Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film is a hoax?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johne1618
  • Start date Start date
Capturing Bigfoot has publicly released the full Norm Johnson film that was previously behind the $5 patreon tier.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWALv2e3xsc

It's great that they released it to the public rather than keeping it behind a Patreon tier. Still, it's a bit disappointing that they're explicitly forbidding screenshots and the like, since those are crucial when analyzing the film. For example, it's easy to miss the creature among the trees at the beginning of the video. It's easy to spot when you stabilize the footage, but otherwise, not so much. And even there, it's doing the same left-to-right walk as it does later in the video, as well as in the Bluff Creek film. Apparently, Patterson had this idea that Bigfoot should always walk across the scene from left to right. I guess that's just what Bigfoots do…
 
I'd be curious to know how much legal weight adding text to a video, forbidding reposting of frame grabs etc. has, in respect to the law around, "Fair Use".

I have no special knowledge regarding this, but can a rights holder just including some text in a video, stating that they are limiting what would normally be allowed under Fair Use makes it legally enforceable. If so, wouldn't a lot more videos include such text.
 
I'd be curious to know how much legal weight adding text to a video, forbidding reposting of frame grabs etc. has, in respect to the law around, "Fair Use".

I have no special knowledge regarding this, but can a rights holder just including some text in a video, stating that they are limiting what would normally be allowed under Fair Use makes it legally enforceable. If so, wouldn't a lot more videos include such text.
The law is, deliberately, vague on this matter:
External Quote:
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

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.
-- https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

Commentary on it, however, is rich, and I'd say is in the user's favour in cases like these under all four of the relevant criteria:
External Quote:

About Fair Use


Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances. Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use. Section 107 calls for consideration of the following four factors in evaluating a question of fair use:

1. Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: Courts look at how the party claiming fair use is using the copyrighted work, and are more likely to find that nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are fair. This does not mean, however, that all nonprofit education and noncommercial uses are fair and all commercial uses are not fair; instead, courts will balance the purpose and character of the use against the other factors below. Additionally, "transformative" uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work.
2. Nature of the copyrighted work: This factor analyzes the degree to which the work that was used relates to copyright's purpose of encouraging creative expression. Thus, using a more creative or imaginative work (such as a novel, movie, or song) is less likely to support a claim of a fair use than using a factual work (such as a technical article or news item). In addition, use of an unpublished work is less likely to be considered fair.
3. Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: Under this factor, courts look at both the quantity and quality of the copyrighted material that was used. If the use includes a large portion of the copyrighted work, fair use is less likely to be found; if the use employs only a small amount of copyrighted material, fair use is more likely. That said, some courts have found use of an entire work to be fair under certain circumstances. And in other contexts, using even a small amount of a copyrighted work was determined not to be fair because the selection was an important part—or the "heart"—of the work.
4. Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner's original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread.

In addition to the above, other factors may also be considered by a court in weighing a fair use question, depending upon the circumstances. Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on a fact-specific inquiry. This means that there is no formula to ensure that a predetermined percentage or amount of a work—or specific number of words, lines, pages, copies—may be used without permission.
-- https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/index.html
 
From @FatPhil post above:

External Quote:

Courts look at how the party claiming fair use is using the copyrighted work, and are more likely to find that nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are fair. This does not mean, however, that all nonprofit education and noncommercial uses are fair and all commercial uses are not fair; instead, courts will balance the purpose and character of the use against the other factors below. Additionally, "transformative" uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work.
I would think, using some screen grabs, particularly ones that are augmented or highlighted here on a completely non-commercial forum would be hard to stop. something shared on this forum could be the definition of "fair use". Then there's this:

External Quote:

4. Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner's original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread.
I would imagine, similar to the Calvine photo, establishing exactly who can and does hold the copyright can get a bit tricky. With he original PGF, DeAtley seems to have made most of the money 4-walling the film across the country for a few years. This was the pre-digital age, so Patterson and DeAtley could more or less control the amount of copies that were made and who had them, regardless of the copyright. As the 4-wall showings slowed down, Patterson sold overlapping rights to the film to various entities:

External Quote:

Patterson subsequently sold overlapping distribution rights for the film to several parties, which resulted in costly legal entanglements.[100]​[101]​[102]​[103]​
Ultimately, Dehindan ended up with the film and most of the copywrite, while Patricia Patterson got the TV rights, though much of it is also considered public domain:

External Quote:

Greg Long reports that a 1978 legal "settlement gave Dahinden controlling rights—51 percent of the film footage, 51 percent of video cassette rights, and 100 percent of all 952 frames of the footage. Patty Patterson had 100 percent of all TV rights and 49 percent rights in the film footage. Dahinden had ... bought out Gimlin, who himself had received nothing from Patterson; and Mason and Radford, promised part of the profits by Patterson, had nothing to show for their investment or efforts."[147]​

The film is in the public domain in the United States, as it was published without a copyright notice; between 1964 and 1977 all works in the United States required such a notice or they would enter the public domain.[148]​
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film

The producers supposedly paid Patterson the $30,000 licencing fee to use the PGF in the documentary, even though it's considered public domain.

As for the Norm Johnson film, how does one establish copy-write? It was likely filmed by Patterson and/or DeAtely. So, they created it. Johnson seems to have developed it and kept, either the original or a copy. Johnson's daughter came into possession of it after he passed away. She contacted Evens and it ended up in the new documentary. I can see where the documentary is copy-written, but does that automatically include the new footage? Could get messy.
 
From @FatPhil 's post:
Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use.

I think that "criticism, comment, research" covers us here (although they say "may qualify". As I understand the copyright laws, they're written so another person cannot profit from the originator's work, but if we specify that what we do here stays here, I'd not be too worried.
 
Back
Top