let me share an excerpt from my book The JFK Cut-N-Paste Assassination regarding copyright issues specific to the Z-film. The same arguments I use regarding copyright of the Z-film images presented in my book also apply to this site: The Education Forum.

     

    One would think that using assassination-related materials would not be a problem. After all, in 1999, the Assassination Records Review Board decided that the U.S. government should own all footage related to the Kennedy assassination. To that end, the Justice Department paid the Zapruder family $ 16 million for the film, under the auspices of eminent domain:

    The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act was enacted by the Congress and signed into law by President George Bush on October 26, 1992. The law states, "All government records concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy should carry a presumption of immediate disclosure."[ ix]

    Unbelievably, in either a SNAFU or a deliberate maneuver to limit access to the film, our government somehow managed to not obtain the copyright for the film when purchasing the film.

    Our tax dollars, hard at work.

    The Zapruder family gave the “original” film (which the government bought??) and the copyright for it to the Dallas Sixth Floor Museum (AKA, the old Texas School Book Depository), which per my conversation with another author charges $ 1,000 per frame. My own e-mails to the Sixth Floor Museum to inquire about copyright, the use of film images, and the availability of high-resolution versions of the Bronson film and Towner film have gone unanswered.

    As an official “assassination-related material,” the film (and all other assassination-related materials) should be housed at the National Archives and be available for disclosure. “The law mandates that all assassination-related materials be house in a single collection in the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).”[ x]

    However, as it turns, out, I have an “out” (or two or three) for using the Zapruder film images and other assassination images:”

    October 10: James Lesar and Chip Selby file suit against Henry Zapruder, Washington tax attorney, for selling rights to the film. Argued there should be no copyright claim on such an historic film, allowing the copyright holder to dictate its use, hampering use by scholars & writers. Zapruder said the family only charges people who use the film for commercial purposes: “we make the film available free of charge to anyone who is not going to use it for commercial purposes… People who are going to charge, we charge.” The original film is in storage at the National Archives. (Associated Press) Gerald (Chip) Selby Jr., 26, represented by Jim Lesar, sues Henry Zapruder and LMH Co.; LMH charges $ 30,000 for use of the film; Selby’s documentary, “Reasonable Doubt,” his master’s thesis, was made in collaboration with Harold Weisberg; the Discovery Channel offered $ 10,000 to show the documentary; the fee is excessive; Zapruder says he offers the film free to those who aren’t going to charge for it; copyright was abandoned by failure to curb unauthorized use of the film. (Houston Chronicle)[ xi]

    So copyright for the Zapruder film “was abandoned.” Good to know.

    There’s also a loophole in copyright law itself: the “Fair Use” clause of the Copyright Act of 1976. The law “permits limited use of a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright holder. Typical fair uses of a copyrighted work are for purposes such as criticism, commentary, scholarship, and parody.”[ xii]

    Criticism, commentary, and scholarship. Check, check, and check. Parody is not applicable—at least, not intentionally.

    Continuing: “Notwithstanding the provisions of §106 and §106( a), the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”[ xiii]

    Criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Check, check, check, check, check, and check.

    There’s more of the law in my favor. As it turns out, “even if a copyright holder can establish that a defendant infringed their copyright, if the defendant can show its use of the protected work is permitted under the fair use provision of the copyright act, the defendant will not be liable for copyright infringement. To help determine if a specific use of copyrighted material is permitted as a fair use, Congress has implemented a four-factor test in 17 U.S.C. § 107 to weigh the equity–fairness–of the use.”[ xiv]

    There are four factors to be considered in determining whether a case constitutes “fair use.” These are:

    1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    2. The nature of the copyrighted work;
    3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
    4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.[ xv]

    My responses to these are below:

    1. My work is definitely educational in nature. Naturally, I would love to acquire some grocery money and enough for some “little extras,” so there is a bit of commercialism involved. But I’m not embarking on a huge business venture here. Just my own self-published observations of evidence of cover-up and alterations in film and photographic evidence of the Kennedy assassination, and my offering of a new theory that explains it all. And if my wildest fantasy comes true and this book becomes a national best seller, well, then, I’ll be able to afford an attorney to deal with all the legal niceties.
    2. The nature of my work herein is to share my observations, commentaries, critiques, and research. This is a non-fiction work, based on supposed factual evidentiary materials in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. I do include observations of certain other researchers, and have tried to document those sources as best I can. Most of the information I found is available at no cost on the Internet. However, many observations are my own, and are unique.
    3. I use the amount of evidence from the various assassination films and photographs that I need to support my theories of the assassination. Critics can argue whether I’ve used too much, or not enough. In my own opinion, of course, I’ve used just the right amount. My intention is not to re-produce the films, but to prove my theories. Ideally, some of the points I make would be better shown in video format, but the limitations of a book format make that impossible.

    It’s been more than 50 years after the Kennedy assassination. I can’t imagine my work having any negative effect on the market or value of any copyrighted works discussed herein, especially when most of the images I use can be found for free on-line. In fact, if anything, it might spur some purchases of the MPI version of the Zapruder film Images of an Assassination and copyrighted books such as The Great Zapruder Film Hoax and others, in order for my readers to verify the information I present. The Towner film, as far as I have been able to determine, is not available commercially except the NFV version of Robert Groden’s JFK: Assassination Films. Groden apparently worked for the company that reproduced the films for the HSCA, and covertly copied them.[ xvi] He has an online site to sell the films.[ xvii] (I tried to purchase a DVD, but eventually had to file a PayPal grievance, since it never arrived. I won the grievance and was later reimbursed through PayPal, which is why I was limited to the YouTube version of the Tina Towner and Marie Muchmore films.)

    Nor should Ms. Towner lose any money from my work presented here. If anything, my work might spur interest in her book. Her film, of course, is not available for purchase except through Robert Groden[ xviii].

    Josiah Thompson won his case against Life magazine, then the holder of the copyright for the Zapruder film, based on the “Fair Use” clause in copyright law:

    There is a public interest in having the fullest information available on the murder of President Kennedy. Thompson did serious work on the subject and has a theory entitled to public consideration. While doubtless the theory could be explained with [other non-infringing representations], the explanation actually made in the Book with copies is easier to understand. The Book is not bought because it contained the Zapruder Pictures; the Book is bought because of the theory of Thompson and its explanation, supported by Zapruder pictures.[ xix]”

    — The JFK Cut-N-Paste Assassination by Denise Hazelwood

    Thank you, Denise, for this incisive background report. It would seem to me that The New York Times or Washington Post would deem this controversial matter to be worthy of an Indepth researched article that would settle the whole matter. Your report could serve as a starting point for such an article. Let's hope this happens.

    Jack Ruby, Foreknowledge?

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    Lee D. Shepherd wrote on Facebook today:

    its called moral ambiguity:
    “The Free Cuba Committee” was headed by ex-Cuban president, Dr. Carlos Prio Socarras and Eladio Del Valle. Prio’s 1948 regime was so corrupt that not even the Syndicate could function. He was involved in the 1961 failed invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs and also linked in testimony with CIA contract officer Frank Fiorini [aka Frank Sturgis] and long time gambling buddy, Jack Ruby. Prio was first introduced to JFK by Sturgis. A CIA memo confirms “Luis Somoza” was also involved with the unscrupulous former president of Cuba who was linked to Tony Varona. Prio had mentored and initiated Varona into the criminal underworld of Santo Trafficante. Varona's handler was CIA officer Emilio A. Rodriguez under the guidance of Antonio Sforza at JMWAVE. Prio had originally given enormous amounts of cash to Castro in hopes he could be controlled. One CIA report labels “Prio, an inveterate intriguer [who] has often demonstrated a complete lack of scruples in his actions.” The account says that in Cuba “during his administration, official corruption and gangsterism are known to have flourished, and he, like many of his colleagues, is reported to have profited considerably at public expense.” In 1977 the 73-year-old exile leader shot himself with a black, .38-caliber snub-nose revolver and left no suicide note.
    May be an image of 11 people
     
     
     
    All reactions:
    5You and 4 others
     
     
×
×
  • Create New...