Wiegman in Progress

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Why am I telling you this?..Ok..Guess what?..and this will probably shock a lot of people reading this who will probably think i'm selling out., i'm not, i'm just saying it how it is. I've come to realise with the passing of time, and review of my own work that he was correct in most of the arguments that we had, yes that's right, he was correct...Tripodman...Crap...Pergolaroofman...Crap...the list goes on, and I won't bore anyone with it here. His methods of analysis are methodical and thorough most of the time. Like many of the recent posters here, I used to jump in with ill thought out garbage and believed it was true. I suspect there are more like me, but I doubt they will come forward and admit their mistakes, simply because they don't like Bill, and they will continue to try to rub him up the wrong way. It's going on right now and it always will. I've heard it all before, Bill Miller CIA disinfo agent etc etc etc...total garbage designed to disrupt serious research. The guys just passionate more than most about this case, he can be aggressive in his manner, so what, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen, but when weighing the scales, his contributions in the field of photographic research on this forum far outweigh any contribution from anyone I can think of. Now Bill..What was that about the Hoffman shooter? [/b]

Duncan and everyone,

I agree with your post - there are many roads to the truth but you can't fault Bill for lack of effort or diligence. He is constantly offering information that will help further the cause. Now, as someone who publicly and privately roots for Bill, it's no stretch for me to say that he sometimes becomes short-tempered with people. To say the least.

But check out the barrage with which he gets hit from all sides and ask yourself if you would remain stoic in return. Wouldst thou turn the other cheek? Methinks you would not.

Eugene, if you really believe Bill has wronged you, you should take him to court. Seriously. Otherwise it's obvious you're just flamethrowing. It's clever and must feel like a camaraderie-building exercise with those who don't like Bill, but it's pointless.

This Civil War between the Alterationists and the Non-Alterationists doesn't seem headed toward a conclusion any time soon. I have yet to see persuasive proof that would stand up in court so count me among the latter.

[Jack White]

As usual "Miller" doesn't bother with facts.

There are many internet sources explaining THE FAIR USE DOCTRINE.

Typical is this excerpt from Wikipedia:

" Fair use under United States law

The legal concept of "copyright" was first ratified by the United Kingdom's Statute of Anne of 1709. As room was not made for the authorized reproduction of copyrighted content within this newly formulated statutory right, the courts gradually created a doctrine of "fair abridgment", which later became "fair use", that recognized the utility of such actions. The doctrine only existed in the U.S. as common law until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107, reprinted here:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, 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. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

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.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[1]"

..........

The key words are EDUCATIONAL, NONPROFIT, nonCOMMERCIAL and EFFECT ON VALUE.

It is not written in the law, but court cases have determined that works may enter the public domain

through inconsistent copyright enforcement...that is, if you let 99 people get by with violation

but then sue the hundredth person, you may lose for being lax in protection. Also, some things

are not copyrightable. A common word, for instance, is not copyrightable. Sweet-n-Low lost a

case of trying to copyright the color PINK of its package design. They sued a competitor for

imitating their pink package, and the court ruled that a COLOR is not protected under copyright

or trademark legislation. In other words, only CREATIVE works may be copyrighted, and then

only BY THE CREATOR. Therefore you cannot COPYRIGHT the work of someone else. A copyright

may be transferred or sold, but mere possession of the item carries no privileges. As a collector

of vintage photos, I frequently encounter this. Some collectors are under the false impression

that they may copyright a vintage print they own. Under the old law, protection was for 75 years

or the life of the artist...so any photo older than 75 years is now PUBLIC DOMAIN. The new law

changes that (particularly in music and literary works) so that heirs may exercise protection

perpetually. But it is not ex post facto.

It would be wonderful to get the Zapruder copyright owners to sue for damages. Penn Jones

tried it and failed; Jim Fetzer purposely published frames HOPING TO GET SUED and failed.

Jim wanted to get them to court so he could prove the film is a fraud. Failure to bring suit

constitutes lack of copyright privilege enforcement. On the other hand, Oliver Stone needed

the film and was willing to pay a huge licensing fee. Charging Stone and not charging Fetzer

constitutes UNEVEN ENFORCEMENT, one of the grounds for losing copyright privilege.

The Disney Co. has a CEASE AND DESIST department which vigorously threatens anyone

who reproduces a Disney character for any reason.

I am not a lawyer, and these comments are only from research.

Jack

Edited February 5, 2007 by Jack White

[Craig Lamson]

As usual "Miller" doesn't bother with facts.

There are many internet sources explaining THE FAIR USE DOCTRINE.

Typical is this excerpt from Wikipedia:

" Fair use under United States law

The legal concept of "copyright" was first ratified by the United Kingdom's Statute of Anne of 1709. As room was not made for the authorized reproduction of copyrighted content within this newly formulated statutory right, the courts gradually created a doctrine of "fair abridgment", which later became "fair use", that recognized the utility of such actions. The doctrine only existed in the U.S. as common law until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107, reprinted here:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, 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. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

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.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[1]"

..........

The key words are EDUCATIONAL, NONPROFIT, nonCOMMERCIAL and EFFECT ON VALUE.

It is not written in the law, but court cases have determined that works may enter the public domain

through inconsistent copyright enforcement...that is, if you let 99 people get by with violation

but then sue the hundredth person, you may loose for being lax in protection. Also, some things

are not copyrightable. A common word, for instance, is not copyrightable. Sweet-n-Low lost a

case of trying to copyright the color PINK of its package design. They sued a competitor for

imitating their pink package, and the court ruled that a COLOR is not protected under copyright

or trademark legislation. In other words, only CREATIVE works may be copyrighted, and then

only BY THE CREATOR. Therefore you cannot COPYRIGHT the work of someone else. A copyright

may be transferred or sold, but mere possession of the item carries no privileges. As a collector

of vintage photos, I frequently encounter this. Some collectors are under the false impression

that they may copyright a vintage print they own. Under the old law, protection was for 75 years

or the life of the artist...so any photo older than 75 years is now PUBLIC DOMAIN. The new law

changes that (particularly in music and literary works) so that heirs may exercise protection

perpetually. But it is not ex post facto.

It would be wonderful to get the Zapruder copyright owners to sue for damages. Penn Jones

tried it and failed; Jim Fetzer purposely published frames HOPING TO GET SUED and failed.

Jim wanted to get them to court so he could prove the film is a fraud. Failure to bring suit

constitutes lack of copyright privilege enforcement. On the other hand, Oliver Stone needed

the film and was willing to pay a huge licensing fee. Charging Stone and not charging Fetzer

constitutes UNEVEN ENFORCEMENT, one of the grounds for loosing copyright privilege.

The Disney Co. has a CEASE AND DESIST department which vigorously threatens anyone

who reproduces a Disney character for any reason.

I am not a lawyer, and these comments are only from research.

Jack

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

2) "If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."

False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's main difference under the law. It's still a violation if you give it away -- and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property. There is an exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn't include widescale anonymous personal copying as Napster. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action. Fair use determinations (see below) do sometimes depend on the involvement of money.

4) "My posting was just fair use!"

See other notes on fair use for a detailed answer, but bear the following in mind:

The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works -- only the ability to appropriate other people's. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your readers to have to register at the New York Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably aren't.

Fair use is generally a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One should not use much more of the work than is needed to make the commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.) Famously, copying just 300 words from Gerald Ford's 200,000 word memoir for a magazine article was ruled as not fair use, in spite of it being very newsworthy, because it was the most important 300 words -- why he pardoned Nixon.

Note that most inclusion of text in followups and replies is for commentary, and it doesn't damage the commercial value of the original posting (if it has any) and as such it is almost surely fair use. Fair use isn't an exact doctrine, though. The court decides if the right to comment overrides the copyright on an individual basis in each case. There have been cases that go beyond the bounds of what I say above, but in general they don't apply to the typical net misclaim of fair use.

The "fair use" concept varies from country to country, and has different names (such as "fair dealing" in Canada) and other limitations outside the USA.

Facts and ideas can't be copyrighted, but their expression and structure can. You can always write the facts in your own wordsthough

See the DMCA alert for recent changes in the law.

5) "If you don't defend your copyright you lose it." -- "Somebody has that name copyrighted!"

False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly given away. You also can't "copyright a name" or anything short like that, such as almost all titles. You may be thinking of trade marks, which apply to names, and can be weakened or lost if not defended.

You generally trademark terms by using them to refer to your brand of a generic type of product or service. Like an "Apple" computer. Apple Computer "owns" that word applied to computers, even though it is also an ordinary word. Apple Records owns it when applied to music. Neither owns the word on its own, only in context, and owning a mark doesn't mean complete control -- see a more detailed treatise on this law for details.

You can't use somebody else's trademark in a way that would steal the value of the mark, or in a way that might make people confuse you with the real owner of the mark, or which might allow you to profit from the mark's good name. For example, if I were giving advice on music videos, I would be very wary of trying to label my works with a name like "mtv." :-) You can use marks to critcise or parody the holder, as long as it's clear you aren't the holder.

"Public Domain"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

United States law

In the United States, copyright law has changed several times since the founding of the country. It is held under Feist v. Rural that Congress does not have the power to re-copyright works that have fallen into the public domain. Eldred v. Ashcroft transcript However, re-copyrighting has happened before. "After World War I and after World War II, there were special amendments to the Copyright Act to permit for a limited time and under certain conditions the recapture of works that might have fallen into the public domain, principally by aliens of countries with which we had been at war." (Testimony of Dorothy Schrader, general counsel of the U.S. copyright office, hearing for H.R. 1623, serial 100/50)

Works created by an agency of the United States government are public domain at the moment of creation. Examples include military journalism, federal court opinions (but not necessarily state court opinions), congressional committee reports, and census data. However, works commissioned by the government but created by a contractor are still subject to copyright, and even in the case of public domain documents, availability of such documents may be limited by laws limiting the spread of classified information.

Before 1978, unpublished works were not covered by the federal copyright act. This does not mean that the works were in the public domain. Rather, it means that they were covered under (perpetual) state copyright law. The claim that "pre-1923 works are safe" is only correct for published works; unpublished works are under federal copyright for at least the life of the author plus seventy years. If they were created before 1978 but first published before 2002, the works have federal copyright protection until 2047.

The public domain began to receive widespread attention after David Lange's seminal law review article, "Recognizing the Public Domain," which was published in volume forty-four of Law & Contemporary Problems in 1981.

Until the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, the lack of a proper copyright notice would force an otherwise copyrightable work into the public domain, although for works published between 1978 and 1989, this defect could be cured by registering the work with the Library of Congress within 5 years of publication. After 1988, an author's copyright in a work begins when it is fixed in a tangible form; neither publication nor registration is required, and a lack of a copyright notice does not place the work into the public domain.

Critics of copyright term extensions have said that Congress has achieved a perpetual copyright term "on the installment plan." Statement of Professor Peter Jaszi, The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1995: Hearing on S.483 Before the Senate Judiciary Comm., 104th Cong.

Edited February 5, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Bill Miller]

Jack is posting once again like he did claiming that no Moorman print showed a gap. Craig is right about copyright laws. Recently, I was in a documentary where they insisted that a book I had on the shelf behind me be laid down out of view because of copyright laws. I have seen films where the movie rights and still image rights were separate and when one has been found violating those laws - they pay! I also know that the 6th Floor Museum doesn't just hand out JFK assassinatin photo copies because of their honoring the copyright laws.

[Craig Lamson]

Jack is posting once again like he did claiming that no Moorman print showed a gap. Craig is right about copyright laws. Recently, I was in a documentary where they insisted that a book I had on the shelf behind me be laid down out of view because of copyright laws. I have seen films where the movie rights and still image rights were separate and when one has been found violating those laws - they pay! I also know that the 6th Floor Museum doesn't just hand out JFK assassinatin photo copies because of their honoring the copyright laws.

I can't say I am 100 percent right on copyright issues, but as a copyrighted content producer, I'm quite aware of the the process and I attempt to enforce my copyrights. I've spent a tidy sum getting advice from professionals in addition to self-research. None of this is truly black and white as case law changes all the time.

But, the best course of action is to proceed as if EVERYTHING you use in the course of research is copyrighted material. Fair use will most likely save your butt if push comes to shove but even that is not a sure thing.

Edited February 5, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

But, the best course of action is to proceed as if EVERYTHING you use in the course of research is copyrighted material. Fair use will most likely save your butt if push comes to shove but even that is not a sure thing.

Craig.

Well said!

Sensible words from a sensible man, Craig.

What a refreshing change from the flood of waffle and bile we

have all had to experience in recent days.

EBC

[Bill Miller]

duplicate post deleted

Edited February 6, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Well said!

Sensible words from a sensible man, Craig.

What a refreshing change from the flood of waffle and bile we

have all had to experience in recent days.

EBC

EBC, I have seen fireflies that looked brighter than you appear to be. Craig is correcting Jack on the legalities concerning copyright laws, which by the way is the same thing as saying that one should proceed as all images are copyrighted, which means that you cannot post such images any more than I can without the true owners written consent. If we follow the rule as Craig has stated, then this forum will need to delete every image on it, with the exception of the images I have posted from Groden's books and films for I do have Robert's consent to use them. Now if you want that to happen, then email John Simkin and let hiom know your feelings about the using of other peoples images and that you want them all deleted at once. If you don't, then you are merely doing what Mark suggesting that you'd be doing if you didn't seek legal action for my using an image that you posted without the owners consent. I look forward to seeing your noble cause unfold .. or unravel which ever the case may be.

Bill

Edited February 6, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

EBC, I have seen fireflies that looked brighter than you appear to be. Craig is correcting Jack on the legalities concerning copyright laws, which by the way is the same thing as saying that one should proceed as all images are copyrighted..

Bill,

It would seem that you have the attention span of a dead fruit fly.

I am assuming that my enhanced image is my copyright - whether you like it or not.

Anyway, this copyright theme nonsense is just one of your favourite ploys of the numerous ploys

you have to divert others from the real issue.

The real issue is that you are an ill-mannered hypocrite.

A hypocrite who is quite prepared to denigrate and rubbish other people's work and

then even more prepared to steal that same work and use it to further

somehow your so-called 'research'.

How low can you go,Bill?

You really need to stop being the duplicitous

imbecile that you really are.

See my enhanced image below which you felt happy enough to malign

and which you then stole and posted. If you felt my work was so bad

how did it suddenly become good enough for you to purloin

and even annotate/disfigure with your red arrow daubings?

EBC

Edited February 7, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly

[Craig Lamson]

EBC, I have seen fireflies that looked brighter than you appear to be. Craig is correcting Jack on the legalities concerning copyright laws, which by the way is the same thing as saying that one should proceed as all images are copyrighted..

Bill,

It would seem that you have the attention span of a dead fruit fly.

I am assuming that my enhanced image is my copyright - whether you like it or not.

Anyway, this copyright theme nonsense is just one of your favourite ploys of the numerous ploys

you have to divert others from the real issue.

The real issue is that you are an ill-mannered hypocrite.

A hypocrite who is quite prepared to denigrate and rubbish other people's work and

then even more prepared to steal that same work and use it to further

somehow your so-called 'research'.

How low can you go,Bill?

You really need to stop being the duplicitous

imbecile that you really are.

See my enhanced image below which you felt happy enough to malign

and which you then stole and posted. If you felt my work was so bad

how did it suddenly become good enough for you to purloin

and even annotate/disfigure with your red arrow daubings?

EBC

Eugene, You may continue to assume you can claim your enhancements are covered by copyright but your assumption is wrong.

Your works are based on the works of another, and unless you hold the copyright or a use licence for the originals used in your enhancements, you simply cannot claim your works to be copyrighted. I have posted details of copyrighting derivates upthread.

[Alan Healy]

Paul:

MSNBC nor Fox, would not show any interest imo...

A Stalinist apparatchik.......now there's a new one...

I had thought it was The Napoleonic Syndrome..

B..

What about the BBC - have they not been supportive of conspiracy documentaries? The Enquirer ran a piece once saying that JFK was living in the basement of the White House .... try selling those junk mages to them and see how far you get.

Bill

I apologise for this, I was just reading through this thread & this line hit me in the face.

"What about the BBC - have they not been supportive of conspiracy documentaries?"

The answer is;

No they have not! Never have, never will!

Now I know you were just looking for an example Bill & I may even have gotten the wrong end of the stick but our friends outside of the UK must be clear about this....

the BBC would not know a conspiracy if it ran over them.

Actually they'd be too busy running the other way for one to even get near them.

All they show on JFK(if they show anything!) are "Oswald did it" mockumentaries, that's all we get from them, ever.

Never anything new, just the same old schtick.

If you ever see anyone from the BBC in the plaza, be on guard.

Remember, they might ask you relevant questions but anything you say of import regarding a conspiracy or the GK,will not be used in the final cut.

Trust me, keep your answers short.

If you were in some way referring to the recent RFK assassination program from the BBC, that was discussed here on this forum Bill, then you should understand too that, that was just 11/22/63 anniversary smoke.

What better way to avoid the JFK topic on the 22nd of Nov than to talk of a "petential" conspiracy regarding the death of his brother?

Besides, the BBC(with the help of ABC & that computer "simulation") have already solved the JFK case.

It's Oswald, there is no doubt, you are stupid to think otherwise, we've already shown you the animation that proves it.

There is no more evidence to consider.

That came from one of our top newsreaders(his words more or less), who works on the same program that aired the recent RFK smoke.

Once again, my "apollo"gies for bumping this but I think it's important that Bill & others realise that the BBC are not at home to Mr. Conspiracy, not when it comes the murder of US politicians it is not.

Alan

[Alan Healy]

Okay,

just one point regarding Sitzman's legs.

Gary Mack referred to a Weigman frame posted a couple years back & said that the two white lines seen "dangling" from the top of the wall were indeed Sitzman's legs.

This has been also mentioned by Bill & Bill seems to agree, I thought it was possible.

I no longer agree with that possibility.

All they are is just light seen above the wall that's warped out of shape by the extreem motion of the camera.

I urge Gary Mack if he is reading this, too study it again in his better copy of Wiegman.

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/1164/nolegsab2.png

Look at the cropped frame in the above link that shows the "legs".

Notice the shape of the window lights?

Not only is the blur running in the same direction as these two "legs" but the length of the blur is remarkably similar.

Now this, taken a few frames away from the above.

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/3939/nolegstoouh4.png

The blur is just as bad but a different configuration & it allows us to see there was nothing dangling from that stretch of the wall at this time.

After taking into account this motion, I hope you'll agree that if they were the woman's legs, they would not look like legs to us in that frame.

It's just a coincidence, she probably still standing up at this stage.

I still think it's strange that there is no clear sign of Sitzman in Wiegman, Zappy I can understand because he was dressed in darker clothing but no matter how hard you look for a sign of her there is nothing.

I think Robin's posted a frame a while back that had her in it standing upright, that is, it looked like her to me, or rather ........ about as close as we are gonna get to something that looks like "Sitzman" on the wall.

/phew

Alan

PS: if we are going to post images & then remove them before a thread is even a month old can we please consider posting them on http://imageshack.us/?

It is so quick & easy & it gives others a chance to read the thread in its proper context.

Don't edit your posts to remove images just post them on http://imageshack.us/ & link to them,

please?