Tags:
  1. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    o_OClaim:


    James Fetzer, James Tracy, and a few other PHd holders, collaborated on a thoroughly debunked "book" called "Nobody died at Sandy Hook". "Creative space" approved this book to be sold on Amazon Oct. 22,2015 and on November 20 2015, it was removed from Amazon.

    I'm not going to debunk the claim
    because you can't prove a negative, esp a negative presented with no evidence.


    But i would like to point out that even if Amazon was a hoaxer-supporter, they would have to remove the book. I lost count how many photo copyright infringements are contained within it and on it's cover.

    While some of the photos have restrictions such as:
    corbisrestrictions.PNG



    The example i chose to use (because it's not of people, children or stolen death certificate images) located on page 81 of Fetzers now free PDF book version, has the restrictions stated as:
    corbisdemorestrictions.PNG
    http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-p...al-photo-showing-demolition-work-near?popup=1

    This is Fetzers version from page 81:
    p81.PNG



    Now the thing about selling (commercial use) a book with illegal photos is - it's illegal. Amazon would have no choice to remove the book from their website once they became aware of these infringement issues. Just as Mick will have to remove my above photo if the license holder does not approve it's use.

    Fetzer claims Amazon would not tell him WHY the book was removed. This of course may be true, but Fetzer did decided to immediately offer his book for free, rather than sell it on his website or other conspiracy sites.




    I'd also like to note that Amazon does carry Fetzer's other "evil government" conspiracy books still.


    Some additional info on "editorial use" of licensed photos (not to imply he actually bought a license for any of the photos used, i have no idea):

    bold added by me.







    and just because it is weird as all get out... he even used Micks snip (page 166) from the FBI debunk thread! o_O
    I mean seriously how hard is it to snip your own snip?
    gg.PNG
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2015
    • Like Like x 5
  2. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    anything and everything is apparently proof of conspiracy to a certain kind of thinker. Like you said though, if the same author;s other conspiracy and anti government books are still available, it seems a little odd. Maybe he should have asked them to see if they would provide a reason.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    i would think it would be illegal.. no? for them not to provide an answer. it would be discrimination. he should sue.
     
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Although Metabunk is not a commercial site (it makes no money), which gives a bit more leeway for fair use. Selling a book that contains the images is another matter.
     
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Some possibly relevant bits from the CreateSpace guidelines:
    https://www.createspace.com/Help/Rights/ContentGuidelines.jsp
    Since they reserve the right to make the decision, they are legally free to do it on a whim. (and they don't even need to state they reserve the right, that's just fair warning).
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  6. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    yea commercial use is completely prohibited without approval.

    But when i click to price the photo (and i did not purchase it :oops:... i snipped it from Fetzers book), wouldnt this pricing apply to MB also?. Provided the copyright owner cares, or would this fall under "educational" ??

    buy.PNG
     
  7. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    I suppose if someone wanted to complain it COULD applybut this type of forum would be a grey area. Look at how many times people's FB pages have photos removed because of copyright, and most are not selling anything. I used to work on obtaining permissions for publishers for print and internet use so as far as that goes there are strict guidelines. In a forum it probably has to do with whether or not the photographer agrees with you.
     
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    People complaining about copyright violations on Metabunk are rare. The most common complaint (and that's only a handful) is lack of attribution (i.e. a link to the photographer's site, and some text like "photo by Joe Blue"). Pretty much all usages are educational, non-commercial, and/or criticism/research.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
    A fuller reading of the Fair Use factors would indicate that deidre's use of the demolition photo above is a near-perfect example of the something that would be considered fair use (if anything it's a free ad for Corbis). Fetzer's use is commercial and unattributed, so it is much harder to argue.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  9. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    i guess i need to try harder to add the credit to pics i use. so often in published MSM the credits arent on the pics although they are pretty easy to find for the most part with time.

    But quick question, you probably never ever ran into this situation.. the Connecticut Investigation report has thousands of photos that are used everywhere in "CT circles" (including here). I figure since the police photographer gets paid by tax money those pics belong to all of us. :) any idea if that is true? or should i be crediting the photographer on those too?

    add: hhmmm... actually that would have prevented a big Fetzer faux-pas he continues to talk about all over youtube etc. Apparently some guy "allan Powell" sent him hundreds of photos (proving the police set up the crime scenes is the bunk), Powell told Fetzer he received the photos from a [source close to the investigation who wanted to expose SH]. But in actuality, they are police photos in the official report that came available 2 years ago. I believe Fetzer honestly doesnt know this and believed his source. Would have been helpful if the police photos had a marker on them. but they dont.

    add2: adding the link to police photo archive in case people reading dont know where they are. http://cspsandyhookreport.ct.gov/
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2015
  10. TheRevWells

    TheRevWells New Member

    It would seem to me that since he does have other books on Amazon, maybe this book was done the way it was, so that it would become flagged by Amazon and then removed and by them doing so, one could say to the world - Look, see, its all a conspiracy. My book telling the truth has been censored. They do not want no one to know the truth, etc etc etc...but that is how I see all of this in my own opinion. I do not want to say that is what he did do, but it could be a possibility in order to garner outrage from those in the CT community and in doing so, "verifies" to others in the CT community what they have said, in the past, about cover ups, censorship, etc.
     
  11. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    It's very possible Amazon chose to take it down due to title (offensiveness) but I don't think the authors purposefully made the book to be in violation. I think as 'bloggers' they really believed they could write the book as is. For instance this Preston guy came up with the title previously

    dg.JPG



    And this could just be an anomalous coincidence:

    In rather unFetzerlike fashion, Mr. Fetzer in a recent article goes out of his way to mention not violating copyright.

    all bold highlights mine.



    He (or his entourage) has also opened his own website November 25th to sell the book.
    http://moonrockbooks.com/?page_id=96





    So if that site gets taken down or he gets sued, we'll know for sure if he didnt have copyright permissions. (And of course, I am going to alert the photo owners :) especially Getty and Corbis, now that I know they post-charge people who use their photos without permission.)

    Which wouldnt prove Amazon's reasons for removal fo course. It is a bit odd that Infowars removed an article stating that Amazon banned the book. Were they afraid of libel against Amazon? Unlike in Fetzer's book, Info wars DID add the CSP copyright tag to the photo they chose to use. page snag link
    iw.PNG




    I'm just adding some amazon things for reference sake




    According to the Memory Hole by James Tracy, purchased kindle versions of the book were removed by Amazon from customers accounts as well. This is most likely true as Amazon has done it before

    Not sure if HE chose to remove his book from Amazon, if that would remove already purchased copies.


    I still personally believe he got taken down for copyright infringement. But time will tell i guess.
    I am not an expert in copyright law, this is a novice opinion going through the 'book' quickly:


    copyright issues vs. Fair Use.
    **there may be more, i was OVERLY generous in my interpretation of Fair Use and on "not libel". I did not consider any CSP owned photos an infringement of copright if there was too much text to read. (mostly because i didnt want to read the boring text to see if they were)

    ***many photos are property of Corbis,Reuters and Getty Images, which i hear very often BILL people for the illegal use of their photos. :)


    Back Cover: right to privacy guidelines for schools and schoolchildren on school grounds.
    Title: doesnt meet amazon guidelines.

    all 6 photos on Cover dont meet fair use. copyright infringement.


    copyright issues that dont meet Fair Use. in FREE PDF. (the PDF version doesnt include the book covers)
    pg 9. copyright violation.
    pg 12. possible CR infringement against hoaxer.
    pg 14 possible copyright, full article.
    pg 15. copyright infringment. and of children.
    pg 19 copyright infringement.
    pg 23 copyright infringement.

    pag27+28 Lible 12 counts.

    pg 30. Lible.

    pg34 copyright infringement
    pg 47 possible copyright infringemnt.
    pg 48 copyright infringement (i'm not telling why :)
    pg 52 copyright infringement.

    pg60 copyright infringement (is a csp photo, but no text to read really)
    pg 62 copyright infringement

    pg66 multiple copyright infrngement
    pg 68 and 69 copyright infringement csp photos.
    pg 70 copyright infringement

    pg75 libel. (multiple)
    pg76. libel
    pg78 Libel.Libel. Libel.

    pg79 copyright infringement. Libel.
    pg 80 2 copyright infringements.

    pg81 copyright infringement
    pg82 copyright infringement

    pg82 +83 Libel

    pg87 copyright infringement
    pg 101 copyright infringement
    pg111 copyright infringement
    pg 117 copyright infringement


    then i got bored...the book is 426 pages... but i think you get the point.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1