Michael Moore being sued for illegally used footage

[Wheezer]

OOPS

 

[Stunt]

I'm sure he canafford to pay the man royalties

 

[umbrella39]

The article you link says "Plans to sue".

 

[Harvey]

The relevant paragraphs:

Moore's attorney, Andrew Hurwitz, claims the film-production company acquired all the necessary rights for images used in the documentary.

"We have a license from al-Jazeera, the Gulf TV company, which makes clear that they own the rights to these clips," Hurwitz told the paper. "They told us they owned the film."

Deraz responded, "I have never sold my rights on these clips to anyone and certainly not to al-Jazeera. I will be taking this further. If al-Jazeera are saying they own them, where did they get from? Not from me."

If Moore and his staff did due diligence in confirming the rights, but they got bad information, Moore may have to pay a reasonable price for the use, but that's about it. If al-Jazeera mislead Moore, intentionally or not, he may have a good case against them to pay the owner of the footage, instead.

This is no big thing. It certainly isn't any big ethical hit at Moore unless someone can prove he intentionally used someone else's footage without intending to pay for it.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Harvey
The relevant paragraphs:

Moore's attorney, Andrew Hurwitz, claims the film-production company acquired all the necessary rights for images used in the documentary.

"We have a license from al-Jazeera, the Gulf TV company, which makes clear that they own the rights to these clips," Hurwitz told the paper. "They told us they owned the film."

Deraz responded, "I have never sold my rights on these clips to anyone and certainly not to al-Jazeera. I will be taking this further. If al-Jazeera are saying they own them, where did they get from? Not from me."

If Moore and his staff did due dilligence in confirming the rights, but they got bad information, Moore may have to pay a reasonable price for the use, but that's about it. If al-Jazeera mislead Moore, intentionally or not, he may have a good case against them to pay the owner of the footage, instead.

This is no big thing. It certainly isn't any big ethical hit at Moore unless someone can prove he intentionally used someone else's footage without intending to pay for it.

I remember some discussion awhile back, about the time of F9/11's release, that Moore did in fact do just that in using footage of soldiers or families or something like that. I never looked any deeper because my opinions of Moore match what I flushed down the toilet a little while ago.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Harvey
The relevant paragraphs:

Moore's attorney, Andrew Hurwitz, claims the film-production company acquired all the necessary rights for images used in the documentary.

"We have a license from al-Jazeera, the Gulf TV company, which makes clear that they own the rights to these clips," Hurwitz told the paper. "They told us they owned the film."

Deraz responded, "I have never sold my rights on these clips to anyone and certainly not to al-Jazeera. I will be taking this further. If al-Jazeera are saying they own them, where did they get from? Not from me."

If Moore and his staff did due dilligence in confirming the rights, but they got bad information, Moore may have to pay a reasonable price for the use, but that's about it. If al-Jazeera mislead Moore, intentionally or not, he may have a good case against them to pay the owner of the footage, instead.

This is no big thing. It certainly isn't any big ethical hit at Moore unless someone can prove he intentionally used someone else's footage without intending to pay for it.

I remember some discussion awhile back, about the time of F9/11's release, that Moore did in fact do just that in using footage of soldiers or families or something like that. I never looked any deeper because my opinions of Moore match what I flushed down the toilet a little while ago.

Then perhaps you should not say anything at all, rather than try to discredit someone you don't like with your unsubstantiated hearsay?

 

[Grunt03]

:roll: I hope he has to pay out millions............

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I got a laugh that at the very end of this article is:

Related Special Offers

What liberals really mean when they talk

A sharp, funny send-up of the deceptive way liberals speak, this book shrewdly exposes how the left uses language to spin, slander, and often sucker-punch conservatives.

By Victor Gold

Laid out like a dictionary from A to Z, "Liberwocky" takes a close and comedic look at how liberals use and abuse language to manipulate the citizenry and their attitudes.

Amazingly coincidental attached to a story about M Moore.

 

[SuRgEoN]

Interesting.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
I remember some discussion awhile back, about the time of F9/11's release, that Moore did in fact do just that in using footage of soldiers or families or something like that. I never looked any deeper because my opinions of Moore match what I flushed down the toilet a little while ago.

Gosh, oh gee willikers, Andy. Thanks for your informed opinion. I'm sure Michael Moore is crushed by it. He always speaks well of you... Well, at least, he's never said anything negative about you to me.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What liberals really mean when they talk

I'm confused, didn't you say you were a liberal?

 

[PatboyX]

oooo maybe then he could sue the company who said they owned the footage!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What liberals really mean when they talk

I'm confused, didn't you say you were a liberal?

I am. Unlike you I am capable of criticizing the group I am also a member of.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Harvey
The relevant paragraphs:

Moore's attorney, Andrew Hurwitz, claims the film-production company acquired all the necessary rights for images used in the documentary.

"We have a license from al-Jazeera, the Gulf TV company, which makes clear that they own the rights to these clips," Hurwitz told the paper. "They told us they owned the film."

Deraz responded, "I have never sold my rights on these clips to anyone and certainly not to al-Jazeera. I will be taking this further. If al-Jazeera are saying they own them, where did they get from? Not from me."

If Moore and his staff did due dilligence in confirming the rights, but they got bad information, Moore may have to pay a reasonable price for the use, but that's about it. If al-Jazeera mislead Moore, intentionally or not, he may have a good case against them to pay the owner of the footage, instead.

This is no big thing. It certainly isn't any big ethical hit at Moore unless someone can prove he intentionally used someone else's footage without intending to pay for it.

Anybody but me see the parallel here?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Harvey
The relevant paragraphs:

Moore's attorney, Andrew Hurwitz, claims the film-production company acquired all the necessary rights for images used in the documentary.

"We have a license from al-Jazeera, the Gulf TV company, which makes clear that they own the rights to these clips," Hurwitz told the paper. "They told us they owned the film."

Deraz responded, "I have never sold my rights on these clips to anyone and certainly not to al-Jazeera. I will be taking this further. If al-Jazeera are saying they own them, where did they get from? Not from me."

If Moore and his staff did due dilligence in confirming the rights, but they got bad information, Moore may have to pay a reasonable price for the use, but that's about it. If al-Jazeera mislead Moore, intentionally or not, he may have a good case against them to pay the owner of the footage, instead.

This is no big thing. It certainly isn't any big ethical hit at Moore unless someone can prove he intentionally used someone else's footage without intending to pay for it.

Anybody but me see the parallel here?

Yeah... Moore sent thousands of people to die... I think we should impeach him

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What liberals really mean when they talk

I'm confused, didn't you say you were a liberal?

I am. Unlike you I am capable of criticizing the group I am also a member of.

Well, you'll have to excuse our confusion. Most of your rhetoric is patently right-wing, and you have also claimed that you are an Independant, which implies (to me) centrism.

 

[Darthvoy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What liberals really mean when they talk

I'm confused, didn't you say you were a liberal?

I am. Unlike you I am capable of criticizing the group I am also a member of.

Really? I don't think I have ever seen you criticize cons...hmmm

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What liberals really mean when they talk

I'm confused, didn't you say you were a liberal?

I am. Unlike you I am capable of criticizing the group I am also a member of.

Well, you'll have to excuse our confusion. Most of your rhetoric is patently right-wing, and you have also claimed that you are an Independant, which implies (to me) centrism.

Which rhetoric is that? Is it my pro-choice rhetoric, my support for gay marriage rhetoric, or my rhetoric that criticizes organized religion?

There is such thing as a liberal hawk, in case you didn't know. Support for the war does not make one a right-winger.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What liberals really mean when they talk

I'm confused, didn't you say you were a liberal?

I am. Unlike you I am capable of criticizing the group I am also a member of.

Well, you'll have to excuse our confusion. Most of your rhetoric is patently right-wing, and you have also claimed that you are an Independant, which implies (to me) centrism.

Which rhetoric is that? Is it my pro-choice rhetoric, my support for gay marriage rhetoric, or my rhetoric that criticizes organized religion?

There is such thing as a liberal hawk, in case you didn't know. Support for the war does not make one a right-winger.

None of your comments on any of those issues come to mind, because you spend most of your time on war related threads. But in any case, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are equivalent to the names of football teams, in my mind. Differences in policy are generally trivial, and the defining aspect of either of these two sides is: whatever they support at the moment. Your insistent support for the war, regardless of facts, makes you a "conservative" in my mind. Your continued support of the president despite his incompetence and lack of honor makes you a "conservative" in my mind. And your lack of respect for people on either side of the fence, so long as they disagree with you, makes you an extremist on whatever side you are actually on... in my mind.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What liberals really mean when they talk

I'm confused, didn't you say you were a liberal?

I am. Unlike you I am capable of criticizing the group I am also a member of.

Well, you'll have to excuse our confusion. Most of your rhetoric is patently right-wing, and you have also claimed that you are an Independant, which implies (to me) centrism.

Which rhetoric is that? Is it my pro-choice rhetoric, my support for gay marriage rhetoric, or my rhetoric that criticizes organized religion?

There is such thing as a liberal hawk, in case you didn't know. Support for the war does not make one a right-winger.

None of your comments on any of those issues come to mind, because you spend most of your time on war related threads. But in any case, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are equivalent to the names of football teams, in my mind. Differences in policy are generally trivial, and the defining aspect of either of these two sides is: whatever they support at the moment. Your insistent support for the war, regardless of facts, makes you a "conservative" in my mind. Your continued support of the president despite his incompetence and lack of honor makes you a "conservative" in my mind. And your lack of respect for people on either side of the fence, so long as they disagree with you, makes you an extremist on whatever side you are actually on... in my mind.

Support for the war does not make one conservative nor does opposition to the war make on a liberal. There are liberals who can see past all the doom and gloom rhetoric, knee-jerk-slogna-filled-hyperbole, and revisionist history of their brethren and support the war for reasons that go beyond WMDs.

Nor do I "support" Bush. I support truth and attempt to illuminate that truth when the liberals begin their spinning and bending of it with their loonie new liberal math that so often shakily atempts to equate correlation with causation in ways that common fruitcakes and nutcases wouldn't even attempt.

If you want to believe I'm a consrvative and a Bush supporter in your mind, help yourself. To me it's merely yet another example of a liberal deluding themself and basing their opinions on beliefs instead of facts.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Harvey
The relevant paragraphs:

Moore's attorney, Andrew Hurwitz, claims the film-production company acquired all the necessary rights for images used in the documentary.

"We have a license from al-Jazeera, the Gulf TV company, which makes clear that they own the rights to these clips," Hurwitz told the paper. "They told us they owned the film."

Deraz responded, "I have never sold my rights on these clips to anyone and certainly not to al-Jazeera. I will be taking this further. If al-Jazeera are saying they own them, where did they get from? Not from me."

If Moore and his staff did due dilligence in confirming the rights, but they got bad information, Moore may have to pay a reasonable price for the use, but that's about it. If al-Jazeera mislead Moore, intentionally or not, he may have a good case against them to pay the owner of the footage, instead.

This is no big thing. It certainly isn't any big ethical hit at Moore unless someone can prove he intentionally used someone else's footage without intending to pay for it.

I remember some discussion awhile back, about the time of F9/11's release, that Moore did in fact do just that in using footage of soldiers or families or something like that. I never looked any deeper because my opinions of Moore match what I flushed down the toilet a little while ago.

This statement was completely WORTHLESS, then.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What liberals really mean when they talk

I'm confused, didn't you say you were a liberal?

I am. Unlike you I am capable of criticizing the group I am also a member of.

Well, you'll have to excuse our confusion. Most of your rhetoric is patently right-wing, and you have also claimed that you are an Independant, which implies (to me) centrism.

Which rhetoric is that? Is it my pro-choice rhetoric, my support for gay marriage rhetoric, or my rhetoric that criticizes organized religion?

There is such thing as a liberal hawk, in case you didn't know. Support for the war does not make one a right-winger.

None of your comments on any of those issues come to mind, because you spend most of your time on war related threads. But in any case, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are equivalent to the names of football teams, in my mind. Differences in policy are generally trivial, and the defining aspect of either of these two sides is: whatever they support at the moment. Your insistent support for the war, regardless of facts, makes you a "conservative" in my mind. Your continued support of the president despite his incompetence and lack of honor makes you a "conservative" in my mind. And your lack of respect for people on either side of the fence, so long as they disagree with you, makes you an extremist on whatever side you are actually on... in my mind.

Support for the war does not make one conservative nor does opposition to the war make on a liberal. There are liberals who can see past all the doom and gloom rhetoric, knee-jerk-slogna-filled-hyperbole, and revisionist history of their brethren and support the war for reasons that go beyond WMDs.

Nor do I "support" Bush. I support truth and attempt to illuminate that truth when the liberals begin their spinning and bending of it with their loonie new liberal math that so often shakily atempts to equate correlation with causation in ways that common fruitcakes and nutcases wouldn't even attempt.

If you want to believe I'm a consrvative and a Bush supporter in your mind, help yourself. To me it's merely yet another example of a liberal deluding themself and basing their opinions on beliefs instead of facts.

I believe everything that's needed to respond to this has been said before, by me in fact. As an aside, I'm not a liberal. My social concerns are few (though I like to argue about other people's beliefs). I support an absolute monarchy, where I am the king. Personally, I don't care about... anything. I would be fine with Bush's war if he had clearly stated the true reason for waging it, but he didn't. If you think he did, you are either a fool or a liar. But in your case, I'm leaning towards both.

Edit: I guess I do care about some things... truth, honor, strength, courage...

 

[CaptnKirk]

An Egyptian associate of Osama bin Laden plans to sue American director Michael Moore for allegedly using images of the terror chief in the Bush-bashing film "Fahrenheit 9/11" without permission.

Essam Deraz took almost four years getting footage of the head of al-Qaida at training camps in Afghanistan. He's reportedly the only person to capture bin Laden on film in the late 1980s.

"I was the only cameraman with the Arabs," Deraz told London's Sunday Times. "All of those shots of bin Laden talking in the cave, talking into his walkie-talkie, they were all my work.

"I was there from 1986-89 and was in contact with bin Laden on many occasions. I saw him in Peshawar in Pakistan and in Jalalabad in Afghanistan. The film clips in 'Fahrenheit 9/11' ? five of them ? were mostly shot in March and April 1989.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let him come on into this country to file his lawsuit, and book him as an accessory to terrorism and conspiracy to murder.
Simple, end of discussion.

 

[Proletariat]

Hmm strange alliance. The neo-cons are happy a terrorist is suing Michael Moore. Maybe it isn't such a strange alliance after all.

Extremist views... check.
Violent policy... check.
Religious mandate... check.
With-me or against-me philosophy... check.

Looks like we got a WINNAR here folks.



BTW: Your source sucks dude. Didn't they teach you proper sources in High school or College?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What liberals really mean when they talk

I'm confused, didn't you say you were a liberal?

I am. Unlike you I am capable of criticizing the group I am also a member of.

Well, you'll have to excuse our confusion. Most of your rhetoric is patently right-wing, and you have also claimed that you are an Independant, which implies (to me) centrism.

Which rhetoric is that? Is it my pro-choice rhetoric, my support for gay marriage rhetoric, or my rhetoric that criticizes organized religion?

There is such thing as a liberal hawk, in case you didn't know. Support for the war does not make one a right-winger.

None of your comments on any of those issues come to mind, because you spend most of your time on war related threads. But in any case, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are equivalent to the names of football teams, in my mind. Differences in policy are generally trivial, and the defining aspect of either of these two sides is: whatever they support at the moment. Your insistent support for the war, regardless of facts, makes you a "conservative" in my mind. Your continued support of the president despite his incompetence and lack of honor makes you a "conservative" in my mind. And your lack of respect for people on either side of the fence, so long as they disagree with you, makes you an extremist on whatever side you are actually on... in my mind.

Support for the war does not make one conservative nor does opposition to the war make on a liberal. There are liberals who can see past all the doom and gloom rhetoric, knee-jerk-slogna-filled-hyperbole, and revisionist history of their brethren and support the war for reasons that go beyond WMDs.

Nor do I "support" Bush. I support truth and attempt to illuminate that truth when the liberals begin their spinning and bending of it with their loonie new liberal math that so often shakily atempts to equate correlation with causation in ways that common fruitcakes and nutcases wouldn't even attempt.

If you want to believe I'm a consrvative and a Bush supporter in your mind, help yourself. To me it's merely yet another example of a liberal deluding themself and basing their opinions on beliefs instead of facts.

I believe everything that's needed to respond to this has been said before, by me in fact. As an aside, I'm not a liberal. My social concerns are few (though I like to argue about other people's beliefs). I support an absolute monarchy, where I am the king. Personally, I don't care about... anything. I would be fine with Bush's war if he had clearly stated the true reason for waging it, but he didn't. If you think he did, you are either a fool or a liar. But in your case, I'm leaning towards both.

You knw, I really don't give a flying crap about what Bush stated as reasons for going to war. Others are bent out of shape and distruaght about that, not me. If people want to play political word and reason games whilst there are people in the ME who want to kill us anyway than can, by hook or crook, it really doesn't concern me that much whether Bush lied or not. I just want the US to be in the ME and to FINALLY take care of the crappy totalitarian states that have allowed this terrorist puss to fester for decades. If we had to do that by hook or crook too, so be it. Playing it the diploatic route for years did us no good at all.

Edit: I guess I do care about some things... truth, honor, strength, courage...

Good for you. I'm sure you'd make a wonderful Klingon. :roll: