Amazon bans SH conspiracy book

deirdre

Senior Member.
o_OClaim:
CENSORSHIP SHOCK: Amazon.com bans investigative book 'Nobody Died at Sandy Hook' because it disagrees with government version of what happened
Content from External Source



....
Amazon.com has selectively targeted this book for censorship due to the political incorrectness of the author's conclusions.
.....
"Amazon gave me no reason," Fetzer told Natural News. "The situation is completely absurd... if you disagree with a government version of anything, Amazon can pull your book."

http://www.naturalnews.com/052081_A...e_book_burning_Nobody_Died_at_Sandy_Hook.html
Content from External Source


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 it disagrees with government version of what happened
Content from External Source
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.

edit add: forget to include the "suppression notification"
The-suspension-notification.jpg
end edit.

Now available for free
The book delegitimizes the government of the United States, in particular, the Obama administration, which cannot withstand the exposure of its techniques of disinformation. Confronted with this rude development, Mike and I decided to make the book available to the public for free.
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/11/debunking-sandy-hook-debunkers-5.html

Content from External Source



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.

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=983
What is Editorial Use?

Technically, every image licensed from iStock can be used for 'editorial' purposes, in that the standard content license agreement allows for editorial use. Now, for the first time, we're licensing images that can only be used this way. The Editorial Use Only license means that the image can only be used for non-commercial purposes.

"Editorial Use" means that an image is used as a descriptive visual reference – an example of a specific person, place, thing or event.

An Editorial Use Only image can be used:

• in a newspaper or magazine article

• on a blog or website for descriptive purposes

in a non-commercial presentation
Content from External Source




http://www.corbisimages.com//Content/LicenseInfo/Certified_EULA_US.pdf

10. Alterations to Editorial and Fine Art Content: Special ethical considerations apply to editorial, news, and fine art Content. When using such Content, Licensee is solely
responsible for, and shall indemnify Corbis for any claims related to or arising from any modifications to or alterations of the Content (except for standard color correction or
minor cropping for space limitations) or to the caption information.

........

19. Credit Line and Copyright Notice: In the case of Images, for editorial uses, Licensee shall include a copyright notice and credit adjacent to each Image, or in a manner
consistent with industry standards, (in the format: “© photographer’s name/Corbis”
or as specified on the Content Specific Web Page) with each publicly distributed Image.
Receiving credit is a material aspect of the Agreement for Corbis. For commercial uses, Licensee agrees to include the credit described above when such crediting is
customary and appropriate. In the case of Footage, Licensee shall provide copyright attributions to Corbis in the production, and on-screen credits as specified in the invoice,
equal in all respects to any credit accorded to any other provider of comparable services.
Content from External Source




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:

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.
 

deirdre

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

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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.

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.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Some possibly relevant bits from the CreateSpace guidelines:
https://www.createspace.com/Help/Rights/ContentGuidelines.jsp

Content Guidelines
Items sold on through the CreateSpace service must follow our content policy and guidelines, detailed below. Producers or sellers of items are expected to conduct proper research to ensure that the items sold through the CreateSpace service are in compliance with all local, state, national, and international laws. If CreateSpace determines that the content of an item is prohibited, we may summarily remove or alter it without returning any fees the listing has incurred. CreateSpace reserves the right to make judgments about whether or not content is appropriate.
...
Offensive Material
What we deem offensive is probably about what you would expect. This includes items such as crime-scene videos, videos of cruelty to animals, and extremely disturbing materials. CreateSpace reserves the right to determine the appropriateness of items sold on our site. Also, be aware of cultural differences and sensitivities. Some materials may be acceptable in one country, but unacceptable in another. Please keep in mind our global community of customers.
...
Items that Infringe Upon an Individual's Privacy
CreateSpace holds personal privacy in the highest regard. Therefore, items that infringe upon, or have potential to infringe upon, an individual's privacy are prohibited. Additionally, the sale of marketing lists (bulk e-mail lists, direct-mail marketing lists, etc.) is prohibited.

Recopied Media
Copies, dubs, duplicates, or transfers of music, videos, software, images, etc., are prohibited. Just as you cannot sell a photocopied book without the author's permission, you cannot sell copies or duplicates of videos, music, video games, software, photos, etc. Likewise, you cannot sell transferred media – whether laserdisc to video, CD-ROM to cassette tape, or from the Internet to any digital format--unless explicitly approved by the author.
Content from External Source
i would think it would be illegal.. no? for them not to provide an answer. it would be discrimination. he should sue.

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).
 

deirdre

Senior 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.
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
 

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.
 

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
Examples of fair use in United States copyright law include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test.
Content from External Source
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.
 

deirdre

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.
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:

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.
 

deirdre

Senior 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.

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.

I am not reproducing the Pozners’ op/ed, "Sandy Hook Massacre 3rd Anniversary: Two parents target FAU conspiracy theorist," because Sun-Sentinel has a copyright on the article and something tells me that the paper will go afterFOTM. However, it is not a violation of copyright to quote a few excerpts from the op/ed. Here’s a sample:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...etzer.blogspot.com/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Content from External Source



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



If you want a hard copy (sure to be a collector’s item!), Fetzer found an alternative printer/distributor for Nobody Died at Sandy Hook— Moon Rock Books.Click here. Check it out and let others know. The pdf will remain available to the public for free.
~Eowyn
Content from External Source



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

You represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content that you post; that the content is accurate; that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity; and that you will indemnify Amazon for all claims resulting from content you supply. Amazon has the right but not the obligation to monitor and edit or remove any activity or content. Amazon takes no responsibility and assumes no liability for any content posted by you or any third party

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0&nodeId=508088
Content from External Source



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


Amazon says the Kindle versions of all these books were illegal.

http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...hy_2024_will_be_like_nineteen_eightyfour.html
Content from External Source
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.
 
Top