UFO video hoaxers using copyright claims to stifle criticism?!

"UFO Theater" has recently been posting some amusing hoax-exposing videos on his Youtube channel and on Vimeo, but unfortunately they just have been removed due to copyright complaints - apparently by the users that posted the hoaxed UFO videos he exposed.



I suppose, sadly, that's one way for hoaxers to avoid criticism (unless the "fair use" rule is applied by Youtube/Vimeo to protect the relevant criticism/parodies, which may be a bit optimistic).

Anyway, I've just posted a brief message of support/appreciation to "UFO Theater" on his Facebook page at the link below: www.facebook.com...

"UFOTheater" describes the copyright claims made against his videos on his website.

That website includes various relevant blog articles, including this one:

I’m currently engaged in a chess match with UFO hoaxers, who appear to be displeased with the way they’re being portrayed by UFO Theater. In order to keep their handiwork from being debunked, they’ve used the only means available to them: claim copyright infringement. In doing so, they’re activating video host’s reflexive response to have the video removed while the dispute is resolved. They’ve pursued the issue with Youtube and Vimeo.

It’s difficult to predict what either Youtube or Vimeo will do with the claims, which I’ve rebutted by explaining how inclusion of the hoaxer’s video is Fair Use, for purposes of education, criticism, and parody. These services have no obligation to rely on U.S. copyright law, and can follow their own rules. Secureteam 10 made a copyright complaint that I was able to see from channel creator Tyler Glockner, in which he asserted I simply re-uploaded his entire video. What? I’m not sure how that can be allowed to stand, being that it’s patently false, and the fact that most of the video was footage from the International Space Station feed (NASA footage is public domain) to which he added a flying saucer. A day later the entire UFO Theater channel and account was taken down without notice, citing “multiple copyright violations” without providing me with the additional complaints or who made them. I’ve been judged guilty and sentenced without having the charges explained, the benefit of a trial, or being able to face my accuser(s).

UFO Theater's website also includes a "black list" of relevant Youtube channels:

ufotheater.com...


I find UFO video hoaxers apparently using copyright claims to stifle criticism to be, well, remarkably unimpressive.

Unlike some members of ATS, I don't have a problem with CGI/compositing enthusiasts creating hoaxed UFO videos, but I prefer to see such individuals own up after having had a bit of fun. I certainly don't like seeing them apparently seeking to prevent flaws in their work being pointed out.

Many people on YouTube go through this when they give negative comments on videos. One of my favorite just switched to a different channel name.

I don't know if this is people taking themselves so seriously that they can't take an alternative opinion or if it just retaliation. Either way its sad.

a reply to: IsaacKoi

I know Hoaxkiller came up against the same copyright infringement problems as well , hardly surprising really as these businesses need their audience to remain uninformed if the magic is to work , although sometimes I wonder if some people really care if what they're watching is a hoax or not , to believe is enough.

We could do with a UFO Blacklist or Hall of Shame stickied on this forum.

They probably do it so no one else uploads the're video and get's the monetary from it

originally posted by: gortex
I know Hoaxkiller came up against the same copyright infringement problems as well , hardly surprising really as these businesses need their audience to remain uninformed if the magic is to work

That rather implies the users posting the videos KNOW they are hoaxed.

I had been prepared to give some of them the benefit of the doubt and think that perhaps they were just duped by other people that had sent them videos - but the apparent attempt to prevent posting of analysis/criticism rather suggests that they don't want to see the videos analysed.

We could do with a UFO Blacklist or Hall of Shame stickied on this forum.

Indeed.

As a starting point, is there is a list somewhere of the sites to which ATS doesn't permit links?

a reply to: IsaacKoi

"Apollo Hoax" hoaxer Jarrah White uses similar tactics to avoid exposure.

a reply to: IsaacKoi

There is a Black list of Hoax channels I came across a while ago compiled by She ila Aliens , after her destruction of Blake Cousins she went up in my estimation.

Has anyone here had (or seen others have) any success getting Youtube or Vimeo to reject copyright complaints (made against a critical video using sample footage originally posted by a hoaxer) on the basis of the "fair use" principle?

www.copyright.gov...

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.

(1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of 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
(4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

This is a great thread, and I fully support the right of people to expose hoaxers, and hoax videos.

Those who are making cash while weaponising copyright laws to stop criticism should be outed and shamed. It's not necessarily hosting a hoax video I consider problematic, but rather continuing with advertising the video as something like 'OMG - UFO shoots lasers into the sun', after said video has been debunked.

This type of behaviour is unfortunately typical of the ufology field, and one of the reasons it is not taken seriously.

a reply to: IsaacKoi

So secureteam10 is getting in on this too.
Didn't this Tyler guy from secureteam10 just make an account here?

originally posted by: gortex
There is a Black list of Hoax channels I came across a while ago compiled by She ila Aliens ,

Thanks for that list Gortex. Coincidentally, I've just seen another Youtube UFO hoaxer black-list (albeit in Italian) at:
www.ufoofinterest.org...

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
Many people on YouTube go through this when they give negative comments on videos. One of my favorite just switched to a different channel name.

I don't know if this is people taking themselves so seriously that they can't take an alternative opinion or if it just retaliation. Either way its sad.

It's also possible that the hoax videos are hoaxed on purpose, and they don't want their intentional hoaxes exposed by others.

Face it -- there are people with YouTube channels who do in fact post hoaxes which (at least to me) seem intentionally hoaxed, and they do so because it brings more traffic to their YouTube channel, which can lead to more money in their pocket.

Nothing like the UFOlogy community shooting itself in the foot. If they ever want to be taken seriously, THIS isn't the way to go about doing it. All legit scientific fields welcome peer review.

I can see their reasoning. A hoax video is technically a creation of expression, created by the hoaxer (filmmaker or artist).

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Yes, also the fact that they don't consider any press to be good press is very telling. If you stand behind yourself you should be willing to let people decide for themselves.

U. S. copyright law and and Youtube rules are two different things. Youtube is under no obligation to be fair or legal with anybody. I've been checking around and people with massive channels (hundreds of videos, thousands of subscribers) have seen them vanish with little or no explanation, so this is a common thing.

The people I go after in UFO Theater have knowingly posted hoaxes that I'm fairly certain they made themselves.

I go further than just debunking videos, I mock the hoaxers themselves. I make it personal because I am personally offended that their fraud pollutes a field of study that I care very much about. They want UFO Theater taken down because they have no rebuttal.

a reply to: gortex

There is a Black list of Hoax channels I came across a while ago compiled by Sheila Aliens , after her destruction of Blake Cousins she went up in my estimation.

I wouldn't necessarily call that a "destruction." At least at the time of the interview, Sheila didn't have any technical explanation why the Cousins Brothers are hoaxers. She didn't really make any specific points, which is why they leave up the interview with her in order to appear on the level and tolerant of dissenting opinions.

originally posted by: IsaacKoi

Unlike some members of ATS, I don't have a problem with CGI/compositing enthusiasts creating hoaxed UFO videos, but I prefer to see such individuals own up after having had a bit of fun.

Reminds me of the time when I saw a cigar-shaped UFO hovering over a field. It's a good thing I had my camera with me.



I swear the picture has not been manipulated in any way

originally posted by: UFOTheater
...They want UFO Theater taken down because they have no rebuttal.

I'm sure this is the reason.

It's akin to people who censor the comments on their YouTube pages, such as Alison Kruse/'seeingUFOsPA' (I'm sure you are familiar with her and her YouTube channel) . She has always refused to post most of my comments about her videos (and I suspect the comments from others), even though my comments were civil, pointed, and relevant. It seemed she would refuse to approve any comments she could not rebut.

One of the few of my comments she did post was way back when she first started her channel, and I politely informed her that the objects in her video looked exactly like planes. I assumed she was simply making honest misidentifications. She posted my comment with the rebuttal of "I don't live near any airports, so it is impossible for the UFOs to be planes". Of course, I found out later that she lived 25 miles east of the Pittsburgh International Airport (which has main runways running east-west, with flightpath approaches coming directly over the town in which she lives), and she lives about 15 miles from the smaller -- yet actively used -- Allegheny County Airport.

I think it's obvious that 'seeingUFOsPA' knows that she is just filming planes, but I'm also sure she makes a nice little bit of money with her YouTube channel. Therefore, there is a monetary incentive for her to make her videos more mysterious than they really are, and to refuse to post any comments that may expose those "UFOs" in her videos for being what they really are -- planes.

Curious? What if I took all of the things off of UFO THEATRE....and started my own by taking all of his.....and made it "UFO STUFF"? And each new episode I'd wait to post until he posted it 1st....then I'd grab it and say "Viewers! Check out my new episode!"

Would you...would he...be ok with me calling it all mine?